Matt Damon
Player Valuation: £60m
Article in the Times today.
Imagine a football club that ticks just about every box. A proud, historic club, owned by a local boy made good, playing in front of packed, passionate crowds in an atmospheric stadium, where a gifted, spirited bunch of players are sent out by a talented, determined manager with a genuine affinity for the institution he represents.
It sounds idyllic — the club in question is also well supported, well run, well managed — but in the material world that is English football in 2011, it is nothing like enough. Glory is what every fan craves, but hope and ambition come not far behind.
And hope, never mind glory, costs serious money these days, as Everton are discovering.
David Moyes looked depressed during and after Everton’s 2-0 defeat away to Bolton Wanderers yesterday, a result that left his team just three points clear of the relegation zone. Asked whether they were now in a relegation battle, Moyes replied that he had thought so “since the third week of the season” — a season that began with no less a judge than Sir Alex Ferguson tipping them to challenge for a top-four finish.
For Everton to achieve that would, on the basis of most expectations at the start of this season, entail finishing above Manchester City, Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool. In other words, it would require them to outperform three clubs who spend far bigger sums on transfer fees and, in particular, wages. And if Moyes’s record at Goodison Park inspires confidence that it can be done, the correlation between the Premier League and the Deloitte Football Money League tables has never been closer.
Everton’s wage bill last season, as laid out last week in their financial accounts for the year ending May 31 2010, was £54.3 million. Chelsea’s for the same period has been reported at £172 million. City’s was £133 million. Aston Villa and Tottenham, never mind Liverpool and United, spend far bigger sums on wages. Everton’s more natural position would be as one of a cluster — Blackburn Rovers, Fulham, Sunderland and West Ham United — scrambling for a top-half finish.
Time for Bill Kenwright, the Everton chairman, to loosen the purse strings? In theory, yes, but there is not much room for financial manoeuvre. Their wage bill rose by 10.7 per cent last season and other costs rose by 12.2 per cent, but their turnover shrank by 0.7 per cent. With debts of a little less then £48 million — and debts that the club has to work hard to service — the place is not awash with cash.
In order for Everton to be competitive, something has to change. A new stadium was the priority for years — there was the much-mourned failure in 2003 to raise funds to build on a desirable location on Kings Dock and the less-lamented rejection in 2008 of a development in Kirkby — but for now the club are resigned to spending the foreseeable future at Goodison Park, a ground that yielded matchday revenue of £22.8 million last season. Equivalent figures elsewhere: Tottenham £36.8 million, Liverpool £42.9 million, Arsenal £93.9 million, United £100.2 million.
Kenwright has concluded that he has to sell, having admitted that he is “a pauper when it comes to other chairmen”. But the longer his search goes on, the quieter things are on the investment front, the louder the accusations come from supporters that he is holding back the club, standing in the way of progress, putting his own interests before those of his “beloved” Everton.
It all sounds very familiar. It sounds like the accusations levelled at David Moores as he made unrealistic demands of anyone seeking to buy Liverpool four or five years ago. As the pressure grew, Moores ended up panicking, choosing the most favourable offer of the two in front of him and selling to two American tycoons who oversaw perhaps the most turbulent, chaotic, damaging period in the club’s history — a period from which the damage has yet to be fully ascertained.
Everton need a new start, but just how desperate are they? Desperate enough to demand that the search for new investment is intensified or widened, certainly, but surely not so desperate as to demand that Kenwright simply sells to the highest bidder.
The modern history of English football tells us that it is far easier to succeed with outside investment, but it also tells us that the promise of outside investment — think Hicks and Gillett, Mike Ashley, Alexandre Gaydamak, Thaksin Shinawatra, those jokers who almost ruined Notts County — is almost always far more attractive than the reality.
These, though, are the times we live in. Any change is often regarded as better than none. Even the vague promise of hope is better than a familiar sense of disappointment.
But if there is one thing worse than a prudent owner who proclaims to care as much as any supporter, it is the reckless owner who clearly cares only for himself. And the experience of clubs up and down the land, through all four divisions, tells us that if Everton could do better than Kenwright, they could also do a lot worse. An awful lot worse.
That is a psychological trick thats being played right there of a catch 22 argument.
It is IRRELEVANT if Kenwright views that the purchaser would be a poorer owner, because due to the credit crunch, Kenwright CANNOT finance the required/needed investment in infrastructure to increase turnover.
That means he's presiding over a deterioration of the financial position.
Therefore despite what argument (presumably Ian Ross) makes, not selling will have a worse impact than someone financing a stadium capacity increase.
Because the cat is out of the bag. Kenwright has resisted - decent - offers for the club.
Despite what the club's line may now be.
