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

[Furey1878]

This is the wrong maths; all that matters is how much you paid vs how much profit you generate.

Sorry.

 

[Toffeelover]

No one will know how much profit is generated until at some time there is a sale of shares, which have to say I think it is very unlikely. All Bill's tallk of takeover parties is pure fairy tales.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Ok, so someone was approached about selling their few shares? It would make sense that the price would be much lower than what you'd pay for a controlling interest in the club. Thanks.

Not quite. All shares carry equal rights. There shouldnt ever be a difference in the price of one share and another. Assuming they are the same types of shares.

I think I'm in agreement with pfim on this. Certainly you can buy any share at whatever value the seller places on it, but if you're looking for controlling position you almost always have to (1) pay greater than market price or (2) pay whatever the major stakeholders agree to sell for. Unless you're pursuing a hostile takeover by some other structure, this is the model you see in other businesses. When Berkshire Hathaway purchased Burlington Northern Santa Fe (North America's 2nd largest rail company), it paid 30% over current trading value for the purchase.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Sorry.

I appreciate the helps

 

[SerenityNigh]

No one will know how much profit is generated until at some time there is a sale of shares, which have to say I think it is very unlikely. All Bill's tallk of takeover parties is pure fairy tales.

I assume this was in response to my comment. Sorry if I've taken the wrong direction here. However, if you're purchasing a company and you don't have any idea how much profit you can generate (or use a different term if you prefer), then you don't have any business buying that company. If you're buying a shoelace factory, and you know that it produces 10,000,000 shoelaces a year at a profit of £0.05 per shoelace, you have some idea how much profit (or net turnover? do you have a different British phrase?) you expect the company to generate (= £500,000). Then take into account industry trends (are sales increasing or declining? is a new product making yours obsolete?) and how long you want to wait to recover your investment (3 years? 5 years? 10 years?) and you've figured out the company's valuation. So then you know, with little effort, that to buy the shoelace factory for £750,000 is a great price, but to pay £25,000,000 is unadvisable.

Except that football clubs have an entirely unique financial situation, it's very much the same. Then again, how many Russian Oligarchs and Middle Eastern oil barons are buying shoelace factories and operating them at a loss for years on end, out of pleasure or hobby? There are some who argue that buying a sports team is like buying art; the immediate value derived is psychic and the long-term profit is difficult to predict (but usually many times the inflation rate of national economies).

 

[Toffeelover]

Let me rephrase, when shares are sold at a higher price than they were bought for it is a gain not a profit. I understand fully what you are saying about business and it's standing as a going concern but as you say Football is different.

The point I was making is in regard to Everton FC that a share sale or takeover will never happen, all fairy tales from dear old Bill.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Let me rephrase, when shares are sold at a higher price than they were bought for it is a gain not a profit. I understand fully what you are saying about business and it's standing as a going concern but as you say Football is different.

The point I was making is in regard to Everton FC that a share sale or takeover will never happen, all fairy tales from dear old Bill.

Fair enough; you'd think if there was interest then a sale would be forthcoming. The evidence suggests that the team is not for sale, or not for sale at a price any suitors desire, or there are no suitors.

 

[Brownie]

I've read a few articles talking about the cultural value of sporting institutions, which I think is a strong factor. That is, the place in society that sport holds is so deeply entrenched that occupying it has become a significant position of power. In this country it's mainly football. Imagine if the UK got into any kind of conflict with Russia or the UAE, being able to say, "well, we'll just ruin the Premier League then" is an extremely damaging threat. Buying up our prominent clubs is arguably quite a cheap way of increasing foreign influence and control, even at the exhorbitant prices that are the going rate.

 

[Allezfan]

I assume this was in response to my comment. Sorry if I've taken the wrong direction here. However, if you're purchasing a company and you don't have any idea how much profit you can generate (or use a different term if you prefer), then you don't have any business buying that company. If you're buying a shoelace factory, and you know that it produces 10,000,000 shoelaces a year at a profit of £0.05 per shoelace, you have some idea how much profit (or net turnover? do you have a different British phrase?) you expect the company to generate (= £500,000). Then take into account industry trends (are sales increasing or declining? is a new product making yours obsolete?) and how long you want to wait to recover your investment (3 years? 5 years? 10 years?) and you've figured out the company's valuation. So then you know, with little effort, that to buy the shoelace factory for £750,000 is a great price, but to pay £25,000,000 is unadvisable.

Except that football clubs have an entirely unique financial situation, it's very much the same. Then again, how many Russian Oligarchs and Middle Eastern oil barons are buying shoelace factories and operating them at a loss for years on end, out of pleasure or hobby? There are some who argue that buying a sports team is like buying art; the immediate value derived is psychic and the long-term profit is difficult to predict (but usually many times the inflation rate of national economies).

Nobody makes profits year in year out from football clubs, though.

It's expected for you in invest more into a club then you get out because everyone else is.

What you do is buy a club and then sell it later for more money when the club's value has risen.

I think I said earlier that a football club is like a monet picture, you keep it in the attic, boast about it at parties and then flog it for twice what you paid for it years later.

 

[SerenityNigh]

I've read a few articles talking about the cultural value of sporting institutions, which I think is a strong factor. That is, the place in society that sport holds is so deeply entrenched that occupying it has become a significant position of power. In this country it's mainly football. Imagine if the UK got into any kind of conflict with Russia or the UAE, being able to say, "well, we'll just ruin the Premier League then" is an extremely damaging threat. Buying up our prominent clubs is arguably quite a cheap way of increasing foreign influence and control, even at the exhorbitant prices that are the going rate.

In the US this argument forces many municipalities to build new stadiums (not unlike the sweet deal West Ham got). Not sure I agree with the public building stadiums for teams, but certainly the argument that a team has cultural value shouldn't be dismissed.

 

[Allezfan]

In the US this argument forces many municipalities to build new stadiums (not unlike the sweet deal West Ham got). Not sure I agree with the public building stadiums for teams, but certainly the argument that a team has cultural value shouldn't be dismissed.

Certainly in this country, the 100 biggest clubs of the 1950s are still going.

That isn't true of any business in the world. Football clubs are insulated from their failure, in a way other businesses aren't. See how Rangers and Portsmouth are still going.

 

[davek]

I've read a few articles talking about the cultural value of sporting institutions, which I think is a strong factor. That is, the place in society that sport holds is so deeply entrenched that occupying it has become a significant position of power. In this country it's mainly football. Imagine if the UK got into any kind of conflict with Russia or the UAE, being able to say, "well, we'll just ruin the Premier League then" is an extremely damaging threat. Buying up our prominent clubs is arguably quite a cheap way of increasing foreign influence and control, even at the exhorbitant prices that are the going rate.

They're businesses, though, I dont think they'd cut their noses off to spite their face. They buy into the game to get a foothold in national markets. Sovereign Wealth Funds like those operated by the UAE are picking up clubs or sponsoring major ones to advertise Fly Emirate Airlines, and state owned companies like Gazprom are hoovering up clubs left, right and centre to nose in on domestic energy supply. And many of these entities have foreign (western) capital tied up in them, so they'd be restricted in using clubs as a cultural bomb.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Certainly in this country, the 100 biggest clubs of the 1950s are still going.

That isn't true of any business in the world. Football clubs are insulated from their failure, in a way other businesses aren't. See how Rangers and Portsmouth are still going.

Thats true. Usually its some sort of emotional interest that leads to a club being sold, the alternative reason is to gain credence in a certain area, like the Mansoors at City, who are regenerating a whole area and at the same time getting a very credible foothold in Manchester for other business operations. I would hesitate to say that the object was primarily to get a cultural foothold. Abramovich bought into Chelsea because of his ego, and so that he could live in London, as a credible citizen. He could also get loads of money out of Russia, another big plus for him.Reasons of profit? Applicable to the Americans buying the RS cheaply from the bank, a virtual liquidation price, the American at Arsenal, and not many more. It might have been Ashleys plan at Newcastle, but he won't be able to sell for what he wants any time soon. Similarly Lerner at Villa. A fair few of the other Prem owners are 'emotional' owners, like the guy at Stoke. If thats what he wants to do with his money, its up to him. So there we are. What kind of 'owner' do we want for Everton? Some sort of mixture of all the above? Its a difficult ask.

 

[Chang Elephant]

I think Bill is a shining example of humanity so this is no criticism but I'd like an owner that:

1) Doesn't ban shareholder AGM's

2) Doesn't scam shareholders at AGM's by presenting the alleged prime mover of investment that did not exist

3) Doesn't brief against fans groupings in the local and national media

4) In an era of rapidly inflating TV income, facilitates maybe a £5M or so net spend every now and again rather than a 14 year negative spend

5) Admits to knowing what other operating costs are made up of and what caused their sudden sustained rise several seasons ago

6) Does not involve famous tax averse "friends" in the business of EFC, nor takes loans from BVI registered companies

7) Will not just sit there awaiting a return on the sale of the initial share purchase, from any party willing to met the mark up, whilst having had no positive effect on the business financial standing in the meantime

That is the dream, but in reality Bill is the greatest ever Evertonian, so if he gets rich whilst we plummet, what's not to like ?

 

[D410]

The owner we will get is the one that pays the asking price, the rest is out of anyones control so we can forget using that argument to scaremongering blues into sticking with the current custodian.