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

[Goat]

The increase of wages, was surely off set by the decrease in player purchases?

I think the last Season we had a Net spend was when we bought Yakubu, which was 2007.

I knew you would mention wages and yes, they are a massive form of spending, but I still maintain, if the Club was ran correctly, instead of by utter clueless clowns, a small increase of wages shouldnt be felt.

It certainly shouldnt be cause for the meltdown that has happened in the last Year.

 

[Neiler]

The increase of wages, was surely off set by the decrease in player purchases?

I think the last Season we had a Net spend was when we bought Yakubu, which was 2007.

I knew you would mention wages and yes, they are a massive form of spending, but I still maintain, if the Club was ran correctly, instead of by utter clueless clowns, a small increase of wages shouldnt be felt.

It certainly shouldnt be cause for the meltdown that has happened in the last Year.

Transfer fees are irrelevant mate, they make the headlines but the outlay is once of or structured so can be planned for the fee isnt as significant as wages. We always borrowed the fees anyway, the critical thing here is we tried to borrow for wages and like i said because their is no return on wages, the door was firmly slammed in our face.

Transfer fees are irrelevant to be honest, they are once of and more managable then wages, Artetas and Moyes annual wages accounted for in and around 10% of our annual turnover i.e 10 mill approx.

While Jags, Baines, Howard graduated to high earnings in addition to Yak, Yobo, Heitinga and Saha - they are all in the 50 - 60k bracket. Ossie, Hiibert and Rodwell got new and improved contracts as well.

Truth is we couldnt afford our wage bill, the critcal period for the club was that summer, we had come to the edge of the cliff in terms of balanceing our finances and went straight over the edge. The debt has been pretty static relatively for a good number of years, while the interst payments have been manageable. Its not the debt or the interest payments, its our liabilites, mainly wages we massively got it wrong or the strategy backfired with Barckleys. Its all there in black and white in the accounts. The total debt and interest paid.

 

[Goat]

Surely all wages increases should have been eaten up by the "Record breaking Kitbag deal" and the "Record breaking Change deal", not to mention the "Record breaking SKY deal".

Anyway, for me it all boils down to having people in charge who are clueless beyond belief.

Im gonna take a break from Anti-Kenwronging for a while, it depresses me knowing that we have such a bad apple at the top of our tree.

 

[Neiler]

Surely all wages increases should have been eaten up by the "Record breaking Kitbag deal" and the "Record breaking Change deal", not to mention the "Record breaking SKY deal".

Anyway, for me it all boils down to having people in charge who are clueless beyond belief.

Im gonna take a break from Anti-Kenwronging for a while, it depresses me knowing that we have such a bad apple at the top of our tree.

Prob is inflation in wages rises quicker then anything, TV money has remaind static to be honest, while there have been improvements in commercial revenue they have been marginal at best and certainly not in line with inflation in wages.

They massively got it wrong i agree which is my point, but then it was done with good intentions i beleive - naeive perhaps, but then you could imagine the grief they would have got for not agreeing new contracts with players and Baines, Arteta, Rodewell and Jags walking.

Like i say, i cant beleive the likes of the BU dont really and one or two poster on here, havnt focussed in on this, instead of banging on about the BVI and Philip Green - but there you go.

 

[Goat]

I think the reason its not picked up on, is cos in theory "we" agree with the idea of keeping our better players.

ITs when we give other players, like Neville a 23 Year contract at 40 that we find issues with.

Its hard to critise the Club for giving Arteta, Moyes and others fat contracts, cos "we" wish to keep those at the Club and in the modern game, money talks.

 

[Pblueman]

MikelsGoat

I think the reason its not picked up on, is cos in theory "we" agree with the idea of keeping our better players.

ITs when we give other players, like Neville a 23 Year contract at 40 that we find issues with.

Its hard to critise the Club for giving Arteta, Moyes and others fat contracts, cos "we" wish to keep those at the Club and in the modern game, money talks.

Get where you're coming from but in fairness you can't fault Nevilles attitude and professionalism as a club captain, he is a role model for the kids
​

 

[Neiler]

I think the reason its not picked up on, is cos in theory "we" agree with the idea of keeping our better players.

ITs when we give other players, like Neville a 23 Year contract at 40 that we find issues with.

Its hard to critise the Club for giving Arteta, Moyes and others fat contracts, cos "we" wish to keep those at the Club and in the modern game, money talks.

Agreed mate, its rarely picked up on becuase its what we all want, but its where all our finance is drained from. A bigger question is how we use it, the likes of Saha, Neville, Heitnga wages prob arent far away from 200k a week almost another 10% of our turnover, we could surely be leaner and make better decisons on players and their wages.

Unfortunately, beleive it or not, things can actually get worse, part of one of our loans matured this summer (the money The Fox mentioned that needed to go to the bank) approx 10 -12 mill, while the second part is due to mature in 2013 total repayment is - 17 mill not inclusive of interest - so it will be the same again in the summer of 2013. Thats 17 mill of the 40 odd million debt though. Its possible the club will just refinance this though, the problem with this being its not like the pru deal with a fixed cost of servicing and repayment, the cost is variable and as we know the cost of credit has gone through the roof. If things remain the same the choice is to just refinance the debt with another loan of 17 mill or sell a player and reduce the overall debt. It could be argued the fact that the money from player sales this summer went to pay that debt and possibly the overdraft, auger well for a take over because by reduceing the overall debt means a better price for shareholders as the debt is lower, usually this behaviour is seen when there is a change of ownership.

 

[davek]

Bottom line is this lot are incapabale of funding the running of a mid-table Premier League outfit. We have very rich men who WONT invest in the asset they have two thirds ownership of...men who want maximum profit from something they've left to rot other than ploughing back in tv revenues generated by the whole of the Premier League.

You cant polish a turd: they are an appalling crew of gangsters ripping Everton off.

 

[Mvflusk]

Bottom line is this lot are incapabale of funding the running of a mid-table Premier League outfit. We have very rich men who WONT invest in the asset they have two thirds ownership of...men who want maximum profit from something they've left to rot other than ploughing back in tv revenues generated by the whole of the Premier League.

You cant polish a turd: they are an appalling crew of gangsters ripping Everton off.

Pretty much this, which is why I can't understand Kenwright being the focus of everyone's hatred. He's a blue like us, who has been sold down the river, like us.

 

[kenada_blue]

Am I reading that right...£150million?

Is he having a laugh!

 

[davek]

Am I reading that right...£150million?

Is he having a laugh!

Well, Keith Harris is a great friend of blue bill once tasked with the sale of Everton. If he's talking through his arse I'd be very surprised. So yeah, I think we can safely take it that the greatest Evertonian of all tme is looking to trouser circa £30M for all his sterling work at the club in the last 12 years.

 

[Neiler]

Am i the only one who thinks 150 mill isnt that bad inclusive of the debt, for a buissness that turns over 80mill and more in tangible and intangible assets. That figure would be inclusive of the debt as well - its just the way takeover are done to be honest.

Assuming its true of course, im led to believe Keith Harris has the massive hump, because he wasnt the particular finder in this instance and as such isnt involved or subject to a finders fee.

Also there isnt a chance that anyone looking to gain the majority or invest in Everton is going to get 100% of the shares, so these figures are out there at best and more then likely waffle.

 

[Pblueman]

ok 150mil & 35000 shares, the last share price was 1200-1500 quid. (2008) My maths aint the best but 35000 shares @£1500 is £52,500,000 so where is he getting the extra 100mil ish? even if you imagine share price to rise to £2000 thats still only 70 mil

 

[davek]

Am i the only one who thinks 150 mill isnt that bad inclusive of the debt, for a buissness that turns over 80mill and more in tangible and intangible assets. That figure would be inclusive of the debt as well - its just the way takeover are done to be honest.

Assuming its true of course, im led to believe Keith Harris has the massive hump, because he wasnt the particular finder in this instance and as such isnt involved or subject to a finders fee.

Yes.

And also, on the matter of debt: we've just pulled in £20M this last transfer window. Add that to the wages saved on those sold (all those sold last summer and last winter) and you must be near wiping out the club's own headline debt figure of £45M.

So, yes, £150M is a complete and utter joke. Even without the debt reduction I just outlined it's a joke given the state of the club they've left it in.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

The more i read, the more depressed i get.

FFS....

slashers up**