The Friedkin Group reaches agreement to buy Everton

[AsiaAsia82]

The more I think back of the disastrous last 2 decades the more I’m convinced BK was a RS plant.

 

[Drico]

The more I think back of the disastrous last 2 decades the more I’m convinced BK was a RS plant.

"We had good times."

 

[helpimonfire]

"We had good times."

We won the headlock cup

 

[mahermi1]

In theory you’re right, but I think there is a life cycle to it.

You are managing two resources the value of the p,Ayer and the value the p,Ayer brings your team - if you have a generational talent, who adds value to your team and will maintain gain there monetary value you keep them as long as you can, even f that means compromises elsewhere.

To illustrate what I mean, take Harry Kane, arguably he assisted hugely is Spurs breaking the glass ceiling, reaching the CL, which in turn grew the business and enabled other signings, they built their own stadium of course. Spurs famously knocked back offers, much to Kanes angst, but eventually got a very good return with a year left on his contract, after years of service.

Then Declan Rice, WHU, famously refused to sell, until his contract ran down, in the interim, he assisted into getting them into Europe, then winning a European trophy, making over 100mill plus for the club again after years of service.

Contrast this with Everton.

Wayne Rooney sold within almost a year after breaking into the first team, goes on to be Utd all time goal scorer, winning every club trophy in the game.

Antony Gordon, breaks into the team, sold within a year, goes on to win an International trophy with England U21s, awarded the best player of that tournament, post double digits in goals and assists in the PL, makes Senior England debut, goes to major international tournament a year after making Everton debut, now for another club.

There will always be a selling of your better players and you are right, a need for the revue of it, but there is also money to be made in keeping them and selling as far off in the future if you can - even if that annoys the player.

How much would a peak Rooney went for if we’d kept him for a few years, how much would Newcastle have made if they sold Anthony Gordon to the RS in the summer.

We need to keep our best players, how we manage it and lifecycle around it is awful.

Much as I dislike Carragher, he was right at the time when he said we were "the worst run club in the Country". Great post btw, a stark reality of how other teams run their club proactively. Kenwright kept our head above water by feeding Moyes hand to mouth pennies off sales, so many of our problems stem from him taking us over, our longest time without a trophy, Moyes astutness in the transfer market kept Kenwright in a job far longer than he should have been here.

 

[Neiler]

Much as I dislike Carragher, he was right at the time when he said we were "the worst run club in the Country". Great post btw, a stark reality of how other teams run their club proactively. Kenwright kept our head above water by feeding Moyes hand to mouth pennies off sales, so many of our problems stem from him taking us over, our longest time without a trophy, Moyes astutness in the transfer market kept Kenwright in a job far longer than he should have been here.

I think the other problem with the theory of selling our best players mate is have we ever really sold them and reinvested all the money.

Take the two examples I gave.

Rooney, as far as I can remember we signed Cahill for a couple of million, Marcus Bent for next to nothing and Arteta on loan.

Gordon - we didn’t even get Danjuma on loan.

We to easily accept that we “have to” sell and for some reason believe that, that money is being “reinvested” - when history tells us, it isn’t.

 

[canuckblue]

Their first venture into a horror film

Or a comedy. Carry On Kenwright.

 

[pfim]

In theory you’re right, but I think there is a life cycle to it.

You are managing two resources the value of the p,Ayer and the value the p,Ayer brings your team - if you have a generational talent, who adds value to your team and will maintain gain there monetary value you keep them as long as you can, even f that means compromises elsewhere.

To illustrate what I mean, take Harry Kane, arguably he assisted hugely is Spurs breaking the glass ceiling, reaching the CL, which in turn grew the business and enabled other signings, they built their own stadium of course. Spurs famously knocked back offers, much to Kanes angst, but eventually got a very good return with a year left on his contract, after years of service.

Then Declan Rice, WHU, famously refused to sell, until his contract ran down, in the interim, he assisted into getting them into Europe, then winning a European trophy, making over 100mill plus for the club again after years of service.

Contrast this with Everton.

Wayne Rooney sold within almost a year after breaking into the first team, goes on to be Utd all time goal scorer, winning every club trophy in the game.

Antony Gordon, breaks into the team, sold within a year, goes on to win an International trophy with England U21s, awarded the best player of that tournament, post double digits in goals and assists in the PL, makes Senior England debut, goes to major international tournament a year after making Everton debut, now for another club.

There will always be a selling of your better players and you are right, a need for the revue of it, but there is also money to be made in keeping them and selling as far off in the future if you can - even if that annoys the player.

How much would a peak Rooney went for if we’d kept him for a few years, how much would Newcastle have made if they sold Anthony Gordon to the RS in the summer.

We need to keep our best players, how we manage it and lifecycle around it is awful.

You’re simply describing our desperation vs their management. Their players were sold, but there wasn’t an outside force dictating the sale, it was on their terms.

That’s where we need to get to. We sell players with a plan, not just paying off the next creditor.

 

[Bez2k2k]

Good post.

Weird this has come up on my feed that you have quoted me

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

Oh, I definitely wanted to sell them. ALL of them.

The glorification of the modern mediocre footballer is part of a general problem in the game - and Evertonians suffer hugely from it. I was happy to see them all go as none of them did a whole lot for us. And, frankly, none of them has made a massive splash elsewhere up to now to show their sale was a mistake. I include Gordon in that. Barkley is another one who went to Villa. No loss.

I agree with you in general, though. We have to be the ones choosing when to sell a player - and we need to keep hold of Branthwaite by showing him what we intend to do and are doing by next summer.

Gordon has been excellent at Newcastle. Really enjoy watching him fulfill his undoubted potential. Barkley would also walk into our team.

 

[Neiler]

You’re simply describing our desperation vs their management. Their players were sold, but there wasn’t an outside force dictating the sale, it was on their terms.

That’s where we need to get to. We sell players with a plan, not just paying off the next creditor.

I described what I described mate, were it detours from your initial point is it’s as much asset management, as asset selling. As I say there are two resources to manage the value of the player and value of the player to your team and what that can enable - there is a balance to be struck in that life cycle. It’s more nuanced then say a glib first thing to do is sell Branthwaite.

Sure there are PSR realities, but every club has to manage this reality and find a way, many do it by not selling there best consistently or quickly.

If he’s worth 70 mill now, he will be worth the same in three years if not more baring a catastrophe for the lad - difference being if we don’t sell, we have his value on the pitch for that time. Taking a small sample it’s the difference between a draw at Leicester or a win vs Palace.

With 70 mill, we prob couldn’t sign, Harrison, Mangala and Lindstrom permanently.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

The starting point to me is to sell those players, and replace them.

We now live in a world where cash from player sales is more valuable than a cash injection from an owner.

Branthwaite is the best example in terms of how you can exponentially improve the talent in your squad.

If you sell him for 75m, and buy 5 young players for 15 million, you've leveraged his fee to not just improve the squad but perhaps the value of the squad as well.

It's tough as we form attachments to these players, and simple logic would dictate that you want to add to what you already have.

But financially and PSR wise, it's likely better to sell him.

Our problem has been that we would sell him and buy a bunch of expensive medicore, mid-aged players, or the money goes into a black hole and is never re-invested in the squad.

Buying players is not an exact science. If it was as easy as sell a good player, buy five cheaper players who will become good players everyone would do it.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

The way I look at the Branthwaite situation, if we had no Branthwaite and 75m to spend very few would argue the best use of that 75m to improve the squad would be to buy Branthwaite for 75m. There are too many other requirements to ever contemplate blowing that money on just one position.

Hopefully we get to the point where the rest of the squad is sufficient to have the luxury of holding on rather than trading but even with TFG coming in that's a long way off.

I would want to see what the £75m buys before agreeing the cash is better than Branthwaite. Cash doesn’t make tackles or prevent Michael Keane from being in the starting line up. Having a player that is actually worth £75m or more is more useful than having 5 £15m players who may all turn out to be trash.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

Whilst i accept Twitter is a special case. it was a loss making business and still got sold for circa $44bn.

Ultimately, no-one knows what profit TFG make or how desireable it would be should it come up for sale but it's quite clearly going to be worth considerably more than the annual Gross Revenue it generates.

Why? Revenue is irrelevant. Businesses are generally valued on EBITDA.

 

[AndyRJ]

Why? Revenue is irrelevant. Businesses are generally valued on EBITDA.

So are you suggesting a loss making business is worthless regardless of revenue?

 

[Vintage]

You will all turn on him.