Time to go

[lordyefc]

My only wish is that he stops lying to us, stops wasting money on stupid ideas, improves the business side, the marketing side, the playing side.

But you aren't asking for a better chairman here, you are asking for a new CEO.

I know this isn't you only point, and you have other problems with Kenwright. But bringing in a new chairman won't fix the commercial side of the club (remember that Lerner couldn't secure a sponsorship deal for Villa). Kenwright's only responsibility for marketing is to pick the guy who looks after it; you can no more blame him for this than for Cahill's miss at the weekend.

I just think the whole thing becomes an anti-Kenwright vendetta. It's not that I'm a huge Kenwright fan (though I think I'd like him more if he just shut up), but by continuously labelling any and all faults as down to Kenwright leads to an "anyone but Kenwright will do" mentality, and that is incredibly dangerous. It's been shown that most "investors" have been bad for their clubs in the long term, and so we have to be choosey about who buys the club.

It's like buying a player - we all get excited when the Sun claims we are going to spend £8m on a right back. Chances are (a) we aren't interested in him, (b) he's not interested in us, and (c) he's actually not better than Hibbert. But he's foreign and new, so we live in hope that he'll be amazing for us, and we are disappointed when he doesn't sign. But it's Moyes job to find the right players, and there are very few players at the moment who provide value for money when improving our team. Similarly, there are very few investors, if any, who are interested in us who would actually improve us.

I'm not against the idea of any new owner, just almost all of them.

 

[TyphooToffee]

Bored bored bored look don't care what you say he is not that bad and is no where near the man you portray him to be and no one wants to buy us FACT

Agreed. And let's not forget he was the man who bought David Moyes to the club and has stuck by him. The only other chairman who is so behind his mangager is Steve Gibson at 'Boro. Given the fact that 'Boro are crap, that makes BK the best chairman in my eyes

 

[davek]

But "We did something a bit like this once, and it worked, so maybe we should try it again" isn't actually an argument in favour of anything, other than "be open minded to new ideas".

I mean, I agree with that and everything. But a lot of people's view is that Kenwright should sell to anybody who is interested, hand them complete control and step back into the shadows. The evidence in the Premier League is that this is a horrible idea. The point of my post was to show that handing over to an Ashley, Glazer, Hicks, Gillette or that bald Icelandic bloke would be bad. Handing over to a Lerner actually wouldn't change anything. So what exactly are we clammering for, it not to become a smaller Man City?

You cant disinvent the wheel. You hate the way football has gone, with clubs taking on more debt than ever before in an effort to find success? So do I. You hate the idea of owners that can, on a whim, up sticks and disappear overnight? So do I.

Welcome to the world of Premier League football. It's here to stay for the forseeable. Some clubs will prosper, some will tread water, some will go under. All clubs demonstrating a modicum of ambition will have to accomodate the logic of that if they want to compete...we are here to compete aren't we?

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Originally Posted by HalewoodBlue_ver.2.0
Moyes feels a duty to stick with the team who has served us well the past month, simple as. He will be sold in the summer i guarantee it

You guaranteed that Moyes would drop Baines for Yobo as soon as Yobo was fit again.

 

[HalewoodBlue_ver.2.0]

You guaranteed that Moyes would drop Baines for Yobo as soon as Yobo was fit again.

I did, lets hope sundays last 10 min sub was an indicator of things to come

 

[ToxtethBlue]

Halewoodblue has spoken.

Lescott back to left back so Yobo can partner our best centre back.

 

[Neiler]

It's a long winded way of saying 'stay in your own back yard'.

I think we all get the idea that change brings with it certain dangers, but where would we be without it? Didn't the club's first board of directors incorporate the club in order to move away from Anfield and away from the control of an autocrat and in doing so create (and I mean Everton) a fantastically successful English football institution? Didn't the club take a chance in bringing an out and out businessman like John Moores on board in 1960 and his method of financing the club by standing behind the purchasing of players and ground improvements?

Change, adapt, survive, prosper.

Maybe people at the club just had more balls back then?

No way mate you did not just write that! Quality!

 

[HalewoodBlue_ver.2.0]

Halewoodblue has spoken.

Lescott back to left back so Yobo can partner our best centre back.

Good one toccy

 

[Neiler]

Sorry to jump in this thread after it has turned into the Baines vs Yobo thread, but...you ARE asking us to become Man City.

You presumably aren't asking us to become Portsmouth, who got in "investment", which was in fact bank loans that the club couldn't afford; short term, the club got one season of glory, but when the debt needed paying they had to sell all their best players, and are now in a worse position than they were several years ago.

You presumably aren't asking us to become West Ham, where the "investment" turned out to just be the underwriting of loans; a short period of matching the big boys for wages was quickly followed by the money drying up, leaving the club with huge debt, no income, and Lucas Neill on £80k a week.

You presumably aren't asking us to become Newcastle. Which is possibly surprising, as far as I can tell Ashley is the only invester to actually put his own money into the club. However, this is a case study example of what happens if you put somebody who knows nothing about football in overall charge of a football club. I mean, what if Kenwright received an offer for £400m on the provision that Moyes had to work underneath a Director of Football (which we all know he wouldn't put up with)?

You presumably aren't asking us to become Aston Villa. Lerner took over a club with zero debt, hired a decent manager and allowed him to borrow money from the banks to buy young, international class (or close to it) players that has allowed the club to rise from mid table medicority to UEFA cup regulars and Champions League qualification contenders. Only the first eight words of that sentence seperate him from Kenwright.

You presumably aren't asking us to become Liverpool or Manchester United. Their owners have actually taken money out of their respective clubs. Each has been able to maintain their position in the league solely because of their huge turnovers - they can afford to just give money to their owners and still be bigger than everyone else.

Which leaves Man City and Chelsea.

If I have missed out a Premier League club with investment, I apologise. However, I would be interested to know, exactly which of the above scenarios you are envisaging. Because, as far as I can make out, there are roughly three groups of people in the "Kenwright must sell" camp. Firstly, those who believe that there are a queue of Arab Shieks waiting to plough millions into Everton (these people usually cannot explain why these people aren't bidding for Liverpool, West Ham, Spurs, Sunderland, Newcastle etc). Second, those people who believe that Everton should follow the example set by Aston Villa (these people are under the impression that Villa's financial policy must be different from Everton's, because Lerner is foreign. In fact, Villa's policy is almost identical to Villa's, with the exception that Villa have more debt than us). And third, those that just argue in favour of foreign investment with no justification at all, because all the cool kids are doing it.

I would be genuinely interested if you could put a proper argument in favour of realistic foreign investment. Yes, it would be nice is somebody gave us money, no strings attached. But only two Premier League clubs have received that. To my eyes, all the other clubs who have received "investment" have received no benefit from it; at best they have received short term loans that they had to pay back a few years later.

So: which is a long winded (and mostly just preemptive) way of saying: if you don't want to be Man City, exactly who are you asking us to be?

Post of the decade! may as well close this thread now, as a more sensible point wont be forthcoming!

Stick around mate, what ever it is you have it!

 

[lordyefc]

You cant disinvent the wheel. You hate the way football has gone, with clubs taking on more debt than ever before in an effort to find success? So do I. You hate the idea of owners that can, on a whim, up sticks and disappear overnight? So do I.

This misses my point. It's not a question of having to do this to keep up with the Joneses. The truth is that the Joneses are actually worse off as a result of their foreign owners.

It's true that in this new world of football there is a financial gulf between us and the top teams. The assumption is that if we had new owners, we could bridge that gulf. The truth is, only Man City type owners would do this. In fact, being bought out by a Hick/Glazer type would make the gulf bigger.

Think of it this way - Liverpool are paying £30m in interest every year just to pay the Hicks/Gillette loan. In other words, if Liverpool hadn't been bought out, they would have been able to buy an £25m player every year (plus his wages). How far behind them would we be then?

Again, I'm not against the principle of a new owner. I'm just saying that most new owners aren't beneficial.

 

[davek]

This misses my point. It's not a question of having to do this to keep up with the Joneses. The truth is that the Joneses are actually worse off as a result of their foreign owners.

It's true that in this new world of football there is a financial gulf between us and the top teams. The assumption is that if we had new owners, we could bridge that gulf. The truth is, only Man City type owners would do this. In fact, being bought out by a Hick/Glazer type would make the gulf bigger.

Think of it this way - Liverpool are paying £30m in interest every year just to pay the Hicks/Gillette loan. In other words, if Liverpool hadn't been bought out, they would have been able to buy an £25m player every year (plus his wages). How far behind them would we be then?

Again, I'm not against the principle of a new owner. I'm just saying that most new owners aren't beneficial.

I think you're going to have to spell out for us what exactly is the way forward as you see it if it doesn't involve a massive injection of capital from outside the club (unlikelly as far as you are concerned) and/or new owners coming in and borrowing against the club's potential.

How does your preferred vision of the future look precisely? Not to pre-empt your answer, but if it's to 'organically' grow the business through a new stadium and better results on the pitch, bringing through new talent in the academy to supplement this, then that's a long incremental path of progress to follow with many potential obstacles. Presently it's the route Elstone is arguing for in the middle of an inquiry where he is desperate to get a stadium in position, but you can bet your bottom dollar the club will be sold to the highest bidder when or if Kirkby is green lighted. Dont naively put your faith in Everton or any other football club regime to stand its 'principled' ground and resist a buyout.

 

[Whitebootman]

It's a long winded way of saying 'stay in your own back yard'.

I think we all get the idea that change brings with it certain dangers, but where would we be without it? Didn't the club's first board of directors incorporate the club in order to move away from Anfield and away from the control of an autocrat and in doing so create (and I mean Everton) a fantastically successful English football institution? Didn't the club take a chance in bringing an out and out businessman like John Moores on board in 1960 and his method of financing the club by standing behind the purchasing of players and ground improvements?

Change, adapt, survive, prosper.
Maybe people at the club just had more balls back then?

Lets all go to Kirkby, Lets all go to Kirkby. na na na na, na na na na.

Watch your socks, Davek's going to Kirkby.

 

[lordyefc]

I think you're going to have to spell out for us what exactly is the way forward as you see it if it doesn't involve a massive injection of capital from outside the club (unlikelly as far as you are concerned) and/or new owners coming in and borrowing against the club's potential.

I don't actually have to spell it out. Which is lucky really, because I don't have an answer as to how to catch United, Liverpool and City in the financial stakes.

I'm not saying that if we stay the way we are, we will win the league. However, once again, that's not an argument in favour of foreign investment, because investment could actually leave us worse off. If you want to claim we need investment, you need to show how that would work and how that would be an improvement. Recent history shows that the kind of "investment" that new owners are willing to offer doesn't actually benefit the clubs (City and Chelsea excepted).

How does your preferred vision of the future look precisely? Not to pre-empt your answer, but if it's to 'organically' grow the business through a new stadium and better results on the pitch, bringing through new talent in the academy to supplement this, then that's a long incremental path of progress to follow with many potential obstacles. Presently it's the route Elstone is arguing for in the middle of an inquiry where he is desperate to get a stadium in position, but you can bet your bottom dollar the club will be sold to the highest bidder when or if Kirkby is green lighted. Dont naively put your faith in Everton or any other football club regime to stand its 'principled' ground and resist a buyout

Don't understand the relevence of your point. I'm arguing that selling the club to most potential investors would be bad. Why are you assuming that I have "naively put my faith in Everton....to resist a buyout"? That's got nothing to do with my argument. I'm arguing selling to the highest bidder (whoever he is) would be bad. The fact that you believe that Kenwright will sell to the highest bidder if Kirkby is greenlit (which may or may not be true) doesn't change whether it is right or not - it's bad for the club if Kenwright intends to do that, and it's bad for the club if he doesn't.

For the record, my preference, in order, is:

(a) Us doing a Man City (though to be honest, a part of me would die inside)

(b) Us doing the organic growth thing

(c) Us being bought by somebody willing to provide short term capital, for the intention of long term profit

(d) Somebody doing a Glazer/Hicks and just taking money out of the club now.


(c) is lower than (b) simply because I don't see the economic benefit from the investors point of view. Everton are literally the worst positioned club in the country to be pumping money into for the purpose of improving their position; therefore, I don't see why anybody would do it and I'd be very suspicious of anybody who claimed that as their motive (and I'd suspect they were doing a West Ham, i.e just borrowing more and putting the risk 100% on the club, rather than putting in capital).

You can argue that organic growth is hard, but there is no easy answer. If there were, everybody would be doing it. The truth is, we ARE making progress every season, something which cannot be said for any of the clubs with "investment" with the exception of Villa - and as I have said, they are actually undertaking exactly the same policy as us.

 

[davek]

I don't actually have to spell it out. Which is lucky really, because I don't have an answer as to how to catch United, Liverpool and City in the financial stakes.

I'm not saying that if we stay the way we are, we will win the league. However, once again, that's not an argument in favour of foreign investment, because investment could actually leave us worse off. If you want to claim we need investment, you need to show how that would work and how that would be an improvement. Recent history shows that the kind of "investment" that new owners are willing to offer doesn't actually benefit the clubs (City and Chelsea excepted).



Don't understand the relevence of your point. I'm arguing that selling the club to most potential investors would be bad. Why are you assuming that I have "naively put my faith in Everton....to resist a buyout"? That's got nothing to do with my argument. I'm arguing selling to the highest bidder (whoever he is) would be bad. The fact that you believe that Kenwright will sell to the highest bidder if Kirkby is greenlit (which may or may not be true) doesn't change whether it is right or not - it's bad for the club if Kenwright intends to do that, and it's bad for the club if he doesn't.

For the record, my preference, in order, is:

(a) Us doing a Man City (though to be honest, a part of me would die inside)

(b) Us doing the organic growth thing

(c) Us being bought by somebody willing to provide short term capital, for the intention of long term profit

(d) Somebody doing a Glazer/Hicks and just taking money out of the club now.


(c) is lower than (b) simply because I don't see the economic benefit from the investors point of view. Everton are literally the worst positioned club in the country to be pumping money into for the purpose of improving their position; therefore, I don't see why anybody would do it and I'd be very suspicious of anybody who claimed that as their motive (and I'd suspect they were doing a West Ham, i.e just borrowing more and putting the risk 100% on the club, rather than putting in capital).

You can argue that organic growth is hard, but there is no easy answer. If there were, everybody would be doing it. The truth is, we ARE making progress every season, something which cannot be said for any of the clubs with "investment" with the exception of Villa - and as I have said, they are actually undertaking exactly the same policy as us.

You ask me to show how investment works, state that experience tells us it doesn't work, then provide me with two examples of how it does work to add to the Newcastle example you alluded to earlier in the thread (notwithstanding the poor use of resources at that club . Which is it, it can be beneficial and work or it cant work?

That certain other types of buyout don't necessarily mean winning things is guaranteed and the risk factor is you fail and load your club with more debt is a truism. We know the potential pitfalls of such investment just as we know the dangers of doing nothing....nevermind a leveraged buyout, you do realise we're taking on more and more debt under this Kenwright regime and selling players to fund others coming into the club...you did experience last summer's fun and games didn't you?

Overall, it seems to me - and despite your 'A') preference above - what you're doing here in differentiating between forms of investment is pouring cold water on the takeover of Everton per se, because that one route you allow for is, as far as you are concerned, unlikely.

I think you're getting caught up in a thicket of your own making here.

 

[lordyefc]

You ask me to show how investment works, state that experience tells us it doesn't work, then provide me with two examples of how it does work to add to the Newcastle example you alluded to earlier in the thread (notwithstanding the poor use of resources at that club . Which is it, it can be beneficial and work or it cant work?

Man City and Chelsea are clearly a different case.

I never said the Newcastle example worked. It clearly hasn't. What I said was that Ashley has at least put his own money into the club. It's an example to show that people who put their own money at stake want the club run their way, and that is often to the detriment of the club.

I think we agree more than you think. Do we agree that we need Man City/Chelsea style investment? (which isn't investment, obviously - it's just a gift of money, because there's no way they can get the money back. Didn't Kenyon originally say Chelsea would be profitable by this season? Wonder how that's going....)

Do we agree that other forms of investment are not going to help the club?

Overall, it seems to me - and despite your 'A') preference above - what you're doing here in differentiating between forms of investment is pouring cold water on the takeover of Everton per se, because that one route you allow for is, as far as you are concerned, unlikely.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm doing. My view is that there are very few people who want to buy Everton at the moment; there are even fewer, if any, that would actually be beneficial to the club.

I'm sure that there are people out there who'd like to buy the club at the right price (the right price being, of course, anything less than it's worth). But those people aren't good for the club. What evidence do we have that useful investment is possible?