KENWRIGHT HAS TO GO.

[Nebbiolo]

So where do we stand in relation to other Premier league clubs in terms of debts/having no money?

Are we in the biggest mess compared to others or are doing ok compared to others?

I think we're pretty average, and better than a few, which is why it is good that we are cautious. If you rule out the big 4, all other clubs face similar problems. The exception might now be City. But as for the rest, they're all treading water, including Villa.

 

[chicoazul]

Im fond of that Randy Lerner chap.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Im fond of that Randy Lerner chap.

Do you think he's learning to be randy, though?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So where do we stand in relation to other Premier league clubs in terms of debts/having no money?

Are we in the biggest mess compared to others or are doing ok compared to others?

Crikey mate, you don't want much do ya

Thankfully accountants Deloitte & Touche produce an annual review of football finances. The Telegraph have a decent analysis of the figures so rather than reinventing the wheel, have a look.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...iew-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Crikey mate, you don't want much do ya

Thankfully accountants Deloitte & Touche produce an annual review of football finances. The Telegraph have a decent analysis of the figures so rather than reinventing the wheel, have a look.

Deloitte football finance review: Club-by-club Premier League analysis - Telegraph

Thats all just a bunch of numbers!!!!!!!!!!

But its like i thought, we might not be doing too well ourselves but there certainly seems to be clubs worse off than us.

We could do with getting that wage bill down a bit though, Yakubu out.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Sorry, did consider writing a summary but it's hard to do any real analysis without knowing the state of their balance sheet. For instance I can't compare the numbers I provided for us because I don't have the assets/liabilities of all clubs. However.

Man Utd - safe as houses. They're a money making machine.

Chelsea - Huge debts but with Abramovich there then normal financial prudence doesn't apply. They are earning more money though and have an aim to be self sufficient before long.

Arsenal - They have a large mortgage on Emirates but they generate a huge amount from matchdays and are expected to turn an operating profit of around £20m a season.

Liverpool - They're turning a profit so should be ok, but much will depend on the refinancing of their debt. With DIC waiting in the wings even if the two Americans can't handle the heat it would seem there are plenty that are willing to try.

Villa - Wages are higher than turnover. They're widely held as an example of financial prudence but this coupled with reasonably high debt mean they're far from self sufficient.

Blackburn - Very high wages/turnover ratio and with their current league position are not in a good way.

Pompey - Small stadium means they're not self sufficient, especially having spent quite a lot on players over the past few years.

Man City - Larger debt than us but presumably also a higher income. Whilst their wages were under control when the report was published I don't suppose they are now Robinho et al are on board. With their backers though, who cares?

West Ham - In the [Poor language removed]. Large debts, big spenders on wages. No real financial backing either.

Spurs - Levy might not have a clue on the pitch but off it he's moulded a good commercial operation. They generate a lot of money and he's kept wages under control too. Despite having a relatively small stadium they generate a profit each year.

Newcastle - Generate quite a lot through their large stadium but spend an awful lot on wages. The lack of wages into performance mean they have a reasonable debt. Not in any real danger though.

Boro - High debts and wages that aren't self sufficient mean they're not in good shape. Steve Gibson isn't in the rich league and Boro don't look like breaking into Europe any time.

Wigan - Not good, not good at all.

Sunderland - High wages/turnover ratio despite a large stadium.

Bolton - Not in the best shape as they had a deficit despite high league placings.

Fulham - In a bad way. Huge debts and running a loss each year.

So there are some clubs in a worse place than us, but there are also those in much better shape than we are. In financial terms I'd say we're very much in the bottom half.

 

[chicoazul]

KENWRONG OUT and elstone possibly too.

 

[Neiler]

It doesn't look good at all. Last year we lost some £9.5m after player trading, down slightly from the £10m loss the year before that. If you take out player trading we're still losing money, allbeit not so much at £0.5m. We can't keep going like this. Last year we paid nearly £3m in interest, which is around 5.5% of turnover.

I did some analysis a while back on our gearing etc.



Our finances aren't good. Obviously it's hard to say how long we can continue as is but we can't be too attractive to lenders right now, especially in the current climate. I dare say a reasonably high level of lending is possible because with Sky and relatively stable attendances you have a pretty predictable level of income. It will be interesting to see what Sky do when the contract is up for renewal. Whilst on one hand it seems implausible that they'll up the bid again, in an increasingly fragmented tv market sport does offer one of the surest ways for broadcasters to deliver mass audiences to advertisers.

Kenwright has said that we need an investor, and it appears we need one pretty desperately. Getting Kirkby resolved would appear the best way to get an investor in the short-term.

I don't really but the concern over attendances. Of course they're not selling out Goodison at the moment but there are many reasons for that. The performances on the pitch are undoubtably one but personally I don't think it's the main one.

The credit crunch is looming large and is undoubtably playing a massive part in how people spend their money.

Finally you have the facilities. I dare say for many in the Sky generation paying through the nose to sit in a shitty stadium takes a fair bit of dedication. If you go to a modern stadium the facilities swamp what we can offer. If we want to charge comparable ticket prices we need to offer comparable prices.

Thanks Bruce great insights as always, seems that either course of action is not without its risks, but the best hope of progression would be in terms of taking a risk on a ground move in our current situation, without factoring in the x factor which is the potential for a new investor.

Id rep mate, but i need to be a fluzzie and spread it around!

 

[Neiler]

The bottom line is that we have to look to the immediate to mid-term future, not some far off day when debt will (apparently) eventually be offset. We can end up in a lot of trouble by loading upwards of £100M debt financing Kirkby on top of our existing debt of £68M if we dont hit the ground running at Kirkby as far as revenue is concerned. For example, were paying back £1.6M p.a. on the first securitisation deal Bill Kenwright got Bear Stearns to organise back in 2002 (terms: a £30m loan paid back over 25 years at 7.7% interest). My understanding is that the recent £30M loan from Prudential has been added to that so we are going to have to pay back each year a [Poor language removed] load of interest even before we pile on top the massive extra debt we'll run up with the loans required for Kirkby (little wonder the club wont release info on this as it would frighten the [Poor language removed] life out of any sane person). So, imagine we have a rough time (not unlikely) and fail to make these repayments (and in a period now when the banks are not exactly open to letting debts run on and on without calling them in)?!!! We stand to find ourselves facing the abyss.

Much better to prudently re-build our own ground piecemeal as and when we are bringing in cash. If we do have extra capacity to come (and personally I doubt it at the moment) then a cheap option would be to build onto the Park End and take us up to around 48,000. If we rake in from that we can - financial climate and demand permitting - think of other areas of the ground. Any sudden, gamble at this stage of the game could be very costly.

Why is that the bottom line, about 70% of anything purchased in the world is urchased on credit and naturaly intrest is im curred on top of this, if this increases your average earnings in the short term and medium term surely it makes manageing increased debt easier while at the smae time the overall calue of the club increases as a modern new asset id added to the balance sheet. Mate im not trying to be funny, but much is unknown about the clubs finances and in praticular the reported 30 mill borowed in the summer, who to say that this is money earmarked for Kirkby if indeed it has been borrowed, you insinuate that this is going to bundled into some new massive Kirkby debt, perhaps it is but we dont have that information in the public domain to make that acusation. As i say we are persuming an awfull lot in this debate praticularly when we dont have access to percise loan arrangemnents, a loan in regard to kirkby could be for 80 years by which time it will seem like a bargain, similarly the repoted 30 mill, which by all accounts is just habging around doing notheing.

The Kirkby debate comes down to either your glass is half full or empty, mines half full yours is half empty. Ha ha i sometimes wonder if Kenwirght was against Kirkby would more people be for it.

There is a lot a sense in what you write mate, but for me it comes down to a simple choice of either stay we are and get further in debt, or move where ever that may be and give ourselves argueably a fighting chance of developing the club, Bruce's arguments make for intresting reading and if his analysis is correct then a move in some shape or form is vital at the very least to give ourselves a chance.

 

[Cal]

Why mate, many are good at seeing problems and jump straight to action Kenwright out etc, few are good at refecting and analyseing actually what going on. Its a basic problem solving execise expeirence-refection-analyse-action. Thats what the club is doing. Im all for it.

Here your problem solving approach

Lack of Funds = Kenwright out.
Moving to Kirkby = No Way.
Increase in Prices = No thanks.

In fact your reaction to everything will leave the club exactly where it is threading water.

Your solution to everything = Lets get a billionaire investor, Kenwright wont sell.

Im not having a go mate, because i respect some of your opinons, and we are all hoping for the same thing, but seriously the issue is more complicated then Kenwright out and as such refelction and analyse is key, a big no to everything, and saying everything is [Poor language removed] and wishing for a billionaire has you on a footballing thought process equivelent of a hamsters wheel.

I think you post sense mate, but your posts on Kenwright and the club are just so blinkered, it's embarassing to read.

How do you want us to compete if we have Kenwright in charge?

We can't. So we might aswell give up if Kenwright is resisting any sell because we're staring at mid table averageness.

 

[davek]

Why is that the bottom line, about 70% of anything purchased in the world is urchased on credit and naturaly intrest is im curred on top of this, if this increases your average earnings in the short term and medium term surely it makes manageing increased debt easier while at the smae time the overall calue of the club increases as a modern new asset id added to the balance sheet. Mate im not trying to be funny, but much is unknown about the clubs finances and in praticular the reported 30 mill borowed in the summer, who to say that this is money earmarked for Kirkby if indeed it has been borrowed, you insinuate that this is going to bundled into some new massive Kirkby debt, perhaps it is but we dont have that information in the public domain to make that acusation. As i say we are persuming an awfull lot in this debate praticularly when we dont have access to percise loan arrangemnents, a loan in regard to kirkby could be for 80 years by which time it will seem like a bargain, similarly the repoted 30 mill, which by all accounts is just habging around doing notheing.

The Kirkby debate comes down to either your glass is half full or empty, mines half full yours is half empty. Ha ha i sometimes wonder if Kenwirght was against Kirkby would more people be for it.

There is a lot a sense in what you write mate, but for me it comes down to a simple choice of either stay we are and get further in debt, or move where ever that may be and give ourselves argueably a fighting chance of developing the club, Bruce's arguments make for intresting reading and if his analysis is correct then a move in some shape or form is vital at the very least to give ourselves a chance.

That's my overall point. It's a hell of a gamble to load more debt than we currently have at the minute: if we went to Kirkby and we dont have immediate success or find some willing benefactor from a high saving and high surplus near east economy who's got - quite obviously - more money than sense, the repayment on debt could kill us. You bring it down to seeing the glass half full/empty. Fine. I'll stick with the view it's a rolll of the dice with potential dire consequences.

I repeat: the way forward has to be within our means.

 

[Slight_Return]

Why do you still compare him to others?

I bet your still banging on about Heysel aren't you.

You need to stop comparing and move on, you cannot justify what he is doing.

We spent minus 2 million net profit in the summer and Ian Ross said that Moyes had a 15 million transfer budget before we even sold AJ.

JUST [Poor language removed] DO ONE KENWRIGHT.

Who else is there to compare him too? mike ashely????

Heysel? well.... 'if you know your history'

what exactly is he doing? be specific, dot the i's cross the t's lets lay it all out. be warned, one false step, and its ton of bricks time.

there it is, "we spent minus 2 million".

Do you not get tired? is the pain and exasperation on the pitch not enough for you? or are you lucky, you get to view a pillar and therefor miss the many glaring problems on the pitch regarding all three sides??? (ours, the oppositions and the real oppositions)

 

[Slight_Return]

What if we go ahead on kirby, end up getting no investor or no buyers. We will end up with mountains of debt like leeds. I'd rather we not move.

What if the world ends tomorrow?

There are sides in the prem with mountains of debt that dwarf ours.

leeds spent not existant CL money on players that didnt play and masses on wages they simply couldnt afford. our chairman hasnt let that happen, good on him!

the Kirkby move is being part facilitated by tesco and some other business branches, we wont be expected to turn up with £90 million for a £90 million stadium a la Juve.

 

[Slight_Return]

What makes you so sure that we'll be able to fill up our kirby stadium week in week out without improving our state of play and quality of our players? These things work hand in hand, success on the pitch generate more interest in the club, and generate gate and sales naturally. It's easy to say we need kirby to increase revenue, but it's just naieve if we cannot attract more interest with our performance on the pitch.
If we do go ahead and take up another 30m loan to fund kirby, couple with renegotiation of sky deal, we'll end up with a bigger dept than we ever could manage. It'll surely hit hundreds of millions. This scenario will set us back maybe a decade or 2. My point is not against kirby, I just find it too risky to fund something which is not top of our priority at this point of time.

Maybe letting the crowd see the players would be a start.

Maybe letting the crowd have a piss to make room for some overpriced lager would help cash flow...

...Maybe adequate facilities to provide food and beer to the crowd could make a bit of difference.

Maybe not having a tents worth of corporate facilities might mean we aren't looked at with scorn and deemed so mickey bloody mouse.

Not spunking £500k per year on the Goodison steel work might go somewhere to covering some costs. (VDMs bar tab!)

The experience goes far beyond the 90 minutes on the pitch alone. The precision chosen blindness to this FACT is possibly what grates most with me.

 

[Slight_Return]

Much better to prudently re-build our own ground piecemeal as and when we are bringing in cash. If we do have extra capacity to come (and personally I doubt it at the moment) then a cheap option would be to build onto the Park End and take us up to around 48,000. If we rake in from that we can - financial climate and demand permitting - think of other areas of the ground. Any sudden, gamble at this stage of the game could be very costly.

Cant rebuild sufficiently for a long term gain without moving the pitch. If we move the pitch which parts of the stadium miss out further whilst one side is demolished? How long are we looking at restricted gates?

Not thought this one out too well have we? (rhetorical question)