Latest Takeover Rumour. The Moores / Noell one

[tonka1878]

It's all speculation until anything is confirmed. Same as the transfer thread.

It's partly speculation, mostly hysteria. Same as...

 

[davek]

Parts of the company are badly run.

Control of costs and management of debt (under the circumstances) has been adequately run.

However this board have made no progress on the stadium (much needed capacity and facilities improvement) in 15 years.

Whereas: Manchester City. Arsenal. Spurs. West Ham. Liverpool. Have all in this time increased capacity to more than 10,000 more than Everton.

Even smaller clubs like Crystal Palace. and others are catching us in capacity terms.

There has been virtually no non inflationary related revenue increases from our stadium (eg ticket prices) in this time and this is also impacting our commercial revenues (sponsorships; merchandise; hospitality etc)

I was warning 6 months ago that failure on the stadium would soon make itself known in other areas due to our competitors progress. It's started (Byram).

We need action. High TV revenue dependence is a HIGH RISK to EFC. We need balance within the business. With this board we will not get that and like - an alcoholic with a bottle of TV revenue liquor - we will remain dependent on TV revenues which will not be game changing as everyone else gets this and the financial rules regulate what we can spend of them per season in wages!!!

See Bolton Wanderers right now. Also Aston Villa next season.


Responsible owners will see:
Biggest risk's to Everton:
- excessive TV money dependence
- failure to keep up with other clubs expanding stadia capacity
- sluggish commercial revenue growth
- low fixed asset values

Biggest opportunities at Everton:
+ significant TV money revenue streams
+ asset value growth opportunity through stadium (re)development; with related additional revenues resulting
+ clean brand image; club history
+ large fanbase
+ player staff quality: very high
+ low relative debt levels

The issues and resolutions are in plain sight to prospective responsible owners.

Responsible owners will invest in asset and revenue growth with modest external investment in the playing squad. The club's fan base would prefer we generate our revenues organically to fund SUSTAINABLE success. There is just a need for working capital.

@The Esk @davek

Spot on mate. The tv cash dependency is going to be a ticking timebomb. I think many/most believe it'll last forever, but it wasn't there before in this volume and it can be taken away or be attracted elsewhere to another league/sport if major events occur (such as the re-emergence of hooliganism on a large scale, or the the shift in taste away from the PL's style of football, or a global downturn that affects emerging markets and cuts into consumption there, or UEFA moves to correct an imbalance of funding with regard to the PL and other European leagues).

This has been a period (the Kenwright era) when a golden opportunity to get the stadium issue sorted out presented itself. The fact we're still miles off a resolution to that fundamental problem defines that era as a disaster for the club. 'A facility-led plan' the CEO of this club and his predecessors have been talking about for years. By their own terms their plans utterly failed.

 

[Tramps_mate]

Hi mate, Sports Direct is a publicly listed company and a constituent of the FTSE 100. As such the disclosure levels are very much higher for Sports Direct than Everton which is a private company. Mike Ashley currently owns 55% of Sports Direct.

Yes I was aware, badly worded from me. Point was, its a business and so is Everton at the end if the day, was more of my point really.

 

[bizzaro]

Spot on mate. The tv cash dependency is going to be a ticking timebomb. I think many/most believe it'll last forever, but it wasn't there before in this volume and it can be taken away or be attracted elsewhere to another league/sport if major events occur (such as the re-emergence of hooliganism on a large scale, or the the shift in taste away from the PL's style of football, or a global downturn that affects emerging markets and cuts into consumption there, or UEFA moves to correct an imbalance of funding with regard to the PL and other European leagues).

This has been a period (the Kenwright era) when a golden opportunity to get the stadium issue sorted out presented itself. The fact we're still miles off a resolution to that fundamental problem defines that era as a disaster for the club. 'A facility-led plan' the CEO of this club and his predecessors have been talking about for years. By their own terms their plans utterly failed.

This is a risk to EFC in its present business model

BT should be forced to sell Openreach service, report says
- BBCNEWS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35388756

Since it represents a potential foreseeable disruption to 1/3 of our TV revenues if there is (even short term) disruption to one of the broadcasters who makes up 1/3 of the TV money.

We need to ensure EFC is a house built on the solid foundations of organic club revenue generation (gates; commercial revenues). The TV money should be considered bonus.

Not all encompassing or the level of dependence to that we are. The more dependent you get the bigger the risk to the club - if that TV money were ever disrupted.

15 years and no stadium or commercial revenue performance.

Says we need responsible ownership.

To address the points highlighted

 

[Kev50]

Spot on mate. The tv cash dependency is going to be a ticking timebomb. I think many/most believe it'll last forever, but it wasn't there before in this volume and it can be taken away or be attracted elsewhere to another league/sport if major events occur (such as the re-emergence of hooliganism on a large scale, or the the shift in taste away from the PL's style of football, or a global downturn that affects emerging markets and cuts into consumption there, or UEFA moves to correct an imbalance of funding with regard to the PL and other European leagues).

This has been a period (the Kenwright era) when a golden opportunity to get the stadium issue sorted out presented itself. The fact we're still miles off a resolution to that fundamental problem defines that era as a disaster for the club. 'A facility-led plan' the CEO of this club and his predecessors have been talking about for years. By their own terms their plans utterly failed.

Yeah, cos finding £250 million at the same time as keeping top six in the Premiership for the last ten years is just basic isn't it. That's for a club in L4 competing against the biggest clubs in the world and all the London clubs.

 

[bizzaro]

Yeah, cos finding £250 million at the same time as keeping top six in the Premiership for the last ten years is just basic isn't it. That's for a club in L4 competing against the biggest clubs in the world and all the London clubs.

As I said :

Manchester City. Arsenal. Spurs. West Ham. Liverpool. Have all in this time increased capacity to more than 10,000 more than Everton.

They managed it.

All I hear is excuses for why Everton haven't in 15 years.

It's damaging the club in the long term.

I'm all about organic revenue growth and funding sustainable success.

However failures are becoming increasingly evident.

 

[Bluebonic]

It's a different matter entirely. Sports Direct are not a community, Everton are. Sports Direct's owners are not seen as stewards but owners; Everton's owners are seen as stewards as well as owners. Sports Direct have zero emotional pull; Everton has maximum emotional pull. Sports Direct sell a commodity; Everton sell a way of life.

I understand what you are saying Dave and i agree 100% mate, my point is that is our view on things, not Everton FC the business point of view! We feel as football fans that we deserve more (as i am sure the Villa fans do and the RS fans did when hicks and gillette owned them) but i maintain my view that we are deluding oursselevs! No owners see us like that they mostly see football fans as rather whingey customers, nothing more!

 

[Kev50]

As I said :

Manchester City. Arsenal. Spurs. West Ham. Liverpool. Have all in this time increased capacity to more than 10,000 more than Everton.

They managed it.

All I hear is excuses for why Everton haven't in 15 years.

It's damaging the club in the long term.

I'm all about organic revenue growth and funding sustainable success.

However failures are becoming increasingly evident.

City hammers were handed their stadiums. Arsenal funded theirs though 20 yrs CL qualification. Liverpool and spurs are currently the same capacity as us, despite this 'golden era'. Spurs have a billionaire and are a north London club, Liverpool have a global fan base , which we, er, don't.

 

[The Esk]

This is a risk to EFC in its present business model

BT should be forced to sell Openreach service, report says
- BBCNEWS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35388756

Since it represents a potential foreseeable disruption to 1/3 of our TV revenues if there is (even short term) disruption to one of the broadcasters who makes up 1/3 of the TV money.

We need to ensure EFC is a house built on the solid foundations of organic club revenue generation (gates; commercial revenues). The TV money should be considered bonus.

Not all encompassing or the level of dependence to that we are. The more dependent you get the bigger the risk to the club - if that TV money were ever disrupted.

15 years and no stadium or commercial revenue performance.

Says we need responsible ownership.

To address the points highlighted

Whilst I agree Everton are too heavily dependent upon broadcasting rights revenues, there is no suggestion at all anywhere that BT Sports will be unable to meet their obligations with regards to the Premier League.

BT sports will contribute £960 million of the £5.136 bn total for domestic rights 2016/19.
When the overseas rights are added in the total revenues are in excess of £8bn.

Everton's "exposure" to BT Sports is therefore less than 12% of all its expected broadcasting receipts.

 

[MrGrumpy]

As I said :

Manchester City. Arsenal. Spurs. West Ham. Liverpool. Have all in this time increased capacity to more than 10,000 more than Everton.

They managed it.

All I hear is excuses for why Everton haven't in 15 years.

It's damaging the club in the long term.

I'm all about organic revenue growth and funding sustainable success.

However failures are becoming increasingly evident.

To be fair both City and West Ham have been given free stadiums, only Spurs are building a new one, RS are expanding theirs, both Spurs and RS have a lot richer owners then ourselves. In general I do agree with you, the stadium should have been sorted by now

 

[bizzaro]

Whilst I agree Everton are to heavily dependent upon broadcasting rights revenues, there is no suggestion at all anywhere that BT Sports will be unable to meet their obligations with regards to the Premier League.

BT sports will contribute £960 million of the £5.136 bn total for domestic rights 2016/19.
When the overseas rights are added in the total revenues are in excess of £8bn.

Everton's "exposure" to BT Sports is therefore less than 12% of all its expected broadcasting receipts.

I was referring to the current deal where BT pay 1/3 of the domestic rights. I realise it is declining. However, the rises seen will tapper off if BT withdraws as you will see SKY reestablish it's monopoly.

Equally it's uncertain how sky subscribers will respond to inevitable massive price hikes

 

[davek]

I understand what you are saying Dave and i agree 100% mate, my point is that is our view on things, not Everton FC the business point of view! We feel as football fans that we deserve more (as i am sure the Villa fans do and the RS fans did when hicks and gillette owned them) but i maintain my view that we are deluding oursselevs! No owners see us like that they mostly see football fans as rather whingey customers, nothing more!

I disagree. By and large the business class who have entered the game have respected (had to respect) the fact that they'd extract no profit from football clubs other than the one's they managed on re-sale. The moral hazard in the deal between football clubs/supporters and their (transient) owners is all on the side of the latter. They cant monetize clubs as they can other businesses. There's a duality to football clubs that simply doesn't exist in other industries. It's very peculiar and therefore so are the social relationships between owners and fans: each recognise that they are owners in a different sense of the very same object.

 

[The Esk]

I was referring to the current deal where BT pay 1/3 of the domestic rights. I realise it is declining. However, the rises seen will tapper off if BT withdraws as you will see SKY reestablish it's monopoly.

Equally it's uncertain how sky subscribers will respond to inevitable massive price hikes

In the last round Sky paid £2.3 bn, BT Sports paid £736 million.

The reason why Sky and BT Sports paid so much more for the 2016/19 rights was the increased competition from the likes of Eurosport (backed by parent company Discovery) and Qatari based Bein Sports - the duopoly is being challenged.

However the point about being dependent upon broadcasting rights is agreed and understood.

 

[bizzaro]

In the last round Sky paid £2.3 bn, BT Sports paid £736 million.

The reason why Sky paid so much more for the 2016/19 rights was the increased competition from the likes of Eurosport (backed by parent company Discovery) and Qatari based Bein Sports - the duopoly is being challenged.

However the point about being dependent upon broadcasting rights is agreed and understood.

I foresee massive issues ahead for TV revenues:

Richard Hunter, head of equities at Hargreaves Lansdown, said BT appeared to have got the better deal following an expensive rights auction.

He said: 'Sky has paid dearly and is going to have to squeeze costs and customers to keep its finances on track.

'BT has ended up with a good hand, Premiership, Champions League, FA Cup and European leagues all for a fraction of the annual cost that Sky is paying for its Premiership position.'

What Everton want is sustainability in all areas of the business revenues. Peaks and troughs are very damaging to the club. It is obvious to a blind man that the TV revenues are in a bubble.

Like the property bubble. Customers may enmasse decide to pack sky in if they increase subscription by say 20%.

It's all uncertainty. Meanwhile Everton still have a little stadium compared to a growing proportion of our competitors. Responsible owners would be doing something about that

@davek @The Esk

 

[bizzaro]

In the last round Sky paid £2.3 bn, BT Sports paid £736 million.

The reason why Sky and BT Sports paid so much more for the 2016/19 rights was the increased competition from the likes of Eurosport (backed by parent company Discovery) and Qatari based Bein Sports - the duopoly is being challenged.

However the point about being dependent upon broadcasting rights is agreed and understood.

What excuses do you think the club can come up with with £8billion coming in over the next period - for not increasing the stadium / facilities this time?

Your guess is as good as mine.

'It's not the right type of money for building a stadium. One does not simply use our share of £8billion to build a 60,000 + stadium'

Or some other nonsense.
@davek @The Esk