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

[sirblue57]

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 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, 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 so vital and why i have no sympathey for anyone who was against DK and now is moaning about being stagnant - i called at the time.

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

a lot of good points, but i can see several problems,
1) the current board , the failures are there for all to see, and without the rooney money, well, we may never know just how close/lucky we were.
2) a new buyer, i have said for a while that a new owner does not need to spend millions on the squad, a reasonable amount each season to give freshness and add quality , with moyes record a budget of £10-15 m would see a much better squad. probably balanced to a degree by outgoing sales as well
3) the supporters, will only get nervous when we are in the bottom three, or to close for comfort. and then will probably go for moyes,(some already are)
4) infrastructure, will take time, this board has had eleven years, IMO, enough time, to many mistakes, not enough success. bye.

 

[davek]

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

We've sold more than we bought in the past two years and that'll continue through this summer and the forseeable. Now, unless you think the club really do back the manager and he's had funds offered to him that he's preferred not to choose, then you must accept that part of the money from sales has gone elsewhere. Maybe it went to Kenwright's scouting wages? Or more likely the money has been swallowed up by banks the board have run up debts with?

 

[davek]

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.

Staggering.

Mate, it's unfair you hold out some forlorn hope to others that this board of directors can grow club revenue and power us forward by being self-sustaining. The Commercial revenue stream of this club has grown from roughly £6M in 2002 to £10M this year....much of that in boom years for the economy. They are completely clueless. They couldn't organise the proverbial piss up.

We're completely screwed with this lot in charge. We'll go further and further back because they wont sell for anything other than a kings ransom and they wont invest and everyone else in a Premiership with pretty much similar attendance capacity gets the same revenue barring United, Chelsea and Arsenal.


A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again.

 

[SweetJesus849]

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.

My apologies for being somewhat narrow minded on this, I am only considering West Brom away, but we did bring Seamus Coleman in as a right back, didn't we? We both know there are people who think he should be playing right back, so it was just a case in point.

Stopping goals from going in is basically defence in my mind, so I class Howard as a defender to some extent. But personally I'd hope we didn't play defensively against sides like West Brom when we have 5/6 attack-minded players sat on the bench. I still trust Moyes obviously, there's not a better man for the job, but it doesn't half bug me when we do that.

I get your point about United but they did have Giggs, Scholes and Valencia all on the bench, I'd just like to say. But who cares about United unless we're playing and hopefully beating them?

 

[Chang Elephant]

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.

Agreed, you don't normally see this sort of delusion on other sites. But there's plenty on this site and in this thread. Kenwrong's magnetism just draws some sort of latent feeling out of them.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

Inept, inept, inept

 

[caught]

Indeed, the billionaire with a whim has happened twice now and is unlikely to ever happen again. Still, wouldn't said infrastructure cost someone around £200m? And then, with a new 50,000 seat stadium that we have to assume we could fill, which is to assume there are around 12,000 Evertonians who will be swayed by nicer facilities (give or take 1000 away supporters perhaps) we'd be bringing in what... an additional £15-20m p/a based on commercial/sponsor/corporate/matchday revenue? That kind of upturn right now would make all the difference, but to a potential investor I'm not sure how appealing it would be unless they were thinking pretty long-term. I'm not saying anyone's incorrect here, but it just seems unlikely.

So it's understandable that a few clubs (Villa, Newcastle, Leeds a few years ago) have taken big financial risks to attain regular CL football, with the guarantee of £10m p/a for the group stages alone and the likelihood of an organic growth of support. This is a very short term aim that, in theory, can be justified, because it's the only tangible way of generating a significant and immediate increase in income. But, notably, it's never actually been successful, Man City obviously excluded, and clubs have struggled to varying degrees as a result. The catch 22 is getting CL qualification first in order to draw in investment when you need the investment to qualify. And the sickener is that we actually came closer than any other club to doing it in 05.

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!

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.

 

[Neiler]

We've sold more than we bought in the past two years and that'll continue through this summer and the forseeable. Now, unless you think the club really do back the manager and he's had funds offered to him that he's preferred not to choose, then you must accept that part of the money from sales has gone elsewhere. Maybe it went to Kenwright's scouting wages? Or more likely the money has been swallowed up by banks the board have run up debts with?

No idea what your trying to say there mate.

Im pretty sure thats incorrect mate about signings when you break it down. The definition of backing the manager is variable, is backing the manager pushing out the cost base to give existing players he has nurtured and coached and turned into new players at the club to realise their full potential not backing themanager? By your definition you want ungenerated wealth not earned at the club throwen at the team, my point is this is neither healthy or sustainable.

Its a huge leap in the dark to suggest that we have to sell players to pay debt, in fact it boarders on mistruth and scare mongering,

 

[kenada_blue]

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.

We all know what CAN be done. But the fundamental flaw in all that is expecting the team, squad and manager to sell their best players to fund the squad in order to compete on the pitch while this infastructure is implimented.

As you know this for us apexed at the fa cup final. Since then player sales to push the team on has failed spectacularly, going from top 4 candidates top top 7 obscurity that even getting a dredded Europa league spot is tough.

You can bring up using youth, but not everyone is like arsenal or united, and even if they unearthed a gem, he's sold to fund transfers...again youre back to square one.

So, while this infastructure is being implimented waaay into the future as the current board will not do it, Moyes will have weave his magic for a number of seasons (hell be way gone by then) which only gets you so far...and thats 7th

So unless anyone has official time scales of when these magic infastructure measures come into effect for everton fc, look at where we are now and what is happening. its not moving anywhere

It's alright saying what we can do, but look at what we are doing. I dont know about you you i want us to win ****.

Look at arsenal, great business model. Ain't won anythibg in 6 years and the fans have turned. And you expect us to have a model as good as arsenals and win something when they havent in 6 years?

it'll take decades.

 

[davek]

No idea what your trying to say there mate.

Im pretty sure thats incorrect mate about signings when you break it down. The definition of backing the manager is variable, is backing the manager pushing out the cost base to give existing players he has nurtured and coached and turned into new players at the club to realise their full potential not backing themanager? By your definition you want ungenerated wealth not earned at the club throwen at the team, my point is this is neither healthy or sustainable.

Its a huge leap in the dark to suggest that we have to sell players to pay debt, in fact it boarders on mistruth and scare mongering,

The thing is mate, I'm beginning to be baffled by your overall approach to the club's governance and finances now. Back in January when LCAB confirmed all the worst fears we had regarding the situation faced by Moyes and the reasons for him not being backed, you were calling for something new to happen. Reluctantly you came to the conclusion that this regime wasn't working out and you at least wondered what the way forward should be. Fast forward 5 months and you're banging on about how the club has the 'potential' to move forward with a 'self-sustaining model'.

How did that u-turn come about? Even the poster known as Damon at least remains consistent about his volte face taken at the same time by suggesting Kenwright's time has come and gone.

*confused*

 

[davek]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11685_6962247,00.html

No one wants to buy clubs anymore #129.

 

[Matt Damon]

it'll take decades.

Ridiculous.

 

[pfim]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11685_6962247,00.html

No one wants to buy clubs anymore #129.

I don't see anyone announcing unsolicited bids for Everton.

This guy doesn't have the cash to make a difference here anyway.

 

[sirblue57]

yes, no one wants to buy clubs anymore, we are not a good investment, the board are businessmen who know what they are doing, its times like this i have to look twice. because im not sure if im on the GOT forum, or jack-a-bleeding-nory.

 

[Neiler]

The thing is mate, I'm beginning to be baffled by your overall approach to the club's governance and finances now. Back in January when LCAB confirmed all the worst fears we had regarding the situation faced by Moyes and the reasons for him not being backed, you were calling for something new to happen. Reluctantly you came to the conclusion that this regime wasn't working out and you at least wondered what the way forward should be. Fast forward 5 months and you're banging on about how the club has the 'potential' to move forward with a 'self-sustaining model'.

How did that u-turn come about? Even the poster known as Damon at least remains consistent about his volte face taken at the same time by suggesting Kenwright's time has come and gone.

*confused*

Not true mate, i dont necessarily mean the current board when i speak of being self sustainable, but rather the model we should follow in comparrison to the ungererated fake weatlh and the risks and reliance that go hand in hand. My main point being that this model isnt healthy and possibly a relic of time gone by. If CIty are the marker and it takes 250 mill to crack a top 4, this model is a thing of the past.

Largely i accept we have hit a glass ceiling in terms of growing our income base, thats not derideing from what i think has been acheived from the starting point of the board, nor do i beleive that the board are intentionaly hurting or killing Everton in any way as many suggest.

Many want a takeover so they can get excited by players, but investing in the team is short term stuff, infrastructure is key - a self sustainable model is the only way for the club to gorw and be sustainable. If a second KD came up tomorow, my opinion would change in terms of the glass ceiling - who knows. My point really is it doesnt really matter whois in charge of the club, the key points of growth are an imporvement in our income base through infrastructure to develop a self sustaible model. If that is through investment willing to fund a stadium or our own board finding a vehicle of worth - im happy with that. I beleive anyone who wants a takeover and money just being throwen at the team is in for a long wait - nor do i beleive that is the fundemental problem we face.

The hope of supporters that a takeover will just mean more big named players is flawed - its not just the team that needs to grow and develop it is also the club, people are fooling themselves if they think an artifical captail injection will acheive this or offer us any value in the long term development of the club.