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

[CarlosTheBaby]

The whole thing is a bad bad joke. His strategy is as follows:

1. Some rich company and land owner give Everton a free plot of land and a free stadium. Plus hope a rich benefactor knocks on the door.

2. Hope Moyes pulls some buys out of selling his best players and hope they appreciate in value.

3. Grow the fanbase whilst selling off our best playing assets each year.

For Elstone not to know why Everton hasnt been bought tells you everything you need to know about his intelligence. Hopeless.

 

[Neiler]

Hmm,

Lets bring some balance to the debate, firstly for the past two months many Evertonians and many on here have been criticieing the club for not making a statment in terms of strategy, wheather you agree with it or not, theyve done it, so fair play on that score.

There is much in the peice that corralates with my own opinion, i dont think the club is holding out on investment coming in. to be honest they would be mad not to want to get shot of the club, i would think they are hanging for someone else to come in as the dogs in the street know we cant afford what we have at the moment. I have said many times i think they have the long term intrests of the club at heart and i genuinely beleive that, for that reason i trust them to find the right investment, i agree in the sense that the mojority of takeovers arent healthy for the majority of clubs, not all obviously - so i agree with that point.

Secondly you have to give credit on commercial revenue it has been going in the right direction for the past couple of years, so from the point of view the fan base and accesability to product the club has as he says rightly been going well, saying that im not a fan of outsourceing and i dont think we are close to our potntial in this regard, but it is on an upward trajectory.

Its good to hear the stadium issue is a focus, its been a massive failing of the current regime - but is essential to our development - i really hope this is genuine.

I take issue with parts of the article though, i dont think the Lescott deal should be lauded as some success story in terms of negotiation - 19 mill - in full is what we received well below what i think he was worth - despite current thinking of him. Its sad to see our club taking kudos for negotiating the release of our best players.

I also think it is massively disengenous putting in his article that strengthing the squad and supporting the manager is a priority. I dont know how he thinks the fans can swallow that, the squad has been weakened since last May by at least 8 players - we have hemraged players, the squad has little depth and many of our players will need recycleing shortly. The board has massively negelcted the team in the past 18 months - with the ridiculous situation of sending many expierenced first team players out on loan to save a bob or two. Not to mention weakening a front line badly in need of support by two players in Jannuary - farcical stuff. Not even getting a loan player is farcical - so i take issue with him stateing the clubs objective is to support the manager - we will be lucky if he doesnt walk in May. I have a strong sense of economic reasons why getting players in doesnt make sense, i dont agree with it as we're digging ourselves into debt anyway, but to come out and treat the fans like fools by making that statement is wrong.

Lastly i think there is a measure of spin here, the club is massively vulnerable financialy despite what he says, we had been working full tilt in terms of revenue and expentidture up untill last season and this season we have gone over the edge, we cant afford what we have and the amount of departures and our financial accounts prove that. We are in position where the fat needs to be cut to fill in the black hole that exists between our revenue and cost base. Lets be honest, players wages are going to continue to increase, transfer fees will rise, the cost of credit and doing buissness is likely to increase as well. We hit the glass ceiling in terms of spending, smashed through it and now the only way we can operate is to trade at a loss year in year out and dig ourselves into debt - and pray either for Kirkby 2/Kings Dock or a takeover.

Sorry Bob i dont buy that we are not on the ropes here, worrying times

 

[davek]

Hmm,

Lets bring some balance to the debate, firstly for the past to months many Evertonians and many on here havebeen criticieing the club for not making a stadium in terms of strategy, wheather you agree with it or not, theyve done it so fair play on that score.

There is much in the peice that corralates with my own opinion, i dont think the club is holding out on investment coming in they would be mad not to want to get shot of the club, i would think they are hanging for someone else to come in, i have said many times i think they have the long term intrests of the club at heart and i genuinely beleive that, for that reason i trust them to find the right investment, i agree in the sense that the mojority of takeovers arent healthy for the majority of clubs, not all obviously - so i agree with that point. Secondly you have to give credit commercial revenue has been going in the right direction for the past couple of years, so from the point of view of fan base and accesability to product the club hasnt dont to badly, saying that im not a fan of outsourceing and i dont think we are close to our potntial in this regard, but it is on an upward trajectory.

Its good to hear the stadium issue is a focus, its been a massive failing of the current regime - but is essential to our development - i really hope this is genine.

I take issue with parts of the article though, i dont think the Lescott deal should be lauded as some success story in terms of negotiation - 19 mill - in full is what we received well below what i think he was worth - despite current thinking of him. Its sad to see our club taking kudos for negotiating the relase of our best players.

I also think it is massively disengenous, putting in his article strengthing the squad and supporting the manager is a priority. I dont know how he thinks the fans can swallow that, the squad has been weakened since last May by at least 8 players - we have haemreged players, the squad has little depth and many of our players will need recycleing shortly. The baord has massively negelcted the team in the past 18 months - with the ridiculous situation of sending many expierenced first team players out on loan to save a bob or two. Not to mention weakening a front line badly in need of support by two players in Jannuary - farcical stuff. Not even getting a loan is farcical - so i take issue with him stateing the clubs objective is to support the manager - we will be lucky if he doesnt walk in May.

Lastly i think there is a measure of spin here, the club is massively vulnerable financialy despite what he says, we had been working full tilt in terms of revenue and expentidture up untill last season and this season we have gone over the edge, we cant afford what we have and the amount of departures proves that, we are in position where the fat needs to be cut to fill in the black hole that exists between our revenue and cost base. Lets be honest, players wages are going to continue to increase, transfer fees will rise, the cost of credit and doing buissness is likely to increase as well. We hit the glass ceiling in terms of spoending, smashed therough it and now the only way we can operate is to trade at a loss year in year out and dig ourselves into debt - and pray either for Kirkby 2/Kings Dock or a takeover.

Sorry Bob i dont buy that we are not on the ropes here, worrying times.

The only 'strategy' I see in Elstone's statement mate (and yes, I do concede he has at least opened his mouth again on the subject, so that's a step forward of sorts) is that he's said this in order to counter the overwhelmingly bad press the club owners have received of late. He's doing that because he probably knows that all this talk of financial instability makes the institutions supplying our loans very nervous and all the more likely to call them in more quickly...an understandable move by Elstone, but an indictment of the way the club has placed itself over the edge of a cliff financially speaking.

I agree with much of what you say above. But I dont think we can give too much credit to them for revenue increases - for the most part it's just been earned by putting their hand out for tv money and charging more per match ticket, the commercial side is retarded still (we've been through this so I wont labour the point again). Also, this comment about looking at what price was received for the sale of other Premier League teams is something that puts a question mark over whether they really do have the best interests of the club at heart in selling the club. They cant be seriously suggesting that the club they've invested zero money into, loaded with three times the overall debt level they found it in in 1999, and who's team play in the same ground they found it in in 1999 with almost no upgrading work done to the facility should be expected to make them tens of millions of pounds each? No wonder they say they have enquiries that lead to nothing. Would you give this lot, say, £80M for sitting on their arses for 10 years? Neither would I.

 

[kenada_blue]

The only 'strategy' I see in Elstone's statement mate (and yes, I do concede he has at least opened his mouth again on the subject, so that's a step forward of sorts) is that he's said this in order to counter the overwhelmingly bad press the club owners have received of late. He's doing that because he probably knows that all this talk of financial instability makes the institutions supplying our loans very nervous and all the more likely to call them in more quickly...an understandable move by Elstone, but an indictment of the way the club has placed itself over the edge of a cliff financially speaking.

I agree with much of what you say above. But I dont think we can give too much credit to them for revenue increases - for the most part it's just been earned by putting their hand out for tv money and charging more per match ticket, the commercial side is retarded still (we've been through this so I wont labour the point again). Also, this comment about looking at what price was received for the sale of other Premier League teams is something that puts a question mark over whether they really do have the best interests of the club at heart in selling the club. They cant be seriously suggesting that the club they've invested zero money into, loaded with three times the overall debt level they found it in in 1999, and who's team play in the same ground they found it in in 1999 with almost no upgrading work done to the facility should be expected to make them tens of millions of pounds each? No wonder they say they have enquiries that lead to nothing. Would you give this lot, say, £80M for sitting on their arses for 10 years? Neither would I.

It's a massive point to be fair. The only difference between the Johnson era and now is David moyes. He rebuilt this club starting from the squad and working with his limitations.

The board have put little in but are expecting to get a pay out on the back of what moyes has done?

 

[BiggyRat]

The only 'strategy' I see in Elstone's statement mate (and yes, I do concede he has at least opened his mouth again on the subject, so that's a step forward of sorts) is that he's said this in order to counter the overwhelmingly bad press the club owners have received of late. He's doing that because he probably knows that all this talk of financial instability makes the institutions supplying our loans very nervous and all the more likely to call them in more quickly...an understandable move by Elstone, but an indictment of the way the club has placed itself over the edge of a cliff financially speaking.

An astute businessman/CEO would be aware of this & have headed this one off at the pass. By putting out the fire as late as he has, he may have hamstrung the damage control effort...time will tell.

Murdoch, when he sold my company after living off its dwindling profits, engaged Sir Rod Eddington (former BA boss) to set the company up for sale. To make it appear profitable on paper, they sold off all our assets & posted a tantalising AUD150million profit that year. The sale eventually went through & the true nature of my company's financial viability became clear...all too late of course.

I fear that the BK crew were heading down this path when the GFC struck & have set themselves up for a fall. Of course, we all fall with them...anyway, just my 2cents from a distance.

 

[Kay20]

I hear what you're saying Neiler - I appreciate that there has been a response. But the response is kinda of a put down - "yes, yes I hear what you've been asking of us, we're not stupid, let me pat you on the head" is the way it reads to me. Hence my reference to a PR person.

I do appreciate the willingness to reach out to fans, but it could have been so much better. That's what makes me wince. And you never, ever lead off a document to fans by saying "at the risk of sounding defensive..." Cause guess what? You sound defensive.

 

[Neiler]

The only 'strategy' I see in Elstone's statement mate (and yes, I do concede he has at least opened his mouth again on the subject, so that's a step forward of sorts) is that he's said this in order to counter the overwhelmingly bad press the club owners have received of late. He's doing that because he probably knows that all this talk of financial instability makes the institutions supplying our loans very nervous and all the more likely to call them in more quickly...an understandable move by Elstone, but an indictment of the way the club has placed itself over the edge of a cliff financially speaking.

I agree with much of what you say above. But I dont think we can give too much credit to them for revenue increases - for the most part it's just been earned by putting their hand out for tv money and charging more per match ticket, the commercial side is retarded still (we've been through this so I wont labour the point again). Also, this comment about looking at what price was received for the sale of other Premier League teams is something that puts a question mark over whether they really do have the best interests of the club at heart in selling the club. They cant be seriously suggesting that the club they've invested zero money into, loaded with three times the overall debt level they found it in in 1999, and who's team play in the same ground they found it in in 1999 with almost no upgrading work done to the facility should be expected to make them tens of millions of pounds each? No wonder they say they have enquiries that lead to nothing. Would you give this lot, say, £80M for sitting on their arses for 10 years? Neither would I.

It's a massive point to be fair. The only difference between the Johnson era and now is David moyes. He rebuilt this club starting from the squad and working with his limitations.

The board have put little in but are expecting to get a pay out on the back of what moyes has done?

Some very valid points, the stadium issue is my biggest criticism - that incorparates a lot like the securitisation deal - which we should have borrowed more to facilitate Kings dock - Newcastle did a similar deal (with less favouable terms) to revamp St James and it catipulted them light years ahead in terms of revenue.

Taking on board and accepting a lot of what you both you say, you have to be balanced in the sense that the buissness has grown from turning over 20 odd million under Johnson to nearly 80mill. The revenue to wage cost base percentage under Johnson was touching about 90% - simply put we were facining exitinction. Now many criticise the securitisation deal and true to say it strangles us season after season and i feel we should have borrowed more as i said above, realisticly though it was the only show in town at the time to keep us a float, lets not forget how close we were to the wall at the time. How people can look back at the Johnson era with rose tinted glasses is beyond me, or forgetting some of the debt we now have is a legacy of that era. Im not saying the present board havnt made mistakes or are perfect, im not saying the present model is healthy or sustainable but its important to be realistic and not get hyped by frustration, we are far healtheir now - even though we're not great.

Secondly the club has increased in size as a buissness, from turning over 20 odd million it turns over 80 million - granted a lot of this is down to Sky - but it does mean its a bigger buissness - as such it will cost more. In comparrison to Johnon the wage to revenue ratio is at 60 odd percent - not great but a vast improvement. Taking away the Sky Money commercial revenue is up and is a trend that has continued over a couple of years. Its nothing hugely significant or nowhere near enough to plug the gap in our cost base and revenue and prob not near full potential but its moving in the right direction. My point being we are a far healthier buissness then we were and the cost will reflect that, im not saying we're amazing we're really struggleing and will struggle to make progress under the existing model - we will get further into debt - but we are far better of then under Johnson and the buissness has grown substainialy, for direct or indirect reasons. Lets be honest and here is the sticking point, no one really knows what the asking price is and how or if the debt is lumped in with that either making it cheaper or more expensive. A flaw of the management of the club, is that our chairman is a fan - its driven him in desperation i beleive to break boundries that we simply cant afford and are unsustainable - i beleive though he will do right by the club - thats a matter of opinion i know - but i dont think his intentions are as dark or as subversive as many seem to. I think a telling factor is none of our directors take a penny out of the club and it all goes back into the club.

There is much to be frustrated about and our model is definitely unsustainable, the board have made mistakes, we cant afford what we have - but then we know not all investment is good (we all know the ins and outs of this). For me there are guideing lights there that they will do right by the club, maybe im Kool Aiding here - but its just my opinion.

 

[BlackToffee]

Some very valid points, the stadium issue is my biggest criticism - that incorparates a lot like the securitisation deal - which we should have borrowed more to facilitate king dock - Newcastle did a similar deal (with less favouable terms) to revamp St James and catipulted them light years ahead in terms of revenue.

Taking on board and accepting a lot of what you both you say, you have to be balanced in the sense that the buissness has growen from turning over 20 odd million under Johnson to nearly 80mill. The revenue to wage cost base percentage under Johnson was touching about 90% - simply put we we're facining exitinction. Now many criticise the securitisation deal and true to say its strangles us season after season and i feel we should have borrowed more as i said above, realisticly though it was the only show in town at the time to keep us a float lets not forget how close we were to the wall at the time. How people can look back at the Johnson era with rose tinted glasses is beyond me, or forgetting some of the debt we now hve is a legacy of that era. Im not saying the present board havnt made mistakes or are perfect, im not saying the present model is healthy or sustainable but its important to be realistic and not get hyped by frustration, we are far healtheir now - even though we're not great.

Secondly the club has increased in size of buissness, from turning over 20 odd million it turns over 80 million - granted a lot of this is down to Sky - but it does mean its a bigger buissness - as such it will cost more, in comparrison to Johnon the wage to revenue ratio is at 60 odd percent - not great but a vast improvement. Taking away the Sky Money commercial revenue is up and is a trend that has continued over a couple of years, nothing hugely significant or nowhere near enough to plug the gap in our cost base and revenue and prob not near full potential but its moving in the right direction. My point being we are a far healthier buissness then we were and the cost will reflect that, im not saying we're amazing we're really struggleing and will struggle to make progress under the existing model and we will get further into debt - but we are far better of then under Johnson and the buissness has grown substainialy, for direct or indirect reasons. f Lets be honest and here is the sticking point, no one really knows what the asking price is and how or if the debt is lumped in with that either making it cheaper or more expensive. A flaw of the management of the club, is that our chairman is a fan - its driven him in desperation i beleive to break boundries we cant afford and are unsustainable - i beleive though he will do right by the club - thats a matter of opinion i know - but i dont think his intentions are as dark or as subversive as many seem to. I think a telling factor is none of our directors take a penny out of the club and it all goes back into the club - there is much to be frustrated about and our model is definitely unsustainable, the board have made mistakes, we cant afford what we have - not all investment is good (we all know the ins and outs of this), but there are guideing lights there for me that they will do right by the club, maybe im Kool Aiding here - but its just my opinion.

Neller, if I knew how to give you a positive rep, I'd do it. But here is my public rep. A very sensible post. Not naive, not sucking up to the board, but trying to point out the positive and negative.

The Matt / Davek show is getting boring. Matt, you might not take my advise, but i'm now starting to only skim Davek views as it has more spin than Ann Widdecombe on Strictly, and more smoke than one of her dance routines.

The Lescott quote from our CEO was trying to make good of a bad situation. I was very, very badly worded and I hope that he regrets how it was said.

What sticks in my claw is the stadia issue. My first step is that last year he said that there would be an independant report into the stadia. We still haven't seen it. If you want to build support amongst your supporters you should publish and be damned.

The other issue is that he appears to be directly linking the stadia with investment in Everton. I've said time and time again, no billionaire will build a stadia, which is why the lost of both KD and DK was more of a body blow to us than we can realise.

If I was to mark him, i'd give it 6/10 and let him know that he needs to communicate with the fans more often.

 

[kenada_blue]

Some very valid points, the stadium issue is my biggest criticism - that incorparates a lot like the securitisation deal - which we should have borrowed more to facilitate king dock - Newcastle did a similar deal (with less favouable terms) to revamp St James and catipulted them light years ahead in terms of revenue.

Taking on board and accepting a lot of what you both you say, you have to be balanced in the sense that the buissness has growen from turning over 20 odd million under Johnson to nearly 80mill. The revenue to wage cost base percentage under Johnson was touching about 90% - simply put we we're facining exitinction. Now many criticise the securitisation deal and true to say its strangles us season after season and i feel we should have borrowed more as i said above, realisticly though it was the only show in town at the time to keep us a float lets not forget how close we were to the wall at the time. How people can look back at the Johnson era with rose tinted glasses is beyond me, or forgetting some of the debt we now hve is a legacy of that era. Im not saying the present board havnt made mistakes or are perfect, im not saying the present model is healthy or sustainable but its important to be realistic and not get hyped by frustration, we are far healtheir now - even though we're not great.

Secondly the club has increased in size of buissness, from turning over 20 odd million it turns over 80 million - granted a lot of this is down to Sky - but it does mean its a bigger buissness - as such it will cost more, in comparrison to Johnon the wage to revenue ratio is at 60 odd percent - not great but a vast improvement. Taking away the Sky Money commercial revenue is up and is a trend that has continued over a couple of years, nothing hugely significant or nowhere near enough to plug the gap in our cost base and revenue and prob not near full potential but its moving in the right direction. My point being we are a far healthier buissness then we were and the cost will reflect that, im not saying we're amazing we're really struggleing and will struggle to make progress under the existing model and we will get further into debt - but we are far better of then under Johnson and the buissness has grown substainialy, for direct or indirect reasons. f Lets be honest and here is the sticking point, no one really knows what the asking price is and how or if the debt is lumped in with that either making it cheaper or more expensive. A flaw of the management of the club, is that our chairman is a fan - its driven him in desperation i beleive to break boundries we cant afford and are unsustainable - i beleive though he will do right by the club - thats a matter of opinion i know - but i dont think his intentions are as dark or as subversive as many seem to. I think a telling factor is none of our directors take a penny out of the club and it all goes back into the club - there is much to be frustrated about and our model is definitely unsustainable, the board have made mistakes, we cant afford what we have - but we know not all investment is good (we all know the ins and outs of this), but there are guideing lights there for me that they will do right by the club, maybe im Kool Aiding here - but its just my opinion.

But wouldnt you say that moyes made that all poolssible?

The reason why the club was how it was in the Johnson era was down to the fact the team wasn't performing under managers that weren't good under the limitations. The board had no room to push on or grow amongst other things.

Moyes comes in, turns us into a top 6 side from relegation fodder. With that comes more more room to grow under the new board.

If we were still relegation fodder under kenwright, we'd still be in the same position as the Johnson era. Kenwright et all are using the same hand to mouth structure he did but have had more room to grow....all due to moyes

 

[davek]

Some very valid points, the stadium issue is my biggest criticism - that incorparates a lot like the securitisation deal - which we should have borrowed more to facilitate king dock - Newcastle did a similar deal (with less favouable terms) to revamp St James and catipulted them light years ahead in terms of revenue.

Taking on board and accepting a lot of what you both you say, you have to be balanced in the sense that the buissness has growen from turning over 20 odd million under Johnson to nearly 80mill. The revenue to wage cost base percentage under Johnson was touching about 90% - simply put we we're facining exitinction. Now many criticise the securitisation deal and true to say its strangles us season after season and i feel we should have borrowed more as i said above, realisticly though it was the only show in town at the time to keep us a float lets not forget how close we were to the wall at the time. How people can look back at the Johnson era with rose tinted glasses is beyond me, or forgetting some of the debt we now hve is a legacy of that era. Im not saying the present board havnt made mistakes or are perfect, im not saying the present model is healthy or sustainable but its important to be realistic and not get hyped by frustration, we are far healtheir now - even though we're not great.

Secondly the club has increased in size of buissness, from turning over 20 odd million it turns over 80 million - granted a lot of this is down to Sky - but it does mean its a bigger buissness - as such it will cost more, in comparrison to Johnon the wage to revenue ratio is at 60 odd percent - not great but a vast improvement. Taking away the Sky Money commercial revenue is up and is a trend that has continued over a couple of years, nothing hugely significant or nowhere near enough to plug the gap in our cost base and revenue and prob not near full potential but its moving in the right direction. My point being we are a far healthier buissness then we were and the cost will reflect that, im not saying we're amazing we're really struggleing and will struggle to make progress under the existing model and we will get further into debt - but we are far better of then under Johnson and the buissness has grown substainialy, for direct or indirect reasons. f Lets be honest and here is the sticking point, no one really knows what the asking price is and how or if the debt is lumped in with that either making it cheaper or more expensive. A flaw of the management of the club, is that our chairman is a fan - its driven him in desperation i beleive to break boundries we cant afford and are unsustainable - i beleive though he will do right by the club - thats a matter of opinion i know - but i dont think his intentions are as dark or as subversive as many seem to. I think a telling factor is none of our directors take a penny out of the club and it all goes back into the club - there is much to be frustrated about and our model is definitely unsustainable, the board have made mistakes, we cant afford what we have - but we know not all investment is good (we all know the ins and outs of this), but there are guideing lights there for me that they will do right by the club, maybe im Kool Aiding here - but its just my opinion.

Bottom line on how well the owners have done growing the business: Sponsorship/Merchandising/Other Commercial combined total when they took over in 1999: £5M; by 2010 that had grown to £9M. Pathetic.

In that period we've lost assets such as Netherton and Bellefield training complexes, the Eileen Craven car park, a number of properties around the ground and in West Derby (near Bellefield), and the megastore.

Dont waste your time defending these people mate, they're really not worth it.

 

[Neiler]

But wouldnt you say that moyes made that all poolssible?

The reason why the club was how it was in the Johnson era was down to the fact the team wasn't performing under managers that weren't good under the limitations. The board had no room to push on or grow amongst other things.

Moyes comes in, turns us into a top 6 side from relegation fodder. With that comes more more room to grow under the new board.

If we were still relegation fodder under kenwright, we'd still be in the same position as the Johnson era. Kenwright et all are using the same hand to mouth structure he did but have had more room to grow....all due to moyes

Hes had a direct impact and no mistake, he has made us tens of millions without doubt - ive said many times Everton need David Moyes far more then he needs Everton - which is why some of the lunatic Moyes out posts and exactly that.

Its very much all a balance in my opinion mate and i think what we are seeing now for the first time with the manager and board is that they are not cohesive or in step with the other requirement meaning increased frustration and conflict - which is why i have said i think something is going to give.

Up untill this point i think its important to recognise that the board and manager have worked in tandem in terms of progress, the manager has contributed in terms of success and the increased financial rewards that have gone with - Europe, Cup runs, Placement finhes, TV. While his ability to purchase low, coach and turn players in to quality ones has saved the club millions. That said it comes with its own problems as we see at the moment, take Arteta, Jags, Cahill etc who have signed new and improved contracts for increased ten of thousands - when they first came they would have been on a fraction of that - keeping those players at the managers behest puts a huge financial burden on the club in backing the manager - in the past season we have been tipped over the edge and we cant afford it - next year will be worse. The board has taken a risk that hasnt payed of in backing the players and the managers judgement - rightly so - but what it means is that we are faceing into an awfull year financialy as things stand. To balance that out every team has a life cycle and this team is probably at its peak in terms of wage cost, before its dismantled - which may happen sooner rather than later given its performence and argueably value for money.

Like i say i think its been a tandem process, i acknowledge that the manager has never had much financaily to work with, but huge progress has been made in terms of manageing cost to reveue - during a period of player wage inflation and high revenue infaltion - the board have managed to bring the ratio down from 90% to what it is now about 60% meaning we are far healtheir. The balance has been tipped in terms of what we can afford now, there is no more remaining wiggle room in terms of capital and the percentage and cost base in increaseing on season while our revenue is remaing staic - likely to take a big hit this year. This is why i say currently it is unsustainable, it is why prob for the first time the footballing side and administration side are pulling against each other and why i think something is about to give.

To give a realistic point of view both the club and manager have done terrificly well to manage two busted flushes on and of the pitch for the past 9 years - its at tipping point now and they will become two forces that will work and pull against each other now - something will give - but thats only my opinion.

I suppose to answer your question, Moyes is far more talented at his job then the board of directors without doubt - but there has been an assitive cohesion there - with the scales defo tipped in Moyes favour in terms of contribution.

 

[kenada_blue]

Hes had a direct impact and no mistake, he has made us tens of millions without doubt - ive said many times Everton need David Moyes far more then he needs Everton - which is why some of the lunatic Moyes out posts and exactly that.

Its very much all a balance in my opinion mate and i think what we are seeing now for the first time with the manager and board is that they are not cohesive or in step with the other requirement meaning increased frustration and conflict - which is why i have said i think something is going to give.

Up untill this point i think its important to recognise that the board and manager have worked in tandem in terms of progress, the manager has contributed in terms of success and the increased financial rewards that have gone with - Europe, Cup runs, Placement finhes, TV. While his ability to purchase low, coach and turn players in to quality ones has saved the club millions. That said it comes with its own problems as we see at the moment, take Arteta, Jags, Cahill etc who have signed new and improved contracts for increased ten of thousands - when they first came they would have been on a fraction of that - keeping those players at the managers behest puts a huge financial burden on the club in backing the manager - in the past season we have been tipped over the edge and we cant afford it - next year will be worse. The board has taken a risk that hasnt paye dof in backing the players and managers judgement - rightly so - but what it means is that we are faceing into an awfull year finacialy as things stand. To balance that out every team has a life cycle and this team is probably at its peak in terms of wage cost, before its dismantled - which may happen sooner rather later given its performence and argueably value for money.

Like i say i think its been a tandem process, i acknowledge that the manager has never had much financaily to work with, but huge progress has been made in terms of manageing cost to reveue - during a period of player wage inflation and high revenue infaltion - the board have managed to bring the ratio down from 90% to what it is now about 60% meaning we are far healtheir. The balance has been tipped in terms of what we can afford now, there is no more remaining wiggle room in terms of capital and the percentage and cost base in increaseing on season while our revenue is remaing staic - likely to take a big hit this year. This is why i say currently it is unsustainable, it is why prob for the first time the footballing side and administration side are pulling against each other and why i think something is about to give.

To give a realistic point of view both the club and manager have done terrificly well to manage two busted flushes on and of the pitch for the past 9 years - its at tipping point now and they will become two forces that will work pull against each other now - something will give - but thats only my opinion.

I suppose to answer your question, Moyes is far more talented at his job then the board ofdirectors without dobht - but there has been an assitive cohesion there - with the scales prob tipped in Moyes favour in terms of contribution.

Very fair points.

But in relation to when Elstone/Wyness (pre-Elstone) etc come out on the media blitz expecting us to see where they're coming from, I cant really swallow it.

They say time and time again they "back Moyes every way they can". But they fail to mention he's doing all he can to keep the machine running, the open up avenues, all based on performances on the pitch. Without him, they're screwed. And the bottom line of if he walks...no matter how much we can bash him on his tactics...the club will crumble.

And that's something a football team manager shouldnt have on his shoulders IMO and is poor business management from above. Instead of giving Moyes what he needs to take us places, the board tell him to sort himself out and we'll ride the coat tails and figure something out to stay afloat depending on the league position etc.

I've said before ages ago that as prices/wages go up, we'll get left behind. The minute we start to compete with wages to keep players...the whole club almost melts down. So if Moyes goes on top of that...yikes. That should be a priority for this board...keeping Moyes happy because I dont even think they've got a plan B on what to do if he walked.

 

[Brennan]

You could see the gleam in Kenwright's eye and the thoughts flashing through his mind

After we won yesterday i looked up to the West stand and saw all of the executives standing on the upper dancing their socks off. You could almost hear Kenwright's thoughts popping up in a little bubble above his head:

'Thank God for that, this should keep the fans quiet for a while !'

Let's not forget that despite the fantastic performance from the lads yesterday that Kenwright is still running this club poorly, and a great win like that isn't going to change it.

 

[chicoazul]

So you made this thread up to have a go at Kenwright? He enjoyed the moment, just like us mate. You can't have a pop at him over that.

 

[Astro78]

Brennan, GOT a question. Pineapple on Pizza? Yes, or No. Just curious.