Leighton Baines

[throughthewindandthedrain]

Benteke was a worse situation. Benteke very publicly handed in a transfer request wanting out.

Baines is happy at Everton. If the Benteke situation can be turned around, Baines can easily stay at Everton, regardless of United piss poor bid.

Just because they've bid once doesn't mean he's going. A lot of people think the worst when it comes to things like this because of our track record, but if there is a genuine will not to sell him, he won't go anywhere unless he kicks up a fuss. Which, as many have pointed out, is unlikely to happen.

definitely true that the will of the club and the fans will matter here. which is why it worries me when people spend the money in their heads before the players have gone. as you have said Baines, and Fellaini too I reckon, will not force a move so we really can't complain if there isn't enough love for them to push the board to keep them. Baines and Fellaini to me are part of the reason I identify so strongly with the club at this point, I don't care how we spend the money, but obviously that's just how I feel about the situation. its naïve and stupid, but so is every other part of watching the game.

 

[ToffeeDan]

Great answer Steve - but the long and the short of it is surely that, with a projection of Income Streams relatively straightforward for the club to project (save for the variables like extra cup ties, final league position, the number of television appearances etc) there should be a forecast in place to assist the smooth running of the club from year to year. Factor in 1) transfers bought and sold 2) existing player contract amortisation 3) the variables I referred to above as they become more recognisable 4) rises or falls in attendance and season ticket sales 5) costs (fixed or variable according to their nature) and we should arrive at a reasonable estimate of the financial performance of the club from year to year and the bottom line projection for each FY.

Since the club should have a reasonable hold on these costs - particularly the significant ones like player wages and other costs - and given that the TV money is so intrinsically linked to the financial wellbeing of the club (or otherwise) then it becomes increasingly difficult to work out why we're always stretched. Surely these next 2 or 3 years ought to see us start to pull clear from the parlous situation our accounts show us to be in.. Perhaps not, perhaps our board is willing to sanction too much activity and is too ready to hold onto assets which might generate significant gains.

 

[D410]

Great answer Steve - but the long and the short of it is surely that, with a projection of Income Streams relatively straightforward for the club to project (save for the variables like extra cup ties, final league position, the number of television appearances etc) there should be a forecast in place to assist the smooth running of the club from year to year. Factor in 1) transfers bought and sold 2) existing player contract amortisation 3) the variables I referred to above as they become more recognisable 4) rises or falls in attendance and season ticket sales 5) costs (fixed or variable according to their nature) and we should arrive at a reasonable estimate of the financial performance of the club from year to year and the bottom line projection for each FY.

Since the club should have a reasonable hold on these costs - particularly the significant ones like player wages and other costs - and given that the TV money is so intrinsically linked to the financial wellbeing of the club (or otherwise) then it becomes increasingly difficult to work out why we're always stretched. Surely these next 2 or 3 years ought to see us start to pull clear from the parlous situation our accounts show us to be in.. Perhaps not, perhaps our board is willing to sanction too much activity and is too ready to hold onto assets which might generate significant gains.

Don,t be fooled by the "we are doing the same as everyone else " tactic. Lets not forget the bought the club for 22m and they will walk out the door with a sale price in excess of a 100million meanwhile It’s thirteen years since Bill Kenwright’s consortium took over the reins from former chairman Peter Johnson in which time the club’s balance sheet has gone from plus £20m to minus £44m due to what fans see as a total lack of investment, selling assets and increasing debt along with a failure to deliver numerous infrastructure projects, an apparent inability to solve our stadium issue, zero success in identifying a much needed new owner and, most painful of all, no trophies in a period of time when those across the park have won eleven with teams which at times haven’t been fit to lace our boots.

 

[throughthewindandthedrain]

Great answer Steve - but the long and the short of it is surely that, with a projection of Income Streams relatively straightforward for the club to project (save for the variables like extra cup ties, final league position, the number of television appearances etc) there should be a forecast in place to assist the smooth running of the club from year to year. Factor in 1) transfers bought and sold 2) existing player contract amortisation 3) the variables I referred to above as they become more recognisable 4) rises or falls in attendance and season ticket sales 5) costs (fixed or variable according to their nature) and we should arrive at a reasonable estimate of the financial performance of the club from year to year and the bottom line projection for each FY.

Since the club should have a reasonable hold on these costs - particularly the significant ones like player wages and other costs - and given that the TV money is so intrinsically linked to the financial wellbeing of the club (or otherwise) then it becomes increasingly difficult to work out why we're always stretched. Surely these next 2 or 3 years ought to see us start to pull clear from the parlous situation our accounts show us to be in.. Perhaps not, perhaps our board is willing to sanction too much activity and is too ready to hold onto assets which might generate significant gains.

think from what I understand you saying this is the issue I have with the club. we are in a stable situation and can definitely afford to take imaginative gambles that could be lucrative if they come off and can be managed if they don't. The way I felt Moyes approach needed someone in his ear telling him to be brave, I think now that's what we need at board level. There are warnings out there about clubs who buy with no structure but that shouldn't stop us taking some more chances.

 

[davek]

Thanks,Banno for a good response and I respect your non abusive comments.. I'm not trying to antogonise anyone either, we all want the best for our club. I'm not great at economics, or the politics of football, but I've been in business for 50 years and feel justified in having an opinion about the workings of the club I've supported for 65 years. Sometimes its not easy to take a balanced view of the financial situation at Everton, because quite frankly people with an agenda(on both sides of the argument) are so adept at spinning fact or rumour to suit themselves, The majority of football clubs from the Second Division up are in debt, and in most cases the debt is manageable ,but in some cases (not Everton) debt is spinning out of control....these are the clubs like Portsmouth, Coventry, Hearts etc, who find themselves in administration or worse. Selling to buy, or even selling to balance the books is what every club does, apart from those with very rich owners who treat their club as a hobby, or status symbol...Chelsea, Man City, come to mind, but it isn't a long list. None of our board is excessively rich, or at least not rich enough to throw money away by 'giving' money to a football club, so like many other clubs, Everton needs to be self supporting,in a financial sense. Hence the manageable borrowings which as you say are probably up to the limit at present. This also means that any loan from a board member(and board members don't just 'give' money to their club...there are always strings attached apart from the very rich few,and even then there are just less strings).....you see how its possible to go on and on about this topic?? More later, but by all means ask questions and state your opinion, thats the purpose of a forum.

It isn't just the mega rich clubs like City or Chelsea where owners pump cash in - Stoke and Sunderland have owners who are prepared to invest their cash in the team.

It really beggars belief that anyone could defend a regime at Everton that's been at the club since 1999 and provided not one solitary shiny penny of investment. In what way, shape or form are they to be seen as adequate custodians of a football club? Their function as a body is to oversee the management of player transactions in order to avoid any future day when these fabulously rich men have to put their hands in their own pockets to take care of a debt or bankroll a transfer window. Any sane person has to ask why on earth these particular people here with us? What do they do? Do they increase revenue to make up for their lack of personal investment? Have they been a conspicuous success at that? No they haven't. They've merely put their hands out for the enormous proceeds of tv cash tha history dicated they'd be in situ to benefit from and failed twice in spectacular fashion to secure a stadium scheme that could push us on. What IS their point? Why are you here in 2013 giving them the benefit of the doubt after 14 years of utter catastrophic management that's left us a hollowed out organisation with no assets other than the pitch we play on and the players who run around on it - an organisation that's even now coming onto the thick end of a £100M windfall over the next 4 years and still they cant properly fund a new manager in his first summer in charge?

Your argument in favour of their 'business prudence' is completely laughable. How you have the brass neck to amble forward and defend these gangsters is breathtaking. You owe the people you've been 'debating' a huge apology. If it were me, I'd have to reflect on what line I'd been pushing and tell myself I needed to just cut my losses and either hold my hands up as being totally wrong, or I'd just keep my head down and lay off posting for a spell. It's THAT lamentable, this line you're taking. THAT insulting to anyone who's experienced the managed decline of this football club under the disgracefully incompetent management of Bill Kenwright and the coterie of rubbish he's trailed through that boardroom since Christmas 1999.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Great answer Steve - but the long and the short of it is surely that, with a projection of Income Streams relatively straightforward for the club to project (save for the variables like extra cup ties, final league position, the number of television appearances etc) there should be a forecast in place to assist the smooth running of the club from year to year. Factor in 1) transfers bought and sold 2) existing player contract amortisation 3) the variables I referred to above as they become more recognisable 4) rises or falls in attendance and season ticket sales 5) costs (fixed or variable according to their nature) and we should arrive at a reasonable estimate of the financial performance of the club from year to year and the bottom line projection for each FY.

Since the club should have a reasonable hold on these costs - particularly the significant ones like player wages and other costs - and given that the TV money is so intrinsically linked to the financial wellbeing of the club (or otherwise) then it becomes increasingly difficult to work out why we're always stretched. Surely these next 2 or 3 years ought to see us start to pull clear from the parlous situation our accounts show us to be in.. Perhaps not, perhaps our board is willing to sanction too much activity and is too ready to hold onto assets which might generate significant gains.

Fair comment and applicable to most businesses, but I suspect that the business of football (and I have to say...'like the business of 'show business') is not like most businesses, in that there are so many variables that forecast is extremely difficult...hence part of club/debt management needs to err on the side of caution. Repayment of debt is a constant, and is known in advance in most circumstances but playing performance prize money, and other income streams are dependent on many factors. Revenue streams at Everton are limited for the reasons that have been stated many times, old ground, lack of corporate facilities , etc. and revenue at Everton is more vulnerable than at many clubs. Another reason to be cautious. Despite the forum slapstick created by the 'Other Operating Costs' scenario it is a fact that operating costs for any business have increased dramatically over the last few years. Personally I have reduced my business interests over a few years and cherry pick what I do these days, but even I have noticed how much more it costs just to run a business these days. Another point...in football as well as show business, it is very important that you 'please the punters'...with exciting signings or stars, or a good show, or great football on the pitch. Money has as much as possible to be spent in these areas or you are in deep trouble. When you're being ultra cautious out of necessity, it can be difficult to provide an exciting product. Vicious circle? Most definitely!

 

[throughthewindandthedrain]

It isn't just the mega rich clubs like City or Chelsea where owners pump cash in - Stoke and Sunderland have owners who are prepared to invest their cash in the team.

It really beggars belief that anyone could defend a regime at Everton that's been at the club since 1999 and provided not one solitary shiny penny of investment. In what way, shape or form are they to be seen as adequate custodians of a football club? Their function as a body is to oversee the management of player transactions in order to avoid any future day when these fabulously rich men have to put their hands in their own pockets to take care of a debt or bankroll a transfer window. Any sane person has to ask why on earth these particular people here with us? What do they do? Do they increase revenue to make up for their lack of personal investment? Have they been a conspicuous success at that? No they haven't. They've merely put their hands out for the enormous proceeds of tv cash tha history dicated they'd be in situ to benefit from and failed twice in spectacular fashion to secure a stadium scheme that could push us on. What IS their point? Why are you here in 2013 giving them the benefit of the doubt after 14 years of utter catastrophic management that's left us a hollowed out organisation with no assets other than the pitch we play on and the players who run around on it - an organisation that's even now coming onto the thick end of a £100M windfall over the next 4 years and still they cant properly fund a new manager in his first summer in charge?

Your argument in favour of their 'business prudence' is completely laughable. How you have the brass neck to amble forward and defend these gangsters is breathtaking. You owe the people you've been 'debating' a huge apology. If it were me, I'd have to reflect on what line I'd been pushing and tell myself I needed to just cut my losses and either hold my hands up as being totally wrong, or I'd just keep my head down and lay off posting for a spell. It's THAT lamentable, this line you're taking. THAT insulting to anyone who's experienced the managed decline of this football club under the disgracefully incompetent management of Bill Kenwright and the coterie of rubbish he's trailed through that boardroom since Christmas 1999.

missed most of the debate but I am willing to listen to anyone who seems to care about the club. I can see his point about managing the debt but agree with you that this can be solved and probably should be solved by building and investing. problem has always been that I want someone in charge who is rich and loves the club too enough to take what I see as calculated gambles with their money. From the outside though if we see them as just businessmen then the job they are doing seems sensible. I just don't care for sensible. I want to see love for the club from the board. Hope this doesn't sound like taking the middle ground, but think nearly everyone I have heard on here cares about the club, I think the debts are being used as a smokescreen for a lack of imagination and passion rather than any underhand activity from a business point of view. the problem is if the idea that there is something crooked going on is pushed then they can point to facts and figures to do with the debt and continue to get away without doing anything pro-active

 

[davek]

missed most of the debate but I am willing to listen to anyone who seems to care about the club. I can see his point about managing the debt but agree with you that this can be solved and probably should be solved by building and investing. problem has always been that I want someone in charge who is rich and loves the club too enough to take what I see as calculated gambles with their money. From the outside though if we see them as just businessmen then the job they are doing seems sensible. I just don't care for sensible. I want to see love for the club from the board. Hope this doesn't sound like taking the middle ground, but think nearly everyone I have heard on here cares about the club, I think the debts are being used as a smokescreen for a lack of imagination and passion rather than any underhand activity from a business point of view. the problem is if the idea that there is something crooked going on is pushed then they can point to facts and figures to do with the debt and continue to get away without doing anything pro-active

The job they're doing doesn't make any sense as either 'custodians' or businessmen. You don't need a businessman to do what they're doing, which is essentially the activities of a management team - they merely oversee the bureaucratic functioning of a club. That's very different than investing in something and making sure it develops.

I repeat: there is no point to the people in that boardroom for us as supporters. They aren't prepared to act as a board should act. They are merely a dead hand on this club and will remain here in that guise until they get their pound of flesh.

 

[steken1]

The job they're doing doesn't make any sense as either 'custodians' or businessmen. You don't need a businessman to do what they're doing, which is essentially the activities of a management team - they merely oversee the bureaucratic functioning of a club. That's very different than investing in something and making sure it develops.

I repeat: there is no point to the people in that boardroom for us as supporters. They aren't prepared to act as a board should act. They are merely a dead hand on this club and will remain here in that guise until they get thei pound of flesh.

It's says a lot that the man they've appointed to run the club and set out our strategy is essentially a bean counter.

 

[davek]

It's says a lot that the man they've appointed to run the club and set out our strategy is essentially a bean counter.

Like all them mate. I think it was Gregg who got Trevor Birch in and he was sent packing after a month or so for acting like a real CEO.

Barking dogs is what the succession of CEO's we've usually had are.

 

[Eggs]

...I wonder if Baines is in a bit of a corner, wanting a move but not wanting to disappoint fans by saying so. Who knows. It would be hard not to be tempted when the biggest club in world football come knocking on your door. Perhaps this boy is one of that very rare breed who truly thinks that the 'grass isn't always greener' elsewhere.
If the club don't want it to happen it will only transpire if the player forces it. When Fellaini was suspended against Stoke I posted how well we do without him but I fear this will not be the case with Baines. Its amazing that a full back can have such an impact on a team.

 

[Steve Wigan]

missed most of the debate but I am willing to listen to anyone who seems to care about the club. I can see his point about managing the debt but agree with you that this can be solved and probably should be solved by building and investing. problem has always been that I want someone in charge who is rich and loves the club too enough to take what I see as calculated gambles with their money. From the outside though if we see them as just businessmen then the job they are doing seems sensible. I just don't care for sensible. I want to see love for the club from the board. Hope this doesn't sound like taking the middle ground, but think nearly everyone I have heard on here cares about the club, I think the debts are being used as a smokescreen for a lack of imagination and passion rather than any underhand activity from a business point of view. the problem is if the idea that there is something crooked going on is pushed then they can point to facts and figures to do with the debt and continue to get away without doing anything pro-active

Make no mistake, the debt is real and is not a 'smokescreen ' for anything. Reasonable debate is always welcome, but its difficult to discuss anything with davek and his fellow travellers when his posts are littered with words like 'gangsters' and suggestions that people he doesn't agree with should 'stop posting for a while'. How absolutely idiotic a comment. In other words, they want a forum to state their moans, and don't think anyone has a right to disagree. Similar to the other day when a poster was castigated for criticising the Blue Union. Who the hell do these people think they are? Passionate Evertonians I have no doubt, in most cases, and desperate, like the rest of us, for Everton to win a trophy, regular trophies. They probably have a case to state, but their phoney 'eliteism' and complete dismissal of any other argument ,and the way they 'state' their case does not do their cause any good at all.
A change of ownership at Everton is needed, provided the right owners come in. I don't think anyone is in doubt about that, but in the meantime the ship remains steady and we have a fascinating new season ahead. There are not many better feelings than the first sight of the expanse of the pitch and the high stands at the start of a new season, but I sometimes wonder if some people prefer to moan than enjoy the football.

 

[nigelcoyb]

A change of ownership at Everton is needed, provided the right owners come in. I don't think anyone is in doubt about that, but in the meantime the ship remains steady and we have a fascinating new season ahead. There are not many better feelings than the first sight of the expanse of the pitch and the high stands at the start of a new season, but I sometimes wonder if some people prefer to moan than enjoy the football.

What on earth does that mean?

 

[Moomin]

I see the last 12 posts have gone a bit off piste to say the least.

 

[Moomin]

What on earth does that mean?

Don't worry, Bill would never get shady people involved with Everton who just want to make a quick buck out of us.

What's that you say " Robert Earl"