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

[SweetJesus849]

I agree that Kenwright and this current board aren't investing, but to be fair, would you? Football is a horrible business and why anyone gets involved in it is beyond me. You're basically throwing money away and you're never getting it back. It's like selling your soul to the devil.

At the end of the day, our main product is football - what is produced on the pitch. It's no wonder we're supposedly stagnating when we play 8 defenders against sides like West Brom. Simply put right, I'm suggesting we basically stop trying to park the bus and just grow a pair and attack. Like, for example, playing Arteta further forward/on the left, playing 2 strikers more often, just generally going forward. Christ if we have to bludgeon youth, we bludgeon youth. I'm pretty sure Ross Barkley could become a marketable name anyway. Also, expand more by selling shirts in North America and Australia perhaps?

I'm not praising Bill Kenwright in any way, I just feel there are other alternatives to raising funds.

Also, I saw someone compare Kenwright to Sepp Blatter before. All I have to say there is don't get me started. Blatter runs FIFA with Stalin-esque ruthlessness and authority. He's more corrupt than anyone and it's highly coincidental that his only opponent is charged with bribery whilst the "FIFA Ethics Committee" finds him completely clean. Blatter is far worse for any of this corruption stuff than any man I've ever seen.

"Crisis? What is a crisis?"

 

[Tubey]

I meant the comparison to Blatter in that Kenwright has total, untouchable authority on the club regardless of the view of the fans. Which is, of course, true of most club chairmen, but Kenwright to me seems completely out of touch with the regular fan and, like Blatter, he generally only allows himself to be seen when Everton are doing well and he wants to milk the publicity. If he's not being adulated, then it's everyone else who has a problem, not him.

I don't think Kenwright is corrupt of course!

 

[Neiler]

I meant the comparison to Blatter in that Kenwright has total, untouchable authority on the club regardless of the view of the fans. Which is, of course, true of most club chairmen, but Kenwright to me seems completely out of touch with the regular fan and, like Blatter, he generally only allows himself to be seen when Everton are doing well and he wants to milk the publicity. If he's not being adulated, then it's everyone else who has a problem, not him.

I don't think Kenwright is corrupt of course!

Anyone who thinks our board or any other bar the obvious exemptions of City (whos books are a bit of a disgrace) puts their own money in to a football club is deludeing themselves really - your advocateing for a model that really doesnt exist in modern football becuase the sums for non gaurenteed success are just to vast. So really your harking back to a time long past in terms of models. a takeover is irrelevant for me, artifical wealth is unhealthy for the club in the main. Even if its unpallitable and frustrateing the current model of spending what we earn is the most healthy. Self sustainability is the only show in town.

 

[Matt Damon]

Anyone who thinks our board or any other bar the obvious exemptions of City (whos books are a bit of a disgrace) puts their own money in to a football club is deludeing themselves really - your advocateing for a model that really doesnt exist in modern football becuase the sums for non gaurenteed success are just to vast. So really your harking back to a time long past in terms of models. a takeover is irrelevant for me, artifical wealth is unhealthy for the club in the main. Even if its unpallitable and frustrateing the current model of spending what we earn is the most healthy. Self sustainability is the only show in town.

Infrastructure. Infrastructure. INFRASTRUCTURE.

 

[BlackToffee]

hmm ,i posted my opinion on a thread about the board, its the same opinion i admit, but thats because no one has given me a good reason to change it. if you find this boring, skip my posts, or, try to give me something that will change my mind and opinion. i am not a closed book, as i previously supported BK. it was only HIS actions that changed my opinion. the floor is yours.

Actually, I'm not interested in changing your mind. You have a view which I respect but don't agree with everything you say.

My only interest is to point out that your view is not shared by the majority of Evertonians and that the Board do have a lot of support, even as in my case as a critical "friend". I also try to point out that doing something more productive other than criticising is harder than people like to think.

 

[sirblue57]

Actually, I'm not interested in changing your mind. You have a view which I respect but don't agree with everything you say.

My only interest is to point out that your view is not shared by the majority of Evertonians and that the Board do have a lot of support, even as in my case as a critical "friend". I also try to point out that doing something more productive other than criticising is harder than people like to think.

but the problem is, some people think the board are "ok,not the best. but look at....." i try to point out that they are not good enough, they are not doing a good job, and we, the supporters CAN make a difference. look at matt damon, making great points about villa, maybe. but what about putting that passion into whats wrong with our own club first? i just wonder what would have happened if rooney had not been as good, if we had not had that windfall at that time, where would we be? all i want is whats best for this club and supporters, that,sadly, is not bill kenwright or this board. eleven years, how many mistakes? how many sound decisions? how lucky with rooney? what will have to happen to make our supporters realise, we are a bad season from meltdown, our finances are so finely balanced. but lets see what happens, i hope that bill proves me wrong and finds investment,but i wont hold my breath.

 

[Allezfan]

It's no wonder we're supposedly stagnating when we play 8 defenders against sides like West Brom.

Stop throwing that line around, mate. It's misleading bollocks.

For a start you can't count. In the two games against West Brom we played Arteta, Cahill, Pienaar, Yakubu and Anichebe in front of a five man defense in one and Osman, Anichebe and Arteta in the other. That only makes eight defenders if you're counting Howard which if you are, is bollocks.

Plus Man U played seven outfield defenders in their FA Cup game against Arsenal, was it a defensive lineup there? No, because those defenders were playing in midfield, due to a lack of fit midfielders, so the formation wasn't half as defense minded as you're implying. Bringing wing backs forward and playing them as straight forward wingers is a standard move used by loads of coatches from Barcelona to Barnsley and isn't a particuarly defensive tactic. Coleman on the wing can't really be counted as a defender because that's not what he spends most of the match doing.

What you're actually bitching about is the use of two converted defenders in midfield sheilding our back four when he could put actually attacking players in there, and puzzingly he often does against the best sides, and I'm entirely with you on that. But this eight defenders **** is spining it to make it seem so much worse than it actually is and frankly insults my intelligence.

 

[davek]

Anyone who thinks our board or any other bar the obvious exemptions of City (whos books are a bit of a disgrace) puts their own money in to a football club is deludeing themselves really - your advocateing for a model that really doesnt exist in modern football becuase the sums for non gaurenteed success are just to vast. So really your harking back to a time long past in terms of models. a takeover is irrelevant for me, artifical wealth is unhealthy for the club in the main. Even if its unpallitable and frustrateing the current model of spending what we earn is the most healthy. Self sustainability is the only show in town.

We're selling players to pay off banks and failing to compete even for the last European places. I suppose if your definition of health and sustenance is to get progressivley worse each year it must all make sense.

Lol!

 

[Ihaters]

It amazes me that the defence of Kenwright is that "we're not as screwed as <insert club here>", instead of attempting to point out how we're actually better off with Kenwright in charge.

Yet the same people defending Bill will criticise Blatter, because "Blue Bill" has completely mesmorised them.
as those who think the sun shines out of Bills backside will think it no matter how big the mountain of evidence to the contrary is.

but those who argue that Kenwright is good for our club are trying to argue that the sky is green in my eyes.

And people applaud him for it.

Who are these people?
I have been on many forums, and although I have seen some that are more level headed than others, I don't think I have ever seen anyone even close to these people described above.

 

[Sheedy's Third]

We're selling players to pay off banks and failing to compete even for the last European places. I suppose if your definition of health and sustenance is to get progressivley worse each year it must all make sense.

Lol!

Normally we´d could of made Europe with a 7th place finish.But in a way I´m glad we didn´t . Who have we sold by the way?Have I missed something?Or are you stillon about Pienarr and Vuaghn?

 

[sirblue57]

Who are these people?
I have been on many forums, and although I have seen some that are more level headed than others, I don't think I have ever seen anyone even close to these people described above.

read some of the posts on here, you may come to a similar conclusion.

 

[kenada_blue]

Anyone who thinks our board or any other bar the obvious exemptions of City (whos books are a bit of a disgrace) puts their own money in to a football club is deludeing themselves really - your advocateing for a model that really doesnt exist in modern football becuase the sums for non gaurenteed success are just to vast. So really your harking back to a time long past in terms of models. a takeover is irrelevant for me, artifical wealth is unhealthy for the club in the main. Even if its unpallitable and frustrateing the current model of spending what we earn is the most healthy. Self sustainability is the only show in town.

We are not going to turn into arsenal overnight.

It'll take decades to turn us into that.

So let's all keep it down and wallow in staying stagnant for a few years till someone buys the club and figures out something.

Nothing is going to change for a loooooooong time.

 

[Neiler]

We're selling players to pay off banks and failing to compete even for the last European places. I suppose if your definition of health and sustenance is to get progressivley worse each year it must all make sense.

Lol!

Can i ask which player we sold to pay a bank please? Or is that a wild false accusation?

 

[Neiler]

We are not going to turn into arsenal overnight.

It'll take decades to turn us into that.

So let's all keep it down and wallow in staying stagnant for a few years till someone buys the club and figures out something.

Nothing is going to change for a loooooooong time.

I beleive your wrong mate, infact i think your missing an overall trend in football, almost every club is trying to keep within their means now and be self sustainable that involves incoming and outgoing players. Other clubs have taken a leaf out of our book and are now buying potential and selling on at high fees and recycleing their squads.

A takeover isnt the answer, its about the ability to grow your income base by whatever means and keep your costs as low as possible. A model of ungenerated wealth coming into a club is unhealthy in the long terms and marked by risks.

The ability of the board to generate increased income is a debate in itself, but since they have taken over income has increased by 300%. Many will say that is largely due to TV Money and it is, but its relative because other clubs receive the same, clearly the ability to manage that income and use it properly is what is important in the sense that with it we have conisently been able to finish ahead of the majority of PL clubs.

I would accept we have hit a glass ceiling in terms of our ability to maximise the income and this is largely down to Goodison and infrastructure, the potebntial is their though, which is the next most favourable direction the club can move in. A takeover and blowing 100mill on players would kill us in the long term - im sure of that. The club not just the team need to grow.

I dont think we would be decades of acheiveing a self sustainable in fact its more or less what we're doing, what we need is to is generate more income.costs at the club are kept pretty tight, we can afford what we have, we just dont have anything left to invest in players, unless we generate income through players sales.

Anyone kidding themselves that someone is going to come in and invest 200mill on players is fooling themselves, that day is over if it ever existed, City are the mark of what needs to eb invested to compeate and it wont happen again. Its not even needed for me and would do more harm then good - developing an unhealthy need of the club on one person. It doesnt matter who is in charge to be honest, once their is a model of self sustainability and development, which is why a new ground is so vital and why i have no sympathey for anyone who was against DK and now is moaning about being stagnant - i called it at the time.

Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Infrastructre - means of production to the commune.

 

[Matt Damon]

I beleive your wrong mate, infact i think your missing an overall trend in football, almost every club is trying to keep within their means now and be self sustainable that involves incoming and outgoing players. Other clubs have taken a leaf out of our book

I would accept we have hit a glass ceiling in terms of our ability to maximise the income and this is largely down to Goodison and infrastructure, the potebntial is their though, whhic is the next most favourable direction the club can move in. A takeover and blowing 100mill on players would kill us in the long term - im sur eof that. The club not just the team need to grow.

I dont think we would be decades of acheiveing a self sustainable model personaly as we all know costs at the club are kept pretty tight, investment has to come with a model of self sustainability.

Anyone kidding themselves that someone is going to come in and invest 200mill on players is fooling themselves, its not even needed and would do more harm then good, developing an unhealthy need of the club on one person. It doesnt matter who is charge to be honest, once their is a model os self sustainability and development which is why a new ground is vital.

Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Infrastructure - means of production to the commune.

Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Infrastructure

That is the means to give Moyes the means.

However if this board can't fund it or the ability to realise it to support Moyes - it's time for this board to go!