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

[Chang Elephant]

Stop taking yourself and this forum too seriously, lighten up.

No more personal remarks ta mate

 

[evo1878]

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.

@davek - i reckon the point @the esk is trying to make is that the urgency is no longer about us competing with the top 4 or 6 clubs but with us being able to compete with the so-called second tier clubs in 12 months time because we as a business are hopelessly undercapitalised and the only assets we own are those on the pitch.

And yes i totally agree 100% with with you that there's no urgency propelling the Board along because they have a lack of vision and ambition to the compete with the way the market has changed from a local appeal into an international commercial operation.

 

[The Esk]

@davek - i reckon the point @the esk is trying to make is that the urgency is no longer about us competing with the top 4 or 6 clubs but with us being able to compete with the so-called second tier clubs in 12 months time because we as a business are hopelessly undercapitalised and the only assets we own are those on the pitch.

And yes i totally agree 100% with with you that there's no urgency propelling them along because they have a lack of vision and ambition to the compete with the way the market has changed to an international commercial operation.

I agree, if the squad remains fit we should out perform our higher spending competitors (even in the second tier) - however this is a gamble rather than a well thought out business strategy.

The real urgency is for the Board and shareholders alike. The "do nothing and hold" strategy based on the assumption that the equity value increases in line with the increase in income is fundamentally flawed. Our competitor's income levels are increasing at a faster rate than ours, and they have the luxury of viable balance sheets to buy players and build their businesses.

Increasingly the level of investment required to catch up increases for Everton, and as a result the value of our existing equity can only fall in the future.

 

[evo1878]

I agree, if the squad remains fit we should out perform our higher spending competitors (even in the second tier) - however this is a gamble rather than a well thought out business strategy.

The real urgency is for the Board and shareholders alike. The "do nothing and hold" strategy based on the assumption that the equity value increases in line with the increase in income is fundamentally flawed. Our competitor's income levels are increasing at a faster rate than ours, and they have the luxury of viable balance sheets to buy players and build their businesses.

Increasingly the level of investment required to catch up increases for Everton, and as a result the value of our existing equity can only fall in the future.

'Do nothing and hold' strategy surely means standing still / stagnation? Any business that ever stood still was actually going backwards (without perhaps realising it at the time)?

 

[Steve Wigan]

To be honest Steve its not a net spend that bothers me,60k on Coleman compared to the amount spent on Shaw for example,I know who id rather have,its just the whole,sit back and do nothing attitude that seems to ooze out of the board room

The over emphasis placed on 'net spend' is something I've been arguing against for years. Most of the time the team on the field representing Everton has been at the very least competitive, and usually better than that. Its common practice amongst supporters of most clubs to find sticks with which to beat the board....I don't think that in most cases being a director of a football club is worth the hassle. Directors are an easy target, and supporters will always have many different ideas on how a club should be run. It was much more fun pre-internet...we could concentrate on the football and not the politics !!

 

[Ihaters]

The over emphasis placed on 'net spend' is something I've been arguing against for years. Most of the time the team on the field representing Everton has been at the very least competitive, and usually better than that. Its common practice amongst supporters of most clubs to find sticks with which to beat the board....I don't think that in most cases being a director of a football club is worth the hassle. Directors are an easy target, and supporters will always have many different ideas on how a club should be run. It was much more fun pre-internet...we could concentrate on the football and not the politics !!

Yeah but that is entirely down to the managers and scouts, if our net spend had been higher, then as well as the team we had, we could also of had a couple more quality players, resulting in a genuine chance of better teams than what we have fielded.

The board however deserve significant praise for the managers they have bought in

 

[chicoazul]

Seen this from Howard Kendall.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/howard-kendall-everton-fans-who-9896605

 

[Steve Wigan]

Yeah but that is entirely down to the managers and scouts, if our net spend had been higher, then as well as the team we had, we could also of had a couple more quality players, resulting in a genuine chance of better teams than what we have fielded.

The board however deserve significant praise for the managers they have bought in

Personally I don't think an extra 12-15 million net spend a season would make a worthwhile difference. We have usually been near 'the top of the rest' and a different level of money is required to shop for the same quality as City, United, etc. Just look at the money City have spent this season, and although United paid us £28 milion for Fellaini last year, their new purchases have probably relegated him to the bench. I do think that Martinez is trying to gradually build something at Everton...but its a difficult job when the media is always trying to sell your best players to the clubs who already have lots of the 'best' players. I would love us to keep Stones, but think it an even money bet, thats all.

 

[D410]

Seen this from Howard Kendall.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/howard-kendall-everton-fans-who-9896605

Mike Parry, Martin Samuels, Ian Snoddin and Kendall all entitled to there opinion but don't agree with any of them

 

[Ihaters]

Personally I don't think an extra 12-15 million net spend a season would make a worthwhile difference. We have usually been near 'the top of the rest' and a different level of money is required to shop for the same quality as City, United, etc. Just look at the money City have spent this season, and although United paid us £28 milion for Fellaini last year, their new purchases have probably relegated him to the bench. I do think that Martinez is trying to gradually build something at Everton...but its a difficult job when the media is always trying to sell your best players to the clubs who already have lots of the 'best' players. I would love us to keep Stones, but think it an even money bet, thats all.

Ah but if Stones joined a team that had an extra 10m a year spend, we would have less chance of losing him from a team that cost an additional 100m on top of what was spent last decade.

We could of afforded Mata to sit behind Lukaku for example. That would make a difference wouldn't it? We may of even won something. Or Stones may not of got a game, who knows? I'd like to though.

I still don't mind the board as it is, as they have massively improved us on the pitch with their decisions, but their decisions would be made so much easier if they were better with the financial aspect.

We are still considering ourselves a top of the rest team in hope last year was a blip, but if it wasn't, their financial setup leaves little room for another poor season, and a combo of their ability to pick a manager, negotiate hard and an additional 10m a season imo would make a huge difference.

 

[Stan Lee Park]

Ah but if Stones joined a team that had an extra 10m a year spend, we would have less chance of losing him from a team that cost an additional 100m on top of what was spent last decade.

We could of afforded Mata to sit behind Lukaku for example. That would make a difference wouldn't it? We may of even won something. Or Stones may not of got a game, who knows? I'd like to though.

I still don't mind the board as it is, as they have massively improved us on the pitch with their decisions, but their decisions would be made so much easier if they were better with the financial aspect.

We are still considering ourselves a top of the rest team in hope last year was a blip, but if it wasn't, their financial setup leaves little room for another poor season, and a combo of their ability to pick a manager, negotiate hard and an additional 10m a season imo would make a huge difference.

I don't understand your first sentence at all, to be honest.
The extra £10 million per year would not have enabled us to buy Mata - he cost £38m and he went to play for a club playing in the Champions League

 

[Ihaters]

I don't understand your first sentence at all, to be honest.
The extra £10 million per year would not have enabled us to buy Mata - he cost £38m and he went to play for a club playing in the Champions League

And still have 60ml change from a decades spend, and we could of been in the CL several times with just a little more quality.

 

[joey_macmo]

So let me get this straight?

A £24m-£30m player every other year would not have made a difference?

 

[joey_macmo]

And still have 60ml change from a decades spend, and we could of been in the CL several times with just a little more quality.

never mind the fact it allows you to buy Mata from Valencia in the first place for £24m.

if you extrapolate that over the last decade our front 3 is now Rooney, Lukaku & Mata in addition to our current squad plus we could have an extra £72m-£90m of talent.

But that wouldnt make much of a difference

 

[BoysInBlue]

Finally! A national journalist writes a piece questioning the Kenwright regime. Well done Simon Hart @simonph22 .

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-in-transfers-and-goodison-park-10466299.html