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

[steken1]

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.

Not really. If you do well for the shorter period or sales are higher than forecast your negotiating position is strengthened. Also the club was not in any way unstable. We have been in the PL since day dot and we were best of the rest and cup finalists around the time the deal was signed.

The club may get a small percentage of any additional sales but we both know who will be taking the lions share, which I'd be OK with if Nike were paying us the going rate for a club our size.

The reason Gazidis got a mention was because income, visibility, cross-promotion, brand awareness, audience and everything else to do with PL football is rising at a massive rate. His comments about tying yourself into long-term deals are relevant right across the business. If Man Utd's debt done for them, an uprising in Saudi occured or Putin got sick of Abramovich we'd be top dogs and in no position to capitalise. Unlikely obviously but even something like super Kev getting in with a bird who ends up being a top pop star raises the glamour stakes and leads to dosh. we can't capitalise.

It's common to clear the decks and leave as much flexibility as possible in the business when your trying to sell. We've done the opposite, I'm just trying to understand why. A new owner wont want stability, he'll want growth.

I know your not soft by any stretch but surely you can see how bad of a deal this is for us?

 

[steken1]

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.

Who were Man City 5yrs ago?

One of the first things Abramovich did at Chelsea was get rid of Umbro.

We're rock bottom of the league. Villa and Fulham are getting around £5m a season, we got nothing but marketing opportunities.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Who were Man City 5yrs ago?

One of the first things Abramovich did at Chelsea was get rid of Umbro.

We're rock bottom of the league. Villa and Fulham are getting around £5m a season, we got nothing but marketing opportunities.

Care to share that detail, as I'd be interested if that's the case?

I won't profess to know a great deal about this deal nor what is a sensible comparable with a similar club tbh.

A quick look on the net shows that United currently earn £23.5M p.a. from 1.4M shirt sales per annum, I've no idea how many we sell & if therefore pro rata our rate is good, bad or indifferent.

 

[steken1]

Care to share that detail, as I'd be interested if that's the case?

I won't profess to know a great deal about this deal nor what is a sensible comparable with a similar club tbh.

A quick look on the net shows that United currently earn £23.5M p.a. from 1.4M shirt sales per annum, I've no idea how many we sell & if therefore pro rata our rate is good, bad or indifferent.

That was to do with what we're paid to allow Nike to manufacture and retail our kit. We recieve £3m a year from Kitbag to run ALL merchandising of EFC related products with an increase based on sales after a certain volume.

I'm not sure what this volume is or what it's worth to us in real terms. It's common amongst all clubs though. I'd be massively shocked if it took us anywhere near the £5m shortfall clubs near our peer group recieve.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

That was to do with what we're paid to allow Nike to manufacture and retail our kit. We recieve £3m a year from Kitbag to run ALL merchandising of EFC related products with an increase based on sales after a certain volume.

I'm not sure what this volume is or what it's worth to us in real terms. It's common amongst all clubs though. I'd be massively shocked if it took us anywhere near the £5m shortfall clubs near our peer group recieve.

In fairness, without the full details of the same volumes (past vs present) & the share of revenue as a %age of sales above the contracted minimum, how can you say definitively that this is a poor deal in real terms today in 2012?

I get the point about the length of the deal, but there could be get out clauses etc that allow either party to exit or re-negotiate should X or Y happen e.g. relegation or Champions League being the 2 most obvious.

Sponsorship in general is an area where we've been always been ****e. From the days of Hafnia meat pies onwards we've always been a bit crap compared to our peers & it's an area where a decent amount of growth could come from imo. As much as it goads me to say it, the RS are getting right with the Yanks maximising their 'global brand' with some solid deals. We're a world away in terms of what we could expect, but the principle is the same & we're falling short in this area without doubt.

 

[steken1]

In fairness, without the full details of the same volumes (past vs present) & the share of revenue as a %age of sales above the contracted minimum, how can you say definitively that this is a poor deal in real terms today in 2012?
I get the point about the length of the deal, but there could be get out clauses etc that allow either party to exit or re-negotiate should X or Y happen e.g. relegation or Champions League being the 2 most obvious.

Sponsorship in general is an area where we've been always been ****e. From the days of Hafnia meat pies onwards we've always been a bit crap compared to our peers & it's an area where a decent amount of growth could come from imo. As much as it goads me to say it, the RS are getting right with the Yanks maximising their 'global brand' with some solid deals. We're a world away in terms of what we could expect, but the principle is the same & we're falling short in this area without doubt.

Because as a club for sale this would massively limit our attractiveness to a prospective new owner. That's my main objection. EFC's commercial operation used to operate at a loss and we had to close our City Centre store it was so bad. I was made up we got into bed with a proven operator like Kitbag. Much, much improved operations and hopefully we have a few spies in the camp from our own organization.

BUT, it's obvious the way the PL has gone and will continue to go for some time. A shorter term could only be in our favour, especially when you consider that our Kit deal was up for negotiation not long into the deal and not working with Kitbag could and may have been a dealbreaker for big operators with thier own networks in place. Perhaps thats why Nike wouldn't pay us the upfront and yearly payment all other clubs recieve?

I agree there may be get out clauses or penalties to pay to exit the deal, but neither would be needed if it weren't such a long deal. A decade is a massive amount of time in Football. The current league champs were in league 1 a decade ago.

 

[davek]

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?

You're not getting this are you Chris? I'm asking you for the proof the NTL paperwork was in place. I've given you a more plausible scenario regarding any loans from the bank based on traditional income sources...you're giving me fantasy claims that a 'negotiated' 'NTL deal' stood behind it. See how clear it is when I put it like that?

There is no proof is there mate? Not really.

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?

Well, we can only go on what Elstone said cant we? I'd imagine if there were loads of add ons it'd have been trumpeted at the time as the best ever ever Everton deal that will get even better with targets reached. But he didn't claim that, he just stated it was £30M over 10 years.

Over to you if you have info about these add ons.

BTW: still no NTL paperwork? I think we can forget about that claim now cant we?

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Because as a club for sale this would massively limit our attractiveness to a prospective new owner. That's my main objection. EFC's commercial operation used to operate at a loss and we had to close our City Centre store it was so bad. I was made up we got into bed with a proven operator like Kitbag. Much, much improved operations and hopefully we have a few spies in the camp from our own organization.

BUT, it's obvious the way the PL has gone and will continue to go for some time. A shorter term could only be in our favour, especially when you consider that our Kit deal was up for negotiation not long into the deal and not working with Kitbag could and may have been a dealbreaker for big operators with thier own networks in place. Perhaps thats why Nike wouldn't pay us the upfront and yearly payment all other clubs recieve?

I agree there may be get out clauses or penalties to pay to exit the deal, but neither would be needed if it weren't such a long deal. A decade is a massive amount of time in Football. The current league champs were in league 1 a decade ago.

I don't see this deal as being something that would deter any potential new owner at all tbh.

It only accounts for about 4% of our turnover & as we've agreed will almost certainly have get out clauses in it anyway, so the length of the deal may not prove to be prohibitive.

In any case, whoever ends up buying EFC will be doing so with their own agenda behind it imo & I doubt making an annual return will be high on the agenda, as seems to be the want with the majority of PL buyers these days.

You've said yourself there that we used to make a loss with our commercial operation, & so short term at least this deal had to be an improvement on that. Maybe they 'shot too low' given where we'd come from, but without the actual numbers we can't conclude that either way.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Well, we can only go on what Elstone said cant we? I'd imagine if there were loads of add ons it'd have been trumpeted at the time as the best ever ever Everton deal that will get even better with targets reached. But he didn't claim that, he just stated it was £30M over 10 years.

Over to you if you have info about these add ons.

BTW: still no NTL paperwork? I think we can forget about that claim now cant we?

I never claimed to have any details of the kitbag deal, I was asking you seeing as you'd so definitively labelled it a crock of ****. I assumed that you had made a considered judgement based on the intimate detail of the numbers, but seemingly not.

What NTL paperwork did I ever claim to have? However, seeing as you now take Mr Elstones words at face value, I'm sure you can take those of his gaffer......

"We were close to doing a media deal with NTL when NTL went bust, out of business in that particular area of its activities. It was literally on the day that we were accepting a cheque for over £30m. Literally on the day"

 

[davek]

I never claimed to have any details of the kitbag deal, I was asking you seeing as you'd so definitively labelled it a crock of ****. I assumed that you had made a considered judgement based on the intimate detail of the numbers, but seemingly not.

What NTL paperwork did I ever claim to have? However, seeing as you now take Mr Elstones words at face value, I'm sure you can take those of his gaffer......

"We were close to doing a media deal with NTL when NTL went bust, out of business in that particular area of its activities. It was literally on the day that we were accepting a cheque for over £30m. Literally on the day"

Please dont tell me it's come down to this. You're advancing the words of Billy Liar as proof that contact with NTL got to the point of paperwork.

10 hours of argument about the NTL stuff boils down to that?

*shakes head*

 

[Chang Elephant]

"We were close to doing a media deal with NTL when NTL went bust, out of business in that particular area of its activities. It was literally on the day that we were accepting a cheque for over £30m. Literally on the day"

You actually believe that ?

 

[steken1]

I don't see this deal as being something that would deter any potential new owner at all tbh.

It only accounts for about 4% of our turnover & as we've agreed will almost certainly have get out clauses in it anyway, so the length of the deal may not prove to be prohibitive.

In any case, whoever ends up buying EFC will be doing so with their own agenda behind it imo & I doubt making an annual return will be high on the agenda, as seems to be the want with the majority of PL buyers these days.

You've said yourself there that we used to make a loss with our commercial operation, & so short term at least this deal had to be an improvement on that. Maybe they 'shot too low' given where we'd come from, but without the actual numbers we can't conclude that either way.

You don't seem to grasp my point. The fact that it will only ever be 4% of our turnover is exactly what would put off a buyer who may reasonably think he could get it to 20-30% with his own methods and team. We haven't agreed anything to do with clauses as we're not in a position to. Kitbag would be absolute fools if they allowed us to wriggle off the hook.

You don't think any buyer will be looking to make money??? What would you suggest may be on thier agenda, if not money?

They will be looking to add value to thier business by improving it's processes and profitability, they won't be able to because thats tied up, as is all corporate and matchday servicing, something Arsenal make £2m a game from.

Are you for real?

Spot on with your last point. Short term it was a good deal. Shame we didn't sign a short term deal though.

 

[Dell Boy]

In considering these commercial deals we need to take account of just how bad the club was 11 years ago

 

[steken1]

In considering these commercial deals we need to take account of just how bad the club was 11 years ago

This was 4yrs ago. After we'd managed to qualify for a CL play-off.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Please dont tell me it's come down to this. You're advancing the words of Billy Liar as proof that contact with NTL got to the point of paperwork.

10 hours of argument about the NTL stuff boils down to that?

*shakes head*

haha, the irony was obviously lost on you mate, never mind.

It wouldn't matter what I had Dave, you'd still believe what you want to believe, as anything relating to the board is the spawn of satan in your World. So NTL going bust will remain firmly in the "Kenwright's fault' envelope for you. I disagree, so we'll never concur.