Time to go

[Nebbiolo]

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?

To be fair mate, it is a thread about Kenwright leaving.

 

[davek]

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. .

Then you need to be more precise in your use of language because earlier in the thread you stated: "I'm against the sale to owners similar to other existing ones (except for City and Chelsea)."

So which is it - are you only happy with benefactor takeovers of the club or your open to a model that seeks return on investment? Nothing out of context there, it's outright opposition to any takeover project that doesn't simply leave a consignment of gold bullion outside Goodison Park for David Moyes. Add in the - as yet unsupported - statements you've also been making about how as a club we're 'making progress' as things stand (so, presumably, there's no urgency in attracting investment?) and you can imagine how difficult it's been for me in this thread keeping a focus on what it is you really are open to.

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)..

That's a bold statement. Really, the worst positioned of any club in the UK? Well, the last time I looked, West Ham have twice as much debt as Everton FC and a smaller turnover - we'll just have to wait and see over the next 6 weeks whether anyone sees them as a lost cause from an investment point of view. Personally, I doubt it.

And dont be so negative about the club's prospects to attract investment. The club certainly aren't, they believe we have a 'strong brand identity' capable of exploiting what they believe to be a 500,000 stong support base in the UK alone.

Of course, I know we're not a giant of the game like West Ham.

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.

No, I'm not upset at you, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in your posts.

Another model? Well outside of the gold bullion left outside Goodison Park model, I suppose we could wait for a fan's buyout. But until that day it's either the do nothing 'organic growth' route or the well worn Premier League route of investment for return. As for suggestions on how investment into Everton could work - how could anyone anticipate the precise details of that when we dont know the answer to a number of crucial details, including what price will be asked for the club by Kenwright, Woods and Earl and where we stand on the stadium situation? The answers to those types of questions will help determine what level of funding for squad building is allowable and what sort of level of return new owners would want to see on their investment (and, perhaps, how much they'd be prepared to invest out of their own pockets). How well we do on the pitch will determine how far we exploit the potential to grow and therefore whether the demands of new owners become a burden for the club long term or not.

 

[lordyefc]

Then you need to be more precise in your use of language because earlier in the thread you stated: "I'm against the sale to owners similar to other existing ones (except for City and Chelsea)."

My language is precise and appropriate. Reread it.

I am against a sale to owners similar to existing ones. They have provided nothing to the team that Kenwright hasn't done at Everton.

I am allowing for two gaps:

Firstly, I can understand why YOU might want a Lerner instead of a Kenwright. To me, Lerner has done 100% exactly what Kenwright has done in terms of managment hire, transfer policy and financial policy. He just did it quicker because he started with a team with zero debt and very low wages. To me, swapping Kenwright for another Kenwright (albeit a more likeable one) is risk with no reward. I can understand why you may disagree just on personality issues.

Secondly, I am allowing for the possibility that there is a type of investment that hasn't been tried at another club, and that I haven't considered, that would be more favourable. I find this unlikely, since if it is so beneficial to both parties why hasn't it been tried before? But I certainly allow the possiblity of it; and I am asking you to educate me as to what I am missing.

But, there is no contradiction in my view.

So which is it - are you only happy with benefactor takeovers of the club or your open to a model that seeks return on investment? Nothing out of context there, it's outright opposition to any takeover project that doesn't simply leave a consignment of gold bullion outside Goodison Park for David Moyes. Add in the - as yet unsupported - statements you've also been making about how as a club we're 'making progress' as things stand (so, presumably, there's no urgency in attracting investment?) and you can imagine how difficult it's been for me in this thread keeping a focus on what it is you really are open to.

Which is funny, I could say the same of you. I've asked several times what you would want out of an owner, and how you think that a symbiotic relationship could happen. All you seem interested in is the idea of a new owner, not the specifics.

Once again, I'm not in outright opposition to ANYTHING. I'm in favour of the following:

- Free money Man City style
- Short term investment, with the new owner taking profits out of the club, if it leaves the club with more money overall
- Long term investment, with the new owner looking to sell on the club at a profit in the future by moving the club up the league.
- Investment in the form of marketing the club to little green men on other planet.

I'm in favour of the last three IF THEY WERE POSSIBLE. But I don't think they are. The economics don't add up, in my opinion. If you disagree, please, educate me.

That's a bold statement. Really, the worst positioned of any club in the UK? Well, the last time I looked, West Ham have twice as much debt as Everton FC and a smaller turnover -

I stand by the quote, because it's not where you are, it's where you can go. Basic economics: the best investment is the one that gives the most growth for the lowest cost. In the real world, investors buy failing companies and turn them around because there is growth potential. You don't buy mature companies and pump money into them because there's little room for growth.

Say you pumped £100m into West Ham. That would be enough to take the club from mid table to probable UEFA cup qualification. It's a London based club, so you could charge high ticket prices and attract corporates from the city to European nights. The growth is reasonably certain (by football standard at lesst, and especially compared to the Everton case), and likely to last several years at least.

Say you pumped £100m into Everton. There is a very good chance (at least 50-50, and probably far higher) that Everton would not increase a single place in the league. There would be zero incremental income. Even if it did suceed once, whichever Big 4 team we beat (say Liverpool or Arsenal) would increase their spending over the top of ours. It wouldn't last.

Do you see where I am coming from? It's not where a club is that matters, it's how much higher it can go at reasonable cost. It's relatively easy to move West Ham up 5 places in the league and get some European football (and therefore boost the clubs income and value) - far easier than it is to improve Everton. Spending £100m on Everton could actually decrease the clubs value (if there were no income but higher wages).

So, by the measure of how far you could improve the clubs position with an investment of £xm, Everton are in the worst position of any club in the UK. Tied equal with Villa, probably.

Do you see my point now?

we'll just have to wait and see over the next 6 weeks whether anyone sees them as a lost cause from an investment point of view. Personally, I doubt it.

Again, you are confusing the existance of people who want to buy the club with the existance of people who are good for the club.

Was Magnusson good for West Ham? All he did was let the club borrow huge amounts of money in a short space of time. It was low risk for him - all the debt was in the clubs name. But he was hoping to boost the value in the short term so he could make a quick buck.

If West Ham was for sale at £150m say, and I thought the clubs true value was £200m, they even I would want to buy them (if I had the cash). But that's for my own personal profit, and not for the good of the club. West Ham fans shouldn't want me as their owner, because I care little for the club (beyond the fact that I've seen Everton win there about 6 times in 10 years).

There were apparently a dozen people interested in Newcastle, but nobody actually bought the club, because Ashley wanted a high price. All these people cared about was their own profits.

No, I'm not upset at you, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in your posts.

Hopefully I've shown that I'm not being inconsistant.

Another model? Well outside of the gold bullion left outside Goodison Park model, I suppose we could wait for a fan's buyout.

OK, that's at least a point worth considering. But if fans have the, let's say, £150m minimum between them to spend on Everton, isn't the correct business move to whack up ticket prices? But then, we struggled to sell out the biggest derby game in nearly 20 years.

But until that day it's either the do nothing 'organic growth' route or the well worn Premier League route of investment for return.

Well worn suggests following an existing model. So, yet again, I ask: which existing Premier League club is a model for Everton?

As for suggestions on how investment into Everton could work - how could anyone anticipate the precise details of that when we dont know the answer to a number of crucial details, including what price will be asked for the club by Kenwright, Woods and Earl and where we stand on the stadium situation?

Ahhh, now we are getting closer. It's fair to assume that Woods and Earl would want market value, right? And probably Kenwright too (though many hold that against him).

So, somebody buys the club for it's market value. The only way they can make money is to then improve the clubs market value, and sell it on at a profit (or make the club profitable and siphon the profits - it's really a stretch to assume the club could obtain better players on high wages, maintain a CL position and still have money left over for both annual transfers and the owners profits).

So here is where I can't understand the economics. How do you improve Everton's economic position AND league position at the same time? And, as a vitally important secondary question, if it's so easy then why wouldn't you do it at say Sunderland (similar crowds with a much cheaper initial outlay)?





That's responding to your points out of the way. But there's one question I really want you to answer:

You say that "how could anyone anticipate the precise details of that when we dont know the answer to a number of crucial details". Fine, with a lot of truth in it. But why, then are you so sure that an advantageous deal MUST be possible? You point to our support, but we are probably only the 6-7th best supported team in the country, and we are finishing 5-6th in the league. That hardly inspires confidence of long term secure growth for investors, does it?

My point all along has been this: you can demand new investment, but the truth is that there is a very good chance that there is no advantageous investment opportunity. There may be investors, but not necessarily good ones. On the other hand, there are certainly bad ones. Ones that are purely out of themselves, who will sell all the best players if it is in their economic interest.

 

[Whitebootman]

You both make good points, why not resolve this by throwing socks at each other.

 

[inertia3112]

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?

my point is, this debate has been going on for yeeeeaaaarrrrssss, its absolutely ******* pointless.

Thats not to say people shouldnt discuss it if they so wish, who am I to say otherwise.

But I was motivated to make a glib post by the sheer boredom of the topic.

I'm not saying there arent decent points made, but its a self defeating argument that'll only go round and round and round, and I dont get people allowing themselves to get so het up with kenright hatred or support, it will never make one jot of difference.

Imo just about every everton forum site their is is brought down by the same endless pointless arguments over whether he's done a good job or not.

Not just discussing it occasionally, but relentlessly treading the same repetitive old ground.

As always some people think he's great for the club, some people think he's the human embodiment of satans spunk, the truth is he's obviously somewhere in between.

I can see the obvious flaws to the argument that he's perfect, and don't understand how people can think he's so so bad.

My point is, I was bored, so there!
whatyagonnado

 

[inertia3112]

and another thing, whether people like it or not, he has earned the right to make the decisions he see's fit.

He earned his money by being an above average businessman in his chosen field(ie. the theatre).

That money was used to buy us when no-one would touch us with a shitty stick.

This is the crux of what I'm trying to say, he can do whatever he wants, and will do whatever he wants and whether people like it or not, even if they try and romanticise about what a hallowed club we are and how the fanbase and the club is bigger than billy bullshitter(c)TOFFEEWEB, it DOESNT MATTER, he is in the position to do what he wants, and its something people are just going to have to chew on!

semi-rant over

p.s. how dare you drag me into this!!

 

[davek]

My language is precise and appropriate. Reread it.

No, it's really not. It's confusing. You see even now after so many posts I'm still unable to understand why, for example, you feel the need for any investment from any source given you've stated we're progressing as a club as we are, season on season. Is this the case? Now this is an area that you can educate me in.

I am against a sale to owners similar to existing ones. They have provided nothing to the team that Kenwright hasn't done at Everton.

I am allowing for two gaps:

Firstly, I can understand why YOU might want a Lerner instead of a Kenwright. To me, Lerner has done 100% exactly what Kenwright has done in terms of managment hire, transfer policy and financial policy. He just did it quicker because he started with a team with zero debt and very low wages. To me, swapping Kenwright for another Kenwright (albeit a more likeable one) is risk with no reward. I can understand why you may disagree just on personality issues..

Why are you 'allowing' this as a 'gap', as if the Lerner buyout of Villa is so spectacularly different in principle to other buyouts that have attempted to use football clubs as a source of investment? Is it because it's creation as another, separate category allows you the opportunity to portray all non-benefactor takeovers as a failure to be avoided? Apparently, Lerner's acquiring company borrowed half the money from a Lerner family trust at a large rate of interest to buy out Villa, and that debt plus interest must be re-paid by 2016 - to believe the club wont be embroiled in all that is surely fantasy - and certainly one that many Villa fans appear not to subscribe to. It may not be a bank, but Lerner has simply extended a line of credit from another institution to buy 50% of Villa - charging rates of interest over and above bank rate - and a successful club will repay that over the ten year period. To place that buyout as something more benign is nonsense....theoretically more secure maybe.

I've asked several times what you would want out of an owner, and how you think that a symbiotic relationship could happen. All you seem interested in is the idea of a new owner, not the specifics.

I've replied to you on this: a City-style buyout would be very nice, short of that we will have to accept that in that real world that you inhabit any other type of investment would have strings attached and we all know the potential pitfalls of being saddled with more debt. That's hardly just wanting a shiny new owner just for the sake of it is it?

I stand by the quote, because it's not where you are, it's where you can go. Basic economics: the best investment is the one that gives the most growth for the lowest cost. In the real world, investors buy failing companies and turn them around because there is growth potential. You don't buy mature companies and pump money into them because there's little room for growth.

Say you pumped £100m into West Ham. That would be enough to take the club from mid table to probable UEFA cup qualification. It's a London based club, so you could charge high ticket prices and attract corporates from the city to European nights. The growth is reasonably certain (by football standard at lesst, and especially compared to the Everton case), and likely to last several years at least.

Say you pumped £100m into Everton. There is a very good chance (at least 50-50, and probably far higher) that Everton would not increase a single place in the league. There would be zero incremental income. Even if it did suceed once, whichever Big 4 team we beat (say Liverpool or Arsenal) would increase their spending over the top of ours. It wouldn't last.

Do you see where I am coming from? It's not where a club is that matters, it's how much higher it can go at reasonable cost. It's relatively easy to move West Ham up 5 places in the league and get some European football (and therefore boost the clubs income and value) - far easier than it is to improve Everton. Spending £100m on Everton could actually decrease the clubs value (if there were no income but higher wages).

So, by the measure of how far you could improve the clubs position with an investment of £xm, Everton are in the worst position of any club in the UK. Tied equal with Villa, probably.

Do you see my point now?

No, I dont. I see a lot of supposition as to why one club is more likely to become a success with investment whilst another wont. 'There's a very good chance', 'probably', 'reasonably certain'. Based on what exactly? If you spent a £100M on any team in a large population centre with a large devoted fanbase you could see the type of improvement you outline (well known London club Aston Villa seem to be making a good start on things). It's breathtaking that you could even use a term like 'the real world' in amongst all that.

So, in short, it'll never work at Everton and we'll have to wait until a Sheikh comes along and blows £500M on the team...which sort of cuts off at the legs your open mind on the subject of other forms of takeover...oh no, hang on, it's my task to persuade the realist that another 'Fifth Way' exists.

Ahhh, now we are getting closer. It's fair to assume that Woods and Earl would want market value, right? And probably Kenwright too (though many hold that against him).

So, somebody buys the club for it's market value. The only way they can make money is to then improve the clubs market value, and sell it on at a profit (or make the club profitable and siphon the profits - it's really a stretch to assume the club could obtain better players on high wages, maintain a CL position and still have money left over for both annual transfers and the owners profits).

So here is where I can't understand the economics. How do you improve Everton's economic position AND league position at the same time? And, as a vitally important secondary question, if it's so easy then why wouldn't you do it at say Sunderland (similar crowds with a much cheaper initial outlay)?

Who knows what price the current board will expect for their shares? Can I have a go at playing this game of just assuming all the conditions, it sounds like fun?

'Somebody buys the club'....sometime after investment the team obtains a Champions League place, consolidates its progress with a trophy, continues to finish in the top four tapping into the fanbase the club state categorically is on the database, increase revenue, new owners and supporters happy....

Hey, this no holds barred speculating is liberating, I can see how it's attraction for you.

Why dont other clubs attract speculative investment? Why, dont they?

My point all along has been this: you can demand new investment, but the truth is that there is a very good chance that there is no advantageous investment opportunity. There may be investors, but not necessarily good ones. On the other hand, there are certainly bad ones. Ones that are purely out of themselves, who will sell all the best players if it is in their economic interest.

Oh yes, I knew all that. In fact, I think i stated as much that nothing is certain in this world regarding football investment some way back in the thread. I do hope we haven't been boring everyone senseless to arrive at that easily reached agreement.

 

[bobbyrob]

The way i think it will be played is Moyes will get together his squad by buying prudently as he has been,sign them all up for 5 yrs,then the invester will come into the club.His money will then be used to work for the club and not be wasted on greedy wage earning players such as chelski,the benefits for the players will be results/performance orinanted with end of season bonuses.Thats what i see in my crystal ball.

 

[frtuteg]

He's been looking for investment 24/7 for 10 years.

Sound.

I know that.
You are so right.

 

[chicoazul]

Better the devil you know, then the devil you dont know? Thats basically what your saying. I agree, most if not all takeovers have gone horribly badly. I mean i can only think of Man City as success story, in terms of owners who will just spend and spend and not increase prices or get bored like Roman has. I admit its a difficult time to sell and also for investers, banks are closing, banks are demanding money and not many banks are willing to do huge loans.

I do admit my dream takeover will never happen, i want somebody inbetween Lerner and City. I want somebody that will breeze into the club, pay off all our debts, retain Moyes, improve the squad and rebuild GP. Thats not going to happen, im aware of this. I do realise BK has done a wonderful job, hes kept the wolves from our door, we have huge debts, but i think they are manageable, the accounts prove that we can keep up repayments and still spend a little each year.

But every year others get closer to us, every year we over achieve, not every year will the likes of Spurs, City and others under achieve. We dont need billions, BK was wrong when he said this. He hasnt got any money, he spent everything he had buying the club, i will never critise him for being skint, he cant give what he hasnt got, i just feel his business management has been very poor. I mean this DK farce proves he loves to waste money.

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. Hes not the man to do this, so its time for him to look for somebody to do this, its time for him to sell, not at the stupid £200m price he wants, but at a price in which we can attract a decent chairman, somebody with a decent business mind, somebody who realises that if they invested just a small amount into a huge club , with a massive fanbase he could make some money and still make us a force in the World.

We all have a dream, our dream is to become the best team in the World, AGAIN. Sadly i feel his dream is to milk as much money as he can upon selling.

Oh, HIYA!

Lordy played a blinder in this thread too, has to be said.

 

[Goat]

IN BET WEEN

Hardly sing Randys praises here, try harder.

 

[Goat]

I mean i can only think of Man City as success story

And I quote.

 

[Topblue]

Oh, HIYA!

Lordy played a blinder in this thread too, has to be said.

my head hurts after reading this page.

 

[chicoazul]

You're in trouble here.

 

[Neiler]

This is from the Guardian Feb 09, a year is a long time in football no!:


"I am joining the people's football club." David Moyes, 2002

It is an interesting concept, talking about a "people's football club" in 21st-­century football. Moyes's first impression of Everton when he became their manager nine years ago was obviously meant as a compliment.
It the subsequent years, however, the very factors that made Everton a people's football club – unpretentious, rough-around-the-edges, with an old-fashioned stadium and a liking for going about their business in a modest fashion (ie being a bit skint) – have tied one hand behind Moyes's back.

Now that people are really beginning to appreciate how skilfully the third-longest serving Premier League manager picks and uses his resources, it is only natural to wonder how Everton might fare with the help of a heftier cheque book.
But how is it possible to be a progressive, people's football club? Can a club reasonably expect to marry big-bucked ambition with populist values?

Everton's chairman, Bill Kenwright, who has been muddling through as best he can since he bought his boyhood club a decade ago, could find a few interesting answers in the opposite side of the directors' box this afternoon.

Aston Villa's American owner, Randy Lerner, may appear to lack the first-hand empathy with what makes a people's club for obvious reasons. He is the son of a billionaire. He worked as a New York City lawyer before becoming a successful entrepreneur in his own right. He is a philanthropist who backs, among other causes, fine art. The Holte End regulars certainly were not expecting him to trouble himself with wooing them when he took over in the summer of 2006.

But one of Lerner's first and most crucial priorities when he bought Aston Villa was a serious attempt to bring the fans closer to the actual workings of the club. Everybody knows that nothing schmoozes fans as effectively as a winning team, but Lerner wanted Villa to pride themselves on their customer relations and there was a lot of consultation involved, which has helped to create the current feelgood factor. In a smart and sensitive way, they have tried to implement a feel of a people's club while simultaneously gearing Villa up into a more competitive team by supporting Martin O'Neill's shrewd hit list.

To really appreciate the advances the club have made in the two and a half years since Lerner and O'Neill arrived, just look at what happened the previous season. In 2005-06 Villa finished two positions clear of relegation. Rotten cup runs were summed up by a 3-0 embarrassment at Doncaster. The club made a financial loss, income was down, discontent was up.

The latter years of Doug Ellis's 35-year reign left the players so demoralised they issued an anonymous statement: "We feel it should be a big club but if the chairman has got ambition he needs to start showing it. It has to come from the top."

Former manager John Gregory summed up Ellis's style by saying: "Doug's great strength is looking after the pennies. If you stay in a hotel, Doug cannot understand why you need a suite or a double. He says all bedrooms look exactly the same when you are asleep." Lerner, who shunned the pennies from a shirt sponsor to instead advertise a local charity on Villa's shirts, is clearly a ­different animal to "Deadly Doug".

The relationship between Lerner and O'Neill is one of the keys to Villa functioning so well. Unlike certain other wealthy owners, the American is aware of his limitations and is only too happy to leave footballing decisions to the man with the brilliant footballing brain.

There is a reason that Villa and Everton have proved, over the past few years, the most credible of challengers to the big four. They are easily the most sensibly run from the group that yearns for a pop at the Champions League. That those perennial underachievers, ­Newcastle and Tottenham, score higher in the Deloitte list of clubs' income and lower in the table that really matters explains everything. But it will be interesting to see whether Villa and Everton – whose turnovers in the recently published list are almost identical – find their fortunes diverge in next year's figures.

If Villa's prudent yet supportive new leadership achieves the Champions League windfall that is on the cards, it will not tell the Goodison Park hierarchy something they do not already know.

Moyes has outlined the difficulties they already face compared to Villa by explaining that all the cash for his last big signing, Marouane Fellaini, was raised by player sales and that he was keen to buy Emile Heskey – who went to O'Neill – but the price was simply too high.

Kenwright has been trying to bring new money to the club for ages but, nine years into the job, Moyes will tell you this people's club really, dearly, need a handout.