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.

 

New Everton Stadium

If we sit still yet again and do not build infrastructure whilst midling clubs get another 15000 a game through the gates above us

We will be utterly left behind.

It will be a bridge we will not cross
 
Sky get the subscription money and use that to pay the premier league. So yes indirectly we get subscription money.

It's a loss leader for BT, the advertising doesn't come close to paying for it. They're engaged in a war with sky over broadband subscribers, same as cable (it's the reason why cable dont get all the channels).

There's no guarantee this money will last, in fact it's more likely not to and it's the clubs that aren't reliant on it when it ends that will be in the best position to take advantage.

I bet you the advertising at least meets the cost of the TV rights, but even if it doesn't, the model being implemented by BT shows you that the Sky Sports model is on its way out. The Premier League do not care about another company's subscribers, they care about who is going to pay the most money for TV rights. I'm stating that there will come a time when the Sky Sports subscriptions plummet due to the emergence of internet TV, but I don't think that means the end of PL gravy train. The demand is still there, but the structure will have to change.
 
BT and Sky are persistently making complaints to OFFCOM about each other.

Sky used football to monopolise tv
entered broadband aggressively

So BT joined tv sport a counter punch

Unlike ESPN and Setanta BT have the finances to take on BSKYB as evidenced by them buying EE for 16billion.

Bt and sky hate each other. The big war is broadband and mobile 4g subscription. Football is a content to help them sell.

Bt and sky will continue to battle. Its only just starting up. Just SKY hasn't taken on a heavyweight before. Theyre used to KOing lightweights. Like setanta and ESPN
 

BT and Sky are persistently making complaints to OFFCOM about each other.

Sky used football to monopolise tv
entered broadband aggressively

So BT joined tv sport a counter punch

Unlike ESPN and Setanta BT have the finances to take on BSKYB as evidenced by them buying EE for 16billion.

Bt and sky hate each other. The big war is broadband and mobile 4g subscription. Football is a content to help them sell.

Bt and sky will continue to battle. Its only just starting up. Just SKY hasn't taken on a heavyweight before. Theyre used to KOing lightweights. Like setanta and ESPN

I would not call ESPN a lightweight, owned by Disney, a company worth 4 times that of BT.
 
I would not call ESPN a lightweight, owned by Disney, a company worth 4 times that of BT.

Theyve lost millions of subscribers recently and could not compete with BT.

They're being out competed.

Disney makes its money elsewhere. Thats why BT could outbid them easily.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/vincent...-subscribers-espn-now-facing-tough-decisions/

7/12/2015 @ 2:40AM |11,962 views
Losing Millions Of Subscribers, ESPN Now Facing Tough Decisions

No matter your opinion of the “sports leader,” ESPN has been the one constant around the sports world for well over a quarter century. Now, with unprecedented competition and some pretty ugly public relations issues, ESPN is seeing its biggest downturn since its inception during the Jimmy Carter Administration.

According to Nielsen, the network has lost 3.2 million television subscribers in a little over the past year (via Wall Street Journal, subscription required).
 
Well the Board can either sell up, allow a new investor to inject capital or inject capital themselves.

They are the only options to move the club forward.

They will never allow an investor in for fear of losing control. If an investor does not have control, how will said person get a return on his investment?
 

Way off topic, but go and check your facts, ESPN is a major contributor to Disney's revenues and profits accounting for approximately 15% of revenues.

ESPNs revenues dwarf Sky and BT.

Anyway, it's way off topic.

Talking specifically about where Everton's revenues are coming from that might finance initally the stadium.

What I was saying is that ESPN is a spent force check the facts in that news story. 3.2million lost this year alone in the USA. 8MILLION since 2011. BT aren't a tiny company. Theyre a telecom giant especially in the UK.

This extra billions has bosted our turnover by 60%

Yet still we are unable to get the stadium sorted. Whilst rivals are building. Now.

This is unacceptable.
 
Well the Board can either sell up, allow a new investor to inject capital or inject capital themselves.

They are the only options to move the club forward.
1. They can't sell up because no one will meet the valuation or then spend money to grow the club. Even if they sold for 100m it would still cost 600m to buy the board out, build the stadium and buy a top 4 capable team.

2. They could allow someone to inject the capital but since it would still cost around 500m that would mean it would dilute the rest of the shares down to around 20% at most. At that point the current shareholders since they would have no power over their investment would want bought out. See above.

3. They don't have 600m.

That's just the reality of the situation. There's nothing the board can do except give the club away and even then you still have to find someone willing to spend 500m.

Football if you're looking for a sugar daddy is a billionaire's game and we just don't look attractive with our old run down stadium.
 
1. They can't sell up because no one will meet the valuation or then spend money to grow the club. Even if they sold for 100m it would still cost 600m to buy the board out, build the stadium and buy a top 4 capable team.

2. They could allow someone to inject the capital but since it would still cost around 500m that would mean it would dilute the rest of the shares down to around 20% at most. At that point the current shareholders since they would have no power over their investment would want bought out. See above.

3. They don't have 600m.

That's just the reality of the situation. There's nothing the board can do except give the club away and even then you still have to find someone willing to spend 500m.

Football if you're looking for a sugar daddy is a billionaire's game and we just don't look attractive with our old run down stadium.

If they can't sell because no one will meet the valuation, maybe they should lower it.

Simple reason why it's not been sold, no one has met the asking price.
 
If they can't sell because no one will meet the valuation, maybe they should lower it.

Simple reason why it's not been sold, no one has met the asking price.
As I said it still wouldn't matter.

"There's nothing the board can do except give the club away and even then you still have to find someone willing to spend 500m."

To get a team that is capable of challenging for the top 4 and build a stadium. You could get someone in to maybe invest 100m in players but realistically were would that get us? Would that put us above Spurs or Liverpool. It certainly wouldn't allow us to outspend any of the top 4. It could build a new stand maybe increasing match day revenue by 20% but again would that change much? Not a lot of upside for your 100m and that's assuming Bill sold for nothing.

Getting some one to invest in the club before a stadium is built is just not going to happen. I would fear the person who wanted to buy this club in this state. The only assets we really have are the players and if you wanted to make money of the club that's the only way I can see someone doing it.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Back
Top