The Everton Board Thread 2014/15

[tonka1878]

It's nice that we still have something to complain about. I mean who cares about signing boss players, football is all about the Bored(sic)room these days anyway.

 

[SerenityNigh]

If I understood what you where on about then I might try to answer.

I'm trying to interpret your comments, which seem to me a bit waffling.

I will give you the lights and the Martinez contract but the others I feel are what the manager has sanctioned and not the board. Money was available from the fellani transfer and more TV money so as expected should have been available to the manager anyway. So I will not give as much credit to the board as you have.

Here you suggest that these transfers are the manager's action/responsibility, and not due to the board's effort.

The board would not have had a choice or the undermined manager would have walked. You make it sound like a pretty please scenario. Still no credit from me.

Here you suggest that the board would not contradict or undermine the transfer/long-term plans of the manager.

The debts are manageable and have been for a while. We have had millions via TV money and Transfers and Martinez is fully aware of this and has acted accordingly. All I am saying is that Bill and co have not magicked the money for these deals from some silent investors or even used there own money. It is incoming from transfers and TV that by all rights should be given to the manager to get the deals he wants done.

Here you suggest that new money has not contributed to any of the Martinez's transfer signings or long-term plan.

Adding 1+1+1 to get 3 (I'm pretty good at simple math/s), I understand that you're implicating Moyes' desires/long-term plans as the impetus for the club's transfer history during his tenure. It was clearly his initiative, and the club would never stand in his way, just as it has not stood in Martinez's way. Am I correctly understanding all that you've written?

 

[banno]

I'm trying to interpret your comments, which seem to me a bit waffling.



Here you suggest that these transfers are the manager's action/responsibility, and not due to the board's effort.



Here you suggest that the board would not contradict or undermine the transfer/long-term plans of the manager.



Here you suggest that new money has not contributed to any of the Martinez's transfer signings or long-term plan.

Adding 1+1+1 to get 3 (I'm pretty good at simple math/s), I understand that you're implicating Moyes' desires/long-term plans as the impetus for the club's transfer history during his tenure. It was clearly his initiative, and the club would never stand in his way, just as it has not stood in Martinez's way. Am I correctly understanding all that you've written?

All I am saying is that I will not give credit to the board for the signings and new contracts issued by Martinez. Money came in from transfers and the tv money so it was rightly used wisely by Martinez to secure contracts and get players he wanted. Its not like the board has found new money for Martinez by other means. Basically one club gives us money for a player(s) and we use that money to buy another player(s). Millions of pounds of TV money comes in and we use some, lots, all of that money to secure contracts and buy players. Question is how much did the board put in aside from transfer and TV money? That's all I am saying and that's why I will not credit the board.

 

[nsno-chris]

Allegation removed by the esk

Don't let a sprinkling of TV money + a manager who has asked for a few signings fool you into thinking otherwise.

You do realise that comments like this can put the forum up for scrutiny; its an allegation which has no foundation

 

[Moomin]

On my way home, i had Talksport on the radio expecting to hear the good cop / bad cop routine between Durham and Gough discuss the Eto'o transfer.

Instead it was a Lampard love in but they were at MK Dons and they had the chairman Phil Winkleman on the show. I was impressed by what he said and his plans for MK Dons from a business perspective.

Wish we had someone with his drive running our club.

 

[Kev The Rat]

The state the squad is in is down to the boards underinvestment pure and simple.

We have the increasing liabilities that are the 37 year old Distin alongside 33 year old Jags coupled with first choice reserves of 33 year olds Osman and Pienaar.

Due to the boards refusal to invest a penny of it own cash we were reduced to picking up man utd crocks (Gibson) in exchange for flogging true quality (Arteta).

The squad actually needs to be overhauled and tbh we've only signed about half the players we need to in this window.

Eto'o himself is no more than a symptom of a desperate attempt to give us a bit of a competitive edge this season. A short term solution to a long term problem of the boards making.

 

[The Esk]

Just for clarification, criticism of the Board and individual directors, officers and shareholders is perfectly acceptable and welcome as part of the debate.

Unfounded allegations of criminal behaviour will not be tolerated.

Thanks

 

[davek]

Just for clarification, criticism of the Board and individual directors, officers and shareholders is perfectly acceptable and welcome as part of the debate.

Unfounded allegations of criminal behaviour will not be tolerated.

Thanks

Quite right too. Fortunately there's enough real stuff to condemn them utterly with anyway.

 

[Steve Wigan]

The debts are manageable and have been for a while. We have had millions via TV money and Transfers and Martinez is fully aware of this and has acted accordingly. All I am saying is that Bill and co have not magicked the money for these deals from some silent investors or even used there own money. It is incoming from transfers and TV that by all rights should be given to the manager to get the deals he wants done.

Were is the hard and fast rule that income from transfers and TV should be given to the manager? Without transfer income and TV money many clubs, including many in the Premier League, would go under. There is no law anywhere that says that you cannot use TV and Transfer income to stabalise a business in a very volatile environment.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Quite right too. Fortunately there's enough real stuff to condemn them utterly with anyway.

Go on then, Dave lets have a list...........of your opinions on various Everton matters.

 

[roydo]

Great.

 

[nsno-chris]

The state the squad is in is down to the boards underinvestment pure and simple.

We have the increasing liabilities that are the 37 year old Distin alongside 33 year old Jags coupled with first choice reserves of 33 year olds Osman and Pienaar.

Due to the boards refusal to invest a penny of it own cash we were reduced to picking up man utd crocks (Gibson) in exchange for flogging true quality (Arteta).

The squad actually needs to be overhauled and tbh we've only signed about half the players we need to in this window.

Eto'o himself is no more than a symptom of a desperate attempt to give us a bit of a competitive edge this season. A short term solution to a long term problem of the boards making.

What an absolute crock of white dog [Poor language removed]. The squad needs to be overhauled??? Do one

Martinez has just been given £36m to spend, if he chose to spend the majority of that amount on a striker then take your grievance up with him.

but then you'll argue we needed lukaku; the problem with people like you is that you are never happy. 80% of clubs operate the same as us, buy an asset and sell at a higher value to invest. Its business basics

 

[nsno-chris]

Quite right too. Fortunately there's enough real stuff to condemn them utterly with anyway.

Unfortunately you've been one of the worst for making false allegations with absolutely no evidence or founding. Pure internet tosh made up from various sources to highlight your complete inept understanding of business.

 

[bizzaro]

What an absolute crock of white dog [Poor language removed]. The squad needs to be overhauled??? Do one

Martinez has just been given £36m to spend, if he chose to spend the majority of that amount on a striker then take your grievance up with him.

but then you'll argue we needed lukaku; the problem with people like you is that you are never happy. 80% of clubs operate the same as us, buy an asset and sell at a higher value to invest. Its business basics

Davek keeps saying Naismith 'isn't good enough'.

Then when you challenge him about it he backtracks. Joke really.

 

[banno]

Were is the hard and fast rule that income from transfers and TV should be given to the manager? Without transfer income and TV money many clubs, including many in the Premier League, would go under. There is no law anywhere that says that you cannot use TV and Transfer income to stabalise a business in a very volatile environment.

There is no hard fast rule. Common sense tells me that sponsorships, Gate receipts and other commercial activity should be coming in to make the club tick along whereas money coming in from transfers should be used for transfers. If we are not making money from our name and sponsorships then surely the board have failed to promote us worldwide. What is there job exactly and are they doing a good job or bad job?