Moyes linked with Villa and Spurs

[sirblue57]

Net spend of ZERO = balancing of the books.

SINCE WHEN WAS THAT BAD MANAGEMENT? FFS

That's the bare minimum of GOOD management. Even better if that is turned into a YEARLY PROFIT (i.e. incomings > outgoings).


That is all down to infrastructure. Where "INVESTMENT" needs to be ploughed into (redevelopment) to make the club's turnover increase so incomings >> outgoings - but on terms the club can afford.


Note: That doesn't mean that "shared stadia" are the way to go, because that would undermine future "investment" that could be saught and would have a higher cost base, and also would limit Everton into a certain NON-PURPOSE BUILT stadia which would hamper turnover.

its the lazy way out of dodging the Infrastructure issue.


SQUARE THE CIRCLE lad. SQUARE THE CIRCLE

your an idiot, an educated one perhaps, but i have met many like you before. we are selling to pay debts before buying, we are taking loans out to meet interest payments, how, on gods green earth, does this come close to being well run, square the circle? its a rut mate, a fookin rut that this board has got in, and seems clueless as to how to get out of.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Agree. The ground is the key to everything. Possibly even the key to Robert Earl's billions.

I think you'll find that Robert Earl doesn't have billions - however the belter hiding behind the BVI holding company does!!

 

[Muggins]

Read back thru the thread mate, there's only 29 pages of the same thing.

 

[davek]

Sorry to be a 'tard like, but what's going on here please? Is it that Mat reckons our club could be a lot worse off comparatively, but needs to invest in fundamental infrastructure, if anything; Sirblue57's demanding that our directors need to cough up some reddies for the squad, whatever the long-term cost, in order to sign up to Mat's Step Programme; and milks needs a new telly?
Thanks in advance.

Yes, mate. He's in the gutter but looking up at the stars.

File under: 'At least we're not Portsmouth'.

 

[Matt Damon]

your an idiot, an educated one perhaps, but i have met many like you before. we are selling to pay debts before buying, we are taking loans out to meet interest payments, how, on gods green earth, does this come close to being well run, square the circle? its a rut mate, a fookin rut that this board has got in, and seems clueless as to how to get out of.

But we keep saying, the scale of this compared to Villa (and football in general) is smaller, meaning that this "rut" that you term it as, can be easier gotten out of than Villa.

And we are not taking loans out to meet interest repayments since no bank or institution would loan money to a company in that circumstance.

Provide evidence that this is occurring. With dates and times please.

 

[manxtoffee]

Don't forget the UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules kick in after 2012.

'Uefa has approved plans to force clubs in European competition to spend only what they earn. The financial fair play rules will require clubs to break even over a rolling three-year period if they want to play in the Champions League or Europa League.

"We have worked on the financial fair play concept hand-in-hand with the clubs, as our intention is not to punish them but to protect them," said Michel Platini, the president of Uefa, after its executive committee had approved the rules at a meeting in Nyon, Switzerland. "The philosophy is that you cannot spend more money than you generate.

"This approval is the start of an important journey for European football's club finances as we begin to put stability and economic common sense back into football. I thank all the stakeholders who have supported this along the way."

There will be some leeway granted for the six years after 2012 but some Premier League clubs, notably Manchester City, Chelsea and Aston Villa, could still fall foul of the rule unless they change their spending habits.

Manchester United have carried out a 'dummy test' and believe they would pass the rules despite the handicap of paying out £45m to service their debts every year. Arsenal and Tottenham would pass the test comfortably, while Liverpool, Celtic and Rangers would probably do so.

"We support the financial fair play measures. We are confident that we pass them and that we will continue to do so," said a United spokesman.

It is understood that clubs must not return losses of more then €45m (£38m) for the 2012-15 period. After 2015 clubs are given a leeway of €30m (£26m) for three-year losses after which the figure will be reduced still further.

Clubs that breach the rules will not be granted a Uefa club licence to take part in European competitions.'

 

[Matt Damon]

Yes, mate. He's in the gutter but looking up at the stars.

File under: 'At least we're not Portsmouth'.

Hows that £16million Venky's Chicken Burger going with your Villa Season Ticket?


Yes. At least we're not VILLA, BLACKBURN or PORTSMOUTH!

 

[Matt Damon]

Don't forget the UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules kick in after 2012.

'Uefa has approved plans to force clubs in European competition to spend only what they earn. The financial fair play rules will require clubs to break even over a rolling three-year period if they want to play in the Champions League or Europa League.

"We have worked on the financial fair play concept hand-in-hand with the clubs, as our intention is not to punish them but to protect them," said Michel Platini, the president of Uefa, after its executive committee had approved the rules at a meeting in Nyon, Switzerland. "The philosophy is that you cannot spend more money than you generate.

"This approval is the start of an important journey for European football's club finances as we begin to put stability and economic common sense back into football. I thank all the stakeholders who have supported this along the way."

There will be some leeway granted for the six years after 2012 but some Premier League clubs, notably Manchester City, Chelsea and Aston Villa, could still fall foul of the rule unless they change their spending habits.

Manchester United have carried out a 'dummy test' and believe they would pass the rules despite the handicap of paying out £45m to service their debts every year. Arsenal and Tottenham would pass the test comfortably, while Liverpool, Celtic and Rangers would probably do so.

"We support the financial fair play measures. We are confident that we pass them and that we will continue to do so," said a United spokesman.

It is understood that clubs must not return losses of more then €45m (£38m) for the 2012-15 period. After 2015 clubs are given a leeway of €30m (£26m) for three-year losses after which the figure will be reduced still further.

Clubs that breach the rules will not be granted a Uefa club licence to take part in European competitions.'

*applauds*

But note: INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING - isn't included in the assessment so EVERTON CAN SPEND WHAT WE LIKE ON THE STADIA REDEVELOPMENT!

 

[sirblue57]

But we keep saying, the scale of this compared to Villa (and football in general) is smaller, meaning that this "rut" that you term it as, can be easier gotten out of than Villa.

And we are not taking loans out to meet interest repayments since no bank or institution would loan money to a company in that circumstance.

Provide evidence that this is occurring. With dates and times please.

again, we borrow against sky and ST monies, for what reason? we sell players and are told only a portion will go for new ones, its not rocket science to figure out whats going on.
and again with the villa reference,WHY?
villa invested in their ground while bill gloried in telling tales of the boys pen at board meetings,
villa spent money backing their manager(wrongly,yes)
in 11 years eleven years we have spent, well im not sure , how much is blue gravel these days?

you can go on about villas debt till doomsday, the fact is, they invested it in players
we are taking loans out and NOT buying players, NOT investing in infrastructure. our only assets are on the pitch
what assetts do villa have?
can they sell their training ground?
what other assett can they sell?

all we have is a ground in desperate need of work, and ol bills tales of the terraces.

mock at villa all you like, are we REALLY that much better off?

 

[davek]

But we keep saying, the scale of this compared to Villa (and football in general) is smaller, meaning that this "rut" that you term it as, can be easier gotten out of than Villa.

And we are not taking loans out to meet interest repayments since no bank or institution would loan money to a company in that circumstance.

Provide evidence that this is occurring. With dates and times please.

Ha Ha Ha! Completely out of your depth or off your trolley - I cant decide which.

What do you think 'the company' is doing with the proceeds from sale of players in the past four windows that isn't going out the door again for incoming players? (And paying Bill Kenwright his £250k per month scouting fees is NOT the answer. Lol!).

 

[sirblue57]

*applauds*

But note: INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING - isn't included in the assessment so EVERTON CAN SPEND WHAT WE LIKE ON THE STADIA REDEVELOPMENT!

right, i will buy shares in companies that sell blue gravel.

 

[orchard]

Thanks Davek&Muggins Not sure what Euclid has to do with it though. Dynamically, what would have happened to our club if we hadn't sold our futures (TV income, etc) ? Interestingly, transfermarkt.co.uk have a scout, a certain Robbie Cooke, down as a double-entry...

 

[Xavi]

your an idiot, an educated one perhaps, but i have met many like you before. we are selling to pay debts before buying, we are taking loans out to meet interest payments, how, on gods green earth, does this come close to being well run, square the circle? its a rut mate, a fookin rut that this board has got in, and seems clueless as to how to get out of.[/QUOTE.




Couldn't agree more with sir blue TBH , comparing Everton to villa doesn't mean we are well run as a club , it's like comparing Tom hicks to Peter Johnson , Villa have worrying debt but were not villa , let's worry about our own house and who ever thinks our board are doing a decent job is mistaken , taking out loans to pay for loans against loans ect ect , while investing nothing into the playing squad , at the end of the day going from everton to villa may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire but if Moyes had anything about him ( ambition) he would quit Everton ( like Martin O'neil done) without another job , because unless your mad he knows it's impossible to win trophies at a club who rely on freebies like jermaine beckford and Maggie guyaye and it will be the same this summer , I'd be suprised if he seen the majority of the money from sales

 

[sirblue57]

your an idiot, an educated one perhaps, but i have met many like you before. we are selling to pay debts before buying, we are taking loans out to meet interest payments, how, on gods green earth, does this come close to being well run, square the circle? its a rut mate, a fookin rut that this board has got in, and seems clueless as to how to get out of.[/QUOTE.




Couldn't agree more with sir blue TBH , comparing Everton to villa doesn't mean we are well run as a club , it's like comparing Tom hicks to Peter Johnson , Villa have worrying debt but were not villa , let's worry about our own house and who ever thinks our board are doing a decent job is mistaken , taking out loans to pay for loans against loans ect ect , while investing nothing into the playing squad , at the end of the day going from everton to villa may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire but if Moyes had anything about him ( ambition) he would quit Everton ( like Martin O'neil done) without another job , because unless your mad he knows it's impossible to win trophies at a club who rely on freebies like jermaine beckford and Maggie guyaye and it will be the same this summer , I'd be suprised if he seen the majority of the money from sales

the point matts missing is this, i don't care about how villa are run, ffs, we are better run than tranmere(just) these comparisons are just fluff, the real test is HOW you invest, they invested the money(loans for matt) into the squad, something we are unable,or unwilling,to do.

 

[Matt Damon]

again, we borrow against sky and ST monies, for what reason? we sell players and are told only a portion will go for new ones, its not rocket science to figure out whats going on.
and again with the villa reference,WHY?
villa invested in their ground while bill gloried in telling tales of the boys pen at board meetings,
villa spent money backing their manager(wrongly,yes)
in 11 years eleven years we have spent, well im not sure , how much is blue gravel these days?

you can go on about villas debt till doomsday, the fact is, they invested it in players
we are taking loans out and NOT buying players, NOT investing in infrastructure. our only assets are on the pitch
what assetts do villa have?
can they sell their training ground?
what other assett can they sell?

all we have is a ground in desperate need of work, and ol bills tales of the terraces.

mock at villa all you like, are we REALLY that much better off?

Couldn't agree more with sir blue TBH , comparing Everton to villa doesn't mean we are well run as a club , it's like comparing Tom hicks to Peter Johnson , Villa have worrying debt but were not villa , let's worry about our own house and who ever thinks our board are doing a decent job is mistaken , taking out loans to pay for loans against loans ect ect , while investing nothing into the playing squad , at the end of the day going from everton to villa may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire but if Moyes had anything about him ( ambition) he would quit Everton ( like Martin O'neil done) without another job , because unless your mad he knows it's impossible to win trophies at a club who rely on freebies like jermaine beckford and Maggie guyaye and it will be the same this summer , I'd be suprised if he seen the majority of the money from sales

I'm still waiting for this evidence that Everton have taken loans to pay interest payments for loans already taken.


Once again, why let the facts get in the way of you?

Doing plenty of spouting but have NOTHING to back it up with.

For one thing, why would Everton need to with a wage:turnover at < 70% !!!! FFS.