The Everton Board Thread (Inc. Bill Kenwright / Blue Union)

[sirblue57]

Now just Who's at fault for ntl going bust ?

nothing like that, just we spent the money before getting the cash, not the wisest thing to do.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Fair point, but it gives you the sense of his commitment and good will to the club in a move that cost him millons - some would have you beleive that he borrowed of Green to fund his shareholding.

It's a commitment to an original purchase of shares, which he shafted Johnson on the value of, and is seeking to sell on at a premium mark up i.e. a commitment to his retirement yacht. Borrowing from Green is just ****ing stupid, and the club has paid for that mistake.

 

[Neiler]

we get more from sky because EVERYBODY does, this is nothing to do with the board, villa spend more on transfers and wages than we do, i agree, but if moyes had that kind of muscle in the transfer market, do you think we would be better placed in the league? making even more money? maybe even winning a trophy?

Exactly mate everyone does, which is my point its how its managed. Villa have aquired that 90% wage/turnover ratio and 140 mill of debt in five years, they are a basket case. Still finished behind us. No one outspends us they just borrow more.

The real question is if Villa have that kind of financial muscle (laughs), can they finish ahed of us in the league - answer no!

 

[Chang Elephant]

You are joking mate here arent you, smaller squad smaller wages in comparrison to what? you will have to explain that one to me.

Sorry mate, I was taking your comparison to Villa, you said they spend more on players and wages as a proportion of turnover.

 

[Neiler]

It's a commitment to an original purchase of shares, which he shafted Johnson on the value of, and is seeking to sell on at a premium mark up i.e. a commitment to his retirement yacht. Borrowing from Green is just ****ing stupid, and the club has paid for that mistake.

Wrong mate, he bought additional shares recently.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Now just Who's at fault for ntl going bust ?

Definitely NTL at fault, were you thinking Thatcher or Murdoch?

 

[Neiler]

Sorry mate, I was taking your comparison to Villa, you said they spend more on players and wages as a proportion of turnover.

No they borrow for players they spend 90% of what they make on wages. Anything they spend over that and they do - horribly is debt. 140 mill accumalted since Learner took over from 0.

Its opinions of course, but i dont think Villa have a bigger squad then us, isnt there a cap of 25 anyway, certainly in terms of quality - i think we are stronger and they will heamorgae players this summer gaurenteed - they have to.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Wrong mate, he bought additional shares recently.

He bought additional shares on the same basis as he bought the original, as a private investment - he gets the money when he sells them, honestly.

 

[fozzy]

so since kenwright took over what assets not on the field assets but assets like property do we have left? i'm just asking as it seems that its all gone apart from the old lady!!

small debt yes but what collateral have we got against it?

 

[sirblue57]

Exactly mate everyone does, which is my point its how its managed. Villa have aquired that 90% wage/turnover ratio and 140 mill of debt in five years, they are a basket case. Still finished behind us. No one outspends us they just borrow more.

The real question is if Villa have that kind of financial muscle (laughs), can they finish ahed of us in the league - answer no!

but how long can we continue to punch above our weight? i have said before we simply cannot carry on hoping for one of the teams above his to implode, we have to improve year on year, and we are not. off the pitch we are a joke. nothing this board sets out to do goes without a hitch. it took us several attempts to get a decent kit deal, or catering deal. thats why i have no faith in them. then theres the lies/spin, the failures that trail behind them is pityful.

 

[Chang Elephant]

so since kenwright took over what assets not on the field assets but assets like property do we have left? i'm just asking as it seems that its all gone apart from the old lady!!

small debt yes but what collateral have we got against it?

Sweet FA collateral apart from playing staff, and the debt's not small.

 

[fozzy]

Sweet FA collateral apart from playing staff, and the debt's not small.

so what did we have before he took over?

 

[Neiler]

but how long can we continue to punch above our weight? i have said before we simply cannot carry on hoping for one of the teams above his to implode, we have to improve year on year, and we are not. off the pitch we are a joke. nothing this board sets out to do goes without a hitch. it took us several attempts to get a decent kit deal, or catering deal. thats why i have no faith in them. then theres the lies/spin, the failures that trail behind them is pityful.

I think that harsh to the extreame, they have done well considering their starting point, we have grown and developed, in many ways they are victims of this success and expectaion given our means we cant develop any further. I accept we have hit a glass ceiling, we cant develop without a new ground and our current shareholders cant afford to that - they accept that to - fair play which is why i beleive they have the bes t intrests of the club at heart, their actions also dictate this, every penny goes back into the club, we spend what we earn as that has increased so has our quality, but we have hit a limit there to again everyone recognises this.

They have made mistakes, the ground issue is one KD and DK were massive oppurtunites that didnt come of - i will always be critcal of the board for this - both were terrific deals that really would have pushed us on. Similarly im not a fan of out sourceing, nor the sponsership deal. But realisticly i dont think any of these issues would change our fortunes hugely.

Realisticly its going to take an investment of 200 mill in the squad to touch a CL place, if City are the yard stick i doubt this will happen for us or anyone els efor that matter - its a straegy with no gaurentees and to riskey, nor do i trust a new owner to gift this money - withut debt attached. So i beleive a new owner isnt the answer unless it comes with a new stadium. Its not healthy anyway, it creates artifical wealth and means a club is drip fed and over dependent on this artifical weatlh.

The only way we can develop is to improve our infrastructure - like Arsenal and become self sustainable, a takeover or taking on more debt to buy players isnt the answer either for me. For us mate its a new stadium at all costs.

 

[fozzy]

The only way we can develop is to improve our infrastructure - like Arsenal and become self sustainable, investment, taking on more debt to buy player sisnt the answer wither. For us mate its a new stadium at all costs.

so much this!!! thats why kings dock hurts so so bad with me! we could have been years infront of the arse!

 

[BlackToffee]

Just been reading through the various thread. Just picking out a point. If a credible buyer came along are people really saying (or simply implying)that they'd oppose the sale on the grounds that Kenwright et al should not make a profit? If not, perhaps we could drop this blue haddock as its irrelevant to the debate. We don't even know what his profit is likely to be. If he sells for a profit, at least he sells and he's gone. And there is nothing whatsoever we can do about that.