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

[davek]

every club above us has been sold at some piont,stoke are miles better under new owners as are,qpr ,notts forest ,leciester leeds ,even blackpool since the got new ownwer are all in better shape since being bought out an , even the red****e are on the up,pompy was a land grab deal,newcastle is run crap, but its till dosnt get away from the fact they have all been sold when we are supposed to be for sale.
are ticket prices do go up as well, and would do even more so if the demand was greater,we dont have a waiting list loads of the higher ticket priced clubs do.
What have this lot done to be held up as some shining light two failed ground moves, nothing done to improve goodison, the debt has gone up since they have been in charge,neterley ,bellfield sold , the land for finch farm bought of the council then sold on, to then be, hired back at a cost of a million pounds a year for fifty years, or buy for 17 million after so many years, for something that cost less than eight million pounds to build including buying the land of us. and take a look at the subs bench if you think its all rosy player wise at goodison,and lets look forward to the summer which will see next to no net spend on players like the last few, if that all good for you fine i cant make you change your mind , but a lot of people are getting fed up with them , season ticket sales are down whats going to get them going back up if we stay the same.

Cracking post mate. And that bit in bold: Elstone sounded proud of that in the forum he took part in this week. It's as though he's holding it up as a sign of his no holds barred 'honesty'...and some blues actually praised him for it! Daft bastards.

 

[BlackToffee]

to work in the best interests of the club. they could do this by;
1) actually being open about selling the club instead of the mixed messages they put out, Re; investment
2) stop lying/misleading the fans
3) come up with a workable business plan, the one they have been using is fatally flawed
4) bring back the AGMs and actually engage the supporters, get them back onside.
5) realise WHY the fanbase are split,and face up to the fact they have failed , big time, in so many projects.
6) and most pertinant, STOP talking about investment, if thats what they want then no-one is going to give a penny while TWO billionaires sit on the board with wallets closed. if the clubs for sale say so.

or put simply be honest, its the one thing they have not tried as yet.

You've not actually answered the central question posed by Neonleon about selling to the first buyer who comes along. Unlike Davek who would sell to anyone so long as Kenwright has gone, I won't respond to each point as they are all contentious. For example, the AGM. I would like Everton to restore an AGM, but not if it means that idiots can call EGM's to ask the same question which have been responded to time and time again, but the questioner doesn't like the answers.

If the anti board faction really want to make our great club out to be like the idiots from Newcastle great, but they shouldn't be surprised if the mass of Evertonians turn against them as they appear to be more bent on destroying the clubs image than trying to lift it up.

It also amazes me that while Kenwright is so distrusted by some, that he is trusted to sell the club to a honest investor. Quite strange.

 

[Neiler]

Just out of curiosty, what do people think would have happened to Everton if Bill/Tbh hadn't of taken over? What would have happened and where would we be now?

 

[davek]

Just out of curiosty, what do people think would have happened to Everton if Bill/Tbh hadn't of taken over? What would have happened and where would we be now?

Johnson would have sold to someone eventually. Anyone who remembers the period will know he was under massive pressure from the authorities to sell. The sale to Kenwright and Gregg wasn't the big problem - the problem was that Kenwright wouldn't move to stage two of the buyout and allow fresh blood in to secure the Kings Dock and our future. He's been a dead hand on the club ever since.

 

[chicoazul]

Just out of curiosty, what do people think would have happened to Everton if Bill/Tbh hadn't of taken over? What would have happened and where would we be now?

We'd be top of the league with Tim Krul in goal, Jack Rodwell twice the player he is and Barton driving everything from midfield.

 

[Chang Elephant]

It also amazes me that while Kenwright is so distrusted by some, that he is trusted to sell the club to a honest investor.

He is trusted to sell for the highest return, nothing else.

 

[BlackToffee]

He is trusted to sell for the highest return, nothing else.

That would be the honest john from Notts County would it?

If Johnson had stayed we would be in Division 3. Or is it my imagination that we were always relegation fodder under his rein?

 

[neonleon]

every club above us has been sold at some piont,stoke are miles better under new owners as are,qpr ,notts forest ,leciester leeds ,even blackpool since the got new ownwer are all in better shape since being bought out an , even the red****e are on the up,pompy was a land grab deal,newcastle is run crap, but its till dosnt get away from the fact they have all been sold when we are supposed to be for sale.
are ticket prices do go up as well, and would do even more so if the demand was greater,we dont have a waiting list loads of the higher ticket priced clubs do.
What have this lot done to be held up as some shining light two failed ground moves, nothing done to improve goodison, the debt has gone up since they have been in charge,neterley ,bellfield sold , the land for finch farm bought of the council then sold on, to then be, hired back at a cost of a million pounds a year for fifty years, or buy for 17 million after so many years, for something that cost less than eight million pounds to build including buying the land of us. and take a look at the subs bench if you think its all rosy player wise at goodison,and lets look forward to the summer which will see next to no net spend on players like the last few, if that all good for you fine i cant make you change your mind , but a lot of people are getting fed up with them , season ticket sales are down whats going to get them going back up if we stay the same.

Liverpool is a good example you mention. Solid top four champions league club until they sold it to the first couple of investors who promised a new stadium and the league title. Result, court case, fans needing to be mobilised, all the rest, just to get their club back. Newcastle as you say is run crap. But that came from the new owner. Mike Ashley ran it like a spoilt fan - result relegation. Even Chelsea above us would probably be doing better if it wasn't for the rumoured regular intervention into team recruitment and starting formations and team lineups by abromavich.

And the point I made and you deftly swerved, only two clubs are doing better than us in the league thanks to takeovers. Two. Out of 45 other clubs in the top two divisions. Yes much of this success is to do with the manager but its the job of a successful chairman to provide three key factors - stability, investment and hiring the right manager. In two of those departments Kenwright has been nigh on perfect and in one of them he has been fundamentally flawed.

Lets not paint new ownership as a silver bullet though. It isn't. We can prove that empirically by looking at the league. Yes other clubs have been bought. It's a financial reality that people don't buy clubs because of the manager in situ but because of things like modern stadiums being in place, having exclusive catchment areas to market (newcastle, leeds), low debts, high media profile - all things we lack. Maybe Kenwright is a bit precious but I prefer that to him blindly selling to the first snake to wriggle out of the grass.

 

[Neiler]

This is the thing, no one would have touched us back then, no one will prob touch us now - as much as people are furious over investment - investors aren't interested in everton!

To be fair the current regime has made us at least competitive! it's interesting and possibly very likely we would be in a different division if tbh hadn't stept in!

 

[bourneblue]

every club above us has been sold at some piont,stoke are miles better under new owners as are,qpr ,notts forest ,leciester leeds ,even blackpool since the got new ownwer are all in better shape since being bought out an , even the red****e are on the up,pompy was a land grab deal,newcastle is run crap, but its till dosnt get away from the fact they have all been sold when we are supposed to be for sale.
are ticket prices do go up as well, and would do even more so if the demand was greater,we dont have a waiting list loads of the higher ticket priced clubs do.
What have this lot done to be held up as some shining light two failed ground moves, nothing done to improve goodison, the debt has gone up since they have been in charge,neterley ,bellfield sold , the land for finch farm bought of the council then sold on, to then be, hired back at a cost of a million pounds a year for fifty years, or buy for 17 million after so many years, for something that cost less than eight million pounds to build including buying the land of us. and take a look at the subs bench if you think its all rosy player wise at goodison,and lets look forward to the summer which will see next to no net spend on players like the last few, if that all good for you fine i cant make you change your mind , but a lot of people are getting fed up with them , season ticket sales are down whats going to get them going back up if we stay the same.

When where newcastle sold ?

 

[neonleon]

When where newcastle sold ?

May to june 2007.

 

[davek]

Liverpool is a good example you mention. Solid top four champions league club until they sold it to the first couple of investors who promised a new stadium and the league title. Result, court case, fans needing to be mobilised, all the rest, just to get their club back. Newcastle as you say is run crap. But that came from the new owner. Mike Ashley ran it like a spoilt fan - result relegation. Even Chelsea above us would probably be doing better if it wasn't for the rumoured regular intervention into team recruitment and starting formations and team lineups by abromavich.

And the point I made and you deftly swerved, only two clubs are doing better than us in the league thanks to takeovers. Two. Out of 45 other clubs in the top two divisions. Yes much of this success is to do with the manager but its the job of a successful chairman to provide three key factors - stability, investment and hiring the right manager. In two of those departments Kenwright has been nigh on perfect and in one of them he has been fundamentally flawed.

Lets not paint new ownership as a silver bullet though. It isn't. We can prove that empirically by looking at the league. Yes other clubs have been bought. It's a financial reality that people don't buy clubs because of the manager in situ but because of things like modern stadiums being in place, having exclusive catchment areas to market (newcastle, leeds), low debts, high media profile - all things we lack. Maybe Kenwright is a bit precious but I prefer that to him blindly selling to the first snake to wriggle out of the grass.

Very unconvincing response to edge's post, imo. He's given you a list of teams that have been steadied and now progress with a takeover behind them. But just to indulge you on your criteria for takeover comparisons with Everton (the teams above us): you can add to Man City and Chelsea the names of Spurs (ENIC), and Arsenal (from 2007 when Usmanov and Kroenke got involved they now own 88% of that club between them - a takeover by any reasonable reckoning), and now Liverpool appear to have steadied the ship and look like moving forward under new ownership. So, that's...erm...all of those above us that have had takeovers and are doing better than us (United obviously didn't require a takeover to do better than us).

This argument against takeover's is pretty lame in all honesty, it relies on a couple of unrepresentative bogeymen examples.

 

[neonleon]

Very unconvincing response to edge's post, imo. He's given you a list of teams that have been steadied and now progress with a takeover behind them. But just to indulge you on your criteria for takeover comparisons with Everton (the teams above us): you can add to Man City and Chelsea the names of Spurs (ENIC), and Arsenal (from 2007 when Usmanov and Kroenke got involved they now own 88% of that club between them - a takeover by any reasonable reckoning), and now Liverpool appear to have steadied the ship and look like moving forward under new ownership. So, that's...erm...all of those above us that have had takeovers and are doing better than us (United obviously didn't require a takeover to do better than us).

This argument against takeover's is pretty lame in all honesty, it relies on a couple of unrepresentative bogeymen examples.

It relies on about 30 clubs below us not a couple. Liverpool is not a good example as they went from a champions league club to the same level as we are at thanks to a takeover - regardless of a new owner now saving the sinking ship. Arsenal's takeover which is tantamount to movement of shares has been so gradual and progressive it's not had any major impact on the side. I didn't follow Spurs takeover so I can't comment but I'll give you them (unless someone knows something I don't about spurs).

If you want to use Liverpool then we should glibly accept a leveraged buyout and have to go down to the high court and try and win our club back from some speculative owners? Liverpool were midtable when this happened. Chances are we'd be relegation material if that happened to us.

Stability, investment and hiring and keeping a good manager. These are the key points for success.

Kenwright is only at fault for one of these factors. Moyes continuously cites Kenwright as a reason for his success here - the platform he has provided, the lack of interference, the trust and faith.

That the majority of take-overs fail to produce on the pitch results and only result in more aggressive marketing and higher ticket prices is obviously a truth (in the majority of cases) that doesn't sit well with your agenda. Maybe it's that that needs changing.

We need investment or new owners, but we should proceed with caution, as the results are there for most to see.

 

[Neiler]

Very unconvincing response to edge's post, imo. He's given you a list of teams that have been steadied and now progress with a takeover behind them. But just to indulge you on your criteria for takeover comparisons with Everton (the teams above us): you can add to Man City and Chelsea the names of Spurs (ENIC), and Arsenal (from 2007 when Usmanov and Kroenke got involved they now own 88% of that club between them - a takeover by any reasonable reckoning), and now Liverpool appear to have steadied the ship and look like moving forward under new ownership. So, that's...erm...all of those above us that have had takeovers and are doing better than us (United obviously didn't require a takeover to do better than us).

This argument against takeover's is pretty lame in all honesty, it relies on a couple of unrepresentative bogeymen examples.

Lets be honest there are very few clubs who are in a healthy financial position with a take over or without, even the biggest clubs carry a massive amout of debt im includeing Utd, City, Chelsea and Arsenal here - the whole system is rotten to the core if your looking at it from a buissness point of view.

Anyone who takes over a football club is either a very bad buissness man, an ego maniac or a supporter of the club and is prepared to make a loss. Possibly the only way to make money out of a football club is to sell it for more then you paid for it, that in itself is a risky buissness, taking us as an example, money needs to be ploughed into a stadium, players/wages etc. There is always the threat of relgation and a wiping out of your asset with poor decions or an injury crisis, while fans expectaions have to met post takeover.

Lets be honest very few clubs who have been taken over or not are anywhere near a healthy financial situation, in fact Leon is right many are worse of with a takeover, if your looking at things systemicaly/long term in regard to a club rather then a team: look at last years figures in terms of PL Debt/Turnover/Wages/Ratio - the whole thing is like a cancer riddleing through the game, in fact football exists in a massive credit bubble - not unsimilar to the world financial crash we have expierenced in the last few years. That economy will have highs and lows, an arguement could be put forward that a massive crash could be in the offing, its just a matter of time.

Im not against investment/takeover per say, but i much prefer a model of self sustainability - perhaps investment can assist us in that in terms of the clubs infrasturcture and growing organic revenue, i would much prefer a 200mill new stadium then 200mill on players, i do think the dynamics of investment/takeover are important which is Leons point, hes right a takeover isnt the answer to everything, in fact it can be more bad then not, its all about the detail.

 

[neonleon]

This is the problem with investors.

Its either a vanity project from some usually foreign oligarch, a group of shyster investors looking to turn a quick buck on something that is beloved of a community, or based on unworkable business models.

The players get far too much wages. And often people wont pay what are already ludicrous ticket prices, if they go any higher.

Combined with paying interest on unsustainable debts and stadiums no longer fit for purpose (the corporate hospitality suites - the only growth area seemingly in the whole model) it's hard to see why anyone would want to invest.

We can only hope somone would see the benefit of Everton if it were a champions league club and invest to get them there, on the back of one of the best managers in the game. It would be cheaper than most. 60 million could do it. But it doesn't work like this unfortunately. People don't invest because of good managers, they are seen as interchangeable.