Time to go

[Robert Jarvis]

One little item which seems to have been overlooked is that our current debt is now greater than when BK came in. We have borrowed and borrowed to buy players and pay thier wages. Our wages to turnover is a hell of a lot higher than many other clubs.

Our debt is such that the only way we can move forward at the moment ignoring Kirkby is to spend against TV rights which is what we have been doing.

You talk of Man U and Lioverpool but per the recent detials published they are the 2nd and 5th richest clubs in Europe, so where is their debt exactly.

 

[davek]

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?

Is it less preferable to a City-style takeover? Yes. Would it be 'unhelpful' and damaging to the club to be bought out any other way? Well, as ever, I suppose that would depend on what's happening on the field of play in combination with what exactly are the terms struck up between the club and the incoming regime. Dealing in absolutes like 'other forms of investment' wont get us to an agreement on this.

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?

Yes, and this brings us back to your original stated position that you're 'not against' the sale of the club. You quite clearly are given your belief that a 'City/Chelsea' takeover is both the only game worth considering and unlikely to happen. It's a recipe for doing nothing dressed up with words like 'organic growth' - which is every bit as frightening for some as speculative risk is to others because, contrary to your previous assertion, we are not 'making progress every season' we are, in fact, losing the ability to compete with each passing season.

 

[lordyefc]

Is it less preferable to a City-style takeover? Yes. Would it be 'unhelpful' and damaging to the club to be bought out any other way? Well, as ever, I suppose that would depend on what's happening on the field of play in combination with what exactly are the terms struck up between the club and the incoming regime. Dealing in absolutes like 'other forms of investment' wont get us to an agreement on this.

I'm not dealing in absolutes, I'm dealing in specifics - there's a difference. You, on the other hand, are sticking with " I suppose that would depend".

My point, to repeat, is that we shouldn't demand Kenwright sell the club without knowing exactly what we are in for, because the new owner would have to meet a lot of criterea to be useful to the club. Specifically, all owners identical to existing foreign owners, other than City and Chelsea, wouldn't benefit the club.

Yes, and this brings us back to your original stated position that you're 'not against' the sale of the club. You quite clearly are given your belief that a 'City/Chelsea' takeover is both the only game worth considering and unlikely to happen. It's a recipe for doing nothing dressed up with words like 'organic growth' - which is every bit as frightening for some as speculative risk is to others because, contrary to your previous assertion, we are not 'making progress every season' we are, in fact, losing the ability to compete with each passing season.

Whereas West Ham, Newcastle, Portsmouth are charging past us, right?

And I'm not against the sale of the club (there's you trying to force me into an absolute position), I'm against the sale to owners similar to other existing ones (except for City and Chelsea). You are not being clear on what you are in favour of. If you are just going to say "we should judge everything on its merits" then yeah, we agree, but it's a pretty empty statement. Exactly what do you expect a new owner to do, and can you explain how that would benefit both us and the owner?

I repeat a previous question: what evidence do we have that a USEFUL new owner would exist? Because that's the only thing I can think of that we could disagree on. You believe that there is somebody out there (different to all other owners?) who could advance the club. Right?

 

[davek]

I'm not dealing in absolutes, I'm dealing in specifics - there's a difference. You, on the other hand, are sticking with " I suppose that would depend".

My point, to repeat, is that we shouldn't demand Kenwright sell the club without knowing exactly what we are in for, because the new owner would have to meet a lot of criterea to be useful to the club. Specifically, all owners identical to existing foreign owners, other than City and Chelsea, wouldn't benefit the club.

That's just it, though, you're not dealing in specifics, you might be naming different clubs in this catch-all category of non-benefactor takeovers but you're treating all such types of investment en bloc as bad things. That could only be determined, though, on a case by case basis. I dont want to get into some semantic debate here, but you've come into this thread stating pretty much that if it isn't a City-style takeover then forget it. It's not an open-ended discussion you want it's just a means of (ultimately) cementing the current situation of ownership.

Whereas West Ham, Newcastle, Portsmouth are charging past us, right?

And I'm not against the sale of the club (there's you trying to force me into an absolute position), I'm against the sale to owners similar to other existing ones (except for City and Chelsea). You are not being clear on what you are in favour of. If you are just going to say "we should judge everything on its merits" then yeah, we agree, but it's a pretty empty statement. Exactly what do you expect a new owner to do, and can you explain how that would benefit both us and the owner?

Who can second guess the terms a new owner would want to impose? Who, therefore, can determine in advance whether a proposal which doesn't simpy hand over a shedload of cash with no strings attached is a good thing or bad thing for the club? I'm sorry if that's an empty statement, but I cant see into the future and anticipate terms and conditions of a buyout.

I repeat a previous question: what evidence do we have that a USEFUL new owner would exist? Because that's the only thing I can think of that we could disagree on. You believe that there is somebody out there (different to all other owners?) who could advance the club. Right?

I believe there are buyers out there and the sale of West Ham before the March deadline they face will underline that. But you have the emphasis the wrong way about: if we were subject to a takeover, it'd be up to the manager to make use of cash provided (no doubt largely or even wholly raised through borrowing), to 'advance' the club, and thereby make the investment a success.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Seems a bit of a cop out there though Dave as you've been perfectly ready to gaze into the future with the stadium debate and predict dire things for the project.

But you have the emphasis the wrong way about: if we were subject to a takeover, it'd be up to the manager to make use of cash provided (no doubt largely or even wholly raised through borrowing), to 'advance' the club, and thereby make the investment a success.

That seems to have been half the problem at a lot of clubs, the new owners have wanted involvement in the clubs affairs, on the playing side at least. At Chelsea things started going wrong when Abramovich brought in Shevchenko and Ballack. Newcastle went wrong when Ashey meddled and signed Dennis Wise.

Like him or not, one of the principal virtues of BK is that he's given Moyes as much freedom as possible to manage the playing side of the club. To be fair, the Glazers have done likewise at Man Utd but given the existing commercial machine at OT I don't see that new ownership has helped the club a great deal.

Moyes has shown admirable restraint in transfer windows to ensure we get players that want to play for us and it's a trait that has inevitably led to the outstanding spirit currently within the camp. He has a concept of how the club should be as a personality and I go 100% along with that. I feel BK shares that ethos and if the man had more money I doubt anyone here would have any quabbles with him at all.

His one real flaw is that he's not a super wealthy man. You could say that commercially he isn't the greatest but he's the chairman, that isn't his job. He sets the tone for the club along with Moyes and I think he does it well.

It's worth remembering that wealth isn't the only criteria we should be seeking from a new owner.

 

[Neiler]

Superb posts Lordy and Bruce!

 

[davek]

Seems a bit of a cop out there though Dave as you've been perfectly ready to gaze into the future with the stadium debate and predict dire things for the project..

But we know what we're dealing with there as the detail of the stadium plan is before us; it's not the gaze into the crystal ball that this poster is asking of me regarding a takeover.

That seems to have been half the problem at a lot of clubs, the new owners have wanted involvement in the clubs affairs, on the playing side at least. At Chelsea things started going wrong when Abramovich brought in Shevchenko and Ballack. Newcastle went wrong when Ashey meddled and signed Dennis Wise.

Like him or not, one of the principal virtues of BK is that he's given Moyes as much freedom as possible to manage the playing side of the club. To be fair, the Glazers have done likewise at Man Utd but given the existing commercial machine at OT I don't see that new ownership has helped the club a great deal.

Moyes has shown admirable restraint in transfer windows to ensure we get players that want to play for us and it's a trait that has inevitably led to the outstanding spirit currently within the camp. He has a concept of how the club should be as a personality and I go 100% along with that. I feel BK shares that ethos and if the man had more money I doubt anyone here would have any quabbles with him at all.

His one real flaw is that he's not a super wealthy man. You could say that commercially he isn't the greatest but he's the chairman, that isn't his job. He sets the tone for the club along with Moyes and I think he does it well.

It's worth remembering that wealth isn't the only criteria we should be seeking from a new owner.

Indeed, individuals and their professional relationships count a lot in all this, but that doesn't mean (as you recognise, to be fair) that all takeovers are fraught with difficulty (I'm not aware of Lerner impinging on O'Neill's territory at Villa, for example). As for the solidity of the Moyes/Kenwright partnership: I wouldn't bet a large amount of money that the summer just gone didn't see that relationship strained to the limit. Let's face it, this 'ethos' Moyes has is just another way of saying he makes do and mends - it's little wonder Kenwright shares that! If and when it happens, I dont see a takeover as threatening anything too special in that respect.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Indeed, individuals and their professional relationships count a lot in all this, but that doesn't mean (as you recognise, to be fair) that all takeovers are fraught with difficulty (I'm not aware of Lerner impinging on O'Neill's territory at Villa, for example). As for the solidity of the Moyes/Kenwright partnership: I wouldn't bet a large amount of money that the summer just gone didn't see that relationship strained to the limit. Let's face it, this 'ethos' Moyes has is just another way of saying he makes do and mends - it's little wonder Kenwright shares that! If and when it happens, I dont see a takeover as threatening anything too special in that respect.

I think you're correct to point out that not all takeovers are necessarily fraught with difficulty in regards to how things pan out after that. The Lerner/O'Neil relationship, at the moment, seems to be the gold standard in what can be achieved when a moderately honest enterprise, with sensible policy, engages itself in football.

I think the problem might be that as far as takeovers of successful premier league clubs go, the Aston Villa model seems to be an exception, rather than the rule. I'm not saying, therefore, that we give up in our quest to find a a new owner. But surely we do need to be cautious. We don't want anyone coming in just for the sake of money? Or do we? Is football now solely about cash? Do all moral and ethical considerations become secondary to the amount an individual is willing to put into a club? Is it really better to be like Chelsea or City than it is to be like Everton at this time?

Okay, now I realise that our own chairman is far from perfect. And I would certainly concur with you that there seems to be some type of pathology from which Bill feels quite literally compelled to attempt to spin himself into the best possible light (I'm serious, he's a compulsive bullshitter). But forgetting that little vice, Bill has surely done some good for the club. I doubt any other chairman would have stood firm with Moyes in the way that Bill did. The continuity born from that has surely paid immense dividends in the stability that we now have at the club.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think one thing that we can probably all agree on is that the situation is far from easy and whichever path we take carries considerable risks. Likewise there will always be those that disagree with the choices made, whatever they may be.

 

[coyney]

I think you're correct to point out that not all takeovers are necessarily fraught with difficulty in regards to how things pan out after that. The Lerner/O'Neil relationship, at the moment, seems to be the gold standard in what can be achieved when a moderately honest enterprise, with sensible policy, engages itself in football.

I think the problem might be that as far as takeovers of successful premier league clubs go, the Aston Villa model seems to be an exception, rather than the rule. I'm not saying, therefore, that we give up in our quest to find a a new owner. But surely we do need to be cautious. We don't want anyone coming in just for the sake of money? Or do we? Is football now solely about cash? Do all moral and ethical considerations become secondary to the amount an individual is willing to put into a club? Is it really better to be like Chelsea or City than it is to be like Everton at this time?

Okay, now I realise that our own chairman is far from perfect. And I would certainly concur with you that there seems to be some type of pathology from which Bill feels quite literally compelled to attempt to spin himself into the best possible light (I'm serious, he's a compulsive bullshitter). But forgetting that little vice, Bill has surely done some good for the club. I doubt any other chairman would have stood firm with Moyes in the way that Bill did. The continuity born from that has surely paid immense dividends in the stability that we now have at the club.

John one of the sad things is that Bill is more inapt then bad,he lies when cornered when in fact if he come clean he would get far more support.selling the club is fraught with danger ,we could end up with Johnson mark2 or even a couple of cowboys like they have over the park,and Bill could be being diligent in safe guarding the club but the fact is he has betrayed our trust so how can we be expected to trust him I for one after studying the claims of Kirkby find the figures don't add up once the Kirkby council decided that it was football only and they had a large chunk of the time available in the functions rooms we should have aborted it ,but I think others only interested in their own agenda are fooling Bill.but as the figure head he is the one who gets all the flak.I have mates non football types who know Bill well and while they admit he has faults refuse to accept he is as bad as he is painted by others,so whats the answer I don't know but I am sure Kirkby is not the solution

 

[Nebbiolo]

so whats the answer I don't know but I am sure Kirkby is not the solution

Totally agree with that, Roy. Kirkby is a bad, bad move as far as I'm concerned. Apart from the bullshit and the lies that sold people the move, it's simply the wrong location. We're a Liverpool club, not a Knowsley club.

 

[davek]

I think you're correct to point out that not all takeovers are necessarily fraught with difficulty in regards to how things pan out after that. The Lerner/O'Neil relationship, at the moment, seems to be the gold standard in what can be achieved when a moderately honest enterprise, with sensible policy, engages itself in football.

I think the problem might be that as far as takeovers of successful premier league clubs go, the Aston Villa model seems to be an exception, rather than the rule. I'm not saying, therefore, that we give up in our quest to find a a new owner. But surely we do need to be cautious. We don't want anyone coming in just for the sake of money? Or do we? ?.

Maybe Lerner is the gold standard as you put it, but I'm not sure he's the only example. The Sunderland takeover: was Keane dictated to over the running of the club there? I think he pretty much told Quinn what was needed and that was that. Ditto Redknapp at Portsmouth? Or maybe they both were dictated to and I missed it - if they did, I'm not aware of it. Certainly the financial tsunami has hit some investors in football and they seem to be clipping the wings of managers and hving their say/way on squad matters. For his part, Bill obviously trades on the suspicion (or even aversion) many have toward potential new investors when he (or his hired hands) talk about investment only from people with the 'right intentions'. 'Lordyefc' has pretty much reinforced that line here in this thread. Bill's attitude to investment, though, will no doubt change once this stadium issue is settled...I doubt he's the purist or traditionalist some think him to be. He'll be more of a realist than those hanging on his every word that's for sure.

Is football now solely about cash? Do all moral and ethical considerations become secondary to the amount an individual is willing to put into a club? Is it really better to be like Chelsea or City than it is to be like Everton at this time?.

I suppose at the end of the day it's what you desire from Everton: if you want to see them hold their own in 'the greatest league in the world'TM and take some pleasure in the club doing that on a relative shoestring budget who's to say that isn't a legitimate viewpoint? I haven't got a problem with that. It's only when someone believes you can do that and compete that it becomes a bone of contention. 'Organic growth', an 'alternative business model'...it all means the same to me: we're pottering along aimlessly.

 

[inertia3112]

blah blah blah kenwright out! blah blah kenwright in! blah blah.(repeat ad infinitum)

I think thats the last 15 pages summed up in a nutshell!

or have I missed something?

 

[lordyefc]

That's just it, though, you're not dealing in specifics, you might be naming different clubs in this catch-all category of non-benefactor takeovers but you're treating all such types of investment en bloc as bad things. That could only be determined, though, on a case by case basis. I dont want to get into some semantic debate here, but you've come into this thread stating pretty much that if it isn't a City-style takeover then forget it. It's not an open-ended discussion you want it's just a means of (ultimately) cementing the current situation of ownership.

You are still taking what I am saying out of context. I am not saying that a Man City style takeover is the ONLY one I would be interested in. However, I think a Man City style takeover is the only one that both I and the investor would be interested in. Though I would be happy with a situation where an investor puts money into the club with a reasonable expectation of profit for himself AND Everton achieving regular top 4 football as a result, I do not see the economic sense from the investors point of view in attempting such a move. Everton are literally in the worst position of any football club in the UK to attempt such a move (requiring a huge level of investment for even a possibility of higher income).

In your last post, you hint at Sunderland and Villa being (structurally at least) good models for Everton. This may be so, but neither Villa or Sunderland are doing anything that Kenwright couldn't do himself; in fact, neither are doing anything that Kenwright ISN'T doing himself. So if we are holding up them as the so called "gold standard", then really, is that particular brand of investment so great?

Now, if you are saying you want somebody else to come in and structurally do the same job as Kenwright, that's fine. Kenwright rubs a lot of people up the wrong way and I understand that. But that's obviously a different thing than benefitting from investment (rather than simply a better chairman - and if we are looking at marketing etc, the CEO position is far more important).

To reiterate: I am not dealing in absolutes. I am not saying I wouldn't go along with a non-Man City style takeover. But, to my dull accountant eyes, there seems to be no scenario that would economically benefit the investor and be good for the club, hence my suspicion.

Now, if you could explain to me the economic benefit from both sides point of view, I might change my position. But at the moment, you haven't put forward a suggestion for how you think the investment would work; rather, you have just got upset at me for (in your eyes) not being open to a possibility. Do you, for example, think that any other Premier League clubs are an example to follow (as I have said, I don't)? Or do you see another model?

But at present, you seem to be extremely keen that a positive change of owner must be possible, without having made the suggestion of how.

 

[Makis]

blah blah blah kenwright out! blah blah kenwright in! blah blah.(repeat ad infinitum)

I think thats the last 15 pages summed up in a nutshell!

or have I missed something?

You could sum up about any thread like that.

blah blah blah Jags is great blah blah blah

blah blah blah Baines is great blah blah no he isn't blah blah blah

So what's your point?