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

[Ihaters]

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-02-13/what-can-we-read-into-mark-carneys-support-of-everton/

I dont want to labour the point, but this sort of publicity you cant buy. A board looking to sell up might want to pull someone like this close.

Yes, they should never of missed that insightful write up.

 

[nsno-chris]

In your eagerness to act like a total tit you've rather missed the point, again..

Bitchy!!!

I'll give you another example. Apple only make expensive laptops and they make a lot of money doing so because the profit margins are high. Does that mean there is no money to be made in selling cheaper computers ? Of course not.

Comparing Apples production of high class technology to football kits for juniors and females is the most ridiculous comparison ever. And the most probable reason for Apple not making cheaper technology is because of the brand and what people expect from them; why don't Ferrari make affordable cars, why don't Patek Philippe make affordable watches. You pay for the quality and expertise of the product

Why don't Armani branch into making football kits, they could make money off them????

Nike only sell products at high volume because it's easier for them to manage a smaller product line with high yields than a product line with lots of products that sell at a lower volume. However, just because that's easier for them doesn't mean it's the option which makes the most sense for Everton either financially or commercially..

I like the way you've tried to sound like you have an understanding of production techniques and methods, qouting words like high yield, prodcut lines, higher and lower volumes; but wikipedia and internet searches only cover the basics of mass production.

You need to get a book by Shigeo Shingo and read up on the concept of SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Dies); because all this 'small product line produces high yield' stuff is a load of b0ll0cks mate. Every major manufacturing company runs some form of SMED operation on production lines. The implementation of SMED allows the change over of one production run to the next (inclusive of the change of plate, parts machine, tools or whatever) to single minutes, thus allowing multiple production runs to completed during the shift. This concept reduces waste (time and distance) loss of product and a variety of other issues surrounding mass manufacturing.

So in theory, a company like Nike will not have a small product line.

I especially love the part where you decided to be a condescending bel when asking how i knew about the minimum order size. I actually got that from our DoC Paul Tyrrell, who said it on Twitter. You could have asked that instead of acting like a blert.

Ok, 2 things; 1-Bell has to l's in it. And 2nd; order size of 10000 does not automatically mean that there will any form of substantial profit in it for Nike, so all this minumum order crap is a load of balls as to why these kits where not produced.

 

[D410]

That's the bottom line, really.

Not long until it's the single longest trophy drought in our history.

Crikey how long is it to go now?

 

[Brennan]

Bitchy!!!

Nah, that was you.

 

[Brennan]

Bitchy!!!



Comparing Apples production of high class technology to football kits for juniors and females is the most ridiculous comparison ever. And the most probable reason for Apple not making cheaper technology is because of the brand and what people expect from them; why don't Ferrari make affordable cars, why don't Patek Philippe make affordable watches. You pay for the quality and expertise of the product

Why don't Armani branch into making football kits, they could make money off them????



I like the way you've tried to sound like you have an understanding of production techniques and methods, qouting words like high yield, prodcut lines, higher and lower volumes; but wikipedia and internet searches only cover the basics of mass production.

You need to get a book by Shigeo Shingo and read up on the concept of SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Dies); because all this 'small product line produces high yield' stuff is a load of b0ll0cks mate. Every major manufacturing company runs some form of SMED operation on production lines. The implementation of SMED allows the change over of one production run to the next (inclusive of the change of plate, parts machine, tools or whatever) to single minutes, thus allowing multiple production runs to completed during the shift. This concept reduces waste (time and distance) loss of product and a variety of other issues surrounding mass manufacturing.

So in theory, a company like Nike will not have a small product line.



Ok, 2 things; 1-Bell has to l's in it. And 2nd; order size of 10000 does not automatically mean that there will any form of substantial profit in it for Nike, so all this minumum order crap is a load of balls as to why these kits where not produced.

It's not about the specific reasons why they don't do it, i was pointing out that just because something is profitable does not mean a company will produce it. Saying 'if Nike don't do it it must not be profitable' is absurd, seeing as their subsidiary did it.

You've still failed to answer the question of why, if women and baby kits weren't profitable, that Umbro (owned by Nike) and LCS both produced them for years.

It was Tyrrell himself who said that the reason women's kits weren't produced was because of the minimum order size, so it would seem that Nike do actively prevent items being produced below a certain volume.

 

[nsno-chris]

It's not about the specific reasons why they don't do it, i was pointing out that just because something is profitable does not mean a company will produce it. Saying 'if Nike don't do it it must not be profitable' is absurd, seeing as their subsidiary did it.

You've still failed to answer the question of why, if women and baby kits weren't profitable, that Umbro (owned by Nike) and LCS both produced them for years.

Nike don't own Umbro.

And now i'll try answer in such a way that you may understand. The main reason will be numbers, and specifically how big the profit margin is for Nike; they will take into account previous sales figure, estimated sales prediction, sourcing, producing, shipping, shelf expectency etc etc of the product. They'll have a profitable figure for each shirt (could be £5, could be £10); now after calculating all the previous items listed an average cost per shirt will be generated, if this match there proftable figure then it won't be produced. Basically, there is no market for the item.

Now, if you don't understand this, your next question will be 'blah blah blah but Umbro and LCS did and they must have made money'. And yes, you are correct, but maybe, just maybe there margins are lot lower than Nikes and any profit is profit to these companies; after all Nike are global leaders in this field.

Compare it to Tesco and 99p stores; Tesco have a reasonable profit on most goods; when negotiating with suppliers there will be some leeway on prices (probably £s), they know what sells, what people purchase (based on Post Code and avg salary) and will stocks stores accordingly. Then we have the 99p stores, every item is negotiated down to the penny, thats were the profit lies; make a penny on an item and its profit, save a penny when negotiating its a profit.

And thats the difference; if there is no call for the product - Nike won't manufature it unless its really cost effective to them; on the other hand, the 2 mentioned brands wouldn't care less because it could be a small profit for them.

It was Tyrrell himself who said that the reason women's kits weren't produced was because of the minimum order size, so it would seem that Nike do actively prevent items being produced below a certain volume.

As do all manufacturing companies; it won't be worth there while. But that being the only reason; i doubt it very much

 

[kenada_blue]

Nike don't own Umbro.

And now i'll try answer in such a way that you may understand. The main reason will be numbers, and specifically how big the profit margin is for Nike; they will take into account previous sales figure, estimated sales prediction, sourcing, producing, shipping, shelf expectency etc etc of the product. They'll have a profitable figure for each shirt (could be £5, could be £10); now after calculating all the previous items listed an average cost per shirt will be generated, if this match there proftable figure then it won't be produced. Basically, there is no market for the item.

Now, if you don't understand this, your next question will be 'blah blah blah but Umbro and LCS did and they must have made money'. And yes, you are correct, but maybe, just maybe there margins are lot lower than Nikes and any profit is profit to these companies; after all Nike are global leaders in this field.

Compare it to Tesco and 99p stores; Tesco have a reasonable profit on most goods; when negotiating with suppliers there will be some leeway on prices (probably £s), they know what sells, what people purchase (based on Post Code and avg salary) and will stocks stores accordingly. Then we have the 99p stores, every item is negotiated down to the penny, thats were the profit lies; make a penny on an item and its profit, save a penny when negotiating its a profit.

And thats the difference; if there is no call for the product - Nike won't manufature it unless its really cost effective to them; on the other hand, the 2 mentioned brands wouldn't care less because it could be a small profit for them.



As do all manufacturing companies; it won't be worth there while. But that being the only reason; i doubt it very much

Nike do own umbro.

 

[nsno-chris]

Nike do own umbro.

Nike DON'T own Umbro

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Nike do own umbro.

No they don't.

 

[somuchfun]

Nike do own umbro.

Nike used to own Umbro, Iconix owns it now but it doesn't invalidate the argument.

 

[Ruairi77]

Reckon I'll see man city tops on sale in some Nike stores here in the US next season, just sayin!

 

[D410]

Since kenwright became everton chairman, everton have not won a thing, success or failure?

I wonder how many times Bill has woke up in the morning and thought after 13 years of winning nothing it,s about time I moved over for someone else. I mean, how long can you keep kidding yourself that your a "player" in a rich mans business when you don,t have the money in your pocket to play on the top table.

Now is the time to sell the club and do what,s best for the everyone, but I guess that,s when Bill put his Mr Everton mask on and retreats to his bubble world were no everton fan can enter.

 

[davek]

I wonder how many times Bill has woke up in the morning and thought after 13 years of winning nothing it,s about time I moved over for someone else. I mean, how long can you keep kidding yourself that your a "player" in a rich mans business when you don,t have the money in your pocket to play on the top table.

Now is the time to sell the club and do what,s best for the everyone, but I guess that,s when Bill put his Mr Everton mask on and retreats to his bubble world were no everton fan can enter.

Zero times. It's not about winning. It's about being at the helm of 'his' club. He'd still try and cling on even if we were relegated. And he'd then start talking about looking 24/7 for a multi-millionaire rather than a billionaire...about how he cant find us a double glazing magnate rather than a sheik.

 

[Ruairi77]

Who's the longest serving chairman in the premier league? just curious and too lazy to search.

 

[Gablett]

Who's the longest serving chairman in the premier league? just curious and too lazy to search.

Good question, i would like to know too but sadly I am also too lazy to search.

*sits down next to Ruairi77 and sighs*