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

[EFC NY]

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.

I agree that it should not matter from a fan perspective. However, Chelsea and City can not be blindly cites as examples of "new ownership = greatness", without acknowledging that their greatness is ensured due to the obscene amount of money that has been spent, and will continue to be spent, without regard to losses. This type of new ownership needs to be put into its own category. There is a large gap between these owners, and our current owners. Within this gap, a fair number of owners have come in, taken over clubs, spent money stupidly, than said "oh s--t", and watched it all fall apart.

 

[Allezfan]

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.

I've never claimed to be able to be able to drive. You still wouldn't want to hire me as a taxi driver.

Are we arguing now that honesty over his unsuitablity means kenwright isn't unsuitable?

 

[magicjuan]

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.

But he did say he would be temporary custodian...and also...
Icould no more buy all of Peter Johnson's shares than play centre-forward this Saturday. These amounts are not in my personal ball park.

so where did the money come from eventually...

 

[magicjuan]

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.




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.

Perhaps the rise in TV incomes, something not based upon board performance? Or actual reductions in numbers of playing staff as contributions, surplus monies from transfer deals, performance related table finishes?

As to DK, to what extent are you able to concede it as a game changer in regards to PP on a national scale? Or even the 34/35m difference on land value that the club tried to claim as a 55m cheque, I agree as to the ALWAYS to the ERXTREME element, just that the particular element happens to be spin at its kindest and bollix at it's most Oirish...

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

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'.

So the lack of ability to make a greater return on the sausage rolls would deter a potential bidder? behave yourself.

 

[toffeeben15]

But it does matter that city and Chelsea have no buisness models . If one day there owners jump ship and sell on then i doubt they will get someone with billions to buy again so they will get some owner who would be stuck with thier loss of profit and would be made to sell all thier players . We need to be ran like the German league . Clean and efficient with not huge amounts of money but enought to get success . It's not like we need a billionaire because as long as some one can give davey 20 million a window then we could get champions league which would help pay the debt of . We have a good starting 11 but just need that extra money for squad players which bill hasn't got

 

[Dell Boy]

I agree that it should not matter from a fan perspective. However, Chelsea and City can not be blindly cites as examples of "new ownership = greatness", without acknowledging that their greatness is ensured due to the obscene amount of money that has been spent, and will continue to be spent, without regard to losses. This type of new ownership needs to be put into its own category. There is a large gap between these owners, and our current owners. Within this gap, a fair number of owners have come in, taken over clubs, spent money stupidly, than said "oh s--t", and watched it all fall apart.

Also for one small second it would be good if we, as a civilised first world country, could acknowledge that the origins of the wealth behind both chelsea and man city's owners are riddled with bad ethics and morals. Both owners basically raped their country's natural resources to serve their own despotic ambitions.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Also for one small second it would be good if we, as a civilised first world country, could acknowledge that the origins of the wealth behind both chelsea and man city's owners are riddled with bad ethics and morals. Both owners basically raped their country's natural resources to serve their own despotic ambitions.

City's owners aren't in it for the benefit of their egos in fairness, they bought City to advertise their oil rich nation globally, with the intention of turning it into the new Dubai, in preparation for when the wells run dry.

However the point made by the other poster was totally correct, both they & Chelsea are operating on their own plain.

It is assumed that a new owner will come in & make some fantastic business decisions that end up yielding enough cash to fund Everton in a way that is vastly different to how it is today - the reality imo is that even run to it's maximum EFC will still be streets behind both it's peers & the benefactor clubs. The honest truth is that we need a sugar daddy if we're going to see the kind of massive shift that we all want.

 

[Dell Boy]

I've never claimed to be able to be able to drive. You still wouldn't want to hire me as a taxi driver.

Are we arguing now that honesty over his unsuitablity means kenwright isn't unsuitable?

But I remember clearly his words when be took us over. There are plenty of issues to take him up on without this one. He said he was largely skint at the outset. Yes it is a criticism of him in not getting new investors on board and/or new owners. He has said on the record numerous times he's been trying to sell for years. The second there's a shred of proof that a serious party made an offer for the club etc etc then you can hold him to task.

 

[Dell Boy]

Perhaps the rise in TV incomes, something not based upon board performance? Or actual reductions in numbers of playing staff as contributions, surplus monies from transfer deals, performance related table finishes?

As to DK, to what extent are you able to concede it as a game changer in regards to PP on a national scale? Or even the 34/35m difference on land value that the club tried to claim as a 55m cheque, I agree as to the ALWAYS to the ERXTREME element, just that the particular element happens to be spin at its kindest and bollix at it's most Oirish...

Come on man up - you said that Moyes has been selling players in order to pass funds up the line to Kenwright. That's not true is it?

Not sure what you're getting at in your second para. I'm saying that if you look at the records of a planning inquiry, or worst still have to sit through them, then all major protagonists play it out to the max. Hence Elstone's comments must be taken in the context of where they were said. That's all i'm saying there mate.

 

[Allezfan]

But I remember clearly his words when be took us over. There are plenty of issues to take him up on without this one. He said he was largely skint at the outset. Yes it is a criticism of him in not getting new investors on board and/or new owners. He has said on the record numerous times he's been trying to sell for years. The second there's a shred of proof that a serious party made an offer for the club etc etc then you can hold him to task.

I just don't think self awareness about faults makes up for those faults.

The fact kenwright is skint makes him a less favourable chairman than one who isn't.

I've said this before but given that kenwright's main aim, in his own words, is to find investment then the fact that he hasn't done in all this time either means he's set himself an unachievable aim and should have a different plan or he's simply not very good at doing it and should let someone else try and find investiment.

 

[Dell Boy]

City's owners aren't in it for the benefit of their egos in fairness, they bought City to advertise their oil rich nation globally, with the intention of turning it into the new Dubai, in preparation for when the wells run dry.
.

I accept there's a difference between the ultimate ambitions of the two but in both you have major sections of the working class that live in either absolute poverty and/or with next to no human rights. By rights neither Abramovich nor City's lot should be allowed anywhere near this country with their dodgy wallets.

 

[Dell Boy]

I just don't think self awareness about faults makes up for those faults.

The fact kenwright is skint makes him a less favourable chairman than one who isn't.

I've said this before but given that kenwright's main aim, in his own words, is to find investment then the fact that he hasn't done in all this time either means he's set himself an unachievable aim and should have a different plan or he's simply not very good at doing it and should let someone else try and find investiment.

I agree with a lot of that post. Re your first point of course a lack of money makes Kenwright a less than ideal chairman. But my point is it is wrong to have a go at him for not spending if he hasn't got it and declared that from day one.

On your third para I largely agree. By any stretch of the imagination he's had a lot of time to try and find new investors.

 

[magicjuan]

So the lack of ability to make a greater return on the sausage rolls would deter a potential bidder? behave yourself.

If you want to debate on a base level, fair enough. Perhaps what I have stated is too complexfor you to comprehend beyond a pastry product? Could no existing deals be prohibitive to expansion of services or more beneficial partnerships ?
So, you behave, or learn, I've given you options there, enjoy

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I accept there's a difference between the ultimate ambitions of the two but in both you have major sections of the working class that live in either absolute poverty and/or with next to no human rights. By rights neither Abramovich nor City's lot should be allowed anywhere near this country with their dodgy wallets.

That's a society issue not a football one imo, taken to the nth degree, you could morally object to all of the tax avoiding Chairman, delve into where they invest their cash etc etc. ad infinitum.