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

[davek]

6 at the end of this season mate.

Look at how pathetic those words from Elstone sound now when the dastardly deal was struck with Kitbag: http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/-32m-deal-for-blues.html

£30M over 10 years. Handcuffed like that to some poxy outfit who had them off. Absolutely criminal.

Of course, we all know what the context was in signing away our merchandising like that - Kirkby, and getting the cash in upfront for that....knocked back a few short months later and the damage was done for a decade.

"We're a well run club".

****ing hell. Anytime any divvy starts saying that, point them in the direction of that disaster.

 

[Essex Blue]

Your argument makes little sense, as of course what they're being accused of is entirely possible, anything's possible ffs.

What's entirely wrong, is accusations being flung around that have no basis in fact. Merely conjecture spun into possibility, which in some quarters (as this thread proves) appears to have already lodged itself as 'fact'. If you can't grasp my point after explaining it numerous times, then I wasting my time repeating it further.

I've no idea what relevance H&G have to EFC & it somehow "says it all" to you, you've lost me? Holding companies are common place in business btw.

If I wanted to commit fraud I could do it, same as you could. But would you like me to accuse you of it based solely on the potential opportunity you might have to commit it????

Well I'm just glad that you have acknowledged that what they are being accused of is entirely possible, and that doing what they are being accused of doing wouldn't necessarily lead to a criminal prosecution. Thus, there is no proof that they are not doing what they are accused of!

It's why they felt the need to create a holding company that says it all, and it is a fact that they tried to spin it as if the debt didn't belong to LFC, but their ploy was given short shrift in the civil court, and the court decided that the debt ultimately belonged to LFC, holding company or not. The point being that these people know every trick in the book, tricks that aren't necessarily in the interest of the company and/or their shareholders.

The accusations aren’t just based on them having the ability to do what they are being accused of though, they are based upon the fact that a large part of our revenue remains unaccounted for under the ambiguous OOC, and a general distrust of big business.

I’ve understood everything you have written, I’m just making it clear that it would be perfectly possible for the directors to commit what they have been accused of without being subjected to criminal prosecution. So whilst I have no proof that it definitely is taking place, you have absolutely no proof to say that it isn’t happening.

 

[steken1]

Sharpy and Davek have both listed the numerous and massively costly mistakes this board have made.

You have to ask why our club is so, so poorly run when other board members interests seem to be doing particularly well and Phillip Green, our advisor, is one of the top business brains in the world?

Anybody who comes to anything other than something deliberate is fooling themselves IMO.

 

[Essex Blue]

haha, the first sentence is entirely correct, but not what you were saying.

What you were saying, was that you'd advocate the business taking the risk, but you'd then criticise the person who actually signed the paperwork if it went tits up. So despite agreeing with their course of action, you'd turn turtle if it proved to be a call that went wrong. I bet you're a great employee you lad

Why are you struggling with this?

I advocate taking the risk, but I don’t agree with absolving the people who take the risk of any blame if things were to go wrong.

If you take the risk then you have to accept the consequences, and the consequences involve blaming those who thought it was acceptable to take a particular risk.

There’s no hypocrisy or contradiction here; if you take the risk then you have to accept the consequences. You can’t take the risk and then blame somebody else.

 

[nsno-chris]

I'll try. We've been up for sale for 10+ yrs according to Bill.

One massive area any new owner would exploit to increase revenues coming into the club would be shirt sales and merchandising in addition to bigger kit deals with more prestigious brands.

Any new owner coming in and doing this would be doing it solely for the benefit of Kitbag as they pay us a set amount, which is smaller than a lot of sides make with lesser fanbases, for the next 6-7yrs. Also any negotiation on kit deals and distribution will have to be handled by Kitbag as our manufacturer will have to have thier approval to work with the club. The rumour was that the nike deal that saw us get nothing up front or per year was negotiated by Kitbag.

Throw in the corporate/catering is outsourced too and you have to ask why anybody would buy a business(failing at that) that they would have little control over.

WE WILL NOT BE SOLD UNTIL AT LEAST THE KITBAG DEAL EXPIRES.

We were not sold before Kitbag, so why would this make any difference.

Any future person/company planning to buy Everton would look at the financial income streams and commercial activity would be a major factor; however, the prospect of merchandise sales over corporate/executive sales is not a question. The market is to unsteady with a variance of fluctuation dependent on different aspects, i.e. personal finance, on-field success, location, fan base and so on to determine the sale of a club. Executive and corporate sales would, but that’s for a different argument.

In Evertons case, we are running a debt, a debt that as been carried over and increased, they are the facts and every other step is then tied into to cull and allow the business some breathing room. The most common way of doing this is to remove assets, outsource everything because it will remove any variance in income so at the start of the year you will have a bottom line figure to work with. Regardless of any outside factors, you know as a CFO/CEO/MD that your income is £xx per year from any such budget.

For a 12 month period no outside factors can affect that income line; the club is doing bad and people stop purchasing merchandise you are getting your money; fuel prices go up and transport cost rise, material costs go up, Taiwanese factory workers want a 10p an hour increase for making your merchandise; all these factors can reduce your profit margin, and in the long term will be passed onto the club who will pass it onto the fans.

Now, the possibility of handling all this in-house could provide a greater profit at the end of the year, considering everything is going smoothly, but the club is not in that position yet. Outsourcing also improves business cash flow (the amount of money going through the business) and, in times of distress, keeps off liquidators as your assets and liabilities are reduced.

I see outsourcing like if you got made redundant, or were forced to take a pay cut; the first thing you do is look at your finances. You may be paying for electricity and gas on a quarterly basis, but can you take the risk of getting a huge bill, or do you move to a prepay metre whereby you have control as to what you spend; it’ll cost you more over the long run, but helps you control your budget a bit better.

Everton missed the boat years ago, it’s been my main issue with the entire club over the last 20 years, and we missed the boat dramatically with commercial activity. It was overlooked when teams were slowly progressing and football became more commercialised, it was overlooked when the Park End went up and now we are forced to play catch-up.

 

[steken1]

We were not sold before Kitbag, so why would this make any difference.

Any future person/company planning to buy Everton would look at the financial income streams and commercial activity would be a major factor; however, the prospect of merchandise sales over corporate/executive sales is not a question. The market is to unsteady with a variance of fluctuation dependent on different aspects, i.e. personal finance, on-field success, location, fan base and so on to determine the sale of a club. Executive and corporate sales would, but that’s for a different argument.

In Evertons case, we are running a debt, a debt that as been carried over and increased, they are the facts and every other step is then tied into to cull and allow the business some breathing room. The most common way of doing this is to remove assets, outsource everything because it will remove any variance in income so at the start of the year you will have a bottom line figure to work with. Regardless of any outside factors, you know as a CFO/CEO/MD that your income is £xx per year from any such budget.

For a 12 month period no outside factors can affect that income line; the club is doing bad and people stop purchasing merchandise you are getting your money; fuel prices go up and transport cost rise, material costs go up, Taiwanese factory workers want a 10p an hour increase for making your merchandise; all these factors can reduce your profit margin, and in the long term will be passed onto the club who will pass it onto the fans.

Now, the possibility of handling all this in-house could provide a greater profit at the end of the year, considering everything is going smoothly, but the club is not in that position yet. Outsourcing also improves business cash flow (the amount of money going through the business) and, in times of distress, keeps off liquidators as your assets and liabilities are reduced.

I see outsourcing like if you got made redundant, or were forced to take a pay cut; the first thing you do is look at your finances. You may be paying for electricity and gas on a quarterly basis, but can you take the risk of getting a huge bill, or do you move to a prepay metre whereby you have control as to what you spend; it’ll cost you more over the long run, but helps you control your budget a bit better.

Everton missed the boat years ago, it’s been my main issue with the entire club over the last 20 years, and we missed the boat dramatically with commercial activity. It was overlooked when teams were slowly progressing and football became more commercialised, it was overlooked when the Park End went up and now we are forced to play catch-up.

Here's the thing though. There's a common trajectory almost all aspects of PL football clubs businesses have followed, can you guess what it is? There was no need at all to tie us into a long term-fixed income deal. There was very, very little risk in going with a 2-3yr deal and seeing where the land lie at that point. Ivan Gazidis was recently bemoaning the Emirates deal Arsenal signed as things are moving so quickly.

It was a terrible deal with or without the club being up for sale. Signing deals of that magnitude just made the likely no sale an inevitability.

Football is a booming industry, we've had high league finishes for years and for the past 5-7yrs there's assets on the pitch that could be realised in an emergency(as we seen). This deal stinks like nothing I've read or heard about in football terms.

Don't forget we've got Britains biggest retail magnate a phone call away if we needed any advice.

 

[nsno-chris]

The loan would have been given on the basis of how all our loans have been given: secured revenues - either PL tv monies or gate receipts, not some pie-in-the-sky 'bill's on a promise from a cable telly company' basis.

As I say, in your own time with the NTL paperwork proof.

I'm sorry dave, am I reading this right or have you just answered your own question; to secure it they would have needed proof of secured revenues; so EFC presenting the NTL paperwork would be proof, would it not?

 

[mpatton]

Surely going and finding them yourself would be a good idea before you offer your support of the deal.

I'll support any deal made, and if turns out to be bad one then I'll heavily criticise it and trust the club to do the right thing. Remember I'm a fan not an employee of the club.

Its been busy on here as usual today.

 

[mpatton]

I'll try. We've been up for sale for 10+ yrs according to Bill.

One massive area any new owner would exploit to increase revenues coming into the club would be shirt sales and merchandising in addition to bigger kit deals with more prestigious brands.

Any new owner coming in and doing this would be doing it solely for the benefit of Kitbag as they pay us a set amount, which is smaller than a lot of sides make with lesser fanbases, for the next 6-7yrs. Also any negotiation on kit deals and distribution will have to be handled by Kitbag as our manufacturer will have to have thier approval to work with the club. The rumour was that the nike deal that saw us get nothing up front or per year was negotiated by Kitbag.

Throw in the corporate/catering is outsourced too and you have to ask why anybody would buy a business(failing at that) that they would have little control over.

WE WILL NOT BE SOLD UNTIL AT LEAST THE KITBAG DEAL EXPIRES.

How big a deal is the merchandising deal with Kitbag as an overall percentage of our turnover? I'm sure the kitbag deal won't prove a deal breaker in any potential sale imo.

 

[steken1]

I'll support any deal made, and if turns out to be bad one then I'll heavily criticise it and trust the club to do the right thing. Remember I'm a fan not an employee of the club.

Its been busy on here as usual today.

Why not just have a look at it yourself from the kick off and weigh up whether you think it's good or bad on that basis. It doesn't make you any less an Evertonian to disagree with an aspect of club business.

 

[steken1]

How big a deal is the merchandising deal with Kitbag as an overall percentage of our turnover? I'm sure the kitbag deal won't prove a deal breaker in any potential sale imo.

The vast majority of our turnover is fixed to a large extent I.e we won't get 150m off Sky one year and 10m the next. The two areas all clubs exploit to grow revenue is merchandise sales and corporate revenues.

When Madrid bought Beckham the Chairman suggested the fee paid would be made back within 1yr due to increased kit sales in the far east alone. I.e spending the £25m was worth £25m a year in increased sales. All clubs know this.

What if a big hitter bought Everton and considered doing the same with Lionel Messi, or more likely Shinji Kagawa or Keisuke Honda? They wouldn't get any more than the fixed amount payable no matter how many shirts we sold. That would be the case no matter how well the club did or how many high profile players we signed for the next 6yrs.

Based on the massive loss of revenue you would conclude that there's little way you could make your money back or grow the business, which considering the already extortionate purchase price is why we're one of the few clubs in the top 2 divisions of english football to have not been sold.

 

[nsno-chris]

Here's the thing though. There's a common trajectory almost all aspects of PL football clubs businesses have followed, can you guess what it is? There was no need at all to tie us into a long term-fixed income deal. There was very, very little risk in going with a 2-3yr deal and seeing where the land lie at that point. Ivan Gazidis was recently bemoaning the Emirates deal Arsenal signed as things are moving so quickly.

It was a terrible deal with or without the club being up for sale. Signing deals of that magnitude just made the likely no sale an inevitability.

Football is a booming industry, we've had high league finishes for years and for the past 5-7yrs there's assets on the pitch that could be realised in an emergency(as we seen). This deal stinks like nothing I've read or heard about in football terms.

Don't forget we've got Britains biggest retail magnate a phone call away if we needed any advice.

Shorter deals will provide less money, not what you need when you're trying stabilise something. You also then need to renegotiate the deal, and what happens is you had a bad season coming up to negotiations, the power will be with the provider and they can hold you to ransom.

The club also do get a percentage of any sales. Ivan Gazidis was moaning about the naming rights was he not? a totally different kettle of fish to merchandise sales, you're relying on someone to purchase your goods rather than a big corporation paying for advertisement that will be seen globally during televised matches.

 

[nsno-chris]

The vast majority of our turnover is fixed to a large extent I.e we won't get 150m off Sky one year and 10m the next. The two areas all clubs exploit to grow revenue is merchandise sales and corporate revenues.

When Madrid bought Beckham the Chairman suggested the fee paid would be made back within 1yr due to increased kit sales in the far east alone. I.e spending the £25m was worth £25m a year in increased sales. All clubs know this.

What if a big hitter bought Everton and considered doing the same with Lionel Messi, or more likely Shinji Kagawa or Keisuke Honda? They wouldn't get any more than the fixed amount payable no matter how many shirts we sold. That would be the case no matter how well the club did or how many high profile players we signed for the next 6yrs.
Based on the massive loss of revenue you would conclude that there's little way you could make your money back or grow the business, which considering the already extortionate purchase price is why we're one of the few clubs in the top 2 divisions of english football to have not been sold.

If a big hitter came in and wanted to do that with Everton, if he had the money to purchase Messi; there would be a couple of options available. One, the contract would be re-negotiated instantly, Kit-Bag would sh!t themselves at the opportunity and the power would be with us. Or second, if he had that much money he would probably activate a cancellation clause, which every contract ever-known to man as one built in, and tell KitBag to do one

 

[mpatton]

The vast majority of our turnover is fixed to a large extent I.e we won't get 150m off Sky one year and 10m the next. The two areas all clubs exploit to grow revenue is merchandise sales and corporate revenues.

When Madrid bought Beckham the Chairman suggested the fee paid would be made back within 1yr due to increased kit sales in the far east alone. I.e spending the £25m was worth £25m a year in increased sales. All clubs know this.

What if a big hitter bought Everton and considered doing the same with Lionel Messi, or more likely Shinji Kagawa or Keisuke Honda? They wouldn't get any more than the fixed amount payable no matter how many shirts we sold. That would be the case no matter how well the club did or how many high profile players we signed for the next 6yrs.

Based on the massive loss of revenue you would conclude that there's little way you could make your money back or grow the business, which considering the already extortionate purchase price is why we're one of the few clubs in the top 2 divisions of english football to have not been sold.

I understand what your suggesting, but I don't think we have the national, European or even worldwide appeal for us to be in a position to suddenly lose the potential millions that are being banded about.

If we were fortunate enough to be bought by a big hitter (probably the only time this forum will be totally united in opinion) the kit deal probably wouldn't be in the top 5 of priorities, and when it did become one, it will be interesting to see what the contractual arrangements are. From what I have heard so far the kit deal was good for efc at the time and still is. We're not in the bottom half of the premier league regarding merchandising deals from what I can see.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Look at how pathetic those words from Elstone sound now when the dastardly deal was struck with Kitbag: http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/-32m-deal-for-blues.html

£30M over 10 years. Handcuffed like that to some poxy outfit who had them off. Absolutely criminal.

Is this the same "poxy outfit" that operate the the same facility for Man United, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea & Man City?

I assume you know the full terms of the deal & whether it includes performance bonuses etc?

What do you think that the deal should have generated btw, as you're obviously an expert in the field?