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

[davek]

"I 'ate deez Yanks. Deev come inta der club an' raped us. Juss foooookin do one will yer Moores, yer fooooking bad septic tank bell end."

Sorry, just practising some lines for about 12 months from now.

 

[Verbal Kint]

That would be ideal situation actually

Newsflash: He currently is that already, a figurehead.

And a bloody well awful one at that

 

[4737carlin]

How can anyone be positive about this given the information available?

Moores gave the Padres two good seasons before all of their best players left, changed the teams colours to those of their nearest rivals and took $200m of their newly signed tv deal when he left.

Yes, he got them a new stadium, but he funded only part of that and he benefited from it by being able to sell the club on for a massive profit. (Even then, the first people he nearly sold to were eventually turned away by other MLB owners because they thought they were incredibly dodgy.)

People are being positive because they choose not to look to far into it, for me if it dosen't come off we might be dodging a bullet, Swansea didn't want for reasons and it's not the right time, with all that TV money coming in and Kenwright being ill they sound like a couple of chancers looking for a deal because someone might need to sell sooner rather than later and seeing the pound signs for them not us.

As for the Padres, American sport is so different, the draft, no relegation, teams moving from one city to another, building new stadiums on a regular basis, its nothing like football so hard to look at the Padres and compare to Everton.

 

[Ashtonian]

what happened to villa happened to Leeds on a smaller scale . There was plenty wrong with what happened at villa . Football clubs can't afford to gamble like that .

but it is no different to redknapp at portsmouth or o'leary at leeds. It is poor foresight by the owners each time sure, but ultimatly it is the manager's gamble. Leeds was an exception because they spent money they never had, therefore when the bills came in there was no money to pay them. villa, from the impression i got just upped the running costs of the club in the hope that the gamble to get the extra CL income would counter balance it and therefore pay off. When it failed and the running costs came down, they stripped the playing team bit by bit until you get what is there now.

 

[Hangleton]

"I 'ate deez Yanks. Deev come inta der club an' raped us. Juss foooookin do one will yer Moores, yer fooooking bad septic tank bell end."

Sorry, just practising some lines for about 12 months from now.

Don't you mean
...if it wasn't for the yanks firing Martinez we'd be 8th by now...

 

[scottym]

Also, you'd be hard pressed to find an American sports stadium that wasn't taxpayer-funded (we're huge suckers when it comes to that), so I wouldn't exactly hold that against them.

Wasn't particularly holding that part against them in all fairness. The stadium deal and the way it was funded did allow for a hefty profit when Moores sold the club too. Doesn't seem that he was particularly bothered about what happened to the Padres after he sold them either. a) Nearly selling to someone who was deemed unfit to own a MLB team and b) Taking the $200m dollars that the Padres just received from the tv deal when he left.

 

[Andy McGurk]

Not sure if its been mentioned, but does anyone else think it's odd that a bloke called John Moores has been linked to Everton?

 

[chopper6]

I think it's normal to feel nervous as there have been so many horror stories of bad takeovers, but one thing you can be sure about despite Kenrights many floors, I can't see him selling unless he's sure it's going into good hands.

 

[bluestevon]

To be fair, the Padres were even worse before Moores bought them. They made a postseason appearance (roughly equivalent to finishing in a European place in the table) once in the 25 years of their existence before he bought them.

Padres record under Moores' ownership: 1415-1484 (.488 winning percentage)
Padres record under other ownership: 2057-2532 (.448 winning percentage)

Historically speaking, it's been one of the worst franchises in baseball, to be honest, but he left them in better shape than they were before he bought them.

and prior to him owning it wasn't it actually owned by the current Liverpool owner? so interesting that it was in a worse state under them than under moores

 

[TheFinnFan]

I think it's normal to feel nervous as there have been so many horror stories of bad takeovers, but one thing you can be sure about despite Kenrights many floors, I can't see him selling unless he's sure it's going into good hands.

Exactly.

 

[l4toffee]

but it is no different to redknapp at portsmouth or o'leary at leeds. It is poor foresight by the owners each time sure, but ultimatly it is the manager's gamble. Leeds was an exception because they spent money they never had, therefore when the bills came in there was no money to pay them. villa, from the impression i got just upped the running costs of the club in the hope that the gamble to get the extra CL income would counter balance it and therefore pay off. When it failed and the running costs came down, they stripped the playing team bit by bit until you get what is there now.

so it's a gamble and we don't want a Lerner type so we ?

 

[Pacman]

I think should this happen this will be a short term takeover similiar to how I see FSG at Liverpool. They will sort the stadium out and look to sell to make a profit. I think within 10 years both us and the Kopites would be moved onto new hands which in our case you would hope would be a sugar daddy ala shinawatra selling up to Sheikh Mansour.

 

[Dymak]

How can anyone be positive about this given the information available?

Moores gave the Padres two good seasons before all of their best players left, changed the teams colours to those of their nearest rivals and took $200m of their newly signed tv deal when he left.

Yes, he got them a new stadium, but he funded only part of that and he benefited from it by being able to sell the club on for a massive profit. (Even then, the first people he nearly sold to were eventually turned away by other MLB owners because they thought they were incredibly dodgy.)

I agree that there is more than enough to be hesitant about when it comes to this group. But whilst the new baseball stadium was funded with 75% tax payers money, the 25% he paid for himself was over 100 million dollars, and I guess that's very much what you could call an 'enabler' in Bob Elstone speak. Also, the accusation of Moores pocketing the public money which paid for the stadium after selling the club, is almost identical to the accusations that were made against Everton during the public inquiry on the Kirkby saga. My fear is that the enabling money for our new stadium will come from the sale of Lukaku and Stones, rather than from the owners own money. But I think both of those players are likely to be sold after the Euros anyway, takeover or no takeover, but I wouldn't be pleased if the money from the sales was used to buy a new stadium, no matter who is in charge.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

but one thing you can be sure about despite Kenrights many floors

....That he's not a block of flats?

 

[bluestevon]

Wasn't particularly holding that part against them in all fairness. The stadium deal and the way it was funded did allow for a hefty profit when Moores sold the club too. Doesn't seem that he was particularly bothered about what happened to the Padres after he sold them either. a) Nearly selling to someone who was deemed unfit to own a MLB team and b) Taking the $200m dollars that the Padres just received from the tv deal when he left.

From my reading up on the situation the 200m dollars from the tv deal being taken by them wasn't exactly that way - the price they sold for after the initial buyers got vetoed by the other team owners and the price thye eventually sold several years later - to owners the league passed and who made a complete mess of the franchise was around 200m higher - but that from people with an agenda is being described as 'he stole 200m of the tv money'

For the sake of fairness - it is exactly the same situation which has seen the asking price for Everton rise with each new increase in the TV deal - so you could in theory say that the current owners of us are stealing the TV money by increasing the price they want.

In actuality it's just sensible business - when the money coming into your business increases then so does the market value of that business.

Seems the Padres fans main grip with the owner was the fact he eventually sold them to absolutely terrible owners - but yet they don't blame the leagues owners who have to approve the deal and don't blame them for turning down the original bidding team