KENWRIGHT HAS TO GO.

[Axlswhk]

One thing I really cannot figure out. After selling players like bent, faddy, AJ, plus the sky money and gate income. We are left with ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY even tho we only spend 15m on Felly. Where did the money go?

And to thoes who insist upon their life that money is available all the while, now it's time to believe isn't it?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Wages. We don't have enough money coming in to cover operating costs.

 

[Axlswhk]

So what we have or what we DON'T HAVE in terms of cash we spend in all on wages and still it is not enough to cover year in year out? Sounds like leeds minus their the transfer splashing.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

In the 2006/2007 season we spent around 75% of our turnover on wages. The traditional benchmark is 50%. You can readily argue that our activities are unsustainable but when you get remarks such as Cals bemoaning the lack of transfer activity it's easy to understand how Kenright is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Where blame can be laid at the clubs door is in their commercial actions. Even then though I dare say many would bitterly complain if the club raised prices and so on to attempt to increase turnover. It's the dichotomy of the football fan that they expect the club to spend big bucks but want anyone but themselves to fund this splurge.

For instance there is much that can be done to improve spend on match day. I don't know if it's the best example but I mentioned about being able to order from seats a few weeks ago and it was largely poo pooed for ruining atmosphere etc. Man Utd are widely critisized for their prawn sandwich supporters.

Kirkby of course is another issue that has the potential to raise income and it has split support. It seems the motto is that you can't please all the people all the time.

 

[padefc]

we are just about self sufficent which means little or no money left for transfers after day to dat running costs. i doubt if the aj macfad fees were paid in full more likly a down payment then a couple of installments

 

[Axlswhk]

If we can't even afford day to day running of club, how the hell are we going to afford kirby? And how are we going to fill up the stadium when our team keeps selling our better players in order to keep us floating?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I suspect the strategy is that Kirkby will be sufficient bait to lure a new investor who can help to cover our debts whilst income is increased. In some ways having someone at the helm that is more interested in profit than Kenright is would provide a much greater incentive to improve our commercial offerings.

We really are at a cross roads at the moment I feel.

 

[padefc]

If we can't even afford day to day running of club, how the hell are we going to afford kirby? And how are we going to fill up the stadium when our team keeps selling our better players in order to keep us floating?

thats why the board are hell bent on that particular project as we only have to find a nominal(35m) sum in proportion to the total sum of the project (400m tesco)as against funding a total stadium alone

 

[Axlswhk]

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.

 

[davek]

Two words - credit crunch!

The key word now is consolidation and keeping your money however small it may be in the bank ( ha ha but choose wisely). I beleive that football as an economy, is heading for a rude readjustment, which i beleive will be evident in the Jan and summer windows, also the next round of Tv rights deals should be significantly lower then previous years which means clubs may be earning less then they currently are now, another good reason why perhaps we have been and are keeping our powder dry on the transfer front. Its very likely the case that the gravey train is over lads.

A Second point i would like to add, is that the of clubs majority of clubs that have been taken over in recent years much of their new found wealth was a flash in the pan, what success has it really yeilded in terms of consistent growth or elevateing clubs in question to echalance of world football that their new owners promised for every Aston Villa and Chelsea theres a Newcastle, West Ham, City and Pompey . Maybe just maybe the grass isnt always greener, or perhaps its important to be considered in terms of who you sell your club to aka Kenwright doesnt want to sell.

I firmly hope Kenwright doesnt go anywhere for a couple of years untill the football economy which i beleive is about to expierence a rude adjustment settles. If we get out of it with a new stadium all the better. Its prudent presently not to spend much on players with a new round of a tv rights deal to be negotiated it could be hugely detreimental to organise deals on the structure of a projected income that may not be there in six months time, and a wait and see approach is certainly advisable in terms of the clubs long term future.

If only we had some good young talent ready to burst into the first team in the next season or two! Ha ha hang on!

Thanks Bill your still the man, unfortunatly many of our fans choose to react to situations rather then respond appropriately, im glad our chairman does.

Probably the most confused post I've read on here.

'Sit tight' and dont spend....this from the man who wants the club's board of directors to go full steam ahead for Kirkby and pay upwards of £100M toward a new stadium there...most of which will be loaded onto the club as debt to be paid back in years to come.

Neiler, what's it to be - prudence or a massive gamble?

Consistency mate, consistency.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

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.

I'm not sure staying is an option. Revenue right now isn't sustainable so we need to increase revenue some how. I'd love for the club to buck up their ideas commercially but an improved stadium is vital. Kirkby is the ship we're on right now and with the Sky deal set to be renegotiated in 2010 there has to be an element of risk we can carry on with the status quo. Of course reducing the wage bill is another option but how happy would fans be to follow that course considering that it's unlikely that players will accept a wage cut so it would inevitably mean player sales.

 

[Axlswhk]

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.

 

[davek]

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.

Best case scenario with Kirkby is that we'll fill it every season and get an extra £6m revenue according to the club's own accountants Deloitte. The massive debt we have (both existing and to come through funding Kirkby) will be reserviced before any get's to the manager of Everton FC. It's the economics of the madhouse. The only way it makes sense is if a buyer comes in and wipes those debts out and is willing on top of that to give the current major shareholders a massive profit on their shareholding...in this climate how realistic is that?

It's a total fcuking nonsense.

 

[Neiler]

I suspect the strategy is that Kirkby will be sufficient bait to lure a new investor who can help to cover our debts whilst income is increased. In some ways having someone at the helm that is more interested in profit than Kenright is would provide a much greater incentive to improve our commercial offerings.

We really are at a cross roads at the moment I feel.

Bruce a question mate if you dont mind, what do you think the long term implications are for the club if the move to the new stadium doent happen? Is it pretty much as was and we will be in the situation we find oursleves is for the forseeable and perhaps long term future?

 

[Neiler]

Probably the most confused post I've read on here.

'Sit tight' and dont spend....this from the man who wants the club's board of directors to go full steam ahead for Kirkby and pay upwards of £100M toward a new stadium there...most of which will be loaded onto the club as debt to be paid back in years to come.

Neiler, what's it to be - prudence or a massive gamble?

Consistency mate, consistency.

Its the simple principal of borrowing and repayment payment mate, lets face it everyone has a mortage very few people buy there house out right. Its about the risk, the bottom line is the stadium is not going anywhere if we play in it for 200 years with an increased revenue however low you specualte that will be it still proves a prudent investment. In actual fact it would add to the balance sheet of the club as an asset, improve revenue, offer the fans a better match day expierence etc. In short i beleive rightly or wrongly that it makes perfect econmic sense to move. I mean who knows how any loan is structured wheather it needs to be paid back in 10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80 years time. It would seem like good value then wouldnt it. While at the same time it would probably increase in value on the clubs books. Like Bruce says the choice is either stay where we are and moan about kenwright for the next 15 years or take a calculated risk which i beleive is in our best intrests with the liability not as high as many others.

In terms of prudence in regard to players, well buying players is like buying a new car theres always the possibility that they are deprciatable assets, they have a shelf life. For expample if we have sold AJ this summer touching 30 we maybe wouldnt have gotten 12 mill for him. Our policy has been very much buying young players, have then in the team in the long term, and if the oppurtunity arises and they are no longer of the value they once where in the sqaud we sell them at a profit. Its good asset management. IMO the market is changeing and football is about to expiernce a finacial readjustment, the club IMO can sense the market is changeing and as such is keeping their powder dry, which i feel is the right move untill more clarity is acheived in the market and the development of the game.

Simple as really mate.