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

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Okay here is a slightly different take (although one which has probably been made already):

I would welcome a takeover from someone smart even if they had less money than BK.*

Of course this person would be another "custodian" type who will hopefully just keep the club Euro competitive long enough for a big money takeover.

However I believe (as do many on this side of the aisle) that the club has been mismanaged independent of financial concerns. We all talk about needing money (most people don't fantasize about a mildly positive event -- if we're going to daydream it will be about a billionaire showing up) but I'd be happy with someone who was more capable of squeezing every last penny out of this club's potential.

I think there is an extra 5-10m a year out there which with the right people in charge we could grab.

Lack of money is the most glaring and obvious problem with the current regime but it's FAR from the only problem.

*Less money is effectively the same money as BK because the club runs on its own revenue ... my point is whether the person has the same, less or slightly more they don't have to be a billionaire to improve us.

That said it's hardly an exciting prospect compared with getting a billionaire so it's rarely mentioned. Ideally you need three things: a great manager, smart owners and lots of money. We've gotten pretty far on a manager; if we could have a great manager *and* a super smart owner we might be able to close the gap a little more (but we'd still need money eventually to compete at the highest levels).

See, this is an argument I can totally understand and get behind.

It fairly challenges his club running acumen in a balanced way

Some of the other posts on here just seem like personal attacks and it sullies any good points the person might be making

 

[magicjuan]

Blackburn is the extreme end of the spectrum and it's always the extreme's that rest on your mind.

That and Portsmouth are "worst case scenario's" and some people, like me, worry about those kind of things

To be fair,you should be as worried regarding the current board because the only difference lies in the speed of the fall, that realistically is only down to Moyes creating funds for Bill to pay off the wonga boys their interest.

There is nothing left to sell other than players, been like that for some time. Moyes doesn't play ball then Bill's own plan goes to the wall, more quickly, that is when your worry will take a grip. But don't consider the current business model carries any more security than those used by the clubs you've cited, even back in the DK inquiry Elstone admitted it was unsustainable, and bit by bit it gets worse and worse, and the cost of borrowing for a club like us gets higher and higher.

 

[blueblue]

Brennan.
Chelsea and City cannot be used as comparatives for any clubs in the premiership.Liverpool were on the brink of disaster before the current owners took charge and long term we will have to see if they are prepared to keep sinking money into the club...I don't believe they will and this summer will tell us a lot about their ambitions.Newcastle have been relegated,had one season and are currently not exactly safe from relegation again.Stoke have a very rich owner and have supported their manager well,for a modest return.Villa spent a lot of money and the owner decided he wanted his money back and forced the sale of a host of top quality players.Look at the players Viila sold at a profit,it is not true to say O Neill wasted money.I don't think anybody quite knows what is happening at Arsenal.They seem to have money but either the board or a stubborn manager won't spend the money and when they do they seem to buy the wrong players for the wrong positions.Sunderland have been badly managed.

Everton have a poor stadium and poor owners.That is our problem.We have assembled a squad of players that are costing more than our turnover would justify.

We need new owners,but where are they ?,the issue about the asking pricein my opinon is a bit of a red herring.Nobody knows for certain the real asking price and if a genuine buyer made himself known publicly,I believe there would be enormous fan pressure on the board which would eventually force a sale.

I have never once heard a name of an investor that genuinely wanted or still wants to buy the club.

 

[Brennan]

Brennan.
Chelsea and City cannot be used as comparatives for any clubs in the premiership.Liverpool were on the brink of disaster before the current owners took charge and long term we will have to see if they are prepared to keep sinking money into the club...I don't believe they will and this summer will tell us a lot about their ambitions.Newcastle have been relegated,had one season and are currently not exactly safe from relegation again.Stoke have a very rich owner and have supported their manager well,for a modest return.Villa spent a lot of money and the owner decided he wanted his money back and forced the sale of a host of top quality players.Look at the players Viila sold at a profit,it is not true to say O Neill wasted money.I don't think anybody quite knows what is happening at Arsenal.They seem to have money but either the board or a stubborn manager won't spend the money and when they do they seem to buy the wrong players for the wrong positions.Sunderland have been badly managed.

Everton have a poor stadium and poor owners.That is our problem.We have assembled a squad of players that are costing more than our turnover would justify.

We need new owners,but where are they ?,the issue about the asking pricein my opinon is a bit of a red herring.Nobody knows for certain the real asking price and if a genuine buyer made himself known publicly,I believe there would be enormous fan pressure on the board which would eventually force a sale.

I have never once heard a name of an investor that genuinely wanted or still wants to buy the club.

Why can City and Chelsea not be used for comparison when Blackburn can ? The former were as far at one end of the spectrum as Venkys are at the other.

Stoke have had a modest return because their manager only knows how to play Rugby and buys utter s***e players. £70m in five seasons.

O'Neill didn't waste money ?!?!?

Richard Dunne - £5m
Stephen Warnock - £7m
Cullear - £7.8m
Curtis Davies - £8m
Nicky Shorey - £4m
Heskey - £3.5m

Total - £35.5m

That would be bad if it was over the course of O'Neill's entire tenure at Villa. In fact that was during two seasons of spending.

And Arsenal ? Nobody needs to know exactly what is happening. They are a financially stable team in a world class stadium who are consistently in and around the top 4, despite not spending the money on transfers which they DO have available.

 

[Tobin]

Dream scenario would be a lowered price to enable a mixture of ex blues and local businessmen and foreign investors with an ex player being the chairmen/director similar to that of a Bayern. Why do we have sell the club in one big block but in many.

To be fair though why isn't the club looking at alternative methods from various countries. Why do we have to follow the route of others in this league and instead find out own. I have said before if it was possible to go down the German route would be more suitable maybe not for short term success but long term. Then with right people we Invest more in local youth talent, improve the academy to provide better players but also staff in the similar vain as Barcelona whom I believe has a brilliant training school for coaches.

 

[magicjuan]

Dream scenario would be a lowered price to enable a mixture of ex blues and local businessmen and foreign investors with an ex player being the chairmen/director similar to that of a Bayern. Why do we have sell the club in one big block but in many.

To be fair though why isn't the club looking at alternative methods from various countries. Why do we have to follow the route of others in this league and instead find out own. I have said before if it was possible to go down the German route would be more suitable maybe not for short term success but long term. Then with right people we Invest more in local youth talent, improve the academy to provide better players but also staff in the similar vain as Barcelona whom I believe has a brilliant training school for coaches.

Anything other than straight selling dilutes the control,power and authority of the majority shareholders, for that reason alone no alternative is sought. It could also explain the use of 'investment' as a diversion, as no one would 'invest' on the terms that Bill et al want, i.e. full contyrol of the use of someone else's money.

I genuinely believe the decisions on the approach od the board are way out of Kenwright's influence, he is just the front man, the one epected to take the stick,because he takes whatever glory he can get his hands on.

The power within the board understands that and the payback is the return they want, on their terms only.

 

[blueblue]

Brennan.
I think you are being selective in the players you mentioned.I notice you didn't mention Barry,Young or Milner.I would also strongly dispute the description of Richard Dunne as a bad buy he has been a top premiership defender for over a decade,has given Villa great service and his injuies this season are a huge blow to them.
Chelsea and City are clubs that pay no attention to any business model known.They have regularly posted losses in excess of our turnover and neither club nor banks blinked an eye.
Blackburn are badly run by people who have no idea what they are doing and it seems to me have not got the money to buy their way out of trouble or if they have it ,are not prepared to spend it.

 

[Bluenose1995]

KENWRIGHT OUT

 

[blueblue]

MJ.
I suspect you are right about the real power brokers behind the club,but they are playing a dangerous game.The club is currently worth more now than it has been for a long time because of our respactable league standing and the money currently flowing into football.A change of manager or a couple of poor seasons,the loss of our better players could change things very quickly.
It is alright to have an inflated price in mind,but if nobody will meet it,then you are not going to sell.I do believe that Bill Kenwright would like to sell to a genuine buyer.How much influence do you think he would have in controlling who the club could be sold to ?

 

[Brennan]

Brennan.
I think you are being selective in the players you mentioned.I notice you didn't mention Barry,Young or Milner.I would also strongly dispute the description of Richard Dunne as a bad buy he has been a top premiership defender for over a decade,has given Villa great service and his injuies this season are a huge blow to them.
Chelsea and City are clubs that pay no attention to any business model known.They have regularly posted losses in excess of our turnover and neither club nor banks blinked an eye.
Blackburn are badly run by people who have no idea what they are doing and it seems to me have not got the money to buy their way out of trouble or if they have it ,are not prepared to spend it.

You said O'Neill didn't waste money, he clearly did, hence the players i listed. It is a regular criticism of him by Villa's own fans that he left them high and dry. £91m net spend in five seasons, at least half of which was wasted on sub par players. He spent ridiculous amounts of money and couldn't get the performances his spending required.

Why does it matter that City and Chelsea don't have a business model ? Their owners are continually investing in the team, City's owners are creating a huge youth development site around the Etihad and Abramovich is continually looking to move Chelsea to a bigger and better stadium.

 

[EFC NY]

Chelsea and City are bad examples because they were bought by persons/entities that are so massively wealthy that they can lose many millions a year and not care. Its just a toy for them. I spend money every year on skiing, and I do not see a return on that investment, other than the enjoyment I get. This is what Chelsea and City are to their owners, but just a much larger scale. These owners spend millions on a player. If he gets hurt, or just plays poorly, they just buy another one. The reason why they have been successful is that their is seemingly an unlimited amount of money to be spent. Blackburn, Portsmith, etc were bought by owners who aren't as rich and/or actually care about losing massive amounts of money. They spend money, it didn't work out, than it fell apart. The money ran out (either actually, or what was willing to be spent).

All in all, there are only two ways to be in Europe and win trophies at least semi-consistently. 1) Have a Chelsea/City ownership situation where there is literally no limit to the money that can be spent - manager can make 10 mistakes on transfers and there is still money to but another; 2) Have more money than we have, and be able to absorb some losses, but have a manager with an eye for talent, and will not often spunk $ on bad players.

 

[Brennan]

Chelsea and City are bad examples because they were bought by persons/entities that are so massively wealthy that they can lose many millions a year and not care. Its just a toy for them. I spend money every year on skiing, and I do not see a return on that investment, other than the enjoyment I get. This is what Chelsea and City are to their owners, but just a much larger scale. These owners spend millions on a player. If he gets hurt, or just plays poorly, they just buy another one. The reason why they have been successful is that their is seemingly an unlimited amount of money to be spent. Blackburn, Portsmith, etc were bought by owners who aren't as rich and/or actually care about losing massive amounts of money. They spend money, it didn't work out, than it fell apart. The money ran out (either actually, or what was willing to be spent).

All in all, there are only two ways to be in Europe and win trophies at least semi-consistently. 1) Have a Chelsea/City ownership situation where there is literally no limit to the money that can be spent - manager can make 10 mistakes on transfers and there is still money to but another; 2) Have more money than we have, and be able to absorb some losses, but have a manager with an eye for talent, and will not often spunk $ on bad players.

Why does the way they operate make them bad examples ? We need a new owner, who cares if it's somebody who will slowly improve the team or a mega rich person ?

And lets not bring out the old 'What if they get bored' line, Abramovich shows no sign of getting bored with Chelsea, and once they move to a new ground both Chelsea and City will be very financially stable.

 

[Dell Boy]

To be fair,you should be as worried regarding the current board because the only difference lies in the speed of the fall, that realistically is only down to Moyes creating funds for Bill to pay off the wonga boys their interest.

That comment is simply not true. Why would you want to make such a blatantly untrue statement? There has been a net spend on transfers. Add in wages and the expenditure on players has gone up massively since Kenwright took over. Moreover given the Rooney transfer happened early on, the period since then has seen a more material level of spend on players. But don't let facts get in your way of a nice soundbite.

even back in the DK inquiry Elstone admitted it was unsustainable.

Dear oh deary me. Have you any experience of any other planning inquiries? The statements made on behalf of developer/lead occupier are ALWAYS extreme in their tone.

Tesco wanting to build a new supermarket on the edge of a nice little market town will claim that their 20-year old in-town supermarket will close any day unless the company can expand. Or a major corporate wanting permission for a new HQ or major extension will claim that unless they get their permission they will have to relocate to Ireland or wherever.

 

[Dell Boy]

All of whom have current owners that financially backed the squad more than Kenwright. The only reason Villa are in trouble is because O'Neill spunked money up the wall. Same thing happened with Sunderland, lots of transfer money given and lots of transfer money wasted.

But Bill never claimed he was going to splash millions when he saved us from Johnson did he? So how can you hold that against him?

I'd love a new owner that could spend loads of cash on the Blues. Would be ace.

 

[magicjuan]

MJ.
I suspect you are right about the real power brokers behind the club,but they are playing a dangerous game.The club is currently worth more now than it has been for a long time because of our respactable league standing and the money currently flowing into football.A change of manager or a couple of poor seasons,the loss of our better players could change things very quickly.
It is alright to have an inflated price in mind,but if nobody will meet it,then you are not going to sell.I do believe that Bill Kenwright would like to sell to a genuine buyer.How much influence do you think he would have in controlling who the club could be sold to ?

I think his control has been and gone a long time, think his influence was apparently shot after the Chelsea cup final, clubs own profile was at its highest then and if there was a willingness to sell genuinely think it could have happened quite quickly then.

If you look at the deals the club has for loans, kit, catering etc etc then they are all desperate, other companies are taking advantage of the situation, the club has nothing in the way of a bargaining position. All these deals influence and potential interest in buying the club, not just the share purchase or wiping off the debt, the ability to grow the business is tied up in bizarrely negotiated deals tying the club in knots for many years, mostly with penalties for early 'repayment'.

This all pushes the price higher than the value, if you take out a beyond reasonable profit it may seem more attractive, but that is where he has no influence now.

Ironically those who have deferred any momentum in seeking change at board level, those who keep defending Bill's gang's performance with a 'be careful what you wish for' mentality are the ones pushing the club closer to that very situation. The club is in a more desperate situation now than ever and the likelihood of it reaching a sell to whoever stage are more likely.

Keep saying this but it is really the time to start including Earl etc in the approach, Bill is supposed to take flak for their support, they really wouldn't like a high profile 'investigation' into their own performance and would put more pressure on Bill himself, which would be fun....