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

[Allezfan]

By the way (from memory) 5 or 6 PL clubs declared a profit in the 10/11 tax year.

But still less profit then if they had lower wages bills.

The money you make from finishing 2nd rather than 17th is less then the money you spend to do so and yet everyone still spends as much on players as they can afford.

Ergo profits aren't the ultimate aim; ergo it's not run as a business.

 

[D410]

all the debate aside....I ,m just tired of us being skint for 13 years. Tired of the scratching around in transfer windows.

God knows what the new generation of fans must think of the last 13 years.

Let,s just have a new owner with his own money and a few years of keeping our best players and adding real quality to the team

is it really too much to f***in ask after 13 years.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

But still less profit then if they had lower wages bills.

The money you make from finishing 2nd rather than 17th is less then the money you spend to do so and yet everyone still spends as much on players as they can afford.

Ergo profits aren't the ultimate aim; ergo it's not run as a business.

Football clubs are owned by all sorts of different people who have their own varied reasons for wanting to own one.

You can't say they're not run as businesses as many are, as they're run as self sufficient concerns & some provide a return.

There are only some of the benefactor owned clubs that operate outside of reality on a long term basis

 

[pfim]

But still less profit then if they had lower wages bills.

The money you make from finishing 2nd rather than 17th is less then the money you spend to do so and yet everyone still spends as much on players as they can afford.

Ergo profits aren't the ultimate aim; ergo it's not run as a business.

Not sure I buy that, certainly there are other revenue streams available that come with finishing 2nd every year as opposed to 17th.

Net profits aren't necessarily the best measure of economic gain either.

 

[Moomin]

I shudder to think if Moyes does leave in the summer, and we end up with a dud manager like Mike Walker.With the proceeds of the sales of Felli and Baines he signs complete flops.

Then, the majority of blues will want chance at boardroom level. At this moment in time, the majority of blues are just concerned about what happens on the pitch. The business side, does not concern them, going the match is an escape from the working week.

When Everton eventually does change ownership, i expect the full story will be told.

 

[Allezfan]

Not sure I buy that, certainly there are other revenue streams available that come with finishing 2nd every year as opposed to 17th.

Net profits aren't necessarily the best measure of economic gain either.

In 2010-11 Chelsea spent 190 million on wages, 6 and a half million on agents and ninety million on players. So nearly three hundred million on their playing staff.

As a reward they made 15 million in PL prize money (above their tv money and match tickets) and 38 million from reaching the later stages of the CL.

So deducting their rewards from their expenses they spent 233 million and finished 2nd.

In the same season wolves finished 17th, they spent 38 million on their wages, 1 million on agent and 14 million on transfers.

They earn 3 million in Pl prize money and the same tv money and match tickets as all the clubs.

So rewards minus expense from finishing 17th they spent 50 million.

All things being equal, Wolves make more money.

Football isn't a business. Chelsea spent 183 million more to earn 50 million more. And I don't think that their tickets and sponsorship would drop by 133 million if they did finish 17th.

It's more profitable to be crap than to be good. And yet noone goes that route.

 

[pfim]

Ehh...

First, acquiring players is a capital expenditure, not an expense.

Second, You're ignoring all the commercial revenue, matchday revenue, merchandise sales etc that come with spending that money on players and playing in those competitions.

Third, Chelsea isn't run as a business. I don't know that anyone has stated that (I'm late to the game here) but I certainly wouldn't. Not ALL clubs are run as businesses.

ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal, all run as businesses with an eye towards future cash flows.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Football isn't a business. Chelsea spent 183 million more to earn 50 million more. And I don't think that their tickets and sponsorship would drop by 133 million if they did finish 17th.

It's more profitable to be crap than to be good. And yet noone goes that route.

Using Chelsea as an example to back up your point is ridiculous, as they're not a business & no-one has claimed they are. They're a Russian Billionaires real life Championship manager game.

It is not more 'profitable' to be crap, it's just that most outspend trying to keep pace with sides that are operating outside of reality i.e. Chelsea & City.

I could take you to a Championship club that could be yours for less than £1M. Employ the right manager, spend say £5M (as QPR did) on players & you could be in the big time, with £60M TV cash guaranteed for at least 1 season & 3 years of parachute payments even if you fail......No money to made in football? naive I'm afraid.

 

[LITLEJOE]

maybe its just me, but Everton are a massive prem football club, great support, great old stadium /needs a face lift/great manager,some great players,top 8 most seasons.

the only problem is the board and a greedy chairman whos ****e at running a football club.

we are a great club to buy and run propley by a board with ambition and a plan we could be right up there ....its just the asking price.

 

[Allezfan]

ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal, all run as businesses with an eye towards future cash flows.

They're not though. Liverpool and Man U could be in the second division and they'd still get huge crowds and massive sponsorship deals. The huge ammount of money they invest into their team isn't done to make a profit. Because ultimately the money you make from finishing even 1st over 17th is vastly outnumbered by the money you have to spend to get there.

 

[Allezfan]

It is not more 'profitable' to be crap, it's just that most outspend trying to keep pace with sides that are operating outside of reality i.e. Chelsea & City.-

I could take you to a Championship club that could be yours for less than £1M. Employ the right manager, spend say £5M (as QPR did) on players & you could be in the big time, with £60M TV cash guaranteed for at least 1 season & 3 years of parachute payments even if you fail......No money to made in football? naive I'm afraid.

Exactly a proper businessman wouldn't try and compete with those boys. Their only footballing aim would be to finish 17th and get the TV money and that would be the same if they owned Man U as if they owned Oldham.

You want an actual example of a football club run as a buisness? Blackpool are it.

But even in a club like that or Alan Sugar's Spurs the money they gain is nothing compared to the money they'd gain if they had put it in a non footballing business instead. Even the biggest football clubs don't make profits which are significant compared to real buisnesses.

If you're trying to make a profit, you don't buy a football club.

 

[pfim]

They're not though. Liverpool and Man U could be in the second division and they'd still get huge crowds and massive sponsorship deals. The huge ammount of money they invest into their team isn't done to make a profit. Because ultimately the money you make from finishing even 1st over 17th is vastly outnumbered by the money you have to spend to get there.

You've put the cart before the horse there. If they didn't have all that success, which was built on spending on players and winning trophies, they wouldn't have those opportunities. Money from Asia and the US? Gone. Money from ticket sales? Slashed. Spending is what drives that demand.

Can't believe I just had to type that. I mean, really?

 

[Allezfan]

Using Chelsea as an example to back up your point is ridiculous, as they're not a business & no-one has claimed they are. They're a Russian Billionaires real life Championship manager game.

Okay fine lets look at Spurs and Liverpool who finished 5th and 6th that year and so missed out on the CL.

They earned a few million from making the EL and 8-9 million more in Pl prize money. And probably about twenty million more in sponsorship and match tickets.

They spent 66 and 87 million more on playing staff to get there (wages, agent fees, transfer fees etc).

Being good is less profitable than just not getting relegated.

 

[kenada_blue]

Using Chelsea as an example to back up your point is ridiculous, as they're not a business & no-one has claimed they are. They're a Russian Billionaires real life Championship manager game.

It is not more 'profitable' to be crap, it's just that most outspend trying to keep pace with sides that are operating outside of reality i.e. Chelsea & City.

I could take you to a Championship club that could be yours for less than £1M. Employ the right manager, spend say £5M (as QPR did) on players & you could be in the big time, with £60M TV cash guaranteed for at least 1 season & 3 years of parachute payments even if you fail......No money to made in football? naive I'm afraid.

Have to agree.

To be fair, your club ie business doesnt have have to make money for its custodians and owners to make money themselves.

 

[Allezfan]

You've put the cart before the horse there. If they didn't have all that success, which was built on spending on players and winning trophies, they wouldn't have those opportunities. Money from Asia and the US? Gone. Money from ticket sales? Slashed. Spending is what drives that demand.

Can't believe I just had to type that. I mean, really?

Right but we're not talking about building a club from scratch. We're talking about someone buying a club and then running it as a business to make the biggest profit and if you're buying a club with a huge fanbase already like Man u and liverpool you don't need to win stuff to get those guys on board.

If henry, glazer etc really were running their clubs as business man the first thing they'd do would be to sell all their players except just enough to keep them in the league, milk the profits like that for a few years and then sell to someone else before the fans lynched them.