Latest Takeover Rumour. The Moores / Noell one

[The Esk]

I think the danger, and what I was saying in my article is not so much asset stripping as frankly there are no assets to strip, but more creating a structure that allowed significant outflows of cash away from the club to lenders.

Everton unlike any time in their history are at the operating level about to become a very profitable business in cash terms.

That cash is attractive to investors, and in the case of Everton can be added to the potential for increases in capital value should the stadium issue be resolved.

My point was that United could have been a much more successful club, and their fans paid far less to see them had not the owners and lenders extracted £700 million in fees and interest payment over the last 10 years.

Taking cash out of the business dilutes the prospects of success on the pitch.

Everton need investment at the point of acquisition and require the reinvestment of future profits to make good the shortfall of the last decade and a half, not a structure that takes cash out the business.

That's the message the Board and shareholders should be giving to would be suitors.

 

[kithnou]

That's the message the Board and shareholders should be giving to would be suitors.

That's the million dollar question isn't it? Just what is the Board's message and intention?

 

[hallamblue]

Fact remains that there are only 2 clubs in the Premier League currently worth owning, and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. 1 of those is already owned by someone who is bleeding them dry. Arsenal generates loads of cash, and Kroenke has started to "monetise" it. Within 5 years I reckon West Ham and Spurs will be generating money as well. Any other club is not worth buying. Yes you could buy Everton, and then sell 5 players and generate £150m, but then we would get relegated and your asset is worth basically nothing.

 

[Joey66]

Fact remains that there are only 2 clubs in the Premier League currently worth owning, and they are Man Utd and Arsenal. 1 of those is already owned by someone who is bleeding them dry. Arsenal generates loads of cash, and Kroenke has started to "monetise" it. Within 5 years I reckon West Ham and Spurs will be generating money as well. Any other club is not worth buying. Yes you could buy Everton, and then sell 5 players and generate £150m, but then we would get relegated and your asset is worth basically nothing.

In BK we trust then as he will not sell to an asset stripper! keep the faith! their will be more than one interested party !

 

[markmarkmark]

Is it actually happening though

 

[The Esk]

Within 5 years I reckon West Ham and Spurs will be generating money as well. Any other club is not worth buying

I would add Manchester City, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Newcastle United and the likes of Crystal Palace, Southampton, Leicester City, Stoke City (assuming they all stay in the Premiership) will all be profitable at the operating level over the next 5 years.

 

[MrGrumpy]

I think the danger, and what I was saying in my article is not so much asset stripping as frankly there are no assets to strip, but more creating a structure that allowed significant outflows of cash away from the club to lenders.

Everton unlike any time in their history are at the operating level about to become a very profitable business in cash terms.

That cash is attractive to investors, and in the case of Everton can be added to the potential for increases in capital value should the stadium issue be resolved.

My point was that United could have been a much more successful club, and their fans paid far less to see them had not the owners and lenders extracted £700 million in fees and interest payment over the last 10 years.

Taking cash out of the business dilutes the prospects of success on the pitch.

Everton need investment at the point of acquisition and require the reinvestment of future profits to make good the shortfall of the last decade and a half, not a structure that takes cash out the business.

That's the message the Board and shareholders should be giving to would be suitors.

This season you can attually see the under investment in Utd.

Taking cash out will result in the same situation as selling assests if you dont invest. This league is the most competative ever and if you dont invest you'll get left behind. Stoke, West Ham even Leicester has caught up with us. Altho weve brought well unless we get investment, they leave us behind. Even Bournmouth are rich than us

 

[Eggs]

I think the danger, and what I was saying in my article is not so much asset stripping as frankly there are no assets to strip, but more creating a structure that allowed significant outflows of cash away from the club to lenders.

Everton unlike any time in their history are at the operating level about to become a very profitable business in cash terms.

That cash is attractive to investors, and in the case of Everton can be added to the potential for increases in capital value should the stadium issue be resolved.

My point was that United could have been a much more successful club, and their fans paid far less to see them had not the owners and lenders extracted £700 million in fees and interest payment over the last 10 years.

Taking cash out of the business dilutes the prospects of success on the pitch.

Everton need investment at the point of acquisition and require the reinvestment of future profits to make good the shortfall of the last decade and a half, not a structure that takes cash out the business.

That's the message the Board and shareholders should be giving to would be suitors.

...the scenario you highlight sounds similar to us being in a similar position if the current board took out a massive loan.

 

[The Esk]

...the scenario you highlight sounds similar to us being in a similar position if the current board took out a massive loan.

Correct, or if any acquisition was funded largely by debt.

 

[Toffeelover]

I think the danger, and what I was saying in my article is not so much asset stripping as frankly there are no assets to strip, but more creating a structure that allowed significant outflows of cash away from the club to lenders.

Everton unlike any time in their history are at the operating level about to become a very profitable business in cash terms.

That cash is attractive to investors, and in the case of Everton can be added to the potential for increases in capital value should the stadium issue be resolved.

My point was that United could have been a much more successful club, and their fans paid far less to see them had not the owners and lenders extracted £700 million in fees and interest payment over the last 10 years.

Taking cash out of the business dilutes the prospects of success on the pitch.

Everton need investment at the point of acquisition and require the reinvestment of future profits to make good the shortfall of the last decade and a half, not a structure that takes cash out the business.

That's the message the Board and shareholders should be giving to would be suitors.

Cannot answer for others but in myself you are preaching to the converted. I do not want a takeover at any cost like this and believe there should have been some indication from this group by now of intent.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Cannot answer for others but in myself you are preaching to the converted. I do not want a takeover at any cost like this and believe there should have been some indication from this group by now of intent.

If they're still looking at the books to hopefully confirm their assumptions, then it's a bit early for them to go public with their plans.

I doubt they will, but they might just walk away.

 

[Toffeelover]

This season you can attually see the under investment in Utd.

Taking cash out will result in the same situation as selling assests if you dont invest. This league is the most competative ever and if you dont invest you'll get left behind. Stoke, West Ham even Leicester has caught up with us. Altho weve brought well unless we get investment, they leave us behind. Even Bournmouth are rich than us

Buying up the shares is not investment, I hope you are clear on that. Investment would be pumping cash into the club after the shares have been sold and the new owners have overall control.

 

[Toffeelover]

If they're still looking at the books to hopefully confirm their assumptions, then it's a bit early for them to go public with their plans.

I doubt they will, but they might just walk away.

In detail you are correct but could there not have been an inkling from these people of their hopes for the future?

 

[Woolly Blue]

In detail you are correct but could there not have been an inkling from these people of their hopes for the future?

Depends on where the info in The Times article came from

If it was from the consortium then I'd have expected further details to be leaked.

If it was from the club, then I don't see why Moores and Noell would go public and both sides would presumably have signed NDA's anyway.

If the journo just got smart, then I wouldn't expect the consortium to say anything until they were pretty sure that a deal was all but done, when a joint statement would be issued.

 

[Toffeelover]

Depends on where the info in The Times article came from

If it was from the consortium then I'd have expected further details to be leaked.

If it was from the club, then I don't see why Moores and Noell would go public and both sides would presumably have signed NDA's anyway.

If the journo just got smart, then I wouldn't expect the consortium to say anything until they were pretty sure that a deal was all but done, when a joint statement would be issued.

I wonder perhaps The Esk may be able to assist. What did the Glazers say about their plans for Man U when the share sale was completed or before.