The Everton Board Thread (Inc. Bill Kenwright / Blue Union)

[sirblue57]

Is this just a worry, or is there a strong undercurrent of rumour and speculation that this has already happened?

The subtext of everything I've read over the past few years, not really including Kenwright's rhetoric, is that the board will happily take their original investment back and aren't looking to profit. The evidence is out there and anyone* with an understanding of business and the way that football clubs are run should know that there isn't a great deal of profiteering to be had from buying into sport.

*this isn't a dig in any way at the Kenwrongers before anyone kicks off at me again, more a catchall anyone to include Kenwright, Earl et al.

"AHEM" how much did the Rs directors make when they sold to the yanks?, oh, and the mancs, villas board. all made a decent profit i think.

one other question, why knock back KD, with all its plusses, yet go for KD, with none of them? when you come up with the answer, you'll understand why people are cynical over this boards motives.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Standard business practice.

1. Buy your stake in the venture by purchasing stock

2. Invest in infrastructure and grow the business

3. As your business grows then so does your market value

4. Sell off at a profit


Everton Board business Practice

1. Buy your stake in the venture by purchasing stock, if you don't have the cash, then borrow off some loan shark, and effectively sell your soul to the devil.

2. Do not Invest in infrastructure, and do not grow the business. Put all your faith in your manager, to produce results, but on no account, back him up with funds to replenish and improve the squad

3. Watch and do nothing as your business stagnates. As the shareholders have their eyes elsewhere on their other main business interests. (Arcadia Group, Planet Hollywood, Some crap west end musical)

4. Try and hawk the club at a ridiculously over inflated price per share

 

[sirblue57]

so your BKs advisor, shame on you.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

so your BKs advisor, shame on you.

It's Sir Phil to you - if you don't mind

 

[sirblue57]

your a bad man, SIR.

 

[BlackToffee]

You've picked out a point that no-one made there. The worry is that Kenwright and Spurs investors have already turned down serious bids from credible buyers because their mark up profit was not enough..........they're looking for the "right buyer" for their pockets, not the "right buyer" for the club going fowards, and strangling the club with inaction/incompetence in the meantime.

Standard business practice.

1. Buy your stake in the venture by purchasing stock

2. Invest in infrastructure and grow the business

3. As your business grows then so does your market value

4. Sell off at a profit


Everton Board business Practice

1. Buy your stake in the venture by purchasing stock, if you don't have the cash, then borrow off some loan shark, and effectively sell your soul to the devil.

2. Do not Invest in infrastructure, and do not grow the business. Put all your faith in your manager, to produce results, but on no account, back him up with funds to replenish and improve the squad

3. Watch and do nothing as your business stagnates. As the shareholders have their eyes elsewhere on their other main business interests. (Arcadia Group, Planet Hollywood, Some crap west end musical)

4. Try and hawk the club at a ridiculously over inflated price per share[/QUOTE]

I could point to other posts but this more recent one is sufficient. We don't know the price of the shares you are assuming based on your opinion of your club and no firm facts. Its ok to speculate, but you shouldn't assume speculation is fact without some real facts to back them up. No doubt you or others have those facts. That's all I'm saying. Because something sounds good doesn't make it true.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

True - I am speculating, I love a bit of speculation

*Lines up against the wall and waits for the first bullet

 

[BlackToffee]

Can only apologize I wasn't about to help out last night Neiler. Good work under duress. Watch your grammar though

This post I agree with. The board have made mistakes. A horrendous one in regards to KD and they completely misjudged the potential reaction to DK. Despite this, Everton are in an infinitely better position than we were in before Kenwright's involvement.

Comparisons have been made with several of our peers in the EPL and the 'investment' placed into the clubs by their respective boards. My take on the Arsenal/Villa models are below.

Arsenal - despite their 'sustainable' model; large self owned stadium, high ticket prices & sell outs. Wenger has admitted he still needs to sell £20m worth of talent a year to break even. Their wonderful figures for the last year excluded a large tax break which has been offset or amortised over time.

Aston Villa - completely and utterly in hock to Randy Lerner. Whilst not in the same league as Chelsea/Man City, Lerner is a wealthy, sports 'wise' investor. He was able to purchase a club lacking in debt, the legacy of Doug Ellis' regime. He has however personally lent up to £100m in the club. This is the bit I think people are missing. He's not donated this money; he's invested it. Should he get bored, walk away or should Villa get relegated and the revenue streams dry up, Aston Villa will owe him that money and I'm fairly sure he'll want it back.

Living in the Midlands I spend a lot of time with Villa/Birmingham fans. Both groups have complained about their boards recently; Villa in the Ellis era, Blues in the Bongo Twins era. However, both Ellis & Gold/Sullivan ran tight ships, didn't load the clubs with artificial investment and debt - and much like the current Everton board were pilloried for this.

Since the respective sales, a percentage of their fans are happy as there have been new players signed albeit at the cost of stability/consistency in the management (something everyone down here is incredibly jealous of Everton for). The issue comes, as I've no doubt we'll see with Birmingham in the not too distant future, when things don't go well on the field. The owners will want out as they can't maintain the revenue to ensure consistent turnover, but they also want their investment back.

No buyer = Administration.

Unfortunately for everyone, the everyman's idea of how a football club should be run has been hugely soured by the Chelsea and Man City ownership models and the 'why can't this happen to us?' brigade appear. The new financial regs will identify more problems with more clubs, but while certain clubs continue to pander to the obscene wage demands of 'average' players then Everton and their peers are going to be placed under undue pressure to achieve the Golden Egg of a Top 4 finish.

Based on all this, I am still wrong to think that 6th/7th in the EPL is as good as we can expect to achieve?

Brilliant post, worth repeating, and yes, sorry Neller. Chico, I'm not a kenrighter, as nice as that phrase might sound. I'm a realist and pragmatist - I start from where we are then try and work towards a different future.

The only difference I have with the post is that I think that we can do better than 6/7th in the premier league.

 

[davek]

Standard business practice.

1. Buy your stake in the venture by purchasing stock

2. Invest in infrastructure and grow the business

3. As your business grows then so does your market value

4. Sell off at a profit


Everton Board business Practice

1. Buy your stake in the venture by purchasing stock, if you don't have the cash, then borrow off some loan shark, and effectively sell your soul to the devil.

2. Do not Invest in infrastructure, and do not grow the business. Put all your faith in your manager, to produce results, but on no account, back him up with funds to replenish and improve the squad

3. Watch and do nothing as your business stagnates. As the shareholders have their eyes elsewhere on their other main business interests. (Arcadia Group, Planet Hollywood, Some crap west end musical)

4. Try and hawk the club at a ridiculously over inflated price per share

100% this.

I wish people would stop making tvvats out of themselves by pointing to some non-existent 'stability' Kenwright and co. bring.

It's a football company in an industry where majority shareholders are expected to provide or find investment. All this lot have done is stick their hand out for tv money and ticket sale revenue. They couldn't run a ****ing whelk stall.

 

[milks]

"AHEM" how much did the Rs directors make when they sold to the yanks?, oh, and the mancs, villas board. all made a decent profit i think.

one other question, why knock back KD, with all its plusses, yet go for KD, with none of them? when you come up with the answer, you'll understand why people are cynical over this boards motives.

Liverpool - I understand the American Fund bought the club effectively from RBS. I doubt given the stink they kicked up that Hicks & Gillett made any profit on it.

Villa - Doug Ellis as the owner of the club will have made a profit for sure, but then he bought the club for not very much, cleared the debts himself and then sold on a viable business to Lerner. A very, very different scenario to that at Everton.

Man City - Everyone seems to have forgotten the utter shambles that City were in after the purchase from Thaksin Sinawatra. Again, given his circumstances and his incarceration he'd not have profited a great deal when the Sheik got involved.

In respect of DK/KD. Time? Viability? KD was a farce. What could have been the making of Everton in the post-Sky money era of football has become a reference case for bad comms and piss poor management. Years later DK was a viable option for the club. New stadium, combined investment in the build/development process, lower running costs, higher revenues - however they simply failed to grasp the appetites of the percentage of the fans who vehemently opposed the relocation. There were plusses for DK , however the overall resentment towards a move out of Liverpool seemedly outweighed them.

It's not a perfect or complete answer granted, but it's my take on matters.

 

[BlackToffee]

100% this.

I wish people would stop making tvvats out of themselves by pointing to some non-existent 'stability' Kenwright and co. bring.

We are not in the type of debt that would invite administration. I would call that stability. What would you call it?

It's a football company in an industry where majority shareholders are expected to provide or find investment. All this lot have done is stick their hand out for tv money and ticket sale revenue. They couldn't run a ****ing whelk stall.

While I'd like a self sustaining model I have to start from where we are. Like it or not, our industry is based on sky money and ticket revenues. We can't magic those away. The trick is to manage it in a way that we don't become a Leeds United. The board have done this to their best ability, but as others have stated, they've hit a glass ceiling.

 

[sirblue57]

Liverpool - I understand the American Fund bought the club effectively from RBS. I doubt given the stink they kicked up that Hicks & Gillett made any profit on it.no the owners PRIOR to the planks, sorry , yanks

Villa - Doug Ellis as the owner of the club will have made a profit for sure, but then he bought the club for not very much, cleared the debts himself and then sold on a viable business to Lerner. A very, very different scenario to that at Everton.

Man City - Everyone seems to have forgotten the utter shambles that City were in after the purchase from Thaksin Sinawatra. Again, given his circumstances and his incarceration he'd not have profited a great deal when the Sheik got involved.again, the previous owners

In respect of DK/KD. Time? Viability? KD was a farce. What could have been the making of Everton in the post-Sky money era of football has become a reference case for bad comms and piss poor management. Years later DK was a viable option for the club. New stadium, combined investment in the build/development process, lower running costs, higher revenues - however they simply failed to grasp the appetites of the percentage of the fans who vehemently opposed the relocation. There were plusses for DK , however the overall resentment towards a move out of Liverpool seemedly outweighed them.

It's not a perfect or complete answer granted, but it's my take on matters.

KD was the chance of a lifetime, at the wrong time. it caused a split in the boardroom, which the only way BK could win, was to lie his little cotton socks off. enter, the FSF and a Mr Samuelson, to depart again quicker than you can say,WHAT THE F##K HAPPENED?.
kirkby was the last chance saloon for making a quick buck and getting the hell out for some of our boardmembers, just read the confusing testimony over wether the club is for sale during the inquiry, comedy gold, and as for thr profits, £6m PA, poor quality stadium etc, which was the reason a lot of the fans opposed it.

and the current situation, we borrow from FUTURE sky monies each year, god help us if we get relegated, we are in a situation where the banks will take a percentage of transfer fees, before we can buy replacements. the club cannot even build an annexxe without hitting problems, name ONE other club which has had the poor planning we have had to put up with. no matter how you put it, the board is inept. apart from the fact BK has lied to the supporters to achieve ,what? we are still at GP, the failures behind us have cost us more than money, they show the club as incapable of delivering any project without making a b##ls up. you may have faith in them, i would not trust them to deliver pizzas.

 

[sirblue57]

While I'd like a self sustaining model I have to start from where we are. Like it or not, our industry is based on sky money and ticket revenues. We can't magic those away. The trick is to manage it in a way that we don't become a Leeds United. The board have done this to their best ability, but as others have stated, they've hit a glass ceiling.

yeah, but they were heading for the door.

 

[davek]

We are not in the type of debt that would invite administration. I would call that stability. What would you call it?

I'd call it a living hand to mouth existence with no hope of competing successfully.

Not good enough.
​

While I'd like a self sustaining model I have to start from where we are. Like it or not, our industry is based on sky money and ticket revenues. We can't magic those away. The trick is to manage it in a way that we don't become a Leeds United. The board have done this to their best ability, but as others have stated, they've hit a glass ceiling.

The board have done precisely **** all to grow the business side of things successfully. That is a third stream of revenue they have an epic fail on. Now if they'd been in charge for a couple of years you'd maybe give them the benefit of the doubt, but these morons have been in situ for 11 long years and come up with a set of outcomes that some first year NVQ business student would get a bollocking for.

 

[davek]

Liverpool - I understand the American Fund bought the club effectively from RBS. I doubt given the stink they kicked up that Hicks & Gillett made any profit on it.

Villa - Doug Ellis as the owner of the club will have made a profit for sure, but then he bought the club for not very much, cleared the debts himself and then sold on a viable business to Lerner. A very, very different scenario to that at Everton.

Man City - Everyone seems to have forgotten the utter shambles that City were in after the purchase from Thaksin Sinawatra. Again, given his circumstances and his incarceration he'd not have profited a great deal when the Sheik got involved.

In respect of DK/KD. Time? Viability? KD was a farce. What could have been the making of Everton in the post-Sky money era of football has become a reference case for bad comms and piss poor management. Years later DK was a viable option for the club. New stadium, combined investment in the build/development process, lower running costs, higher revenues - however they simply failed to grasp the appetites of the percentage of the fans who vehemently opposed the relocation. There were plusses for DK , however the overall resentment towards a move out of Liverpool seemedly outweighed them.

It's not a perfect or complete answer granted, but it's my take on matters.

No it wasn't. It was a complete failure of judgement to even get involved in. There was no way whatsoever that DK could have gotten past a Secretary of State. It was that outrageous a plan. The club knew all of that and still went out and signed an exclusivity deal with Tesco/KMBC and wasted three years and £3M on the pantomime.