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

[Dithering Dougie]

Re: Daily Mail article

I agree with most of that post because I'm quite a positive, optimistic Blue but definitely looks like it's been ever-so-slightly spoon fed.

The journalist is a fellow Evertonian mate, they are out there in the media and they'll have their own opinions just like people on here or Twitter or wherever.

It's more likely that that's just how he sees things.

 

[Nymzee]

The journalist is a fellow Evertonian mate, they are out there in the media and they'll have their own opinions just like people on here or Twitter or wherever.

It's more likely that that's just how he sees things.

He is? That's good to know, honestly thought there were no blues in journalism these days.

 

[Kiwi]

That Daily Mail article could quite happily have been written by Elstone.

In no way shape or form is it a fair or evenhanded reflection on the board.

Some might call it board spin or propaganda, I agree.
There is no real acknowledgement of the fans concerns around commercial and financial performance, nor does it in anyway question the board in any shape or form.
Instead they are glossed over as part of a bigger picture, with the writer portraying it as a overall plan.
However the reality is that we have fallen behind our historical rivals and are falling behind the likes of Stoke, West Ham e.t.c on financial and commercial terms, the club has been asset stripped and has a significant portfolio of debt. The only way we have progressed in those terms is because of handouts from the SKY and BT tv money, not because of some kind of board plan.

 

[Kiwi]

By the way, relying on a manager to overperform beyond his financial capabilities and the money placed into the team is not a business plan.
It's a gamble pure and simple, and we're lucky that that gamble paid off and we are now financially secure due to the tv money.
However the gap between rich and poor is quickly widening and we need to see change in the off field side of things in order to continue to compete let alone win trophies as a club of our stature should be doing.

Stagnation is not acceptable nor is financial ineptitude.
This board must invest their own funds, find investment, or sell to bring in the capital that we need.
We have to take out a loan every year through Vibrac so as to have operating capital to deal with expenses, further throwing our club into debt every season just to run it.
That is not acceptable.

 

[joey_macmo]

Right I'll break it down

You asked me a question

Are there many of the players who have moved for 10-15 million would you have genuinely wanted at Everton ?

and I answered directly

Just this summer

Cech
Alderweild
Schweinstiger
Let's throw in Ayew from Swansea on a free as a bit of a bonus

Then you questioned why ive just named random transfers

I don't see the point youre trying to make quoting those random transfers. Please explain.

If I were you I'd get out of this debate unless you can talk sense 'young 'un'. Looks like you've nowhere to go sensibly, so youre uysing the old trick of cyber heckling to avoid having to debate properly.

Are you sure English is your first language?

Mods...do you want this thread to go down this road...because I can answer this sort of stuff in kind............

Mods I didnt insult him unlike he did to me, and I have only made this post to clear up any confusion as the poster asked me to

 

[joey_macmo]

Time for the petty point scoring to stop lads.

By all means present your opinion on the Board but there's no need for the petty stuff.

Anymore and thread bans will come in. Thanks.

just seen this post as it was after the reply to me so that I wont be going any further along with the above

 

[davek]

Here's the article about the urgency in seeking new investment:

There’s almost no argument that new investment is not required – investment in the team, the stadium and commercial operations. Few have examined the timing of this investment and the consequences of delay.

The time for new investment is now. The club cannot afford to wait any longer.

The new broadcasting deal which starts in season 2016-17 widens the gap between the successful clubs and the less successful.

Last year the club with the 7th highest broadcasting revenue (Everton) received £12.5 million less than the club receiving the most (Liverpool). In 2016-17 that gap will be £20.9 million. The gap between 1st and 10th in order of broadcasting revenue grows from £22 million to £35 million.

Tie that in with the difference in gate receipts and commercial income between Everton and our peers and you can clearly see that the income gap will widen further.

Not only that, but all our peers have a balance sheet which gives them the opportunity to spend heavily in the transfer window should they wish to do so.

The gap between the Premiership “haves” and “have nots” will continue to grow more quickly as the broadcasting deal revenues flow into the Premiership.

Paradoxically, the increase in revenues across the Premiership makes Everton more vulnerable on the pitch, and importantly for the Board (who own 70%) of the club, makes the equity value of the club more vulnerable also. Why? Because as the income and balance sheet gaps between Everton and our peers grow, the amount of investment required to bridge the gap increases, thereby reducing the current value of the equity.

Similarly if the value of the equity falls then the cost to existing shareholders of future capital raisings through issuing new shares increases.

Inactivity now threatens the value of the Board members individual holdings.

Control (or loss of) is often a reason quoted for the Board not to issue new equity in return for new investment. The Board can issue more than 12,500 shares without subscribing for shares themselves before losing control.

If the club is worth £140 million, then the shares are worth £4,000 each – that being the case the club can raise £50 million without subscribing for new shares, nor losing control. If the figure of £200 million is used, then over £70 million can be raised.

The point though is that to do this it must be done now. Failure to re-capitalise the business now will significantly reduce the Board’s ability to do so in the future, and will significantly reduce the value of their holdings.

£50 or £70 million will not solve Everton’s capital requirements, but it would allow investment in our key assets, the playing squad.

I’ll talk further next time about the funding of our two other priorities, the ground and commercial operations

esk, a couple of points about your piece on this home page - and I suppose they revolve around this word 'urgent', because it's the driving force of your argument regarding the owners and their perceived inertia.

The point about the future (developing) rupture between the 'have's and have nots': you say this is a time bomb waiting to explode and represents a potential step change. But isn't it more the case that it will simply exacerbate the already massive difference in financial terms that we experience with those elite clubs? I wouldn't see the upcoming increase in tv revenue share disparity as a qualitative change for us. I think the owners see us - and have always seen us - as competing with a clutch of clubs in the second tier of the top of the table, and they expect managers to get their team in amongst that lot and secure as much revenue as possible with good management skills. We're still probably good for that struggle for a fair few seasons to come given the decent(ish) squad we have and the academy players coming through - topped up with the odd marquee signing. In other words, I dont see this future relative decline in tv revenue as a fire that's been lit under the owners. (All of this being dependent, of course, on the team remaining competitive in that tier and thereby avoiding fan revolt).

Depreciating asset through non-investment: I think Woolly Blue made the point to you the other day that it (the club) will be valued at whatever the buyer will see fit or be motivated to pay (which you elsewhere sort of underlined as being so when saying that to own or part own a PL league club is something many people in the business world with the required cash would like in their portfolio as a trophy asset - a great status symbol, especially if that historic club were returned to its 'rightful' position). I see that as being pretty much the rock on which these waves break on. I dont believe the owners see things in terms of the need to keep pace (via facility improvements or player acquisition or commercial growth) whilst there's still the strategy they haven't used yet: actually trying to find a seller. That day may come soon if the owners of Everton believe the goose is now plump enough to go to market. And if that is the case it leads to the conclusion that the sort of injection of capital you see as an option right now - pushing for share issue of tens of millions - wont be countenanced. They've come this far without diluting their share and you can be certain they wont buckle now. It's not so much a matter of 'control' for this lot (although they wouldn't fancy trying to retain it with a reinvigorated group of smaller share holders snapping at their heels holding them to account), they just want the 70% of the pie they seek to sell on.

I dont think there's inertia at play here; they have a long term strategy that they're playing out. There's no drift. They dont need saving form themselves and there's no urgency propelling them into change.

 

[D410]

Dave, they have there eye fixed on the new TV deal and then they can keep using a revised playbook for another 4-5 years. Its all about the short term of tapping into the future funds with a long term plan of looking fog a mug to buy the club of them for a sickening profit.

They have always know the capital funding issues and has always been a risk but there playbook and the new TV deal gets them through another 4-5 years.

 

[The Esk]

esk, a couple of points about your piece on this home page - and I suppose they revolve around this word 'urgent', because it's the driving force of your argument regarding the owners and their perceived inertia.

The point about the future (developing) rupture between the 'have's and have nots': you say this is a time bomb waiting to explode and represents a potential step change. But isn't it more the case that it will simply exacerbate the already massive difference in financial terms that we experience with those elite clubs? I wouldn't see the upcoming increase in tv revenue share disparity as a qualitative change for us. I think the owners see us - and have always seen us - as competing with a clutch of clubs in the second tier of the top of the table, and they expect managers to get their team in amongst that lot and secure as much revenue as possible with good management skills. We're still probably good for that struggle for a fair few seasons to come given the decent(ish) squad we have and the academy players coming through - topped up with the odd marquee signing. In other words, I dont see this future relative decline in tv revenue as a fire that's been lit under the owners. (All of this being dependent, of course, on the team remaining competitive in that tier and thereby avoiding fan revolt).

Depreciating asset through non-investment: I think Woolly Blue made the point to you the other day that it (the club) will be valued at whatever the buyer will see fit or be motivated to pay (which you elsewhere sort of underlined as being so when saying that to own or part own a PL league club is something many people in the business world with the required cash would like in their portfolio as a trophy asset - a great status symbol, especially if that historic club were returned to its 'rightful' position). I see that as being pretty much the rock on which these waves break on. I dont believe the owners see things in terms of the need to keep pace (via facility improvements or player acquisition or commercial growth) whilst there's still the strategy they haven't used yet: actually trying to find a seller. That day may come soon if the owners of Everton believe the goose is now plump enough to go to market. And if that is the case it leads to the conclusion that the sort of injection of capital you see as an option right now - pushing for share issue of tens of millions - wont be countenanced. They've come this far without diluting their share and you can be certain they wont buckle now. It's not so much a matter of 'control' for this lot (although they wouldn't fancy trying to retain it with a reinvigorated group of smaller share holders snapping at their heels holding them to account), they just want the 70% of the pie they seek to sell on.

I dont think there's inertia at play here; they have a long term strategy that they're playing out. There's no drift. They dont need saving form themselves and there's no urgency propelling them into change.

An excellent reply Dave. I accept that my own argument will not apply in the event of someone seeing Everton as a trophy purchase as @Woolly Blue rightly pointed out. However in all other circumstances I believe my argument to be valid.

I make the point about urgency because I am actually addressing the Board and shareholders. I believe we may be at an inflection point in terms of the value of the "second tier" clubs. The combination of already much larger income increasing at a faster rate plus most of the "first tier" clubs in full expansion mode (new stadiums, capacity increases, large investment in infra-structure, global branding and commercial activities) compared to our moribund expansion prospects without huge capital investment will seriously impact a potential investor/purchaser's view of the value of the equity.

Thus the urgency - if the desire to sell or seek new investment is present then now, and I mean right now, is probably the best time to do it.

If this was a widget manufacturing company facing the same competitive pressures and suffering from the same lack of investment I would be saying the same thing to their shareholders.

The urgency I am stressing is not some vain attempt to make the Board spend more in the transfer market, it is a genuine response to an analysis of the risks associated in thinking that just because revenues are going to explode the club must be worth more in the future - that's unlikely to be the case.

 

[nil satis]

Shouldn't be allowed opinions unless they have remortgaged their houses mate

Ha Ha Didn't think me and you were allowed to talk! but here goes, just saying a little ,tiny, wincey bit of evidence is often useful to back up an opinion the intelligent often look for it in forming an opinion.

 

[davek]

An excellent reply Dave. I accept that my own argument will not apply in the event of someone seeing Everton as a trophy purchase as @Woolly Blue rightly pointed out. However in all other circumstances I believe my argument to be valid.

I make the point about urgency because I am actually addressing the Board and shareholders. I believe we may be at an inflection point in terms of the value of the "second tier" clubs. The combination of already much larger income increasing at a faster rate plus most of the "first tier" clubs in full expansion mode (new stadiums, capacity increases, large investment in infra-structure, global branding and commercial activities) compared to our moribund expansion prospects without huge capital investment will seriously impact a potential investor/purchaser's view of the value of the equity.

Thus the urgency - if the desire to sell or seek new investment is present then now, and I mean right now, is probably the best time to do it.

If this was a widget manufacturing company facing the same competitive pressures and suffering from the same lack of investment I would be saying the same thing to their shareholders.

The urgency I am stressing is not some vain attempt to make the Board spend more in the transfer market, it is a genuine response to an analysis of the risks associated in thinking that just because revenues are going to explode the club must be worth more in the future - that's unlikely to be the case.

Yeah, I can see that argument about risk for the owners. And if the second tier clubs in this league start to translate investment into a competitive edge then they could be in a lot of trouble with their continuing strategy.

I've said before that your's is a persuasive argument because it has an incontrovertible law built into: adapt and change or face the consequences. To me, though, the torpor at boardroom and senior officer level at Everton is set in - they now have only one strategy: the long term one of selling up. The Kirkby gambit represented its one last attempt to make things happen in the short to medium term. Pretty soon after it failed (we can say now in hindsight) they settled down to sitting tight, staying out of the way and keeping the plate spinning until such a point that a sale could bag them the sort of profit they feel they deserve, having dug in for all that time. The desire for anything outside that simply isn't there. They're just not open to any intervention and the matter is closed until they find their buyer. The consequences these people fear they face are not from relative decline vis-a-vis other clubs but being pitchforked unceremoniously out of their comfort zone on a future sale by fan unrest - hence their typical media onslaught every time they face internal dissent.

To go back to Woolly's point (and your example above) this is not an ordinary industry and we know from experience that club's who dont look that attractive can find their buyer because it's not all about the acquisition of a well run organisation with all the components of a sound business in place. That's not to say that clubs like West Ham with a new stadium haven't put themselves into a very good position regarding future investment, but (and I guess this is the Everton owners' stance) the type of buyer who'll come in for a PL club will be forgiving of balance sheets (within reason) and facility requirements and purchase anyway. If you haven't got that type of money then the PL is no place for anyone seeking a takeover of any one of its clubs.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Right I'll break it down

You asked me a question

and I answered directly



Then you questioned why ive just named random transfers








Mods I didnt insult him unlike he did to me, and I have only made this post to clear up any confusion as the poster asked me to

Sorry Joey...a pc glitch at this end separated your response from my original question......although subsequently I think some one else has suggested that at least a couple of those players would not have come to us...and the others I suspect would not have been on our radar.

 

[Woolly Blue]

It's stating the obvious but both Woods and Kenwright are Blues. They're both pushing 70 and Kenwright's been ill recently. I don't want to get into the details of Kenwright's health issues but, as a general point aging and ill health tends to change peoples perceptions somewhat.

I doubt either of them wants their latter years to be associated with a managed decline of the club so the ball is very much in their court.

I'm with Dave on this one, I think they've got three or four seasons to do something which makes a difference. I'm not convinced their aim is a payday, but, if it is, then to maximise their returns, they need to be putting something in place soon to do so.

If they do nothing, I'd say the value of the club won't change much one way or the other, but money found and spent over the next 12 to 18 months is likely to be money well spent and would be reflected in the club's value in three or four years time.

They could take a risk and purely rely on a minimum spend, investment in youth and not worry about other clubs overtaking us, but that'd be a big risk.

Earl's a different kettle of fish. I presume this is purely an investment to him, so assuming he wants that investment to grow, he may see timescales differently.

 

[davek]

Dave, they have there eye fixed on the new TV deal and then they can keep using a revised playbook for another 4-5 years. Its all about the short term of tapping into the future funds with a long term plan of looking fog a mug to buy the club of them for a sickening profit.

They have always know the capital funding issues and has always been a risk but there playbook and the new TV deal gets them through another 4-5 years.

Yeah. I think so too mate. The sort of crossroads the esk points to as possibly having arrived at is important though....but I think it's importance lies in it's threat to Everton's position and stature in the pecking order - with ramifications off field for these owners - as much as relative decline in the clubs value with a sale in mind.

 

[Solidblue]

It's stating the obvious but both Woods and Kenwright are Blues. They're both pushing 70 and Kenwright's been ill recently. I don't want to get into the details of Kenwright's health issues but, as a general point aging and ill health tends to change peoples perceptions somewhat.

I doubt either of them wants their latter years to be associated with a managed decline of the club so the ball is very much in their court.

I'm with Dave on this one, I think they've got three or four seasons to do something which makes a difference. I'm not convinced their aim is a payday, but, if it is, then to maximise their returns, they need to be putting something in place soon to do so.

If they do nothing, I'd say the value of the club won't change much one way or the other, but money found and spent over the next 12 to 18 months is likely to be money well spent and would be reflected in the club's value in three or four years time.

They could take a risk and purely rely on a minimum spend, investment in youth and not worry about other clubs overtaking us, but that'd be a big risk.

Earl's a different kettle of fish. I presume this is purely an investment to him, so assuming he wants that investment to grow, he may see timescales differently.

Yeah I agree with you on this one. I do think bill means well even if he can't back it up sometimes.