Just read this over at another forum by a poster writing his opinion and thought it made sense really. I wouldn't say NO to a billionaire Arab either
...
"The boat to care about moving Bill out has long since sailed. A new owner a few years ago who might have bankrolled the manager and enabled a genuine top four push would have made a difference. With FFP and the sheer amount of money that now comes in via media deals, really, the benefits of a wealthy new owner have kinda been and gone.
Off the field, I'd like
1) The dodgy backroom [Poor language removed] to disappear. The VIBRAC loans, all of that...good bye.
2) A root to branch review of the club's operations and plans for transformation, with some seriously smart people put in place to help make that happen.
3) To redevelop Goodison so that it's capable of holding 50,000 and is as close to state of the art / future proofed as it can and should be. I no longer think a move would make the blindest bit of difference - the incremental revenue vs what will come in (and continue to grow) via media streams makes attendance money a drop in the ocean these days. Make the stadium experience as good as it can possibly be, expand to 50k (we will rarely, if ever, fill more than that and we'll likely max out below it, so we don't want the psychological / atmospheric disadvantage of playing to a half empty stadium).
But a new, rich owner? Low on my list of priorities. In many ways, I'd rather just have Bill now anyway (given that he's more likely to make decisions for the good of the club than the profit margins - as long as the leeches move on). The irony is that we had the chairman we didn't need when it was time to have a wealthy foreign billionaire in control; now that the wealthy owner is less necessary we're more likely to end up with one as Bill's health sadly declines."