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

Is it time for Change...???

  • Kenwright an the Board out, We need Change.

    Votes: 503 80.0%

  • Im Happy with the way thing are. Kenwright an the Board should stay

    Votes: 126 20.0%
  • Total voters
    629
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neiler said:
The point still stands though, as a buisness we could have afforded our cost base had the 13 mill of a loan not been called in. Fundamentaly the buisness could afford its cost base. The comments were made in Aprial the heavy lifiting had already been done really in Jan. The intention was for Arteta to stay he asked to leave, Yak was always going and in essence gone in Jan, Beckford was on peanuts really so his wages wouldnt have sunk the battle ship, i think clearly Davey didnt fancy him. Im not saying the threshold wasnt maybe lower because of their high wages but hardly a fire sale with Arteta really the only regular on the team sheet. I think the definition of a fire sale would have seen Rodwell, Jags, Baines, Mofor and anything not nailed down going.

To be honest i think Jan was the devastating month and when we took a step back for me, but honestly i didnt expect Arteta to go, i tend to think it was more a footballing/choice descison rather then a financial one - though i think the econmic moons alligned.
Click to expand...

Arteta asked to leave after we had talked about selling him.

The Beckford and Yakubu money disappeared.

It's not just about how much they were on, or how good they were, it's the fact that we had to sell them because we needed the money from their sales.
 
Brennan91 said:
Arteta asked to leave after we had talked about selling him.

The Beckford and Yakubu money disappeared.

It's not just about how much they were on, or how good they were, it's the fact that we had to sell them because we needed the money from their sales.
Click to expand...

Thats not the way i was told it mate, didnt he drive to the ground and beg Davey and Bill to let him go he wanted CL football. Do you really believe Arteta was pushed out?

It didnt disapear mate, its prob paying for the loan fees and wages of Strauq and Drenthe - the mighty 3 mill we prob got, if we were on the brink trust me we wouldnt have creamed close to 10 mill in the last window.

Its all about how much they are on mate, wages are a bigger outlay annually then transfer fees, take Artetas 85k a week and multiply that by 52. Saha is just gone and he was 55k - do the same there and look at the savings, transfer fees are the easy part.
 
Neiler said:
Thats not the way i was told it mate, didnt he drive to the ground and beg Davey and Bill to let him go. Do you reall ybelieve Arteta was pushed out?

It didnt disapear mate, its prob paying for the loan fees and wages of Strauq and Drenthe - the mighty 3 mill we prob got, if we were on the brink trust me we wouldnt have creamed close to 10 mill in the last window.

Its all about how much they are on mate, wages are a bigger outlay annually then transfer fees, take Artetas 85k a week and multiply that by 52. Saha is just gone and he was 55k - do the same there and look at the savings, transfer fees are the easy part.
Click to expand...

Not only that - but then their is the TAX loop holes being closed. Ref the above.

Up until the summer of 2010, it was business as usual. But there was a distinct change in the 2010/2011 financial year. Hence by the end of last summer a good number of Premier League clubs were trying to rake in cash and cut wage bills rather drastically.


HMRC hitting people with a big stick.


Dave's quotes were from April 2010. THE END OF THE 2009/2010 TAX YEAR.

Who knew HMRC were going to kick arse, but the Chancellor in his budget?
 
Neiler said:
Thats not the way i was told it mate, didnt he drive to the ground and beg Davey and Bill to let him go. Do you reall ybelieve Arteta was pushed out?

It didnt disapear mate, its prob paying for the loan fees and wages of Strauq and Drenthe - the mighty 3 mill we prob got, if we were on the brink trust me we wouldnt have creamed close to 10 mill in the last window.

Its all about how much they are on mate, wages are a bigger outlay annually then transfer fees, take Artetas 85k a week and multiply that by 52. Saha is just gone and he was 55k - do the same there and look at the savings, transfer fees are the easy part.
Click to expand...

The Arteta sale was discussed hours before he himself intervened, they had originally decided not to sell him because Wenger wasn't offering enough in their opinion. The fact that they were willing to sell him at all says everything for me.

Beckford was on peanuts comparatively and he scored 10 goals in one season for us, so why sell him unless we needed the money ?
 
Neiler said:
The point still stands though and i stand by it, as a buisness we could have afforded our cost base had the 13 mill of a loan not been called in.
Click to expand...

It was though. And that is something, given the dire economic climate for anything around the area of loans and extending them (especially to basket cases like football clubs) that was forseeable. It's ok now you saying we would have been fine if this that and the other had held firm (and Matt: the sort of backdating into the argument issues of tax and changes in HMRC policy falls into this category) but you didn't factor any of that into your original argument back then. There was a certainty in it that Everton couldn't possibly screw up because we, unlike other clubs, 'do probity' - and you've fallen prey to that hubris as the club's failure to cover all the loans it's taken out had the exit door spinning off its hinges.

Neiler said:
Fundamentaly the buisness could afford its cost base. The comments were made in April the heavy lifiting had already been done really in Jan. The intention was for Arteta to stay he asked to leave, Yak was always going and in essence gone in Jan, Beckford was on peanuts really so his wages wouldnt have sunk the battle ship, i think clearly Davey didnt fancy him lets be honest we all knew Yak, Yobo, Vaughan were not part of the long term plans. In essence i called it, apart from Arteta, keep what we had bar the low hanging fruit and add a few clever loans, circa Drenthe/Strauq. Im not saying the threshold wasnt maybe lower because of their high wages but hardly a fire sale with Arteta really the only regular on the team sheet. I think the definition of a fire sale would have seen Rodwell, Jags, Baines, Mofro and anything not nailed down going - i believe we turned down bids.

To be honest i think Jan was the devastating month and when we took a step back for me in a footballing sense and a step forward fianancialy in terms of cost cutting, but honestly i didnt expect Arteta to go in the summer, i tend to think it was more a footballing/choice descison rather then a financial one, i dont think it was planned or anticiapted - though i think the econmic moons alligned.
Click to expand...

Whoever went through the doors (regular/peripheral player) makes no difference. Their relative strengths as players versus their cost to the club would have been, of course, the deciding factor. But they all went as a matter of urgency to raise funds and to pay back debt - and it left us weakened as a result.
 
davek said:
It was though. And that is something, given the dire economic climate for anything around the area of loans and extending them (especially to basket cases like football clubs) that was forseeable. It's ok now you saying we would have been fine if this that and the other had held firm (and Matt: the sort of backdating into the argument issues of tax and changes in HMRC policy falls into this category) but you didn't factor any of that into your original argument back then. There was a certainty in it that Everton couldn't possibly screw up because we, unlike other clubs, 'do probity' - and you've fallen prey to that hubris as the club's failure to cover all the loans it's taken out had the exit door spinning off its hinges.



Whoever went through the doors (regular/peripheral player) makes no difference. Their relative strengths as players versus their cost to the club would have been, of course, the deciding factor. But they all went as a matter of urgency to raise funds and to pay back debt - and it left us weakened as a result.
Click to expand...

Thats a fair point mate, i didn't factor in or know about the 13 mill due so i wont pretend i did, tbf i don't think anybody did to be honest and you will remember i thought something was up in Jan hence the cost cutting and loaning out players, i put it down to overshooting on the new contracts the summer before. Clearly what happened in Jan the club had been told they couldn't refinance the 13 mill, i think and believe a lot of the heavy lifting was done then, slashing the wage bill. In the summer i genuinely believe this decisions were made on who was expendable and fringe players identified Yak, Yobo, Vaughan, Beckford - i don't necessarily agree with those decisions but from an economic and footballing cost/benefit analysis and their own individual contexts they were annotated for the chop. I don't think bar the Yak or Yobo we are particularly weaker from it. Arteta is a different matter, but as i said i think when he made his choice the club acquiested due to the loyalty he had shown in the past, injuries, form and age - balanced again 85k a week - i was gutted but in the cold light of day understandable. Thankfully things weren't at such an ebb, that Baines, Jags, Mofro Rodwell etc needed to be sacrificed. To be honest for me the biggest impact didn't come from loosing said players but the the inertia of not buying new players. We badly needed a striker for 2 years and it was laughable we didn't have one.

I stand by my point that financially the fundamentals of the business are sound, bad management or lack of foresight doesn't mean the business is screwed. If there are any benefits to be drawn it is that we have seriously lowered our wage bill and as i said above this gives us some wiggle room to freshen things up. We are prob back to were we started three - four years into Davey's rein buying cheap young players of talent and trying to develop them, maybe its the end of a cycle - we certainly bottomed out on reaching for the stars on giving big fat contracts to "best squad since the 80s".

Financially and i have done a bit of digging since being caught on the hop with the 13 mill in the summer as i think all fans were. We have the same again due to the bank in the summer of 2013. The big questions now are, has the wage bill been reduced enough to meet this short fall? Have the outlays on players in Jan meant we have refinanced the paid back loan with a better credit profile? Has the overall debt been reduced as a result of the pay back? Personally i would like to see the overall debt reduced as it creates a better environment for investment - but with Bill you never know he runs the club like a fan which he is, fair to say i think the problem was down to over reaching in the hope of pushing on, on misguided trust in the bank, a poor reading of the economic environment in terms of refinancing/credit - but i would still maintain the fundamentals of the business are good if not static (glass ceiling). What we have seen is down to bad management by the club.
 
I admire the davek/Neiler/Damon finance jargen, but i can never be arsed reading it/understanding it properly.

KENWRIZZLE OUT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Welcome

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

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

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