Everton "special" Talksport 9:00pm Monday 10th Aug 2015

[Steve Wigan]

We know that those solutions are NOT on the table though. They wont invest, they wont dilute their shareholding, and they wont sell.

The key here, imo (and what keeps those options off the table) is that Kenwright is being allowed to retain a control over the club because that coincides with the interests of people outside the club who (lets not be coy about it) prop it up - through the buying of Gregg's shares via a proxy or by providing loans. That wont change in a hurry. Saggers implied to you last night that it might do with the coming on stream of even greater amounts of tv cash. I cant see that. I dont see Everton's sale without a resolution to the stadium issue (Kirkby was probably what got these outsiders involved in the first place and another 'Kirkby' will be required to see them leave). And I dont see extra revenue going the way of a stadium fund to resolve the issue. As Elstone has hammered home time and time again - Everton require private and public sector partners to make a new stadium a runner. Those forces wont touch Everton - there's not trust in the organisation and there's no giveaways now from LAs. But they can live with that, because the asset they've hitched up to is appreciating its value with these new tv deals and they can afford to wait and see if that environment fundamentally changes.


The only fly in the ointment for them is Kenwright and his well being. In the event that deteriorates I suspect that the strategy of these people is to to wipe out the £48M debt and go for a sale. And that's maybe what we're seeing now this summer: the first chunk out of that £48M being taken away. It fits in with the news of BKs illness.

The carrot of retail millions from DK was definitely the carrot that attracted Earl(or Earl/Green if you feel the urge) and when DK failed Earl really just wanted to profitise his 'investment' either straight away or by sitting on it until the opportune moment. I think this is less true of Woods, who is there because he is big mates with Bill K and will support him, or fall on his sword with him, whatever. The monkey on Bills back is Earl, and I suspect that if the selling price is/was on the high side, this would be down to Earl wanting more. Its possible that if Earl could be tempted to sell his shares, at whatever cost, the sale of the club would become a lot easier. So...just find a potential buyer who will buy out Earl at a premium, but get the rest of the shares at a fair rate, and you're home and dry !! Ha Ha !!

 

[roydo]

Is there a link to listen to it all I've listen to esk link

Couple of pages back mate

 

[Woolly Blue]

Is there a link to listen to it all I've listen to esk link

It's in this post mate https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/...l-talksport-9-00pm.78197/page-48#post-3759013

 

[davek]

Might have worked 10/15 years ago, but even if attendances dropped to 20k, the drop in revenue would be minimal compared to the TV money. It might embarass the board a bit, and they might do something vaguely conciliatory, but they wouldn't just walk because of it, why would they ?

Normally it's easier to influence from within when you're having some sort of dialogue. With our board, that seems unlikely. If, as a fan base, we ever get whiff of someone being interested in the club, that's the time to exert pressure in any way possible.

To get any info about possible interested parties, you probably need inside info, hence the need, however unpalatable it might seem, to have some sort of relationship with people high up in the club hierarchy.

There's no expiry date on a boycott of a football club. The fans provide half the spectacle, they have enormous power over and above their ticket money and merchandise spending. It's a muscle that, if flexed, would get right through and resolve this issue

What I would concede is that the nature of fandom these days is very much part of wider consumption patterns and has thrown up the consumer-fan. That's why I acknowledge that it'd be unpalatable as an option for many.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I think you will find that a damaged brand, dissatisfied customer fanbase, and a long term sapping PR battle will effect a sale price and reputations.

The board consists of businessmen who are unlikely to worry about damage to the reputation. So long as they think their asset is appreciating courtesy of the TV money, I very much doubt they give a damn about a bit of bad publicity.

 

[joey_macmo]

that I do not like(and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) is 'debates' which degenerate into name calling, ranting, and point scoring.

nd it occured to me that it might be that his problem is the lunatic fringe of his 'members

In other words,BU, be too volatile, rebellious, or lunatic,

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

 

[Woolly Blue]

There's no expiry date on a boycott of a football club. The fans provide half the spectacle, they have enormous power over and above their ticket money and merchandise spending. It's a muscle that, if flexed, would get right through and resolve this issue

What I would concede is that the nature of fandom these days is very much part of wider consumption patterns and has thrown up the consumer-fan. That's why I acknowledge that it'd be unpalatable as an option for many.

Barring actually being relegated, or going into the last third of a season in the thick of a relegation battle, I think we both know a boycott is unlikely.

That might change, but, given we both know that's the situation, it just becomes an academic argument.

To be fair, I don't have an alternative.

 

[Steve Wigan]

'lunatic fringe'...common phraseology in the English language...certainly not calling anyone a lunatic! It has the same connotations as the phrase 'the lunatics have taken over the asylum'. Really..didn't think an explanation would br necessary, but there you are anyway, specially for you.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

The only thing that would provoke mass fan reaction / protest, would be staring down the barrel of relegation and the board being seen as the reason for it.

That's it in a nutshell.

Whilst we're midtable or better, then the discontent will remain at the periphery of the match going fanbase. a murmuring percentage as opposed to a vociferous majority.

 

[The Esk]

@davek re your last post in response to mine.

There's an assumption that the equity value of Everton will continue to rise as revenues in the Premiership rise.

I don't buy into that theory. Everton are at an inflection point where without investment we will find it increasingly difficult to compete in the top half of the Premiership and if the trend continued or we had a bad season we may become relegation candidates.

That fear plus the year by year increase in capital required to make up the previous years lack of investment will effect the equity price.

If you are going to issue new equity or sell completely you need to do it at the peak of your equity valuation.

The Board in delaying that decision run the risk of the value of the equity falling significantly either because of the fear of relegation (currently unlikely but possible in the future without investment) and/or the sheer amount of capital required to compete under new ownership.

There is a huge risk in the Board doing nothing, not only on the pitch but also to themselves as shareholders.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Will have a listen later

 

[Ruairi77]

Both Stan and

The board consists of businessmen who are unlikely to worry about damage to the reputation. So long as they think their asset is appreciating courtesy of the TV money, I very much doubt they give a damn about a bit of bad publicity.

If the Gwladys st. starts protesting, Kenwright would feel it. For all his flaws, he does love the club. Question is, does he have any control over the board? I doubt it.

 

[Bluesnapper]

He controls the board but who is he answering to?

 

[Kiwi]

@davek re your last post in response to mine.

There's an assumption that the equity value of Everton will continue to rise as revenues in the Premiership rise.

I don't buy into that theory. Everton are at an inflection point where without investment we will find it increasingly difficult to compete in the top half of the Premiership and if the trend continued or we had a bad season we may become relegation candidates.

That fear plus the year by year increase in capital required to make up the previous years lack of investment will effect the equity price.

If you are going to issue new equity or sell completely you need to do it at the peak of your equity valuation.

The Board in delaying that decision run the risk of the value of the equity falling significantly either because of the fear of relegation (currently unlikely but possible in the future without investment) and/or the sheer amount of capital required to compete under new ownership.

There is a huge risk in the Board doing nothing, not only on the pitch but also to them as shareholders.

You've got it bang on there @the esk
We used to have a small financial edge with regards to revenue due to high ticket sales and reasonable commercial operations.
Not only do we no longer have an advantage in matchday revenue or commercial operations, instead we are falling behind teams we should not be behind, because our board is unwilling or unable to progress that side of the club.
There's little to no difference between what we bring in and what say Palace or Hull were bringing in money wise because of these new tv deals.
It has gotten to the point where stagnation will leave us falling behind of our competitors.
Progress is distinctly needed in order to stay where we are let alone compete where we should be for trophies and Europe as is befitting a club of our stature.

Our current business plan, is relying on a bunch of professionals who are good at what they do to perform to a standard greater to the sum of their parts, in a league with teams full of other good professionals. That's not a "plan". That's gambling to be kind and insanity if we are honest.
Either the current board need to produce a coherent plan to progress the club on and off the field and sort out our financial issues through investment of their own or through external sourcing, or they need to sell the club to someone who can.

They cannot claim to love the club and be doing the best for the club with the current state of affairs.
A facetious position to hold to say the least.

Either they make changes or move on for the good of the club.
They are there to safeguard and progress the club not to profiteer off it further.