Elstone refusing to allow shareholders who are also Blue Union members into meetings

[Royal]

Comparing them to a North Korean dictator?
Makes you think they've probably been being annoying stubborn and disruptive in other meetings tbh.

 

[tsubaki]

It's not good business, because you are constantly, unrealistically, relying on the manager to unearth gems, which he can then coach up to a higher standard and then sell on. As a result you are no longer building a team, because every few years you sell a key player. This is precisely why you end up with a small squad, always fall away from greatness just as you're about to get there, and why the club never finishes in the top 4. That is why the best clubs succeed, because they INVEST in the infrastructure.

It isnt though - in business terms at least, the PL clubs that make a profit are almost always the ones who keep unearthing gems and either sell them on, or use them to get enough money to fund ground expansions. The PL clubs that make losses are usually the ones who "invest" most in their squads, rather than actual infrastructure that they can use to make money.

 

[BoysInBlue]

So other than Abramovic and City owners. Which other investors would be able to buy current board out,Wipe debt, build a new stadium and put a first class 11 on the pitch. How much is that likely to cost. The fact of the matter is we missed the boat a decade ago.

For someone who in earlier posts a few minutes was saying how these Blue Union members should engage in 'positive' discussions about Everton, now all of a sudden you're being very defeatist.

"There's no one out there" - well, if you don't look properly, you don't have the right price, and you don't employ the right people to look in the right places, and assess these people in the right way, you'll never get a buyer. Once again, self-fulfilling prophesy.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to everyone you're a massive wind up. Nice bantering with you.

 

[Stend]

Righto then.

Lets all just stay as we are.

You should be on the board.

I'm being realistic mate. It's going to take a miracle for us to be where we all want to be -bDebt free, in a new stadium with an L post code, and consitantly on sky sports news being linked with the likes of Ribery on deadline day. I just can't see it happening we aren't attractive enough.

 

[Stend]

It isnt though - in business terms at least, the PL clubs that make a profit are almost always the ones who keep unearthing gems and either sell them on, or use them to get enough money to fund ground expansions. The PL clubs that make losses are usually the ones who "invest" most in their squads, rather than actual infrastructure that they can use to make money.

Spot on - ARSENAL

 

[tsubaki]

The fact of the matter is we missed the boat a decade ago.

If anything we helped ensure that everyone got on the wrong boat in 1992, and set ourselves (though to be fair the ****e did this as well) on a course that it would be markedly harder for us to compete on compared with the southern clubs, though noone really realised this at the time apart from United.

Of course, what worked for United is what should work for us and the ****e.

 

[BoysInBlue]

It isnt though - in business terms at least, the PL clubs that make a profit are almost always the ones who keep unearthing gems and either sell them on, or use them to get enough money to fund ground expansions. The PL clubs that make losses are usually the ones who "invest" most in their squads, rather than actual infrastructure that they can use to make money.

My point was (admittedly not made very successfully) that the player-trading model we currently use will only take us so far, i.e. being a 'selling club' will not bring you longevity in terms of success. No investment in terms of transfers, such as the non-investment in January when we were 4th, is what ends up costing you a top 4 place. The club is crying out for an injection of cash that doesn't come from sacrificing something first.

 

[tsubaki]

Spot on - ARSENAL

Arsenal really are the best example of this, as a business they are fantastically well run, but being a good business doesnt always translate to being a successful football club. United are as well, despite the Glazers.

 

[Chang Elephant]

I'm being realistic mate. It's going to take a miracle for us to be where we all want to be -bDebt free, in a new stadium with an L post code, and consitantly on sky sports news being linked with the likes of Ribery on deadline day. I just can't see it happening we aren't attractive enough.

I demand a better standard of wind up on this forum. Would not read again. 3/10

 

[BoysInBlue]

Spot on - ARSENAL

Who haven't won a trophy in 9 years, who are in line to not qualify for the Champions League for the first time in 20 years, who's fans are up in arms at the way their club is declining, and who's boardroom is fractured, with no clear direction over the future.

No CL footy next season - £20m+ shortfall in the repayments needed for the Emirates Stadium.

Deary me, I know I said I wouldn't reply again, but Arsenal - really?:blink:

 

[tsubaki]

My point was (admittedly not made very successfully) that the player-trading model we currently use will only take us so far, i.e. being a 'selling club' will not bring you longevity in terms of success. No investment in terms of transfers, such as the non-investment in January when we were 4th, is what ends up costing you a top 4 place. The club is crying out for an injection of cash that doesn't come from sacrificing something first.

I agree, the point is though that when it comes to investment - actual investment - its nearly always better to spend it on things that will make more money (or at worst saving money), rather than players (who can only ever generate money with what is already in place). Take the forthcoming TV money for example, which would almost certainly be best spent buying Finch Farm back, or getting rid of any number of the outsourced deals you rightly criticised above, so that the club can start enjoying those revenues instead.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

Honestly, what else is new...as you age, you come to see firsthand that a lot of businesses are run by just as many fools that are simply lucky and winging their way through life as there are by genuinely intelligent people who work their a** off. You can decide which of those work at the club for yourself.

 

[BoysInBlue]

Arsenal really are the best example of this, as a business they are fantastically well run, but being a good business doesnt always translate to being a successful football club. United are as well, despite the Glazers.

They're not that fantastically run, when their reluctance to spend in the transfer market will cost them £20m+ next season when/if they fail to qualify for the CL.

Spurs are a far better example of a well-run club that invests in its' playing staff at the appropriate times to support the manager and kick the team on to the next level.

 

[The Esk]

Spot on - ARSENAL

As a shareholder you would be delighted, as a fan obviously not. The biggest problem Premiership clubs face is alignment of interests. Owners and fans are diametrically opposed - we need the German football model where fans are shareholders, shareholders are fans, perfect alignment of interests ...

 

[Stend]

I demand a better standard of wind up on this forum. Would not read again. 3/10

You're deluded if you think anything I said in that post is a wind up. You're expecting a billionaire to fly in on white horses with the virgin Mary and spend upwards of £400m+ getting us to compete with the likes of City. It won't happen we aren't attractive enough. The stadium being the main problem.