New Everton Stadium

[bluestevon]

How s it going to get paid for them mate ?

The real conflict seems to be between the supporters' expectations and your vision for the Club and at the heart of this is the policy of so-called self-financing. The self-financing model was created to suit the major shareholders at the time, all of whom subsequently sold their shares.

The previous decision by the Board to fund the building of the Emirates Stadium with long-term debt was, we believe, certainly not about self-financing. If it had been, it would have been funded through a mixture of debt and non-dividend equity. Instead it allowed, in our view, the major shareholders of the time, who happened to all be Board directors, to load the Club with a liability, to benefit from increased future revenue streams and consequent increase in the value of their holdings, whilst avoiding dilution of their equity. The Board of the time then appeared to pursue a policy of increasing ticket prices and squeezing the fans to cover the short term cost increases which allowed them to bridge until all of these shareholders and Board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits.

This policy does not seem to have changed. We have sought and been refused any meetings with Mr Kroenke despite the fact that we own almost 30% of the Club or to put another way almost 1 in every 3 seats in the stadium. It is clear that our stated policy for the major shareholders, namely Mr Kroenke and ourselves, to inject non-dividend paying equity into the Club by way of a rights issue to reduce the debt and invest in the future is of no interest to the Board. Mr Kroenke was sold a vision by the Board at the time that the Club could be successful without further investment, so he is pursuing a similar policy which is to run the Club without any investment and to avoid any dilution of his equity, a good part of which was funded by a loan from Deutsche Bank AG to KSE, UK, Inc. at the time of the mandatory offer. The status of that loan and whether it is still outstanding has not been clarified by Mr Kroenke.



From the open letter in 2012 detailing there ideas mate, have a read you may learn something about our owner and his ideas

 

[Goat]

The real conflict seems to be between the supporters' expectations and your vision for the Club and at the heart of this is the policy of so-called self-financing. The self-financing model was created to suit the major shareholders at the time, all of whom subsequently sold their shares.

The previous decision by the Board to fund the building of the Emirates Stadium with long-term debt was, we believe, certainly not about self-financing. If it had been, it would have been funded through a mixture of debt and non-dividend equity. Instead it allowed, in our view, the major shareholders of the time, who happened to all be Board directors, to load the Club with a liability, to benefit from increased future revenue streams and consequent increase in the value of their holdings, whilst avoiding dilution of their equity. The Board of the time then appeared to pursue a policy of increasing ticket prices and squeezing the fans to cover the short term cost increases which allowed them to bridge until all of these shareholders and Board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits.

This policy does not seem to have changed. We have sought and been refused any meetings with Mr Kroenke despite the fact that we own almost 30% of the Club or to put another way almost 1 in every 3 seats in the stadium. It is clear that our stated policy for the major shareholders, namely Mr Kroenke and ourselves, to inject non-dividend paying equity into the Club by way of a rights issue to reduce the debt and invest in the future is of no interest to the Board. Mr Kroenke was sold a vision by the Board at the time that the Club could be successful without further investment, so he is pursuing a similar policy which is to run the Club without any investment and to avoid any dilution of his equity, a good part of which was funded by a loan from Deutsche Bank AG to KSE, UK, Inc. at the time of the mandatory offer. The status of that loan and whether it is still outstanding has not been clarified by Mr Kroenke.



From the open letter in 2012 detailing there ideas mate, have a read you may learn something about our owner and his ideas

But he doesnt say it wouldnt be paid for by loans.

 

[Mikeonlythebestwilldo]

The real conflict seems to be between the supporters' expectations and your vision for the Club and at the heart of this is the policy of so-called self-financing. The self-financing model was created to suit the major shareholders at the time, all of whom subsequently sold their shares.

The previous decision by the Board to fund the building of the Emirates Stadium with long-term debt was, we believe, certainly not about self-financing. If it had been, it would have been funded through a mixture of debt and non-dividend equity. Instead it allowed, in our view, the major shareholders of the time, who happened to all be Board directors, to load the Club with a liability, to benefit from increased future revenue streams and consequent increase in the value of their holdings, whilst avoiding dilution of their equity. The Board of the time then appeared to pursue a policy of increasing ticket prices and squeezing the fans to cover the short term cost increases which allowed them to bridge until all of these shareholders and Board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits.

This policy does not seem to have changed. We have sought and been refused any meetings with Mr Kroenke despite the fact that we own almost 30% of the Club or to put another way almost 1 in every 3 seats in the stadium. It is clear that our stated policy for the major shareholders, namely Mr Kroenke and ourselves, to inject non-dividend paying equity into the Club by way of a rights issue to reduce the debt and invest in the future is of no interest to the Board. Mr Kroenke was sold a vision by the Board at the time that the Club could be successful without further investment, so he is pursuing a similar policy which is to run the Club without any investment and to avoid any dilution of his equity, a good part of which was funded by a loan from Deutsche Bank AG to KSE, UK, Inc. at the time of the mandatory offer. The status of that loan and whether it is still outstanding has not been clarified by Mr Kroenke.



From the open letter in 2012 detailing there ideas mate, have a read you may learn something about our owner and his ideas

I get all that mate i was impressed in his letter what I don't understand is how will he fund it alone if he's getting new business partners in to the vision or is he already got a sponsorship deal in place already to help fund it

 

[bluestevon]

But he doesnt say it wouldnt be paid for by loans.

Not mega clued up on accountancy and the jingo they use mate, but think his issue was the club got saddled with the debt whilst all increased revenue sources kinda went into the pockets of the owners etc, so 'guess' things like naming rights - increased sponsorship related to the ground etc should in his opinion have gone towards the stadium costs not towards the owners profits.

He does also criticise the self financing model in itself as well, but obviously argues how in that 'model' how it was twisted even further to suit the owners.

Not sure how he will do it, but i feel pretty confident the club isn't gonna be stuck with the 350m or whatever it is bill - 'in it's entirety' at least

 

[Goat]

I get all that mate i was impressed in his letter what I don't understand is how will he fund it alone if he's getting new business partners in to the vision or is he already got a sponsorship deal in place already to help fund it

It will be funded by loans probably mate, I think it means that instead of all the debt going on to the club it will go onto the owners or something, I would be lying if I understood even a penny of what would be needed.

 

[bluestevon]

I get all that mate i was impressed in his letter what I don't understand is how will he fund it alone if he's getting new business partners in to the vision or is he already got a sponsorship deal in place already to help fund it

I'd guess yes for the first and possible for the second

 

[Goat]

Not mega clued up on accountancy and the jingo they use mate, but think his issue was the club got saddled with the debt whilst all increased revenue sources kinda went into the pockets of the owners etc, so 'guess' things like naming rights - increased sponsorship related to the ground etc should in his opinion have gone towards the stadium costs not towards the owners profits.

He does also criticise the self financing model in itself as well, but obviously argues how in that 'model' how it was twisted even further to suit the owners.

Not sure how he will do it, but i feel pretty confident the club isn't gonna be stuck with the 350m or whatever it is bill - 'in it's entirety' at least

Yeah I honestly dont have a clue past a certain point and jargon like "non-dividend equity" goes swooooooooooooooosh rar over my head.

 

[Durham Toffee]

Don't make it like West Ham's.

Don't make it like West Ham's.

Don't make it like West Ham's.

Don't make it like West Ham's.

Don't make it like West Ham's.

 

[Mikeonlythebestwilldo]

It will be funded by loans probably mate, I think it means that instead of all the debt going on to the club it will go onto the owners or something, I would be lying if I understood even a penny of what would be needed.

Mg theirs nothing stopping a naming right sponsorship now

 

[allen]

Not mega clued up on accountancy and the jingo they use mate, but think his issue was the club got saddled with the debt whilst all increased revenue sources kinda went into the pockets of the owners etc, so 'guess' things like naming rights - increased sponsorship related to the ground etc should in his opinion have gone towards the stadium costs not towards the owners profits.

He does also criticise the self financing model in itself as well, but obviously argues how in that 'model' how it was twisted even further to suit the owners.

Not sure how he will do it, but i feel pretty confident the club isn't gonna be stuck with the 350m or whatever it is bill - 'in it's entirety' at least

I'm hearing we're going to get a stadium in the car park of the most beautiful riverside Tesco you've ever seen.

 

[Mikeonlythebestwilldo]

I'd guess yes for the first and possible for the second

thanks mate

 

[blueboy1945]

Cant be doing with all the hipsters wanting stadiums that resemble an 18th century warehouse or metallic vulva. We want one similar to Bayerns but what has some form of blue illumination like 1860 Munich's but not a total copy.

Isn't a metallic Vulva some sort of Swedish car?

 

[blueboy1945]

There ground is awful, blow as many bubbles as you want to distract it but that distance between the pitch and stands is terrible. F@## it I want to stay at Goodison and bevy down County Rd until I die, sod the we need more match day revenue johnny-come-latelys, we make more than enough from TV revenue to continue on. What was said last season, we could afford to let everyone in free and still make dough. We live, die and watch football in a real historic stadium, not some plastic plaything, once it goes it will never come back, so please don't let it end COYB'S

Luddite.

 

[rochdaleblue]

Don't make it like West Ham's.

Don't make it like West Ham's.

Don't make it like West Ham's.

Don't make it like West Ham's.

Don't make it like West Ham's.

The only good thing about that stadium is that they got if for free. I can't see any club in this day and age wanting that design as a stadium. It just doesn't look right. Be interesting to see what West Ham supporters think about the match day experience of that 'bowl' compared to Upton Park.

 

[marsh]

Docks deal done?