[POLL] Everton Takeover - 5 Years On

Has being bought out even been worth it?


  • Total voters
    270
Status
Not open for further replies.
We had the option to choose a site where we could have had a far greater capacity and chose not to go with it because BMD was the superior location and a better choice for the club. Either way I don't think a lower capacity necessarily means far lower matchday revenue.
Then surely regular fans need to be charged a lot more than they currently are (among the lowest ticket prices in the league), which the club have said they're not going to do, or we need to sell a bloody lot more pie and ale to each fan on match days, or we need to magic a bloody lot of prawn sandwich folk out of the air.

If we're wildly optimistic and say that after BMD we'll be earning similar match day revenue to Man City, this would see us go from £16 million per year to around £55 million per year. Or in other words, it would allow us to buy an extra Gylfi. While that's by no means a kick in the teeth, is it going to revolutionize our standing?

If we look at Spurs as another comparison. In their last season at White Hart Lane, they earned £45 million in gate receipts. This rose to £71 million while playing at Wembley, where they averaged some 65,000 fans per game. It's a tidy increase, but only enough to buy an extra Andre Gomes per year. It's likely that their new stadium will generate in excess of £100 million per year, which gives you an idea of what BMD has to produce in order for us just to stand still. Do we seriously think it will see us go from £16 million per year to over £100 million from a shade over 10,000 extra seats?
 
I thought we'd have a trophy, we would have heard the CL anthem blaring around Goodison park and an almost ready new stadium by now.

Disappointed not to see at least one of them ticked off.
 
Then surely regular fans need to be charged a lot more than they currently are (among the lowest ticket prices in the league), which the club have said they're not going to do, or we need to sell a bloody lot more pie and ale to each fan on match days, or we need to magic a bloody lot of prawn sandwich folk out of the air.

If we're wildly optimistic and say that after BMD we'll be earning similar match day revenue to Man City, this would see us go from £16 million per year to around £55 million per year. Or in other words, it would allow us to buy an extra Gylfi. While that's by no means a kick in the teeth, is it going to revolutionize our standing?

If we look at Spurs as another comparison. In their last season at White Hart Lane, they earned £45 million in gate receipts. This rose to £71 million while playing at Wembley, where they averaged some 65,000 fans per game. It's a tidy increase, but only enough to buy an extra Andre Gomes per year. It's likely that their new stadium will generate in excess of £100 million per year, which gives you an idea of what BMD has to produce in order for us just to stand still. Do we seriously think it will see us go from £16 million per year to over £100 million from a shade over 10,000 extra seats?
Match day has it has shown isn't the most important revenue, Commercial is where we make the jump, the biggest benefactors of that are City and PSG, to get ahead they used State owned companies to boost turnover. United showed the way how commercial revenues boost your turnover, the big clubs have caught up and are in a different stratosphere to us.

Doesn't make sense to expect BMD to put us in a better financial footing, an extra 35 million from match day puts us to around almost 230 million turnover.

United City RS will see their turnovers to around the £700 million mark by the time BMD is built, turnover results from 18-19 had all three clubs in the 570-630 million range.
 
I can't really blame Moshiri for the sheer stupidity and lack of planning of the people he hired. He's put money in, it's been wasted, is that his fault, he's an Owner, he delegates jobs to other people who are supposed to have knowledge and experience in the game. Unfortunately Walsh acted like a fat kid in a cake shop and blew the entire wad.

He rectified that and got a proper DoF in and that guy has by and large spuffed money up the wall on mediocrity again. We have a new stadium on the horizon and a World renowned manager at the helm so I'd say he is trying to right the ship.
 

Then surely regular fans need to be charged a lot more than they currently are (among the lowest ticket prices in the league), which the club have said they're not going to do, or we need to sell a bloody lot more pie and ale to each fan on match days, or we need to magic a bloody lot of prawn sandwich folk out of the air.

I think that's inevitable and was part of what Meis was hinting at when he talked about scarcity of seats being important at the workshops. I don't know what the club themselves have said about prices since, but I simply don't believe them if they're saying that our ticket prices are going to remain among the lowest in the league. We may offer a decent number of quite affordable tickets, like I believe City do, but our average price will rise considerably and I expect the number of season tickets will fall as we move towards something more resembling Liverpool's current model. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I don't see how we avoid it.
 
We longed for a financial takeover after years of scrounging down the back of the sofa for transfer funds. In 2016 Moshiri arrived but 5 years on has it really been worth it? Possible new stadium aside I personally preferred the club pre-takeover when we had an identity, were smarter with cash etc.

Getting bummed off the RS 4-0 with players like Alcaraz, McGeady, Funes Mori and Niasse on the books?

Mistakes have been made but let's not pretend everything was rosy in the garden pre-Moshiri.
 

I never said it was. I'm arguing against the idea that pre-Moshiri the club was spending wisely and had a footballing identity (whatever that meaningless buzz-phrase means).

They were buying poorly and playing terribly. Those are indisputable facts and Moshiri is not the first one to bring poor decisions to the club.
 

We would be in much worse shape had we not been bought out. We had no money to spend on players and lots of teams such as Villa, Leeds, Leicester and Wolves have closed the gap to us.

People like to throw blame in a single direction because it’s easier, but suggesting Moshiri has made us worse is plain wrong.
 
We would be in much worse shape had we not been bought out. We had no money to spend on players and lots of teams such as Villa, Leeds, Leicester and Wolves have closed the gap to us.

People like to throw blame in a single direction because it’s easier, but suggesting Moshiri has made us worse is plain wrong.
Oh he most definitely hasn't made us worse, but we've largely trodden water as the clubs that have traditionally been above us have gotten even richer.
 
We would be in much worse shape had we not been bought out. We had no money to spend on players and lots of teams such as Villa, Leeds, Leicester and Wolves have closed the gap to us.

People like to throw blame in a single direction because it’s easier, but suggesting Moshiri has made us worse is plain wrong.

My opening post wasn't blaming Moshiri himself; as an owner he's been brilliant in giving us money. I was more questioning us as a "takeover club" since he came.
 
My opening post wasn't blaming Moshiri himself; as an owner he's been brilliant in giving us money. I was more questioning us as a "takeover club" since he came.
It wasn’t aimed at you. But there are a few who seem to believe that Moshiri has made us worse.

He hasn’t made us much better to be fair.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top