The Everton Board Thread 2015/16 [ Not takeover related ]

[dholliday]

Bill ought to have been shot if the Manager hadn't been backed with all the free money coming in from the tv deals.
If I was to assess what Bill has done over his time as chairman, it'd look something like this.

Pros.
New state of art training ground.
Hired one and three quarters good managers who are used to working within limited financial backing and overachieving in spite of that.
Kept the club financially stable with sensible expenditure within it's means.
Has backed managers where and when he has had the money.

Cons.
Failed to find new investment over the full 16 year extent of his tenure.
Two failed ground moves with another ground-move stuttering and stalling.
Club now has significant debt and mortgages.
Does not own assets in training ground, whilst Goodison is heavily mortgaged.
Club relies on bridging loans on a season to season basis to provide sufficient funding to get through a season as a result of a lack of capital. As such the club falls further into debt due to this lack of capital.
Club has underperformed and continues to underperform on a commercial level.
Lack of vision and expertise to promote club into developing markets.
No trophies.

Overall you'd have to say not a great tenure for Bill, were it not for the TV money would our commercial side have improved much at all?
Competitive for what by the way Holliday? We have consistently been more than competitive on the pitch in comparison to our underperformance off the pitch.

I disagree the TV money is 'free'. We've earned our share by virtue of Bill securing us best-of-the-rest status the previous 10 years.

Regarding the loans: we've perma-signed the ones we wanted at a cost of 30m+.

The club's debt isn't as bad as it was, it's now around 28m whereas it used to be around 50m. Considering our relatively big net spends this is pretty decent.

Agree with the rest of your cons.


On balance, I think he's comfortably in the top half of chairmen we've seen in the Prem over the last 15 years.

 

[allen]

You're either an Evertonian, or you're rich.

Bill's the former, we're looking for the latter. I don't think we'll find both.

 

[Kiwi]

I disagree the TV money is 'free'. We've earned our share by virtue of Bill securing us best-of-the-rest status the previous 10 years.

Regarding the loans: we've perma-signed the ones we wanted at a cost of 30m+. Not too shabby.

The club's debt isn't as bad as it was, it's not around 28m whereas it used to be around 50m. Considering our relatively big net spends this is pretty decent.

Agree with the rest of your cons.


On balance, I think he's comfortably in the top half of chairmen we've seen in the Prem over the last 15 years.

Moyes done that. Bill hadn't done much at all beyond keep the faith after a rough season and back him occasionally.

While we definitely progressed on the field during Bills tenure thanks to Moyes ability to find bargains from the penny bin and drill them into a performing side, and indeed Martinez's ability to convince young talented players to buy in to what he wants to do, he has failed to progress us off the field, indeed we've probably fallen behind our peers in many ways.
Bordering on failure for me his tenure, particularly when you consider we haven't won anything at all or even challenged for the league.

 

[dholliday]

he has failed to progress us off the field, indeed we've probably fallen behind our peers in many ways.

I agree with that too, Kiwi...I'm far from Bill's biggest fan, just think on balance that he's done more good than bad. The 90's, Royle's mini-era aside, was pretty bad. Other than playing in it every week, we otherwise completely missed the Prem boom. By the time Kenwright became boss all that damage was already done. Not easy to reverse without massive external investment.

 

[Kiwi]

I agree with that too, Kiwi...I'm far from Bill's biggest fan, just think on balance that he's done more good than bad. The 90's, Royle's mini-era aside, was pretty bad. Other than playing in it every week, we otherwise completely missed the Prem boom. By the time Kenwright became boss all that damage was already done. Not easy to reverse without massive external investment.

Which despite it being a priority he has failed to find.
Other clubs have found investment and resultant success.
He's done nothing more than ok.

 

[dholliday]

Which despite it being a priority he has failed to find.
Other clubs have found investment and resultant success.
He's done nothing more than ok.

We just slightly disagree on which issues are important. We both agree he's not been a bad chairman at least. I think his last great act will be to ensure the succession is as fair to the club and supporters as possible. Might even happen this summer, be great for us if we have Euro action next season.

 

[joey_macmo]

It's seems to be often forgotten that Bill has been on the board since 89.

 

[joey_macmo]

I disagree the TV money is 'free'. We've earned our share by virtue of Bill securing us best-of-the-rest status the previous 10 years.

Regarding the loans: we've perma-signed the ones we wanted at a cost of 30m+.

The club's debt isn't as bad as it was, it's now around 28m whereas it used to be around 50m. Considering our relatively big net spends this is pretty decent.

Agree with the rest of your cons.


On balance, I think he's comfortably in the top half of chairmen we've seen in the Prem over the last 15 years.

Pretty sure the debt is over £28m and we have certainly not had a "relatively" big net spend under his tenure.

 

[Chang Elephant]

I think we're all agreed here that Kenwright and the board need to go and we need change. Or at least 465 GOT members are, so about 79%. Those that think Bill has done an OK job coming in at 55 votes or 9%.

Maybe people just didn't appreciate the stabilising job he did in massively increasing debt and nearly having the bank foreclose on us. Strange really.

 

[dholliday]

Pretty sure the debt is over £28m and we have certainly not had a "relatively" big net spend under his tenure.

a tiny bit more, 31m according to the Echo

We genuinely have had relatively big net spending in transfer windows during the Martinez-era compared with the Moyes-era. That was my point, that things are getting better. Sure, partly thanks to the TV money.

 

[dholliday]

It's seems to be often forgotten that Bill has been on the board since 89.

not forgotten, just that we tend to give Kenwright full responsibility since he became chairman, since '99 or so.

EDIT: in '99 he took control, but didn't actually get the job title Chairman until Carter retired in 2004.

 

[Carlito]

I am routinely stunned at the lauding of a man who let the club go almost three years without investment in the first team.

He is wasted in football. He could be out there dismantling public services and turning off the heating in care homes, and winning acclaim from the proles whilst doing it.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

a tiny bit more, 31m according to the Echo

We genuinely have had relatively big net spending in transfer windows during the Martinez-era compared with the Moyes-era. That was my point, that things are getting better. Sure, partly thanks to the TV money.

The 2015 accounts may show a net liability position of 31mil, but between Prudential Trustees and VIBRAC our borrowings were 39mil.
Net spend isn't as cut and dried either as most transfers are staged payments and not cash so debtors and creditors come in to play - on a net spend generally creditors increase and if you look at the accounts this is what happened.
Just saying.

 

[Steve Wigan]

So in summary, Bill is a massive blagger and used his position as chairman of Everton to fool somebody into investing on a promise he could not deliver. Now that is possibly (according to you) hindering the advancement of the club financially as Earl has realised what a gravy train the premier league is and wants a massive return on the blag dream he was sold.

Played a blinder there has William Kenwright OBE, no wonder half the fan base can't stand the wretched man any more.

Thanks for clearing that up!

You're spinning so much here you'll be dizzy! Have you any idea how business works? Earl bought shares in Everton because he thought big profits could be made from his retail outlets (Hard Rock Cafe etc) supposedly surrounding the stadium at DK. When DK failed to materialise, Earl wanted out, but at a profit that would justify his original purchase. That is the situation we are in now. No one knows how much Earl wants for his shares, but I'd bet that BK, Jon Woods, and most if not all of the small shareholders would accept less.That is not the only reason that Everton has not been sold, but its a contributory factor over the last few years. Other reasons have been trotted out many, many times before...the ground, the revenue streams, etc, the unsuitability (in the boards opinion) of potential buyers, etc. If Everton find a potential buyer who understands what is needed to move the club forward, this potential buyer will then have to do a deal that satisfies Earl.The fairy story that Bill 'won't let go of his train set' might look clever in a forum debate but it is basically nonsense. At the present time, taking all issues into account, is there any reason why Bill would want to carry on, even if he were able? And you know what? When(not if) the club is sold and things go pear shaped under new owners, guess who will be blamed? Just the person that 'sold our club to terrible owners'....thats right...Bill Kenwright. Talk about a no win situation.....

 

[hibbo'sclass]

@Steve Wigan whilst I understand your position regarding Robert Earl, surely that can only be explained by a binding agreement between the 3 largest shareholders that they all sell at the same time for the same price?
If that is not the case, then someone could have bought RE's shares for a price that suits him, gone through the fit and proper person test for owners, and negotiated a price with the remaining shareholders.