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

[sirblue57]

matt, as a knowledgable person regarding finances, would you say that everton have been well run over the last decade? would you also say that the business model used by our board will result ingrowth over future years?

 

[SweetJesus849]

He is, but not the type of guy to make a difference at a Prem club. He's not even in the Gold/Sullivan league in terms of worth.

Combined yes, but he's still a step above Kenwright. About par or higher with Earl I think.

I'm surprised Ecclestone/Mittal haven't made a dramatic impact on QPR yet either.

 

[Allezfan]

I think you can get into the top 4 without spending as much money as City have (see us, spurs, leeds, newcastle ect)

I also think City could have not invested anywhere near as much if they'd been wiser about where they spent it.

And, lastly, I think our team needs less work on it than the city team before the investment did,

 

[kenada_blue]

But that's just it isn't it - how much moe evidence do you need that these tasks you believe necessary to move forward are not going to be achieved by this regime...another 11 years of zero investment and retarded commercial growth?

I appreciate your view and the model you hold out, even though I dont accept it myself. But your words mean nothing if you hold out the remotest hope that Kenwright, Earl and Woods are the people to change tack and steer a course out of these doldrums we're in. It's madness to look to them. I suspect you know it too.

That's where I'm coming from too.

Infastructure...great idea, it'll work.

But don't you have to be in a position as a football team to sustain a good squad that can compete with limited funds? Arsenal compete on the back on strong foundations but are now losing that power due to lack of investment in the space of good buisness growth. 6 years, no trophy, high ticket prices etc.

In comparrison...what does that model get us? a place higher than now?

 

[pfim]

I think you can get into the top 4 without spending as much money as City have (see us, spurs, leeds, newcastle ect)

I also think City could have not invested anywhere near as much if they'd been wiser about where they spent it.

And, lastly, I think our team needs less work on it than the city team before the investment did,

Certainly. But where is this money coming from? Newcastle (in their prem years) and Spurs constantly out perform Everton on the top line. Everton can't match their revenues based on the numbers I've seen reported.

Everton are more in line with West Ham, Sunderland etc.

Now, you can say they haven't done a good enough job growing revenues. I don't know that I necessarily buy that, but if that's the debate (which dave has taken up), then I can understand that. I don't see the evidence of them turning down millions in commercial opportunities, but I can understand that assertion.

But saying they should "invest" to grow the team without naming the source of this investment is a bit ludicrous. And expecting some guy with middling net worth (based on prem standards) throwing his own money into the team with little hope of getting back is completely unreasonable.

Ron Burkle, one of the richest men in the US, owned a 40% stake in the Pittsburgh Penguins, an NHL team. Their annual payroll at one point was about $10 million, when the average payroll of an NHL club was north of $40 million and good clubs spent up to $60 million. Why didn't he put his own money into the club? Because it was a money pit, there was no hope for a return on his investment. To me, that's where Everton is at the moment (well, not quite that bad).

 

[sirblue57]

Certainly. But where is this money coming from? Newcastle (in their prem years) and Spurs constantly out perform Everton on the top line. Everton can't match their revenues based on the numbers I've seen reported.

Everton are more in line with West Ham, Sunderland etc.

Now, you can say they haven't done a good enough job growing revenues. I don't know that I necessarily buy that, but if that's the debate (which dave has taken up), then I can understand that. I don't see the evidence of them turning down millions in commercial opportunities, but I can understand that assertion.

But saying they should "invest" to grow the team without naming the source of this investment is a bit ludicrous. And expecting some guy with middling net worth (based on prem standards) throwing his own money into the team with little hope of getting back is completely unreasonable.

Ron Burkle, one of the richest men in the US, owned a 40% stake in the Pittsburgh Penguins, an NHL team. Their annual payroll at one point was about $10 million, when the average payroll of an NHL club was north of $40 million and good clubs spent up to $60 million. Why didn't he put his own money into the club? Because it was a money pit, there was no hope for a return on his investment. To me, that's where Everton is at the moment (well, not quite that bad).

go back 20 years,before the premiership started, we were an attractive proposition then. two full decades of mismanagement, all this time BK has been on the board. for eleven years, he has been chairman. we are heading backwards under his stewardship. but for those who still support him, fine. thats your choice. i will oppose him him until he either leaves, or gets investment to take the club forward. i cannot give him my support because he has failed so many times,lied so many times. thats my choice. i would love to be proved wrong, but i doubt i will.

 

[SweetJesus849]

I fear that Everton may end up having to do what the Penguins have done to remain afloat.

The Penguins were a small market team in the NHL. I don't know how but they were. They filed bankruptcy in 1998 only to be saved by Burkle and Penguin legend Mario Lemieux, who was owed $30m himself by the Penguins as one of their largest creditors. They cut costs all over the show and got rid of top players such as Jaromir Jagr for cash/prospect players.

They eventually found room for a new arena too, which they recently completed, and moved into. They also sold the naming rights of said arena.

But that being said, the Penguins could rebuild easier because of the NHL Draft, where they found some of the NHL's best players, such as Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin. They also had a salary cap which made it easier for small market teams to compete in the NHL. You don't get that in the Premiership.

Selling our best or better players may not be what some people want to do, but I think it may just be the only way to go. If anyone offers £30m for Jack Rodwell I'll be more than happy to take it.

 

[pfim]

What the Penguins did was sell all their players (literally sell, which doesn't happen very often in American sports) until they were guaranteed the revenue (new arena) to remain afloat.

I won't bore everyone with the entire history of a hockey club in Pittsburgh, but they had their oligarch in the early 90s, Howard Baldwin, who spent more than he took in. Howard didn't have any money either, which is what got the Penguins into trouble. He was spending something he didn't have, could no longer borrow against the team, and took short term fixes to long-term issues.

It took the Penguins nearly 15 years to recover from what he had done.

 

[SweetJesus849]

Exactly, Baldwin invested merely $1,000 of his own money into the Penguins. He might've brought success, but he nearly killed the Pittsburgh Penguins.

By 2005, they'd paid all their creditors, even if the NHL was in lockout from 2004/05. They were ran efficiently, sold top stars, and reinvested later on, although they did have the benefit of a salary cap and the NHL Draft...

 

[Allezfan]

Everton is not an american sports club.

 

[davek]

Go Penguins!

 

[SweetJesus849]

No one is saying it is.

However I personally feel we may have to follow their lead.

 

[mooseatingnome]

Exactly, Baldwin invested merely $1,000 of his own money into the Penguins. He might've brought success, but he nearly killed the Pittsburgh Penguins.

By 2005, they'd paid all their creditors, even if the NHL was in lockout from 2004/05. They were ran efficiently, sold top stars, and reinvested later on, although they did have the benefit of a salary cap and the NHL Draft...

and being able to draft arguably the best player in the world is not going to hurt revenues either.

 

[Matt Damon]

What the Penguins did was sell all their players (literally sell, which doesn't happen very often in American sports) until they were guaranteed the revenue (new arena) to remain afloat.

I won't bore everyone with the entire history of a hockey club in Pittsburgh, but they had their oligarch in the early 90s, Howard Baldwin, who spent more than he took in. Howard didn't have any money either, which is what got the Penguins into trouble. He was spending something he didn't have, could no longer borrow against the team, and took short term fixes to long-term issues.

It took the Penguins nearly 15 years to recover from what he had done.

I'll spell out the parallel there.

A S T O N V I L L A

Their debt is comparable with certain countries national debts and deficits.

one and a half times their annual revenue


and growing by a quarter a season!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Alio]

I'll spell out the parallel there.

A S T O N V I L L A

OH MY GOD