The Everton Board Thread 2014/15

[davek]

Yeah, I see that they've been 'successful', but if that was the success a takeover got Everton you wouldn't class it that way - possibly with the exceptions of Liverpool and Tottenham, so let's look at those:

Liverpool was a built-in massive brand and was bought for pennies. Their first big money takeover got them out of the CL spots in the first place and nearly put the club into administration. Which allowed the valuation of the club to be so low for Fenway to take over and run it more profitably. Additionally, they have plans to redevelop Anfield, they haven't begun construction yet, we'll see when it actually starts.

Tottenham are an odd case I think. Their current management has spent a load more money to basically get them in the same place as us. They're much better businessmen, but seem to be worse football men. I'd be happy with the money and business nous of Tottenham's owners, but it would be damn frustrating to see them kick every manager they get out to the curb when results go poorly for a few weeks. Levy would have fired Martinez after the February we had and we'd be back to square one.

As for Southampton (@ijjysmith) I believe that there are concerns that the current owner is asset stripping them in preparation for selling them. I'd rather not see that. I think Ijjy was the one that mentioned that (sorry for tagging you in the board thread Ijjy, but you're the Southampton expert).

Stoke are successful - for Stoke. I wouldn't want that success at Everton.

United is proof that brand > ownership. The Glazers can be awful, because the United brand is large enough to keep the ship afloat. It's where every club should be aiming for. There aren't many clubs in that category - Bayern, United, Real, Barca....think that's it. (Although the R/S brand is awful close, they just haven't won in 24 years (lol) which dilutes the brand).

So in a sense, you're correct loads of takeovers have been successful. But I stand by the fact that only two have been successful in the way that Everton define success. Maybe 3...Tottenham may be the third. I'm leaving Liverpool out because of the circumstances surrounding the takeover - pretty sure none of us want to be outside of the court room that Kopites were that day.

lol

You imply that Everton haven't had their takeover because of some noble sifting out process whereby chancers are quickly shown the door.

The reality is that any old chancer can tip up and buy this club and run it into the ground if they so wish...just as long as they pay the carpet baggers their £150M first.

There is no principled stewardship of Everton, just a clutch of profiteers stripping the team of its rightful resources and paying off debts and interests on debts with it until they wrangle a new stadium for nothing and then sell up to the first bidder that meets their price.

 

[RaleighBlue]

lol

You imply that Everton haven't had their takeover because of some noble sifting out process whereby chancers are quickly shown the door.

The reality is that any old chancer can tip up and buy this club and run it into the ground if they so wish...just as long as they pay the carpet baggers their £150M first.

There is no principled stewardship of Everton, just a clutch of profiteers stripping the team of its rightful resources and paying off debts and interests on debts with it until they wrangle a new stadium for nothing and then sell up to the first bidder that meets there price.

Nonono!

Not at all. I'm simply making the point that successful takeovers aren't all that common, not that the board is actually waiting for 'the right' takeover. I'm just saying that while we can dream of a Sheik, chances are we wouldn't get one even if the board were selling.

All I'm saying is that we're more likely to be bought by some chancer that will run us into the ground than be bought by a sugar daddy, or a competent businessman.

 

[SerenityNigh]

TBF, the parasites in control of Everton have had 15 years to get this right. Plenty enough time to sort the 'jarg' from the genuine if the price was right in the first place.

Why do you prefer this word?

 

[SerenityNigh]

All I'm saying is that we're more likely to be bought by some chancer that will run us into the ground than be bought by a sugar daddy, or a competent businessman.

Only one of those options will yield immediate "results," but I'm not convinced that's the best option.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Only one of those options will yield immediate "results," but I'm not convinced that's the best option.

I think it's moot honestly. Competent businessmen stay out of football because it's a terrible business model with a low profit margin. Even United and Real make terrible turnover compared to proper business.

Everton need to position themselves as an equal of Arsenal/Tottenham/Liverpool and let the brand grow from there. Some investment is required, but not a huge amount. Some for a new stadium, some for a few new players, and we're pretty we'll sorted as a regular top 4/5/6 side, but they need to try and improve their income, otherwise we'll always fight a losing battle.

I think the focus on selling the club is a red herring that distracts from the faults of the current ownership. Ignore Bill, focus on the brand (or lack thereof). Kitbag is possibly the worst commercial deal I've ever heard of that didn't directly result in bankruptcy - then use those things to bag on Bill, not the fact he won't sell the club.

 

[davek]

Why do you prefer this word?

I dont, I usually favour carpet baggers. Parasites will do though: they feed off their host. Yes. That fits nicely.

 

[davek]

Nonono!

Not at all. I'm simply making the point that successful takeovers aren't all that common, not that the board is actually waiting for 'the right' takeover. I'm just saying that while we can dream of a Sheik, chances are we wouldn't get one even if the board were selling.

All I'm saying is that we're more likely to be bought by some chancer that will run us into the ground than be bought by a sugar daddy, or a competent businessman.

..but most of the examples you were given by others above were good ones of clubs receiving cash for team building over and above the cost of takeover. It matters not one jot what stage they were at and their immediate objectives.

 

[RaleighBlue]

..but most of the examples you were given by others above were good ones of clubs receiving cash for team building over and above the cost of takeover. It matters not one jot what stage they were at and their immediate objectives.

Mainly because it's easier to go from 0% to 85% than from 85% to 90%. Those owners were successful for their stage, but have proven failures at pushing their clubs to the next step. We're already where they maxed out, so those owners wouldn't be good for us.

It's like managers, right? So Moyes is a fantastic manager for a club in 17th. And if we were in 17th I'd so want to bring him in. But we're not, we're in 5th. So we need someone better than Moyes. The owners above, and in fact most takeovers overall have failed to improve upon where Everton are. Which is all I care about. Only Sheik Mansour and Abramovich (and FSG, but that's a weirdo situation) have been able to crack the glass ceiling we're butting up against. And it's harder now, because they've already done it.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just arguing that there are not a lot of owners out there that have proven to be able to improve the on-pitch results over where we are now. Off the pitch is completely different, obviously - and you should know my feelings on that by now.

 

[davek]

Mainly because it's easier to go from 0% to 85% than from 85% to 90%. Those owners were successful for their stage, but have proven failures at pushing their clubs to the next step. We're already where they maxed out, so those owners wouldn't be good for us.

It's like managers, right? So Moyes is a fantastic manager for a club in 17th. And if we were in 17th I'd so want to bring him in. But we're not, we're in 5th. So we need someone better than Moyes. The owners above, and in fact most takeovers overall have failed to improve upon where Everton are. Which is all I care about. Only Sheik Mansour and Abramovich (and FSG, but that's a weirdo situation) have been able to crack the glass ceiling we're butting up against. And it's harder now, because they've already done it.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just arguing that there are not a lot of owners out there that have proven to be able to improve the on-pitch results over where we are now. Off the pitch is completely different, obviously - and you should know my feelings on that by now.

That just means that if we had those owners and they came in and gave cash for team strengthening we'd push off from a higher position. If, for example, Peter Coates at Stoke or Ellis Short at Sunderland had taken over control of Everton that could have made a huge difference to us. We dont necessarily need a Shiek/Oligarch. All that would be dependent on sale price, of course, which brings us back again full circle to the real problem: it's not doing without a billionaire; it's putting up with profiteers determined to exact their pound of flesh.

 

[RaleighBlue]

That just means that if we had those owners and they came in and gave cash for team strengthening we'd push off from a higher position. If, for example, Peter Coates at Stoke or Ellis Short at Sunderland had taken over control of Everton that could have made a huge difference to us. We dont necessarily need a Shiek/Oligarch. All that would be dependent on sale price, of course, which brings us back again full circle to the real problem: it's not doing without a billionaire; it's putting up with profiteers determined to exact their pound of flesh.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on the bolded bit. I feel that it takes a lot more money to go from regularly pushing for Europe to CL regulars than it does to go from mid table Championship players to mid table Prem tables. A lot more separates 4 from 6 than PL 15 and Championship 10. In my opinion at least.

I agree though that we don't need a billionaire or an Oligarch - we need an intelligent business model, which we don't seem to have currently. And the asking price (if it's the £150 million rumored) is way off base considering our current state. I wonder if the nightmarish Kitbag deal is hurting our sellability as well. Between that and the need for a new stadium it's hard to find revenues without pretty serious expenditure.

FFS I hope we buy ourselves out of the Kitbag deal.

 

[Kiwi]

I have to agree with Davek on this one, that with the right investment into the team, as long as it was combined with clear financial movement and activity off the pitch to stabilize and produce more income for the club, would help to grow the club to the point where it could consistently fight for and compete in the Champion League places. Where other clubs have gone wrong in the past as they have just pumped money into the squad without necessarily improving the marketing and sponsorship side of the club, meaning that the increase in money spent rises whilst the money being made by the club does not. This improvement in the financial side of the club provides that stability that gives the club a bit of breathing space should the first few initial investments into the squad not work. A balance needs to be achieved between both IMO. First thing those coming into ownership of the club should be doing is looking at expanding the marketing of our club in foreign markets to pick up on the global growth of the Premier League into the likes of the US and Asia, and starting this by binning the Kitbag deal that so inhibits our clubs ability to expand in these areas. The second step would be seeking better global partnerships by approaching technology companies and the like to spread their brand and ours simultaneously. When you have this financial betterment of our current structure off the field then you can build on it with added investment into the playing team and squad. Ideally both would happen simultaneously. I can't see the off field commercial stuff happening off the field under the current ownership of the team nor the investment into the team so unless drastic changes start occurring there needs to be a change in the ownership of the club.

 

[riddick]

When does that Kitbag deal expire?

 

[Kiwi]

Until the commercial and marketing side of our club pulls its fingers out of its arse we arent going to be able to capitalise on the growth of the Premier League worldwide and are going to stagnate where we are at the moment if not below where we are. We NEED a revolution on our thinking around this aspect of our club otherwise we become overly dependent on Martinez doing miracles on the field to achieve any kind of growth.

 

[RaleighBlue]

I have to agree with Davek on this one, that with the right investment into the team, as long as it was combined with clear financial movement and activity off the pitch to stabilize and produce more income for the club, would help to grow the club to the point where it could consistently fight for and compete in the Champion League places. Where other clubs have gone wrong in the past as they have just pumped money into the squad without necessarily improving the marketing and sponsorship side of the club, meaning that the increase in money spent rises whilst the money being made by the club does not. This improvement in the financial side of the club provides that stability that gives the club a bit of breathing space should the first few initial investments into the squad not work. A balance needs to be achieved between both IMO. First thing those coming into ownership of the club should be doing is looking at expanding the marketing of our club in foreign markets to pick up on the global growth of the Premier League into the likes of the US and Asia, and starting this by binning the Kitbag deal that so inhibits our clubs ability to expand in these areas. The second step would be seeking better global partnerships by approaching technology companies and the like to spread their brand and ours simultaneously. When you have this financial betterment of our current structure off the field then you can build on it with added investment into the playing team and squad. Ideally both would happen simultaneously. I can't see the off field commercial stuff happening off the field under the current ownership of the team nor the investment into the team so unless drastic changes start occurring there needs to be a change in the ownership of the club.

I agree with everything here actually.

I was just pointing out that most ownership groups haven't done the bolded bit well enough.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Until the commercial and marketing side of our club pulls its fingers out of its arse we arent going to be able to capitalise on the growth of the Premier League worldwide and are going to stagnate where we are at the moment if not below where we are. We NEED a revolution on our thinking around this aspect of our club otherwise we become overly dependent on Martinez doing miracles on the field to achieve any kind of growth.

Bingo.

We are far too dependent on having brilliant managers maintain a financially false League position. Last season we were barely profitable and we finished 7th. We need to ensure that we're profitable finishing 15th, 7th, 4th, 11th, whatever. Our finances need to be stable not accounting for variable performance on the pitch. We need to improve our sponsorship and merchandising deals and exploit global markets.

This ownership group has had 15 years to do this - I am also not convinced that they will see the light. But it seems most football ownership groups fail in this area, with a few notable exceptions. I feel like this is due to the mentality that you must win trophies to grow a brand. I disagree with that premise. We need to grow the brand now. As much as we possibly can.