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.
blueboy1945 said:
The news broke on December 22nd, so assuming the 6 week period started only a couple of days prior to that, then that time is just about up now.
Click to expand...

That 6 week period isn't a countdown to them making a bid though. They had 6 weeks of exclusivity. They could have looked for half an hour, been happy and made a bid. Alternatively they might need a further 10 weeks beyond the exclusivity period. I wouldn't expect anything to happen any time soon.
 
The Esk said:
Just on dates and deadlines, there's nothing in any reports including the original Times report that gives a start date to the due diligence exclusivity so it is impossible to state the end date. Nor should it be assumed (i) that due diligence takes as long as the exclusivity period (ii) an offer would be immediately made after due diligence and (iii) that the offer be accepted.

That, with the probability of other interested parties means it is impossible to estimate when news is forthcoming. It will happen when it happens, if it happens.
Click to expand...
 
mlyons said:
You could also argue that United wouldn't have seen the explosive growth in commercial revenue they've had since the Glazers took over if they hadn't had such business-savvy owners. The bottom line is they're more successful financially now (even taking into account the debt financing) than they were before the leveraged takeover. You can argue that they were in a far different situation before their takeover than we are now, and I certainly wouldn't disagree, but the bottom line is that the best way for an owner to make money off a football club is to make the club as successful as possible. Leveraged buyouts sound really scary, but one of the things people don't really think about with them is that they can only make money for the new owners if the company does well financially. If the company loses money, a leveraged buyout means the owner's losses are magnified exponentially. No one with any track record of financial success would try for a leveraged buyout unless they were very certain of the new company's potential profits.
Click to expand...

I doubt most people on here actually want a business-savvy owner, or a profitable club, if they stop to think about it. For a team like Everton, who are unlikely to ever win the "most knock-off kits on the streets of developing world metropolis du jour" competition, or the lucrative official South Korean paint company sponsorship or exclusive Malaysian crisps deal sweepstakes, the safest way to maximize profit and ensure a sound return on investment would be to spend just enough each year to avoid relegation, and capitalize by selling one or two of our best players each year and watching the TV money roll in - like a slightly more stable West Brom. We obviously don't like to consider this as one of the possible outcomes if Kenwright goes, because we prefer to daydream about an owner with absolutely no business savvy and no interest in profitability who will throw away literally billions without a second thought. Judging by the tone here, we want a climate change despot who will live out our FIFA/Football Manager fantasies and, on principle, spend at least 50 million each window on whoever scored during the most recent Match of the Day.
 
abelard said:
I doubt most people on here actually want a business-savvy owner, or a profitable club, if they stop to think about it. For a team like Everton, who are unlikely to ever win the "most knock-off kits on the streets of developing world metropolis du jour" competition, or the lucrative official South Korean paint company sponsorship or exclusive Malaysian crisps deal sweepstakes, the safest way to maximize profit and ensure a sound return on investment would be to spend just enough each year to avoid relegation, and capitalize by selling one or two of our best players each year and watching the TV money roll in - like a slightly more stable West Brom. We obviously don't like to consider this as one of the possible outcomes if Kenwright goes, because we prefer to daydream about an owner with absolutely no business savvy and no interest in profitability who will throw away literally billions without a second thought. Judging by the tone here, we want a climate change despot who will live out our FIFA/Football Manager fantasies and, on principle, spend at least 50 million each window on whoever scored during the most recent Match of the Day.
Click to expand...
Cynic.
 

The Esk said:
Well, I would argue that United would not have had to sell Ronaldo for £80 million in 2009, nor indeed would Everton have had to sell Rooney had it not been for their respective debt positions.

Equally there has to be an assumption that the excess capital in the business would be used equally efficiently as the post debt capital has been used. It's almost impossible to assume that the total loss on interest and debt repayments over many years would be replicated in player trading had the capital remained in the business.
Click to expand...
Of course the fact that Rooney had entered the final year of his contract and would not sign another would have a bearing on his transfer.
We have also seen that Everton got 22m for Lescott and David Moyes basically wasted most of it.
Ultimately it will all come down to the vision the new owners have for their new acquisition.
If they take a longer term view and are prepared to "grow the business" then as it stands today there would appear to make an extraordinary capital gain. This would mean that even though they may not inject all the money that Everton FC needs from their own resources , that at least a sensible structure or level of debt is established that does not cripple the club.

I think it is unrealistic to expect any takeover not to have some level of leverage.
 
blueboy1945 said:
Cynic.
Click to expand...

Why should any supporter want the owner to profit on the team? Obviously nobody wants to be hemorrhaging money, but even the hint that the current board doesn't immediately invest any income back in the squad makes us apoplectic. Man City, Chelsea, PSG etc, which many of us some to want to become, did not get where they are by making money for their owners...
 
blueblue said:
Bilyaletdinov cost 11m, Heitinga cost 6m and the only purchase that proved really good value for money was Distin.
If you think that was money well spent, we will have to agree to differ.
Click to expand...

Heitinga, a supporters' player of the year, was not good value for 6m? I think most of us (those with better memories than goldfish anyhow) would have taken Distin alone over Lescott based on performance after 2009, led alone Heitinga to boot. If you think it's reasonable to expect literally every transfer to succeed brilliantly, then by all means, focus entirely on Bily
 

mlyons said:
If that were actually the best way to make money off a football club, why do so few clubs do anything like that?
Click to expand...

The economics only make sense in light of the latest TV deal. I think it will become more common -- we might finally be on the cutting edge of something! ;)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top