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

[bluestevon]

As a percentage of our financial worth we've prob invested more than kenwright..

Pretty easy to beat a 0% investment though mate isn't it ;p

 

[bluestevon]

Who does anyone have in mind to take over from Kenwright?

While I appreciate people's frustration, it's no good kicking someone out without having a replacement lined up.

If he sacked a manager with no replacement in mind, everyone would kick off.

No offense Groucho mate, but if a manager had done such a poor job for 14 years as Kenwright has done then him being sacked before the replacement was lined up would still be a better solution and i doubt anyone would kick off as you hinted at

 

[Groucho]

No offense Groucho mate, but if a manager had done such a poor job for 14 years as Kenwright has done then him being sacked before the replacement was lined up would still be a better solution and i doubt anyone would kick off as you hinted at

I was just trying to steer the argument away from the "GRRRR KENWRIGHT" and toward something a little different from the previous 680 pages of it.

 

[roydo]

I was just trying to steer the argument away from the "GRRRR KENWRIGHT" and toward something a little different from the previous 680 pages of it.

Good luck with that Grouch!

 

[Steve Wigan]

Out of interest, which "rules" are these?

The Articles of the Company place no such qualification on Directors.

I don't think Snapper means there are 'actual' rules....I think he's indicating his 'opinion' that BK makes up his own rules. Myself, I don't think it unreasonable that a CEO be invited to sit in at board meetings when neccessary, and while its Snappers opinion that Elstone 'hasn't been granted the same privelege' I imagine he's privy to decisions that allow him to do his job.

 

[SingBlue]

I was just trying to steer the argument away from the "GRRRR KENWRIGHT" and toward something a little different from the previous 680 pages of it.

Okay, I'll bite... and keep it short, no finger pointing.
Right now EFC is in asset-poor state, and has substantial debt (relative to our turnover before you start comparing with other clubs) and spends substantial funds each year, from it's limited income, servicing that debt. Little pay-down seems to be occurring suggesting that some of the short-term funding is indeed expensive (e.g. Vibrac)

Everton's income is from 3 areas. Broadcast, commercial and matchday. Broadcast is largely out of our control, apart from the prize money component of the Premier League final place. The increase of the new 3 year domestic and international TV deals benefits all clubs (rising tide lifts all ships etc.) Matchday revenue is constrained by the stadium (not enough hospitality), and a need to keep pricing for ordinary fans in line with economic drivers. Commercial is poor due to the likes of the kitbag deal, not maximising sponosr potential off the back of the increased TV exposure of the overseas deal etc. (Not just shirt sponsor, but tier 2 & 3).

So, the only buyer who could make this work as a financial case (i.e. not a benefactor, Sovereign Wealth Fund, or Oligarch) is someone who could see a potential to drive up revenue and asset value and then sell to recover investment + return.
- Address stadium issue (probably new offers best returns but is longer-term and more risky). Stadium issue will increase matchday income (more corporate boxes, better catering serving more fans). Needn't increase costs to the "ordinary fan" (I'd make a case for a slight reduction), but offer more packages for those who want to eat/drink in some comfort.
- Address commercial performance, use overseas agencies to both promote and sell the name to foreign entities wishing to tap the sports sponsorship market as a means of pushing their brands. There's loads that are keen. They just need talking to.

For the buyer, this would mean running up a lot of soft (hopefully)-debt and using issuing of new stock to repay that through a debt-equity swap (similar to Abramovich) which means the shares are worth roughly the same (so other investors not out of pocket OR in the money), but the owner has essentially swapped his investment for shares. With a club that has a strong asset base, under-pinned by a new (or redeveloped) stadium, debt reduced/restructured/repaid, and better revenue performance, the owner would have a good chance of recovering his investment and a return if he sold on. That's the complicated bit - what type of owner would that be to? (That to my mind is the real issue - not who the next owner is, but the one after that).

This is all very simplistic but if a dispassionate investor were to look at Everton right now, the investment required, the debt situation, plus the asking price, they'd say no. They'd see opportunity for sure, but too much hassle to get the club, and too much risk to make it pay. The disappasionate investor would jog on and look elsewhere. A lot of fans don't want a Man City/Chelsea owner who'll throw money at us. Nor do they want someone to load debt on the club (a la RS, Utd, QPR etc.) They fear a Venkys/Yeung, and they don't want us to be sold to a carpetbagger. So really all you're left with is what we have. And I'd argue that he and his chums are actually carpetbaggers (buy cheap, sell high with no investment).

Bleak isn't it?

 

[Ashtonian]

Echoing probably a few people on here but I do believe the current board, including Kenwright at least actually care who runs the club. All this selling to the right man i can buy into, considering how many failures of takeovers you can understand why he hasnt just got rich quick.

I am against the board for a million different reasons that are probably mentioned on the 600 odd pages on this thread so no point in repeating them. HOWEVER there is one thing that bugs me about how this current board has run the club.

We have quite clearly been managed on a short term plan with no long term view kept in mind. Signing deals like the Kitbag one simply serves to put a few extra quid into the club to sustain it for 12 months. There is no how will this effect us, simply see the money and sign the dotted line. There have been plenty of missed opportunities to increase the global exposure and marketing of the club, deals like the bellfield one was a quick few quid, and it seems every time one of these deals don't materialise then a player of the highest value is sold and we are told we are getting the money in january.....

I would rather the club come out and tell the truth about everything that has gone on. I'm not talking about transfer fees etc but simply transparancy on the subject. Why do we keep selling players, why do we keep signing these ridiculous deals and why has the club not planned for the future?

I think if the club gave us that, there would be a good few more that would stand by them rather than against them.

 

[The Esk]

I don't think Snapper means there are 'actual' rules....I think he's indicating his 'opinion' that BK makes up his own rules. Myself, I don't think it unreasonable that a CEO be invited to sit in at board meetings when neccessary, and while its Snappers opinion that Elstone 'hasn't been granted the same privelege' I imagine he's privy to decisions that allow him to do his job.

OK - I am pretty certain that Elstone is privy to all the information the Board is privy to. It is not particularly unusual for a CEO to not be a Director but to attend Board Meetings - this is a structure I use in my Companies.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Okay, I'll bite... and keep it short, no finger pointing.
Right now EFC is in asset-poor state, and has substantial debt (relative to our turnover before you start comparing with other clubs) and spends substantial funds each year, from it's limited income, servicing that debt. Little pay-down seems to be occurring suggesting that some of the short-term funding is indeed expensive (e.g. Vibrac)

Everton's income is from 3 areas. Broadcast, commercial and matchday. Broadcast is largely out of our control, apart from the prize money component of the Premier League final place. The increase of the new 3 year domestic and international TV deals benefits all clubs (rising tide lifts all ships etc.) Matchday revenue is constrained by the stadium (not enough hospitality), and a need to keep pricing for ordinary fans in line with economic drivers. Commercial is poor due to the likes of the kitbag deal, not maximising sponosr potential off the back of the increased TV exposure of the overseas deal etc. (Not just shirt sponsor, but tier 2 & 3).

So, the only buyer who could make this work as a financial case (i.e. not a benefactor, Sovereign Wealth Fund, or Oligarch) is someone who could see a potential to drive up revenue and asset value and then sell to recover investment + return.
- Address stadium issue (probably new offers best returns but is longer-term and more risky). Stadium issue will increase matchday income (more corporate boxes, better catering serving more fans). Needn't increase costs to the "ordinary fan" (I'd make a case for a slight reduction), but offer more packages for those who want to eat/drink in some comfort.
- Address commercial performance, use overseas agencies to both promote and sell the name to foreign entities wishing to tap the sports sponsorship market as a means of pushing their brands. There's loads that are keen. They just need talking to.

For the buyer, this would mean running up a lot of soft (hopefully)-debt and using issuing of new stock to repay that through a debt-equity swap (similar to Abramovich) which means the shares are worth roughly the same (so other investors not out of pocket OR in the money), but the owner has essentially swapped his investment for shares. With a club that has a strong asset base, under-pinned by a new (or redeveloped) stadium, debt reduced/restructured/repaid, and better revenue performance, the owner would have a good chance of recovering his investment and a return if he sold on. That's the complicated bit - what type of owner would that be to? (That to my mind is the real issue - not who the next owner is, but the one after that).

This is all very simplistic but if a dispassionate investor were to look at Everton right now, the investment required, the debt situation, plus the asking price, they'd say no. They'd see opportunity for sure, but too much hassle to get the club, and too much risk to make it pay. The disappasionate investor would jog on and look elsewhere. A lot of fans don't want a Man City/Chelsea owner who'll throw money at us. Nor do they want someone to load debt on the club (a la RS, Utd, QPR etc.) They fear a Venkys/Yeung, and they don't want us to be sold to a carpetbagger. So really all you're left with is what we have. And I'd argue that he and his chums are actually carpetbaggers (buy cheap, sell high with no investment).

Bleak isn't it?

Well written, but having stated some basic facts, you come to the conclusion that its all the fault of the board. Some things had to be done for expediency....you say 'because of the Kitbag deal' but the original outsourcing of merchandising, and for that matter catering (to Sodexco?) were neccessary to turn what were loss making components of the business into profit, albeit limited profit. Success on the field is largely what sells shirts, and Kitbag are good at what they do, otherwise they would not be partners with the likes of Man City etc. Similarly Sodexco are major players in the sports and event catering business(lots of stadia, the Open Golf, Wimbledo Tennis, F1 etc) so in both cases its not as if Everton are in bed with rubbish companies. If you allow that every club benefits from the TV increases, you have also to compare Everton with level of debt and above all, manageabilty of debt. We already are percieved to manage our debt, and TV money will help further, and also allow us some further competitive edge in the transfer market. The two areas which would provide us with most opportunity of gain, are, as you say, the stadium(new or redeveloped GP...which I still think is possible), and success on the field. What we must not do is sacrifice the financial manageability of the club in our chase for both of these aims...its a tricky situation, one which new owners even with sufficient new investment would still face. A new stadium and 'better' players is no guarantee of success on or off the field. We DO need a change of ownership, but change for changes sake could be brilliant or a disaster, or anything in between. Its a problem I'm glad I don't have the final decision on 'solving' ....its a problem that will go away a little if we win a couple of trophies, but its also a problem that will always be there to a degree, whoever our 'owners' or 'guardians' are. Look at the money City etc have 'invested'...this has not yet guaranteed them success...they may win the league, but they are also rans, usually, in Europe.

 

[SingBlue]

Well written, but having stated some basic facts, you come to the conclusion that its all the fault of the board. Some things had to be done for expediency....you say 'because of the Kitbag deal' but the original outsourcing of merchandising, and for that matter catering (to Sodexco?) were neccessary to turn what were loss making components of the business into profit, albeit limited profit. Success on the field is largely what sells shirts, and Kitbag are good at what they do, otherwise they would not be partners with the likes of Man City etc. Similarly Sodexco are major players in the sports and event catering business(lots of stadia, the Open Golf, Wimbledo Tennis, F1 etc) so in both cases its not as if Everton are in bed with rubbish companies. If you allow that every club benefits from the TV increases, you have also to compare Everton with level of debt and above all, manageabilty of debt. We already are percieved to manage our debt, and TV money will help further, and also allow us some further competitive edge in the transfer market. The two areas which would provide us with most opportunity of gain, are, as you say, the stadium(new or redeveloped GP...which I still think is possible), and success on the field. What we must not do is sacrifice the financial manageability of the club in our chase for both of these aims...its a tricky situation, one which new owners even with sufficient new investment would still face. A new stadium and 'better' players is no guarantee of success on or off the field. We DO need a change of ownership, but change for changes sake could be brilliant or a disaster, or anything in between. Its a problem I'm glad I don't have the final decision on 'solving' ....its a problem that will go away a little if we win a couple of trophies, but its also a problem that will always be there to a degree, whoever our 'owners' or 'guardians' are. Look at the money City etc have 'invested'...this has not yet guaranteed them success...they may win the league, but they are also rans, usually, in Europe.

Like you, I'm glad I don't have to wrestle with it. I can't blame the board for not having the personal wealth to invest, and even if they did I wouldn't blame them if they chose not to. (I do wryly smile whenever I see someone "demanding" that Grantchester or even Paul McCartney pour money into the club because they happen to [loosely in McCartney's case] be Blues). I do question the motives of the current owners, and I have labelled them as carpet-baggers, looking to increase their share value purely due to the totally unsustainable financial fookery that the Premier League has become. Right place, right time, they are the epitome of carpet baggers in my view (and many of us would've done the same given the opportunity). I'm sure it grates with them that the "right buyer" hasn't emerged. If the timing had been different and Bill had managed to tap someone for the money needed to snag Kings' Waterfront, he'd have had his buyer, ridden off into the sunset with his fortune, and I wouldn't have blamed him for it as the club would be in a far better position (and any increase in the value of the club realised by the major shareholders is not money that could otherwise have gone to team building!) I think he's been unlucky in some regards, but whether he/we like it or not, we seem to be stuck with him as much as he's stuck with us.

For me the real problem is in opportunity lost. Whilst other clubs have been milking the premier league cow for years with ridiculous sponsorship deals, financial instruments etc (all designed to serve the multi-billion "industry" below the game they and shady others inhabit) we've largely sat still. Paying out tens of millions in finance charges, but with the good fortune to have had solid management delivering above target on the pitch in moneyball-speak.

Other leagues in Europe have been watching how the Premier League has done it for years, and over the next 4-5 years will try to pitch their "product" to the TV markets as being better value than the Premier League (but still better income for them and their teams). So if the bubble bursts here the market will eventually "reset", and we'll no longer have £300k/week footballers, or players who become millionaires before kicking a ball for the 1st team. Until the cycle repeats itself.

I'll always support Everton, but I'm "meh" about the game, sorry, business now. We were one of the antagonists for the Premier League and yet managed to become badly run just as it started (and Man U suddenly got better business heads in, funnily enough). The RS have never won the Premier League, but financially they are exemplars of the success it was designed to foster. Crap isn't it?

 

[D410]

A few domestic trophy wins is not going to move the Fin needle enough to allow us to move to the next level.

The current owners are not going to get us to the next fin level and they know it but it would appear they have no intrest either in lowering the sale price, or absorbing debt or investing.

For me they have to go for that reason alone.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Like you, I'm glad I don't have to wrestle with it. I can't blame the board for not having the personal wealth to invest, and even if they did I wouldn't blame them if they chose not to. (I do wryly smile whenever I see someone "demanding" that Grantchester or even Paul McCartney pour money into the club because they happen to [loosely in McCartney's case] be Blues). I do question the motives of the current owners, and I have labelled them as carpet-baggers, looking to increase their share value purely due to the totally unsustainable financial fookery that the Premier League has become. Right place, right time, they are the epitome of carpet baggers in my view (and many of us would've done the same given the opportunity). I'm sure it grates with them that the "right buyer" hasn't emerged. If the timing had been different and Bill had managed to tap someone for the money needed to snag Kings' Waterfront, he'd have had his buyer, ridden off into the sunset with his fortune, and I wouldn't have blamed him for it as the club would be in a far better position (and any increase in the value of the club realised by the major shareholders is not money that could otherwise have gone to team building!) I think he's been unlucky in some regards, but whether he/we like it or not, we seem to be stuck with him as much as he's stuck with us.

For me the real problem is in opportunity lost. Whilst other clubs have been milking the premier league cow for years with ridiculous sponsorship deals, financial instruments etc (all designed to serve the multi-billion "industry" below the game they and shady others inhabit) we've largely sat still. Paying out tens of millions in finance charges, but with the good fortune to have had solid management delivering above target on the pitch in moneyball-speak.

Other leagues in Europe have been watching how the Premier League has done it for years, and over the next 4-5 years will try to pitch their "product" to the TV markets as being better value than the Premier League (but still better income for them and their teams). So if the bubble bursts here the market will eventually "reset", and we'll no longer have £300k/week footballers, or players who become millionaires before kicking a ball for the 1st team. Until the cycle repeats itself.

I'll always support Everton, but I'm "meh" about the game, sorry, business now. We were one of the antagonists for the Premier League and yet managed to become badly run just as it started (and Man U suddenly got better business heads in, funnily enough). The RS have never won the Premier League, but financially they are exemplars of the success it was designed to foster. Crap isn't it?

Another articulate piece for which thank you. There are some points on which we would disagree, but they get down to opinion...for example while some opportunities may have been lost, there are other so called 'opportunities' which I feel would have landed us in deep water if they had been taken. If required, specifics can be dealt with later in the thread, as I'm sure others will have opinions.
Now is perhaps the time to repeat , as close as possible, without being as long winded, the post I first put up on Blue Kipper a few years ago, which is basically 'how I see Bill Kenwright in relation to Everton' The intention is not to praise him, or to accuse or indite him, but merely to suggest who/what he is and why. Its a personal opinion, based on conversations with a lot of people who know him personally and who have worked with him in his 'proper job' in the theatre...personally I have only spoken to him once, many years ago at the Playhouse theatre, and it was a very brief talk about a theatrical matter.
Bill Kenwright is a very successful theatrical entrepeneur, and a successful film producer....he has had less success with films, but is definitely not a failure at this part of his job. The way the financing of major shows goes in the theatre is that the producer gets investment from financial institutions and monied individuals, known in the trade as 'angels'...these investments get the show onto the stage and if its successful there can be a massive and regular returns for the investor. It is of course possible to lose your investment...for every 'Phantom' there are a dozen ' Twangs' (a disasterous musical about Robin Hood). Bill was /is brilliant at selling show business dreams to potential angels...he had rich friends, and it is likely that Phil Green, etc have invested in his shows at profit...chicken feed for Phil Green, but a nice little and sometimes glamour tinted 'hobby'.. When Bill 'acquired' Everton he had no idea how to run the business of a football club. So he used the same methods he had used successfully in the theatre. He persuded 'angels' to invest...and 'sold them the dream' as if he was selling a show. As far as Bill was concerned 'Everton'was the show. So he initially sold Gregg the idea of the Kings Dock..and Gregg dreamed of the profits from pop concerts etc. (Bills theatre shows had enabled Gregg to build his business of renovating old, closed theatres in the provinces and re opening them for a profit, so he was initially easy meat for Bills supposed KD dream. When KD went pear shaped(thats another discussion, and more opinions) Bill with the help of his buddy Phil Green, sold the dream of Kirkby to Earl...who basically came on board out of self interest....he was more interested in the retail park than the football club. So...although Bill would probably sell his shares at a fair price to the right buyer('the right buyer...another discussion, and again opinions), Earl certainly wants the profit as he feels he was promised when he bought in to 'the dream'. Woods is a close friend of Bill, and has helped Bill in various ways, not just with unfledging support'. I don't know whether its true or not but I was told by a high profile source that I've no reason to doubt that ' Bill has no money really, its Woodsy who provides it'. I'm not going to disclose this source, but if Groucho will guarantee that he does not publish, I will tell him, and he will then be able to vouch for the source.
So...Bill is between a rock and a hard place....the way to run a theatre business is ultimately not the way to run a football club...he would like to get out, but only if the 'right' buyer is found. Earl won't budge till he gets his price. Bill can't afford to buy out Earl, although he would if he could and Woods would be reluctant to provide the money.
Bill is an Evertonian through and through...he has an ego...almost essential in the theatre business...and if..no...when Everton is sold you can depend on it being a 'show'.
No answers, I'm afraid, but possible food for thought for some, and no doubt the usual cyber heckling from the usual suspects.

 

[davek]

Another articulate piece for which thank you. There are some points on which we would disagree, but they get down to opinion...for example while some opportunities may have been lost, there are other so called 'opportunities' which I feel would have landed us in deep water if they had been taken. If required, specifics can be dealt with later in the thread, as I'm sure others will have opinions.
Now is perhaps the time to repeat , as close as possible, without being as long winded, the post I first put up on Blue Kipper a few years ago, which is basically 'how I see Bill Kenwright in relation to Everton' The intention is not to praise him, or to accuse or indite him, but merely to suggest who/what he is and why. Its a personal opinion, based on conversations with a lot of people who know him personally and who have worked with him in his 'proper job' in the theatre...personally I have only spoken to him once, many years ago at the Playhouse theatre, and it was a very brief talk about a theatrical matter.
Bill Kenwright is a very successful theatrical entrepeneur, and a successful film producer....he has had less success with films, but is definitely not a failure at this part of his job. The way the financing of major shows goes in the theatre is that the producer gets investment from financial institutions and monied individuals, known in the trade as 'angels'...these investments get the show onto the stage and if its successful there can be a massive and regular returns for the investor. It is of course possible to lose your investment...for every 'Phantom' there are a dozen ' Twangs' (a disasterous musical about Robin Hood). Bill was /is brilliant at selling show business dreams to potential angels...he had rich friends, and it is likely that Phil Green, etc have invested in his shows at profit...chicken feed for Phil Green, but a nice little and sometimes glamour tinted 'hobby'.. When Bill 'acquired' Everton he had no idea how to run the business of a football club. So he used the same methods he had used successfully in the theatre. He persuded 'angels' to invest...and 'sold them the dream' as if he was selling a show. As far as Bill was concerned 'Everton'was the show. So he initially sold Gregg the idea of the Kings Dock..and Gregg dreamed of the profits from pop concerts etc. (Bills theatre shows had enabled Gregg to build his business of renovating old, closed theatres in the provinces and re opening them for a profit, so he was initially easy meat for Bills supposed KD dream. When KD went pear shaped(thats another discussion, and more opinions) Bill with the help of his buddy Phil Green, sold the dream of Kirkby to Earl...who basically came on board out of self interest....he was more interested in the retail park than the football club. So...although Bill would probably sell his shares at a fair price to the right buyer('the right buyer...another discussion, and again opinions), Earl certainly wants the profit as he feels he was promised when he bought in to 'the dream'. Woods is a close friend of Bill, and has helped Bill in various ways, not just with unfledging support'. I don't know whether its true or not but I was told by a high profile source that I've no reason to doubt that ' Bill has no money really, its Woodsy who provides it'. I'm not going to disclose this source, but if Groucho will guarantee that he does not publish, I will tell him, and he will then be able to vouch for the source.
So...Bill is between a rock and a hard place....the way to run a theatre business is ultimately not the way to run a football club...he would like to get out, but only if the 'right' buyer is found. Earl won't budge till he gets his price. Bill can't afford to buy out Earl, although he would if he could and Woods would be reluctant to provide the money.
Bill is an Evertonian through and through...he has an ego...almost essential in the theatre business...and if..no...when Everton is sold you can depend on it being a 'show'.
No answers, I'm afraid, but possible food for thought for some, and no doubt the usual cyber heckling from the usual suspects.

Ha Ha Ha.

Bill the victim of circumstance.

I've read some tripe defending Billy Liar, but this is the winner.

 

[Bluesnapper]

Out of interest, which "rules" are these?

The Articles of the Company place no such qualification on Directors.

Remember hearing from the top table at the 2007 GM that Wyness was given a share so that he could be on the board and act as a director.

 

[Bluesnapper]

I was just trying to steer the argument away from the "GRRRR KENWRIGHT" and toward something a little different from the previous 680 pages of it.

But the thread title states Kenwrights name so by introducing other elements will incur your wrath and the 'red card' PMs will be written by you for being off topic.