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

[TheFinnFan]

So in your last two posts, you say the BU bring about a positive influence then contradict yourself by saying they have no power, i think you have read a few to many Karl M books before bed mate.

Your right that is exactly what i would say, im all about change, what you cant fathom is that is that people want change but differ on the context of change. Your all out, but then you have bigged up the likes of WH, Pompey, Blackburn, Villa etc in your time and dont seem to have learned a lesson. I really dislike the polerization of your and other view points, it just splits the fan base to be honest. Its not Kenwright in and or out, you need that debate to exist or the provision of that platform. To be honest the majority of the fanbase lie currently in the middle of a spectrum between Kenwright and wanting change. I dont beleive any fan wants Bill here for another ten years, though i dont believe anything but a misguided few are ardenent supporters of the BU which is pretty reflective in anything they have tried to do.

Its a broad spectrum mate, unfortunately your on the fundamentalist end of it.

my man.

 

[Neiler]

The poll run on this, a moderate, generally light hearted fan site shows a clear majority want him out. Many may not believe in protest or marching but plenty have voted with their feet due to the direction the club is heading. Sub 30,000's against some of the best sides in the league shows this, though I appreciate not all are down to views held against Bill.

Bill has been a constant in our boardroom for two decades. These two decades have been arguably the worst in the history of Everton Football Club. When he came into the club he sold himself as a safe pair of hands until a more qualified buyer arrived. He's proven himself to be neither. We have gone from a net assets position of Circa £25m to net liabilities of £35m. All our assets are mortgaged to the hilt and we haven't spent money not generated from player sales for 3 years.

We have seen the era of PL clubs selling at unprecedented rates completely pass us by with not one credible link to a sale. Despite being 'best of the rest' for god knows how long. Clubs with equally poor or worse stadia and much worse fan bases have been sold, why not Everton? A price of C£150m, that's why. A ridiculous amount when you consider what's being offered for sale. The man's not even just trying to get his (the Greggs, now Greens??) money back. He's trying to make a massive gain. That would be fine if we hadn't been stripped of everything we own, but we have so why does he expect to make such a sum on a club with virtually no assets.

I think everyone accepts mate and i include the board here, that change is needed - most wont be satisfied until it happens and will have a moan until it eventually does - which i don't see happening for a long time tbh.

I think your figures are a bit misleading to be honest i think you are talking about debt rather then liabilities here. Although the figures for current liabilities are cold and hard the business has also grown considerably allowing it to grow its cost base. Thus investment made in terms of the club being able to compete to be the best of the rest, by bringing in a better quality of player and being able to pay increased wages - thats not settling btw, but an analysis of now in comparison to the starting point after Agent Johnsons rein. Liabilities need to be analyzed in the sense that they have grown during Bills tenure, but so has turnover to meet liabilities which the club pretty much does, give or take 5 mill a year. I have long made the point on here, the only show in town is in infrastructure. The loans on existing assets make financial sense to be honest as they are less relevant then they were say 15 years ago i.e. no longer is match day revenue as vital as it was especially in Goodison, which though a thing of beauty, is a financial sinking ship. For example Ross Barkley is prob worth more then Goodison in commercial value on the open market. Yet players are intangible assets, not counted as fixed assets. Also liabilities include the total of each players contract for its duration (say 4 years) which is misleading if you took an annual turnover of 80 mill and multiplied it by four it gives a truer refelction of our ability to meet our liabilites beyond the headline total figure. Our liabilities i imagine have shrunken a lot in the past year, but the last set of books arent reflective of this or changes in any debt write down.

On the debt, i will be very interested to see next years figures, i believe the bank demanded 10-12 mill in the summer this was a loan repayment we thought we could refinance, secondly they also wanted paying back of some of our overdraft facility. It will be interesting to see if that has brought down the debt figure overall or have our January signings been refinanced in to another debt. That will give a strong reflection on the intention of the board or indeed an indication of their longevity as it influences the atmosphere to be taken over. There is another 10-12mill due next summer (after this one coming), so i would expect Rodwell or someone sold next year.

Secondly, the headline figure of the debt even if it stands (at last count 45 mill odd) after paying the bank last summer, needs context. When Bill took over, the debt to turnover ratio was close to 100%. Now it is significantly close to 50%. In other words when he took over we didnt make enough in a year to cover our debt. Now we make more almost twice as much to cover our total debt annualy, before looking at intangible assets. Another question worth considering is how much of our total debt is a legacy or inherited from the Johnson era and what is the accumalted net debt in comparison during Bills tenure.

 

[Chang Elephant]

BU take great exception to me POINTING OUT THE LIES ... Fukd if I know why tho ...???

Point some of these lies out and I'll see if I can work out and let you know why the BU take exception. No-one likes lies, especially not at Everton Football Club Limited dammit.

 

[Brennan]

Bill Kenwright is not the biggest problem in the boardroom. It's the vampiric shareholders who actually have the ability to invest in the club but choose not to who are causing the most damage. I don't just mean money either, but time invested.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Bill Kenwright is not the biggest problem in the boardroom. It's the vampiric shareholders who actually have the ability to invest in the club but choose not to who are causing the most damage. I don't just mean money either, but time invested.

Agree completely.

 

[Phenom]

Let's get back to our clique.

 

[davek]

I think everyone accepts mate and i include the board here, that change is needed - most wont be satisfied until it happens and will have a moan until it eventually does - which i don't see happening for a long time tbh.

I think your figures are a bit misleading to be honest i think you are talking about debt rather then liabilities here. Although the figures for current liabilities are cold and hard the business has also grown considerably allowing it to grow its cost base. Thus investment made in terms of the club being able to compete to be the best of the rest, by bringing in a better quality of player and being able to pay increased wages - thats not settling btw, but an analysis of now in comparison to the starting point after Agent Johnsons rein. Liabilities need to be analyzed in the sense that they have grown during Bills tenure, but so has turnover to meet liabilities which the club pretty much does, give or take 5 mill a year. I have long made the point on here, the only show in town is in infrastructure. The loans on existing assets make financial sense to be honest as they are less relevant then they were say 15 years ago i.e. no longer is match day revenue as vital as it was especially in Goodison, which though a thing of beauty, is a financial sinking ship. For example Ross Barkley is prob worth more then Goodison in commercial value on the open market. Yet players are intangible assets, not counted as fixed assets. Also liabilities include the total of each players contract for its duration (say 4 years) which is misleading if you took an annual turnover of 80 mill and multiplied it by four it gives a truer refelction of our ability to meet our liabilites beyond the headline total figure. Our liabilities i imagine have shrunken a lot in the past year, but the last set of books arent reflective of this or changes in any debt write down.

On the debt, i will be very interested to see next years figures, i believe the bank demanded 10-12 mill in the summer this was a loan repayment we thought we could refinance, secondly they also wanted paying back of some of our overdraft facility. It will be interesting to see if that has brought down the debt figure overall or have our January signings been refinanced in to another debt. That will give a strong reflection on the intention of the board or indeed an indication of their longevity as it influences the atmosphere to be taken over. There is another 10-12mill due next summer (after this one coming), so i would expect Rodwell or someone sold next year.

Secondly, the headline figure of the debt even if it stands (at last count 35 mill) after paying the bank last summer, needs context. When Bill took over, the debt to turnover ratio was close to 100%. Now it is significantly below 50%. In other words when he took over we didnt make enough in a year to cover our debt. Now we make more then twice as much to cover our total debt annualy, before looking at intangible assets. Another question worth considering is how much of our total debt is a legacy or inherited from the Johnson era and what is the accumalted net debt in comparison during Bills tenure.

Laughing here. So Bill's tenure has been a good thing? Reading that, anyone would wonder why you also stated Bill needs to go. He's doing a bang on job halving the debt to revenue ratio since Johnson left (we can leave aside the fact for now that it's the tv revenue Johnson never had which has increased revenue and nothing Kenwright et al have ever done). And it beggers belief that you'd come out and state that loans on assets make financial sense when the banks have had to be begged 'not to kill us' this past year. Seat of the pants economics I'd call it. You make a massive deal about intangible assets: but all clubs have these under the waterline. It doesn't make any sense to offer reassurance by talking about assets in blue jerseys, in fact, it harks back to the words of Clifford Finch who came out with the desperate line in the first place - and you know how much you villify the Johnson regime as a pack of chancers!

The tone of your whole argument is based on some unreal belief that we need to evolve into something better over time and that until that point Bill's steadying the ship nicely through a storm. Well, just plot on a graph Everton's decline as a force in the PL for the past 5 seasons and fix yourself a stiff drink before viewing it. Anymore of this 'steadying' stewardship and we'll disappear off the graph into oblivion.

 

[TheFinnFan]

who wouldnt want an investment? we all want it. we just have different pints of view dude

 

[Elong]

There is no such thing as investment in a football club. You either buy a club, or you give a donation, because an investment would infer that you actually expect something out of it financially.

 

[Neiler]

Laughing here. So Bill's tenure has been a good thing? Reading that, anyone would wonder why you also stated Bill needs to go. He's doing a bang on job halving the debt to revenue ratio since Johnson left (we can leave aside the fact for now that it's the tv revenue Johnson never had which has increased revenue and nothing Kenwright et al have ever done). And it beggers belief that you'd come out and state that loans on assets make financial sense when the banks have had to be begged 'not to kill us' this past year. Seat of the pants economics I'd call it. You make a massive deal about intangible assets: but all clubs have these under the waterline. It doesn't make any sense to offer reassurance by talking about assets in blue jerseys, in fact, it harks back to the words of Clifford Finch who came out with the desperate line in the first place - and you know how much you villify the Johnson regime as a pack of chancers!

The tone of your whole argument is based on some unreal belief that we need to evolve into something better over time and that until that point Bill's steadying the ship nicely through a storm. Well, just plot on a graph Everton's decline as a force in the PL for the past 5 seasons and fix yourself a stiff drink before viewing it. Anymore of this 'steadying' stewardship and we'll disappear off the graph into oblivion.

I wasn't making an argument mate or stating an opinion, your making that in your own head and having a hard job arguing with yourself, im simply providing the analysis.

 

[BlueNoseJim]

JOHNSON OUT!

 

[thebluefox]

Bill Kenwright is not the biggest problem in the boardroom. It's the vampiric shareholders who actually have the ability to invest in the club but choose not to who are causing the most damage. I don't just mean money either, but time invested.

who he brought to the club promising a big return on there investment ,if your talking about grantchester he wont put a penny in while kenwrights in charge ,and who can blame him ,cause the man is a kunt. look back this time last year what the kenwright lovers were posting ,,, whats changed fuk all

 

[kenada_blue]

There is no such thing as investment in a football club. You either buy a club, or you give a donation, because an investment would infer that you actually expect something out of it financially.

true.

for me its not about how much so and so can put in...its about what and where they can or want to take the club.

Ask Kenwright et all where do they want to see the club in 2020? They won't be able to give you an answer.

We need someone to come in now with a plan, a vision of where they can take the club and how.

But these people are non existent apparently

 

[TheFinnFan]

who he brought to the club promising a big return on there investment ,if your talking about grantchester he wont put a penny in while kenwrights in charge ,and who can blame him ,cause the man is a kunt. look back this time last year what the kenwright lovers were posting ,,, whats changed fuk all

they teach in kindergarden that things doesnt always go like you want, mate.

 

[thebluefox]

they teach in kindergarden that things doesnt always go like you want, mate.

id love to teach you