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

[davek]

The tide has turned for many fans not just by a simple mood change or boardam but Matt raises some pertenent points. The latest set of accounts are unsustainable and are going to be worse next year, the club took two massive gambles that didnt pay of Kirkby (rightly or wrongly) and the new contracts. We basicly dont make enough to meet our cost base and remain competitive without digging a hole into debt.

The club is on a downward trajectory, the current board presuming there isnt massive borrowing for a stadium and i dont think there will be if they stay a few more years will mean a) we get deeper into debt, b) Sell players for captail to meet the incurred losses.

To qualify why many have changed there opinons in terms of opinion on wheather they feel the board should stay or not, the evidance was laid bare with the last set of accounts, we have stumbled into unsustainable terriotory, what was sustainable if only just has now become untenable and that can only harm the club. Translate that to evidance on the pitch and we have seen the first team squad weakened by 8 players since May, with no replacements, simply because we have overestimated our ability ot make money this year and we cant afford to keep what we have. I can understand why it needs to be done economicly, but we're all football fans. In the race to reduce our cost base the footballing progress we have made over 9 years is going to be dismantled. This is probably the first time that the footballing side and the buissness side of the club are at odds which will bring its own probalems. Simply put we wont hold what we have because we cant afford it. The current board is guilty of spending to much beleive it or not and we cant afford it.

Im not a Kenwronger or Kenwrighter i comment on what i beleive happens at the club on the best evidance in front of me, currently the buissness is looseing money more so then anytime in recent years and its not sustainable. At the same time to i beleive the board and praticularly the chairman took the gamble they did with genuine intentions of it being the right thing to do for the club i.e. give existing players massive contracts we couldnt afford. Certianly we we're all singing from the same hyme sheet in the summer in keeping our best players.

Im not one of those who thinks the current board has turned down numerous takeover attmepts, i beleive they have the best of intentions for the club, i think anyone who says otherwise has an agenda or is petending to know something the dont. For me however badly the accounts are or will be - and its clear its unsustainable - i think the board have spent to much, gambled with the best of intentions but has gone massively wrong and is now unsustainable - meaning as Matt would say they they cant afford the club.

I'm glad that you and Damon have put down the Kool Aid in time, I really am. But how you say that realisation of where we're at could only come about by the 'seeing is believing' evidence of the last Everton accounts is staggering. That was merely the straw that broke the camel's back.

Everton have been run atrociously for years and the evidence was staring us all in the face: the running up of umpteen mortgages; the sale and leaseback of Finch Farm; the Sky tv money being borrowed against a year in advance; the fact that revenue was growing only on the back of tv revenue and a hike in ticket prices with no organic growth of the business to accompany it. The fact they've run out space to do all that now, and that the 'custodians' are unwilling to make up the gap by sticking their hands in their own pockets and invest, does not make this a recent crisis or one that's befallen a board that's been 'doing the business'.

Agenda? Do me a favour mate.

 

[Matt Damon]

The tide has turned for many fans not just by a simple mood change or boardam but Matt raises some pertenent points. The latest set of accounts are unsustainable and are going to be worse next year, the club took two massive gambles that didnt pay of Kirkby (rightly or wrongly) and the new contracts. We basicly dont make enough to meet our cost base and remain competitive without digging a hole into debt.

The club is on a downward trajectory, the current board presuming there isnt massive borrowing for a stadium and i dont think there will be if they stay a few more years will mean a) we get deeper into debt, b) Sell players for captail to meet the incurred losses.

To qualify why many have changed there opinons in terms of opinion on wheather they feel the board should stay or not, the evidance was laid bare with the last set of accounts, we have stumbled into unsustainable terriotory, what was sustainable if only just has now become untenable and that can only harm the club. Translate that to evidance on the pitch and we have seen the first team squad weakened by 8 players since May, with no replacements, simply because we have overestimated our ability ot make money this year and we cant afford to keep what we have. I can understand why it needs to be done economicly, but we're all football fans. In the race to reduce our cost base the footballing progress we have made over 9 years is going to be dismantled. This is probably the first time that the footballing side and the buissness side of the club are at odds which will bring its own probalems. Simply put we wont hold what we have because we cant afford it. The current board is guilty of spending to much beleive it or not and we cant afford it.

Im not a Kenwronger or Kenwrighter i comment on what i beleive happens at the club on the best evidance in front of me, currently the buissness is looseing money more so then anytime in recent years and its not sustainable. At the same time to i beleive the board and praticularly the chairman took the gamble they did with genuine intentions of it being the right thing to do for the club i.e. give existing players massive contracts we couldnt afford. Certianly we we're all singing from the same hyme sheet in the summer in keeping our best players.

Im not one of those who thinks the current board has turned down numerous takeover attmepts, i beleive they have the best of intentions for the club, i think anyone who says otherwise has an agenda or is petending to know something the dont. For me however badly the accounts are or will be - and its clear its unsustainable - i think the board have spent to much, gambled with the best of intentions but has gone massively wrong and is now unsustainable - meaning as Matt would say they they cant afford the club.

Ignoring Davek's latest rant I'm in complete agreement Neiler. Whereas before increases in debt, may have been justified the fact that the latest set of accounts, a stagnant turnover - when in EFC's case, as I highlight there is no real reason for turnover to be lagging.

is for me and you the main reason for concern.


Strategic errors. 1. Park End rebuild in the 1990's missing 5000 of capacity cost the club relative to the RS, £75million on its own.

2. The Exclusivity Agreement in the 2000's put the club in this obvious position where Kenwright's got no means now to increase turnover at the club. So at best the club's standing still.

3. Obfuscating by the board, in both the accounts and the recent statement by Elstone on direction of the board. Bordering on completely diametrically opposing statements to reality. Real attempts of muddying the waters.

4. More Obfuscation over the "investment" / "sale" / "purchase" / "interested parties" in the club


Categorically unacceptable.

* No plan to increase capacity = No long term plan for EFC's sustainable business model.
* Ground Sharing is not a sustainable business plan.
* Neither is Kenwright and Company holding onto the club in the vain attempt at hoping credit conditions improve ....

is not a viable plan for EFC's long term health either


By obfuscating like they have they've alienated more support that they may of had.

Such to the point that Neiler and myself, non-natural board member haters (Davek et al)... have no confidence in this board.



By not being able to bring more people into the club, the club's turnover is £20million lower than it should be - at parity with Newcastle and Spurs ground turnover.

That's directly the fault of Bill Kenwright.

Therefore he should resign.

 

[kenada_blue]

Kenwright is not a business man. That's why we are in a mess.

The people around him are also not true experts in their field in terms of getting the most out of the football club. And Kenwright is the one that gives the yes and no to it all.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Kenwright is not a business man. That's why we are in a mess.

The people around him are also not true experts in their field in terms of getting the most out of the football club. And Kenwright is the one that gives the yes and no to it all.

He's been surrounded by sycophants, people willing to ignore the evidence of ****e business practice from day one, some of whom are now his biggest critics.....bit late now lads....?

 

[davek]

Not someone with half a brain either boozed up in a pub either saying anything unrealistic. Have supported the chairman in the face of these types of people. Particularly up to 2008/2009.

Damon, this re-writing of history simply wont do mate. It was only this autumn gone that you were waxing lyrical about the Park End annexe and how it was going to generate £6M per year (never explained!) and that it was one in the eye for all the Kenwrong detractors. In other words, you were still backing the daft old mincer to the hilt until you saw what happened last month in the transfer window and the publishing this month of the annual accounts.

Another inconsistency that should have people running for the hills when they hear you talking about takeovers.

 

[Matt Damon]

Damon, this re-writing of history simply wont do mate. It was only this autumn gone that you were waxing lyrical about the Park End annexe and how it was going to generate £6M per year (never explained!) and that it was one in the eye for all the Kenwrong detractors. In other words, you were still backing the daft old mincer to the hilt until you saw what happened last month in the transfer window and the publishing this month of the annual accounts.

Another inconsistency that should have people running for the hills when they hear you talking about takeovers.

Davek. The only rewriting of history done around here is you in the politics threads.

The Park End Annex is POTENTIALLY a revenue generator. However it's not yet generating revenue.

Comprende?

Not only that the obfuscation by the board, on it's scope (the Annex) is also another reason for concern that Neiler and I have. Its had two designs and they've still not finalized it all.


Rewriting history indeed? Only one to do that is you lad.



What do you have to say to the Sunderland accounts?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6754565,00.html

 

[kenada_blue]

Davek. The only rewriting of history done around here is you in the politics threads.

The Park End Annex is POTENTIALLY a revenue generator. However it's not yet generating revenue.

Comprende?

Not only that the obfuscation by the board, on it's scope (the Annex) is also another reason for concern that Neiler and I have. Its had two designs and they've still not finalized it all.


Rewriting history indeed? Only one to do that is you lad.



What do you have to say to the Sunderland accounts?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6754565,00.html

Yeah but....

The Black Cats' turnover increased from £64.6million to £65.4million, but the club's investment in the playing squad has pushed the Premier League outfit further into the red.

"The directors consider the major risk of the business to be a significant period of absence from the FA Premier League.

"Ongoing investment in the playing squad aims to reduce this risk."

A loan of £19million from owner Ellis Short was capitalised - or transferred into shares - in November 2009, and the Texan has since injected interest free-loans of £22.4million and £6million and promised his continued support.

Wouldnt you like to hear that from our board towards Moyes? I effin would!

We'd be playing Champions League football with a bit of financial support, if the board gambled. I have no doubt about that.

 

[Matt Damon]

Yeah but....

The Black Cats' turnover increased from £64.6million to £65.4million, but the club's investment in the playing squad has pushed the Premier League outfit further into the red.

"The directors consider the major risk of the business to be a significant period of absence from the FA Premier League.

"Ongoing investment in the playing squad aims to reduce this risk."

Wouldnt you like to hear that from our board towards Moyes? I effin would!

35 million in LOANS.

55 million in LOSES

over two years.
(so every two years they're losing 90% of their third years revenue at that rate!!!!!)

That's unbelievably bad. They are burning through cash

If we were spunking 55million, I'd expect 10000 on the capacity of Goodison !

That way over 10 years we'd bring in about 150 million in additional revenue ! From that 55million

 

[kenada_blue]

35 million in LOANS.

55 million in LOSES

over two years.


That's unbelievably bad. They are burning through cash

If we were spunking 55million, I'd expect 10000 on the capacity of Goodison !

That way over 10 years we'd bring in about 150 million in additional revenue ! From that 55million

And what are our loans? Is it 45million?

They're investing in the squad. Putting money in assets on the pitch. What are we doing? Scraping the penny jar to keep us floating.

Which clubs turn a profit each year?

Sunderland made a loss of £27million or so....if they were that concerned about cash flow and finances to stay running in the premiership, like we're doing...selling Bent and not spending the transfer fee takes that into a £0.7mill loss....

It a calculated gamble, doesnt seem excessive and they have a benefactor pumping money into the club.

 

[Chang Elephant]

FYI: For those PM-ing me. I won't be responding to anyone asking questions. So please don't bother.

Is there anyone actually doing this as a serious venture ? :blink:

 

[Matt Damon]

And what are our loans? Is it 45million?

They're investing in the squad. Putting money in assets on the pitch. What are we doing? Scraping the penny jar to keep us floating.

Players that will be there - what ? Three years?


A capacity increase would ensure we could replace players.

A loan to buy a player would mean we had someone here for a few years before being unable to replace them.


Investing in their squad? You're having a laugh.

 

[Neiler]

I'm glad that you and Damon have put down the Kool Aid in time, I really am. But how you say that realisation of where we're at could only come about by the 'seeing is believing' evidence of the last Everton accounts is staggering. That was merely the straw that broke the camel's back.

Everton have been run atrociously for years and the evidence was staring us all in the face: the running up of umpteen mortgages; the sale and leaseback of Finch Farm; the Sky tv money being borrowed against a year in advance; the fact that revenue was growing only on the back of tv revenue and a hike in ticket prices with no organic growth of the business to accompany it. The fact they've run out space to do all that now, and that the 'custodians' are unwilling to make up the gap by sticking their hands in their own pockets and invest, does not make this a recent crisis or one that's befallen a board that's been 'doing the business'.

Agenda? Do me a favour mate.

I dont accept all that mate to be honest, i remember why the Prudential deal was taken out and to be honest i think it was the right move at the time given the situation, if you remember! Agreed its been a milestone in terms of intrest - that said turnover has jumped significantly, from the 20odd million it was when we took out the deal. My criticism of the deal was not that we did it but we didnt borrow enough.

I take your point in terms of growing the buissness organicly and you know ive advocated that for a long time, i agree, even though commercial revenues have been growing in the right direction for the past few years its not enough or as Matt would say not helping us touch our true and full potential. Im not a fan of outsourceing, which is a different debate. In terms of Finch Farm, well it is what is, a state of the art affordable training complex, we have a lease that will out see us both. I think we both like to hope that when the lease is up we will be in a different positition financialy. But lets be honest Bellefeild was going no where, we needed a new training ground and it was a terrific deal - certainly the lease doesnt put a hole in our finance while Bellefeild remains an asset.

I never understand your point in terms of the Sky money, its like criticiseing a farmer for selling milk - i dont think we should send it back like.

Either way the buissness has grown over the tenure of the present board wheather people care to admit it or not. What we have is a situation where a fan is running the club and he has let his heart rule his head. Our ability to make income has topped out - yet our cost base has increased and is likely to do so again in the coming year as the majority of the new contracts take effect. In fact our income is likely to take a massive hit this season and our cost base next year will be larger, the gamble and faith showen in present players hasnt paid of. If anything i think the board badly judged the situation and by trying to do the right things have really signed their own death warrents.

Thats how i see it, lets be balanced we have seen a lot of progress on and of the feild in the past 9 years, we are a bigger buissness and a better football team then we were, i give the club, manager and players equal credit for that. This cycle of the clubs life span has run its course now, we are at the glass ceiling were what we make and what we spend is unsustainable and the balance is fine between dismantleing the progress made and putting the club in jepordy. As Matt has said we cant afford ourselves anymore.

I dont beleive its a conspirocey though, its a collection of two gambles that never paid of through the desperation of a chairman who i feel has the clubs best intrests at heart 1) Kirkby was a massive lost oppurtunity as Kings Dock was before it and 2) The new contracts given to players are simply unsustainable without shedding fat. I dont think the club have turned down a lot of investors either, but thats a matter of opinion, i know many differ. I tend to beleive that because every penny has been poured back into the club and to be honest borrowed money as well - the present board will do right by the club when the oppurtunity arrises and i dont beleive it has yet.

Bad gambles and decisons that havent paid of.

 

[kenada_blue]

Players that will be there - what ? Three years?


A capacity increase would ensure we could replace players.

A loan to buy a player would mean we had someone here for a few years before being unable to replace them.


Investing in their squad? You're having a laugh.

And that's different from what we're doing now? You're talking about a shelf life at Everton for maybe 3 season before being picked out for a transfer.

And banging on about capacity increases wont happen, and would take a few years if it did happen...by that time I'd have hoped we dont have the current board by then.

And Sunderland are being bank rolled to find additional cash. We dont have that because every penny goes practically goes into into operating costs.

Looking at basically and from one point....Sunderland's turnover is £65.4million this is with a 49k seater stadium they dont fill, with an average gate of 39k.

We have a £79.1million turnover with a 39k stadium with a 35k average.

Sunderland are taking a hit because they make less money than we do...but still invest in the squad that will hopefully pave a way for that turnover to increase (more exposure, TV money, Europe) that they can get with their bigger stadium. The Mackem's are fickle...they do well, they fill their stadium, they dont, they get less gates.

The problem they have is just by being Sunderland...but they're still trying to find ambition no matter how you slice it.

We on the other hand float....float and let Moyes generate his own transfer funds whilst not capitalising on the potential the club can reach.

 

[kenada_blue]

I dont accept all that mate to be honest, i remember why the Prudential deal was taken out and to be honest i think it was the right move at the time given the situation, if you remember - agreed its been a milestone in terms of intrest - that said turnover has jumped significantly, from the 20odd million it was when we took out the deal. My criticism of the deal was not that we did but we didnt borrow enough.

I take your point in terms growing the buissness organicly and you know ive advocated that for a long time, i agree even though commercial revenues have been growing in the right direction for the past few years, its not enough or as Matt would say to full potential, im not a fan of outsourceing, which is a different debate. In terms of Finch Farm, well it is what is a state of the art affordable training complex we have a lease for that will out see us both. I think we both like to hope that when the lease is up we will be in a different position fincialy. But lets be honest Bellefeild was going no where, we needed a new training ground and it was a terrific deal - certainly the lease doesnt put a hole in our finance while Bellefeild remains an asset.

I never undertand your point in terms of the Sky money, its like criticiseing a farmer for selling milk - i dont think we should send it back like.

Either way the buissness has growen has grown over the tenure of the present board wheather people care to admit it or not, what we have is a situation where a fan is running the club and he let his heart rule his head. Our ability to make income has topped out - yet our cost base has increased and is likely to do so. In fact our income is likely to take a massive hit and our cost base next year will be bigger, the gamble and faith shwen in present players hasnt paid of. If anything i think the board badly judged the situation and by trying to do the right things have really signed there own death warrents.

Thats how i see it lets be balanced we have seen a lot of progress on and of the feild, in the past 9 years, we are a big buissness and a better football team then we were, i give the club, manager and players equal credit for that. This sycle of the clubs life span has run its course now, we are at the glass ceiling were what we make and what we spend is unsustainable and the ballance is fine between dismantleing the progress made and putting the club in jepordy. As Matt has said we cant afford ourselves anymore.

I dont beleive its a conspirocey though, its a collection of two gambles that never paid of through the desperation of a chairman who i feel has the clubs best intrests at heart 1) Kirkby was a massive los oppurtunity as Kings Dock was before it and 2) The new contracts given to players are simply unsustainable without shedding fat. I dont think the club have turned down a lot of investors either, but thats a matter of opinion, i know many differ on. I tend to beleive that because every penny has been poured back into the club and to be honest borrowed money to - the present board will do right by the club when the oppurtunity arrises and i dont beleive it has yet.

Bad gambles and decisons that havent paid of.

But IMO...the club of our stature should be in that wage league based on our previous seasons. Its always been a stumbling block in signing/attracting top, top named players. Now that we have broke the wage ceiling trying just to keep key players (Arteta was almost off this summer too if we dont remember). This seamed more like panic than a calculated risk and now they're going to be scrambling to continue to pay for it.

 

[davek]

I dont accept all that mate to be honest, i remember why the Prudential deal was taken out and to be honest i think it was the right move at the time given the situation, if you remember - agreed its been a milestone in terms of intrest - that said turnover has jumped significantly, from the 20odd million it was when we took out the deal. My criticism of the deal was not that we did but we didnt borrow enough.

I take your point in terms growing the buissness organicly and you know ive advocated that for a long time, i agree even though commercial revenues have been growing in the right direction for the past few years, its not enough or as Matt would say to full potential, im not a fan of outsourceing, which is a different debate. In terms of Finch Farm, well it is what is a state of the art affordable training complex we have a lease for that will out see us both. I think we both like to hope that when the lease is up we will be in a different position fincialy. But lets be honest Bellefeild was going no where, we needed a new training ground and it was a terrific deal - certainly the lease doesnt put a hole in our finance while Bellefeild remains an asset.

I never undertand your point in terms of the Sky money, its like criticiseing a farmer for selling milk - i dont think we should send it back like.

Either way the buissness has growen has grown over the tenure of the present board wheather people care to admit it or not, what we have is a situation where a fan is running the club and he let his heart rule his head. Our ability to make income has topped out - yet our cost base has increased and is likely to do so. In fact our income is likely to take a massive hit and our cost base next year will be bigger, the gamble and faith shwen in present players hasnt paid of. If anything i think the board badly judged the situation and by trying to do the right things have really signed there own death warrents.

Thats how i see it lets be balanced we have seen a lot of progress on and of the feild, in the past 9 years, we are a big buissness and a better football team then we were, i give the club, manager and players equal credit for that. This sycle of the clubs life span has run its course now, we are at the glass ceiling were what we make and what we spend is unsustainable and the ballance is fine between dismantleing the progress made and putting the club in jepordy. As Matt has said we cant afford ourselves anymore.

I dont beleive its a conspirocey though, its a collection of two gambles that never paid of through the desperation of a chairman who i feel has the clubs best intrests at heart 1) Kirkby was a massive los oppurtunity as Kings Dock was before it and 2) The new contracts given to players are simply unsustainable without shedding fat. I dont think the club have turned down a lot of investors either, but thats a matter of opinion, i know many differ on. I tend to beleive that because every penny has been poured back into the club and to be honest borrowed money to - the present board will do right by the club when the oppurtunity arrises and i dont beleive it has yet.

Bad gambles and decisons that havent paid of.

I understand where you're coming from, and I respect it. You've been consistent throughout the debate whilst I've been on this forum...unlike someone else!

I think there's a difference in emphasis between us: you see the re-cycling of funds generated as an affirmation of a well meaning board of directors; I see handing over much of the proceeds from revenue and player sales to gradually build a squad as the very least they could do if they were intent on keeping control for themselves.

Never the twain shall meet on this, I think.