Selling the club

Status
Not open for further replies.
That khan fella was at gp this year just goes to show kenwright wants investment not a buy out as fulham want the same supposed price kenwright wants for us so if we were up for sale we would be picked ahead of them yes they are in london but look who they are uo against commercially in the same city- chelsea, arsenal, spurs and soon to be west ham in a 50, 000 stadium whereas we share with a ever declining Liverpool side only
 
Quite. It suggests that anyone that's remotely optimistic about the club is in some way simple minded. Judging by some of the responses in this thread I'd say the opposite was the case.

I'd suggest anyone remotely optimistic about the financial management and contribution of this board is simple minded
 
What utter nonsense. He doesnt have the finance to turn QPR into a Man City or a Chelsea and the likes of Man Utd and Arsenal will always have a much greater infrastructure. At best, and at enormous cost, he could possibly get QPR the sort of league finishes and attendence figures that Everton have had for the past few years. With the same level of finance, Everton could be in the stratosphere by comparison.

He doesn't need to turn QPR into a massive club. Just providing mid table prem football in a London location will, punter for punter, beer for beer, corporate shindig by corporate shindig bring in an order of magnitude more profit than the same in liverpool. Its just economics and last I checked most investors have pretty good accountants.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that 'investing' in the way you say can be profitable for the investor? Even with CL football and selling out the ground every game we'll still be way behind our rivals due to the low level of corporate business that is available in the local area.

So yeah - QPR are a better financial investment, as proven by the fact that they have been bought.
 
What utter nonsense. He doesnt have the finance to turn QPR into a Man City or a Chelsea and the likes of Man Utd and Arsenal will always have a much greater infrastructure. At best, and at enormous cost, he could possibly get QPR the sort of league finishes and attendence figures that Everton have had for the past few years. With the same level of finance, Everton could be in the stratosphere by comparison.

Another reason for Tony Fernandez's involvement in QPR instead of Everton is because the seller is his business partner - Bernie of F1.

Unless we get another showbiz football fan...
 
He doesn't need to turn QPR into a massive club. Just providing mid table
prem football in a London location will,
punter for punter, beer for beer,
corporate shindig by corporate shindig
bring in an order of magnitude more
profit than the same in liverpool. Its
just economics and last I checked
most investors have pretty good
accountants

I'm not sure where you get the
impression that 'investing' in the way
you say can be profitable for the
investor? Even with CL football and
selling out the ground every game
we'll still be way behind our rivals due
to the low level of corporate business
that is available in the local area.

So yeah - QPR are a better financial
investment, as proven by the fact that
they have been bought.

You say 'just providing mid table prem football'. You realise just how msny millions Fernandez has spunked away to get precisely nowhere near that, and there could be countless more to. With Everton it comes as a given with a fanbase and stadium twice as big.
As has been pointed out - The Fernandez buy out was more to do with who he was buying from, rather than what he was buying.

Its also fairly easy for an owner to make a profit from a club too. Just ask Bill and his friends when they do actually sell.
 
rumour i have seen is:

Shahid Khan, owner of Jacksonville Jaguars is NFL boss in talks with Mohamed Al Fayed to buy Fulham. Deal to be done by the end of the week

No one is buying football clubs are they mate............pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttt

Sick of the applogists who uphold this owner and board.
 
I don't buy the whole London thing 100%. It's a factor ... I don't deny it. However you know on Dragon's Den/Shark Tank when some noob comes on and talks about the size of a market and the dragons laugh at them? Like "soft drinks are a 100 billion a year market so we have created a new soda" ... the small aspect of taking away market share from Coke and Pepsi is a mere afterthought in their "business plan."

Of course London is bigger and has more money than Liverpool. But what would the new Fulham owners strategy be to take away from Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs? Not to mention QPR, West Ham etc. Fulham need a new stadium/renovation just like we do.

If the master plan is to take serious share away from the London CL contenders it will have to involve spending crazy money. His net worth is apparently 2.5b. He just spent $760 million on the Jags. If he was willing to spend that much on Fulham he'd get a new stadium and a few great players but there are no guarantees. I think he'd still be behind the established London clubs.

This man purchased an NFL team in Jacksonville. Jacksonville! Pretty much the least appealing NFL city in the league. Liverpool is so many levels above Jacksonville in "standing" that it would be very strange for this guy to be willing to spend $760 million on a team in freakin' Jacksonville yet be scared of the idea of buying a team from Liverpool.

50% (which is attainable in a few years of CL Everton) of Liverpool v. 5-10% of London ... that's worth more serious consideration than just saying "it's London." Not to mention the fact that we're significantly closer than Fulham to having a CL quality team.

... obviously something else is going on. Most of us know what that is but it seems some people are still having trouble.

... that said I'm not too sad on missing out on this guy specifically ... it's more annoying in general that we obviously aren't for sale.
 
I don't buy the whole London thing 100%. It's a factor ... I don't deny it. However you know on Dragon's Den/Shark Tank when some noob comes on and talks about the size of a market and the dragons laugh at them? Like "soft drinks are a 100 billion a year market so we have created a new soda" ... the small aspect of taking away market share from Coke and Pepsi is a mere afterthought in their "business plan."

Of course London is bigger and has more money than Liverpool. But what would the new Fulham owners strategy be to take away from Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs? Not to mention QPR, West Ham etc. Fulham need a new stadium/renovation just like we do.

If the master plan is to take serious share away from the London CL contenders it will have to involve spending crazy money. His net worth is apparently 2.5b. He just spent $760 million on the Jags. If he was willing to spend that much on Fulham he'd get a new stadium and a few great players but there are no guarantees. I think he'd still be behind the established London clubs.

This man purchased an NFL team in Jacksonville. Jacksonville! Pretty much the least appealing NFL city in the league. Liverpool is so many levels above Jacksonville in "standing" that it would be very strange for this guy to be willing to spend $760 million on a team in freakin' Jacksonville yet be scared of the idea of buying a team from Liverpool.

50% (which is attainable in a few years of CL Everton) of Liverpool v. 5-10% of London ... that's worth more serious consideration than just saying "it's London." Not to mention the fact that we're significantly closer than Fulham to having a CL quality team.

... obviously something else is going on. Most of us know what that is but it seems some people are still having trouble.

... that said I'm not too sad on missing out on this guy specifically ... it's more annoying in general that we obviously aren't for sale.

You can buy an NFL franchise in Jacksonville because there is cost (and to a large extent revenue) certainty. Can't say the same about buying an English football club. Just the opposite.

I don't necessarily disagree with most of the rest of it, but there seems to be more than just idle chatter that the NFL wants a team in London. If he positions himself as the person to do that, he'll be in a very envious position.
 
Yes but it hasn't done them any good at all. Since he took over, they've finished 13th, 10th, 13th and 17th. In that same time we've finished 8th, 7th, 7th and 6th. We've made progress. They haven't.

Would we rather we were worse in the league so long as we spent lots of money?

You're saying that as though spending money has made Sunderland worse and Everton better, and I think you know that's not true.

Unless of course Ellis Short provided his managers with said money on the proviso they bought players such as Titus Bramble and Lee Cattermole. If that was the case then fair enough.
 
I'd suggest anyone remotely optimistic about the financial management and contribution of this board is simple minded

People don't want our board to be better custodians/managers of the club, gradually rising our commercial income. They generally want some super rich dude to come in and spunk money all over us like it's going out of fashion. That sounds pretty simple to me.
 
I don't buy the whole London thing 100%. It's a factor ... I don't deny it. However you know on Dragon's Den/Shark Tank when some noob comes on and talks about the size of a market and the dragons laugh at them? Like "soft drinks are a 100 billion a year market so we have created a new soda" ... the small aspect of taking away market share from Coke and Pepsi is a mere afterthought in their "business plan."

Of course London is bigger and has more money than Liverpool. But what would the new Fulham owners strategy be to take away from Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs? Not to mention QPR, West Ham etc. Fulham need a new stadium/renovation just like we do.

If the master plan is to take serious share away from the London CL contenders it will have to involve spending crazy money. His net worth is apparently 2.5b. He just spent $760 million on the Jags. If he was willing to spend that much on Fulham he'd get a new stadium and a few great players but there are no guarantees. I think he'd still be behind the established London clubs.

This man purchased an NFL team in Jacksonville. Jacksonville! Pretty much the least appealing NFL city in the league. Liverpool is so many levels above Jacksonville in "standing" that it would be very strange for this guy to be willing to spend $760 million on a team in freakin' Jacksonville yet be scared of the idea of buying a team from Liverpool.

50% (which is attainable in a few years of CL Everton) of Liverpool v. 5-10% of London ... that's worth more serious consideration than just saying "it's London." Not to mention the fact that we're significantly closer than Fulham to having a CL quality team.

... obviously something else is going on. Most of us know what that is but it seems some people are still having trouble.

... that said I'm not too sad on missing out on this guy specifically ... it's more annoying in general that we obviously aren't for sale.

Good post. For what it's worth, a big chunk of my whole London argument though was down to the # of companies based there. A large part of the rationale behind building a new stadium is to have better corporate facilities to attract the higher spending of those kind of prawn munchers.

Yet even with those extra facilities, Kirkby was estimated to be bringing in around £5m extra per season. To put that into context, every one of the 26 or so home games at Arsenal is said to bring in £3m, or £78m a season. No idea how much Highbury earnt them, but it's not hard to predict they'll be earning a bit more than £5m extra per season.

Of course a big chunk of that could be the higher ticket prices London folks can stomach (the most expensive ticket is 3x what ours is), but also the corporate income they get. A whole lot more companies are based in London than in Liverpool, so getting a slice of that pie must be easier.
 
You're saying that as though spending money has made Sunderland worse and Everton better, and I think you know that's not true.

Unless of course Ellis Short provided his managers with said money on the proviso they bought players such as Titus Bramble and Lee Cattermole. If that was the case then fair enough.

No, but equally spending money is also no guarantee of success. I mean we've had our own fair shair of expensive flops, such as Bily and Kroldrup, whilst often our cheapest buys have been the best (Coleman, Arteta, Cahill et al).

Would we have picked up those kind of players if we had enough money to blow on 'names'?
 
we aint for sale can people seriously see kenwright being happy to leave everton football club? mr there's no bigger fan than me he's a fraud who wants someone to come in and spunk money whilst he remains the public figurehead which will never happen
 
No, but equally spending money is also no guarantee of success. I mean we've had our own fair shair of expensive flops, such as Bily and Kroldrup, whilst often our cheapest buys have been the best (Coleman, Arteta, Cahill et al).

Would we have picked up those kind of players if we had enough money to blow on 'names'?

I don't see why Moyes would have just ignored opportunities to buy quality players such as Arteta, Pienaar and Coleman because there was more money available to him. Even the richest clubs are always keen to pick up bargains.

If anything I'd say the extra money would have enabled Moyes to build a bigger squad which wouldn't have run out of steam in the race for Europe, while also making it possible to buy and retain the sort of match-winners that Tottenham and Liverpool are able rely on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top