FYI: Talksport Everton Special

[sheeds]

Bill is just live every other chairman, a businessman. Will always put his own finances above the club.

Do you know what though that's fine I can cope with that but don't spin is the yarn about what a huge blue you are I'm sorry those two positions are mutually exclusive.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Bill is just live every other chairman, a businessman. Will always put his own finances above the club.

Sir Jack Hayward

 

[By god I'm blue]

125m plus the new owners to settle the debts created by the ass clowns in charge now is nothing but astonishing, if that is the case of course.

Hard to imagine it not being though.

So in reality, we are talking 170-175m aren't we? Aint gonna happen unless some arab or russian is looking for a new playthang.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Sheeds....one thing I'm still not clear about with regard to the £125 million. Is this the ball park price for buying the club debt free? If it is then the price must be loaded to cover payment of the debt, because I cannot see were else the clearance of the debt would come from. The selling parties need to satisfy the banks etc that the debt will be cleared, and if this is done out of the reciepts of £125 million, it doesn't leave much in the way of profit for the shareholders, large or small. Bill in particular would not make much if inflation is taken into account(what is his original £20 odd million worth at todays rates?) Similarly Earl. and presumably Jon W don't stand to make a massive profit. I hope also that small shaareholdrs, even those with a 'sentimental' single share, realise that it is likely/possible that they will be forced to sell their share? Or is simply the sale of the majority shareholdings sufficient?
I still feel that a lot of the talk with any potential buyers will centre around the current debt.

If you were looking to allow this information into the public domain for the first time, knowing what a contentious issue it's been & were employed as the clubs PR manager, would you not be very specific if the £125M figure included the debt? Or maybe you'd actually express the price as £77M plus the £48M debt, as if PR was your game, you'd be looking to spin it in as positive a light as possible.

The fact that it was never even mentioned, says that it's £125M plus the debt to me, if you want to believe something else then that's your choice

 

[sheeds]

Sheeds....one thing I'm still not clear about with regard to the £125 million. Is this the ball park price for buying the club debt free? If it is then the price must be loaded to cover payment of the debt, because I cannot see were else the clearance of the debt would come from. The selling parties need to satisfy the banks etc that the debt will be cleared, and if this is done out of the reciepts of £125 million, it doesn't leave much in the way of profit for the shareholders, large or small. Bill in particular would not make much if inflation is taken into account(what is his original £20 odd million worth at todays rates?) Similarly Earl. and presumably Jon W don't stand to make a massive profit. I hope also that small shaareholdrs, even those with a 'sentimental' single share, realise that it is likely/possible that they will be forced to sell their share? Or is simply the sale of the majority shareholdings sufficient?
I still feel that a lot of the talk with any potential buyers will centre around the current debt.

You see they then said exclusive of debt , I suspect for all the stick they are getting over the £125m price it's considerably more palatable than quoting price inclusive of debt . Clearly it was a soundbite (that had to be dragged out of them it seems on a low rent radio show) . I'm loath to try and put my point because I know in this area I'm hugely out if my depth , particularly with you !

I have to say I but into mj's belief that maybe pressure is mounting but I believed that 18 months ago and they rode it out then

 

[steken1]

It should be remembered that Stan had to pin them down for a 'ballpark' figure as they tried to give him the old 'it changes daily' routine.

Can anyone suggest a reason it changes daily?

It's not like there's massive fluctuations in our income streams or potential revenues as almost everything is tied down long term?

The only thing I can think of is it depends on who's asking?

 

[Steve Wigan]

If you were looking to allow this information into the public domain for the first time, knowing what a contentious issue it's been & were employed as the clubs PR manager, would you not be very specific if the £125M figure included the debt? Or maybe you'd actually express the price as £77M plus the £48M debt, as if PR was your game, you'd be looking to spin it in as positive a light as possible.

The fact that it was never even mentioned, says that it's £125M plus the debt to me, if you want to believe something else then that's your choice

The reason I'm asking is that as you say it wasn't made clear. You are simply speculating that the debt is additional. Its usual for debts to be cleared by the seller prior to the completion of the sale, or at least for an arrangement to be made by the buyer with the debtors, although this is in cases were a club is in very serious financial trouble...like the RS, which was bought simply by the new owners clearing most of the debts.
Although our position isn't great, its stable in comparitive terms....so the sellers would have to include servicing the debt out of the selling price because there is no other source . And £125 million has been quoted, not £173 million.

 

[kenada_blue]

What did Orville say it was worth?

Some bird seed and a kitkat

 

[Steve Wigan]

You see they then said exclusive of debt , I suspect for all the stick they are getting over the £125m price it's considerably more palatable than quoting price inclusive of debt . Clearly it was a soundbite (that had to be dragged out of them it seems on a low rent radio show) . I'm loath to try and put my point because I know in this area I'm hugely out if my depth , particularly with you !

I have to say I but into mj's belief that maybe pressure is mounting but I believed that 18 months ago and they rode it out then

You're not out of your depth with me on this, I'm an amateur, accountancy has never been my strong point, I hate it !who was the guy on Kipper who was able to clarify all the accounting queries? Is he on here? It was him who said that the purchaser usually aquires a debt free club. I didn't here the 'exclusive of debt' quote on the show. If thats the case it looks to me that Earl in particular is playing hardball with Bill, to squeeze out maximum profit for himself. Earl was obviously pissed off that the promised riches(for him) from DK did not materialise, and is looking to maximise his 'investment'.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

The reason I'm asking is that as you say it wasn't made clear. You are simply speculating that the debt is additional. Its usual for debts to be cleared by the seller prior to the completion of the sale, or at least for an arrangement to be made by the buyer with the debtors, although this is in cases were a club is in very serious financial trouble...like the RS, which was bought simply by the new owners clearing most of the debts.
Although our position isn't great, its stable in comparitive terms....so the sellers would have to include servicing the debt out of the selling price because there is no other source . And £125 million has been quoted, not £173 million.

Well done for totally avoiding my actual point Steve.

You're the clubs PR man, you've been pinned down to state the actual asking price for the club, you know it's a massive hot potato of an issue with the fanbase, you're looking to spin it as best you can, you mention 'changing daily' as a caveat before sharing it........but you decide to neglect stating the fact that the figure stated includes the £48M debt & so is therefore only a return of £77M to the current stakeholders?

Behave Steve, even you aren't going to flog this rigamortis set nag are you ffs?

 

[Dell Boy]

To give some context here, does anyone have an idea what the income/profit is expected to be next year once the new TV deal is included? Assuming all things the same, if you add the TV money and we win the 7th place trophy - what's the profit level?

I ask because we need to ge to an effective headline ratio of asking price to earnings. And also be aware that an asking price is just that. If I want to sell something I ask for £X but will typically accept £X - 5/10%.

That's the first step.

After that we can look at assets and debt. This is where it gets very difficult and you can only get to a true accurate picture with all the info and a decent accountant at your side.

On the assets side there is the players (who are worth between £100m and £150m) but I don't know how a football club as a business values these assets?

Goodison is mortgaged and I can't see how it's worth anything to anyone other than as a football ground. So let's put that in at nil. Same too for Finch Farm etc.

The other key asset is the 'brand' and the place in the premiership though both are probably accounted for in the earnings multiple.

On the debt side it's much more difficult. Somewhere above someone quoted £48m. Does that include the Goodison mortgage/bond for example? If so then you could easily take that out of the equation as a cost of occupancy/trading. Alternatively you include the Goodison mortgage/bond but then as a club you have an asset and a saving of however many £m it is each year in servicing that loan.

Equally you'd have to be careful to find out the net annual profit stripping out all debt costs - 'cos if you're then going to pay off the debt as part of the deal the previous debt costs are immaterial.

Once we can get some clear answers to the above we can look to whether it stacks up or not (if as I'm happy to assume the £125m asking price is correct).

It's anyone's guess what's a worthy comparison but I'd probably go for Newcastle United in the absence of any better.

From that brilliant source Wikipedia:

May 2007, in a surprise move, Ashley bought Sir John Hall's 41.6% stake in Newcastle United at one pound per share, for a total cost of £55,342,223via his company St James Holdings Ltd. 100% acquisition was achieved in July with Ashley paying a total of around £134 million to buy the club.

Ashley appeared to have saved the club from certain financial ruin by paying off large sums of debt inherited from the previous regime,[24] although he was criticised for not doing due diligence when buying the club, as he subsequently revealed he had been unaware of issues such as the upfront payment of club finances such as the Northern Rock sponsorship, and the presence of outstanding liabilities for long past player transfers.

So, crudely, according to this great source, Ashley paid £134 million for Newcastle plus he had to settle other debts. And that was a Newcastle team that subsequently got relegated?

All told though Ashley's apparently made a packet out of Newcastle since the purchase so presumably doesn't regret it too much!

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here - but also wanting to highlight until we know what's behind the figures we're really not that far forward.

 

[Azza]

l don't think we're for sale.

Let's think about this logically and in a non conspiracy way. This source Collymore spoke to, why on Earth would Moyes and Kenwright give this person permission to answer the questions?! Surely if that's the case then there is no need to keep the source identity hidden, because if they have permission then they wouldn't get in trouble which is the reason why people give information anonymously. Collymore also said they were at the top level of the club and also had experience of takeovers and sales of clubs, he mentioned City and Liverpool... Well that can only be one person who we know of at the club, Paul Tyrrell!

So if it is Tyrrell why didn't he himself or Elstone or Kenwright himself just phone in and answer the questions, why add the mystery of not revealing the sources identity, it just adds an element of doubt to the answers no matter how much Collymore enthusiastically bigs the source up. But then we are back to the start because they've got permission.

Tyrrell, Elstone or Kenwright can easily just come out and say we're 100% for sale, look here is the the prospectus we've sent out to 'x' bank, 'y' investment group, give that out to current EFC shareholders as well, show it to The Blue Union even if they are not in the good books. There is no independent source from outside of the club to confirm that we are for sale, or that there have been interested parties.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Well done for totally avoiding my actual point Steve.

You're the clubs PR man, you've been pinned down to state the actual asking price for the club, you know it's a massive hot potato of an issue with the fanbase, you're looking to spin it as best you can, you mention 'changing daily' as a caveat before sharing it........but you decide to neglect stating the fact that the figure stated includes the £48M debt & so is therefore only a return of £77M to the current stakeholders?

Behave Steve, even you aren't going to flog this rigamortis set nag are you ffs?

Certainly not avoiding your point deliberately....just requiring confirmation as to whether the £125 quoted includes the debt or not, because quoteed prices are usually debt free and its down to the seller to sort the debts out. Do you think the price is £125 million plus the debt? Or inclusive of the debt? Someone above has said that 'exclusive of debt' was quoted. If thats the case , even allowing for the Sky riches(which every other Prem club gets as well) it will be difficult to sell the club at that price.

 

[kenada_blue]

To give some context here, does anyone have an idea what the income/profit is expected to be next year once the new TV deal is included? Assuming all things the same, if you add the TV money and we win the 7th place trophy - what's the profit level?

I ask because we need to ge to an effective headline ratio of asking price to earnings. And also be aware that an asking price is just that. If I want to sell something I ask for £X but will typically accept £X - 5/10%.

That's the first step.

After that we can look at assets and debt. This is where it gets very difficult and you can only get to a true accurate picture with all the info and a decent accountant at your side.

On the assets side there is the players (who are worth between £100m and £150m) but I don't know how a football club as a business values these assets?

Goodison is mortgaged and I can't see how it's worth anything to anyone other than as a football ground. So let's put that in at nil. Same too for Finch Farm etc.

The other key asset is the 'brand' and the place in the premiership though both are probably accounted for in the earnings multiple.

On the debt side it's much more difficult. Somewhere above someone quoted £48m. Does that include the Goodison mortgage/bond for example? If so then you could easily take that out of the equation as a cost of occupancy/trading. Alternatively you include the Goodison mortgage/bond but then as a club you have an asset and a saving of however many £m it is each year in servicing that loan.

Equally you'd have to be careful to find out the net annual profit stripping out all debt costs - 'cos if you're then going to pay off the debt as part of the deal the previous debt costs are immaterial.

Once we can get some clear answers to the above we can look to whether it stacks up or not (if as I'm happy to assume the £125m asking price is correct).

It's anyone's guess what's a worthy comparison but I'd probably go for Newcastle United in the absence of any better.

From that brilliant source Wikipedia:

May 2007, in a surprise move, Ashley bought Sir John Hall's 41.6% stake in Newcastle United at one pound per share, for a total cost of £55,342,223via his company St James Holdings Ltd. 100% acquisition was achieved in July with Ashley paying a total of around £134 million to buy the club.

Ashley appeared to have saved the club from certain financial ruin by paying off large sums of debt inherited from the previous regime,[24] although he was criticised for not doing due diligence when buying the club, as he subsequently revealed he had been unaware of issues such as the upfront payment of club finances such as the Northern Rock sponsorship, and the presence of outstanding liabilities for long past player transfers.

So, crudely, according to this great source, Ashley paid £134 million for Newcastle plus he had to settle other debts. And that was a Newcastle team that subsequently got relegated?

All told though Ashley's apparently made a packet out of Newcastle since the purchase so presumably doesn't regret it too much!

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here - but also wanting to highlight until we know what's behind the figures we're really not that far forward.

And if you look at Newcastle and their assets, location, fanbase etc... That figure seems reasonable. Even when he tried to sell it the other year for around the same price, he had no takers.

Everton should not be going for £125million as we don't have a 50k seater stadia, we share the city with one of the biggest clubs in the world, we don't own our training ground etc.

 

[Steve Wigan]

l don't think we're for sale.

Let's think about this logically and in a non conspiracy way. This source Collymore spoke to, why on Earth would Moyes and Kenwright give this person permission to answer the questions?! Surely if that's the case then there is no need to keep the source identity hidden, because if they have permission then they wouldn't get in trouble which is the reason why people give information anonymously. Collymore also said they were at the top level of the club and also had experience of takeovers and sales of clubs, he mentioned City and Liverpool... Well that can only be one person who we know of at the club, Paul Tyrrell!

So if it is Tyrrell why didn't he himself or Elstone or Kenwright himself just phone in and answer the questions, why add the mystery of not revealing the sources identity, it just adds an element of doubt to the answers no matter how much Collymore enthusiastically bigs the source up. But then we are back to the start because they've got permission.

Tyrrell, Elstone or Kenwright can easily just come out and say we're 100% for sale, look here is the the prospectus we've sent out to 'x' bank, 'y' investment group, give that out to current EFC shareholders as well, show it to The Blue Union even if they are not in the good books. There is no independent source from outside of the club to confirm that we are for sale, or that there have been interested parties.

You talk about 'a non conspiratorial way' and then go on to describe what you think is a conspiracy ! Bill actually told the Blue Union there was a prospectus. Tyrell confirmed this. Collymore and his producers did well and the overall impression I got was that there has possibly been an attempt on the part of the club to be more transperent...at least some things were confirmed that were previously on the shelf marked 'hearsay or rumour'. Its strange that a fairly inexperienced broadcaster admittedly with a good production team, got answers to some questions and presumably might be able to go back in a few months and ask some more questions, or follow up questions.
In fact, he achieved something that the Blue Union singularly failed to do, opened a dialogue with the club.