Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Latest Takeover Rumour. The Moores / Noell one

Are you For or Against the idea of the possible Moores / Noell takeover ?


  • Total voters
    731
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hicks and Gillette scenario? You've essentially just described the Kenwright scenario and the mystery of the other operating costs.

These new lids might well turn out to be dodgy but there is an amazing whitewash of Kenwright's tenure here. People annihilate Johnson (rightly), forgetting that Bill was happily on the board with him for 10 years

I'm not getting in to the Other Operating Costs thing, it's been done to death, but either way a takeover is supposed to bring something new, not more of the same.
 
I'm an idiot when it comes to financial jargon so I'm staying quiet.

I just fear that it'll happen and they will make decisions that benefit their pockets/shareholders rather than the club.

For example, selling players when we've got the most promising team we've had for years or marketing the club to rich tourists and raising ticket prices.
I'd imagine your point B is almost certain,but to be honest doubt anybody is going to buy us in the immediate future.
 

(apparently the rules for announcing the deal are complex because of the unique way the club has been purchased.

34.7% of the club has been purchased by the consortium directly, 14.7% has been sold to a mystery 3rd party and the remaining shares though not actually owned by the Moores consortium are to be owned by a finance company that have structured the ownership of their shares in a way that they can "loan" these shares to the moores consortium for a "rent". The Moores consortium are paying the rent for this with Half the TV money over a season for every season for 7 years.

The consortium are not planning on massive player investment, its more along the lines of infrastructure with a site in sefton mooted.

Dont shoot the messenger)

Off another site.

What does the rent bit mean?
 
Last edited:
I agree, the Kansas City group seemed more promising



Things could get so much worse. Look at Villa... or Fulham for that matter. Remember Fulham? It's "stagnation" when you want to be in the Champions League, but it will have been "stability" when you're fighting relegation (or for promotion).

This can also happen when you're bought by foreign owners:
blackburn_1958713a.jpg
Yes but we should be ok, we have the self proclaimed best man for the job in the search for new owners.

Now Blue Bill wouldn't let us down would he?
 

(apparently the rules for announcing the deal are complex because of the unique way the club has been purchased.

34.7% of the club has been purchased by the consortium directly, 14.7% has been sold to a mystery 3rd party and the remaining shares though not actually owned by the Moores consortium are to be owned by a finance company that have structured the ownership of their shares in a way that they can "loan" these shares to the moores consortium for a "rent". The Moores consortium are paying the rent for this with Half the TV money over a season for every season for 7 years.

The consortium are not planning on massive player investment, its more along the lines of infrastructure with a site in sefton mooted.

Dont shoot the messenger)

Off another site.

What does the rent bit mean?

This goes so far over my head it just hit the ISS.

Can't wait for the picture of Bill shaking their hands and Yarmolenko standing in the background holding a huge cardboard cheque.
 
(apparently the rules for announcing the deal are complex because of the unique way the club has been purchased.

34.7% of the club has been purchased by the consortium directly, 14.7% has been sold to a mystery 3rd party and the remaining shares though not actually owned by the Moores consortium are to be owned by a finance company that have structured the ownership of their shares in a way that they can "loan" these shares to the moores consortium for a "rent". The Moores consortium are paying the rent for this with Half the TV money over a season for every season for 7 years.

The consortium are not planning on massive player investment, its more along the lines of infrastructure with a site in sefton mooted.

Dont shoot the messenger)

Off another site.

What does the rent bit mean?
Pretty much straight forward then.
 
Have yet to see a single logical explanation for why they would invest in Everton other than a plan to harvest money away.

The whole "keep the club competitive, build a stadium and resell" angle doesn't make any sense and none of the people who keep parotting that angle seem interested in explaining who would want to buy the club a few years from now and why. If they are buying it to sell in a few years for a profit why are the people who buy it from them buying the club and what will they do for their profit? These billionaire business experts have NO interest in buying it now for LESS?!?! IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!

If there are no sugar daddies out there now they won't show up because of a stadium ... who doesn't have a stadium now? Stadium just brings us level with everyone else in their eyes. No Rom/Stones/Barkley or Del, five years of mid table finishes and a new stadium? Who the hell would want to buy us for 600m then?!?!?! It's lunacy. This is bad. VERY, VERY BAD. Burning effigies bad. I know we don't do that cuz we are Everton and we will let the 1% rape our club because we don't want to be seen as full kit meffs or something but open your eyes ... they are here to strip us. They'll keep us in the Prem (until they don't because they don't care) but that's the extent of their "on the pitch" ambitions.

You can give it the "how do you know their motives" angle all you want. NO OTHER MOTIVE MAKES SENSE! I guess unless they suddenly reveal they are HUGE football fans and this is their retirement hobby. Short of that they are here for the money and nothing else.

That's fine...as long as they're smart enough to know that having a quality team on the pitch is also good business. I worry about a "Moneyball" mentality that is prevalent in American sport being implemented at the club. Important to swerve that.

Saying "moneyball" to many English footie fans is like saying "government" to a tea party member: neither of them can accurately explain what it is they are upset about but boy are they furious for some reason.

I'm not getting in to the Other Operating Costs thing, it's been done to death, but either way a takeover is supposed to bring something new, not more of the same.

Supposed to?!?!?! I hate to break it to people but someone super rich coming in and taking all the money/assets is precisely how a lot of takeovers work. And it won't be more of the same ... these guys will invest LESS than BK and co. They have the interest rates on the loans they took out to buy the club to service. So this will be worse. Way worse.

I'll be furious if this is all true. Thankfully it's all smoke now ... but there is more and more (and moore ... ugh) smoke.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top