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

[davek]

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.

The Liverpool example you give there: we know that the debt repayment plan by H&G was not an ideal way of operating to say the least. But the primary problem there was that a manager pissed hundreds of million of pounds up against the wall and failed to push the club on where it matters - on the field of play. Besides, Liverpool are now in new hands and we judge their probable fate on what's in store going forward. If you dont, you may as well say that Shinawatra's takeover at City should be the benchmark for the way we now view Man City. Arsenal have had the luxury of being able to follow a self-generating strategy because they've always had the fallback position of relying on Usmanov's plans to underwite the club's debt - run up through building the Emirates...something a club like Everton would dearly love to have.

"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."

This bit's a joke isn't it? You think the club has been run in a stable way - running up record debts, selling off assets, and now finding itself in the position of having no credit?

 

[davek]

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.

I dont see what you're driving at here. If you go with a takeover you run up debt; if you stick with what owners you have you also run up debt. We are up to our eyes in debt - what Kenwright has done has been to leverage money from banks on the strength of selling assets on a regular basis - and the overall strategy has been to get a new stadium built by others to increase the value of his and his cohort's shares. How is this fundamentally different to what we are usually pointed toward as examples of carpet bagging interlopers buying up other PL clubs?

I'm failing to see the argument with sticking with what you have here.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Dave has created a ****storm of apologism here.

Desperadoes prepared to use paragraph after paragraph avoiding this board's failings.

Just three more wins and you can forecast Matt Damon will once again rejoin the defence of the indefensible.

 

[Neiler]

I dont see what you're driving at here. If you go with a takeover you run up debt; if you stick with what owners you have you also run up debt. We are up to our eyes in debt - what Kenwright has done has been to leverage money from banks on the strength of selling assets on a regular basis - and the overall strategy has been to get a new stadium built by others to increase the value of his and his cohort's shares. How is this fundamentally different to what we are usually pointed toward as examples of carpet bagging interlopers buying up other PL clubs?

I'm failing to see the argument with sticking with what you have here.

Your presumeing im argueing for sticking, i think clearly progress has been made, i feel now we have hit a glass ceiling with little oppurtunity to grow organicly, either without investment or a new strategy like DK or KD. We dont need a takeover to be dropping 100 mill on players - although this is the popular if not short sighted view.

But i think you say it best when you say "If you go with a takeover you run up debt; if you stick with what owners you have you also run up debt." that is why the dynamics of any investment/takeover are so crucial - which i think is Leon's point here. Either side of the debate isnt black/white, good/bad it depends on the detail of whatever deal and buissness plan of the incumbents. Clearly there have been some positive takeovers in the PL clearly there have been some really poor ones that have torpedoed clubs. The balance of the debate on the positves and negatives for us rest on th dynamic of any potential deal rather than a takeover being good or bad, meaning we are reliant on the present shareholders to do the right thing by the club.

Frankly i think its a moot debate, good/bad in/out - shake it all about, its my opinion there is no substantial intrest in Everton if im honest, as much as it causes us pain.

 

[Silas]

It's my opinion that there is no interest either right now. The question though is has there been? And why isn't there?

 

[Matt Damon]

Dave has created a ****storm of apologism here.

Desperadoes prepared to use paragraph after paragraph avoiding this board's failings.

Just three more wins and you can forecast Matt Damon will once again rejoin the defence of the indefensible.

I don't think so.

My reasons for criticism of Kenwright and are well defined. Nothing to do with Moyes. Purely because of Kenwright signing the "exclusivity agreement" and then having no other plan for capacity increases are major criticisms.

As it has led to sluggish revenue growth particularly around the stadium.


Purely Kenwright et al's fault. And that is hampering the manager.


So kindly don't be bringing M Damon's name up in the middle of a conversation where Damon's not said anything. Cheers.

 

[davek]

Your presumeing im argueing for sticking, i think clearly progress has been made, i feel now we have hit a glass ceiling with little oppurtunity to grow organicly, either without investment or a new strategy like DK or KD. We dont need a takeover to be dropping 100 mill on players - although this is the popular if not short sighted view.

But i think you say it best when you say "If you go with a takeover you run up debt; if you stick with what owners you have you also run up debt." that is why the dynamics of any investment/takeover are so crucial - which i think is Leon's point here. Either side of the debate isnt black/white, good/bad it depends on the detail of whatever deal and buissness plan of the incumbents. Clearly there have been some positive takeovers in the PL clearly there have been some really poor ones that have torpedoed clubs. The balance of the debate on the positves and negatives for us rest on th dynamic of any potential deal rather than a takeover being good or bad, meaning we are reliant on the present shareholders to do the right thing by the club.

Frankly i think its a moot debate, good/bad in/out - shake it all about, its my opinion there is no substantial intrest in Everton if im honest, as much as it causes us pain.

Agreed.

That's all that's being argued for at the end of the day - an open mind.

 

[edge]

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.

I answerd you question in the first few words of my post , you said only two clubs had done better by being taken over, i pointed out every club above us has been taken over and all the others had done better since being bought out , and all have new grounds or vastly improved grounds in the time of kenwright being on are board. i take on board there are indeed some snakes out the and no matter what i think of bill as a chairman he is a blue, but thats not all thats needed to run are club, and i think his greatest legacy will be that he has lowered everton fans expectations to believe simply surviving mid table is some badge of honor.
i admit im getting bitter with this board but its only because i want the best for the club and this lot will never give us that, were going round in circles here mate so im going to give it a miss or we will fill page after page of tit for tat arguement

 

[sirblue57]

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.

i have never said sell to the first bidder, i want bill to actually put the club up for sale and employ someone to do it, someone the supporters can see and believe, is doing the job. my problem with BK came around DK, im no genius, but to see the flaws in the debacle was to easy. then the lies/spin/misinformation. and since then i have been unable to trust a word he says.
as for the AGMs, is it any wonder he wont put himself in a position to be questioned over his accumulated failures, would you?.

 

[edge]

i have never said sell to the first bidder, i want bill to actually put the club up for sale and employ someone to do it, someone the supporters can see and believe, is doing the job. my problem with BK came around DK, im no genius, but to see the flaws in the debacle was to easy. then the lies/spin/misinformation. and since then i have been unable to trust a word he says.
as for the AGMs, is it any wonder he wont put himself in a position to be questioned over his accumulated failures, would you?.

tony b off here was the fella that asked him about the sale of the club and bill said he was bored talking about that, tony b and bluefox were both shareholders ask them if bill will talk openly about are club.

 

[sirblue57]

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.

absolute rubbish, name one team thats been bought out that has been as poorly run,financially,as everton. this club has een mismanaged since the 80s, a total lack of investment off the pitch has seen us spiral towards mediocrity. and this board is no better, in fact ,its worse. TWO failed ground moves,and to much other stuff to go into again. you go on about the first snake to wriggle, look in the boardroom, its full of them.

 

[chicoazul]

I'm trying to find the words to describe this girl without being disrespectful...


DANGYURL.

 

[neonleon]

absolute rubbish, name one team thats been bought out that has been as poorly run,financially,as everton. this club has een mismanaged since the 80s, a total lack of investment off the pitch has seen us spiral towards mediocrity. and this board is no better, in fact ,its worse. TWO failed ground moves,and to much other stuff to go into again. you go on about the first snake to wriggle, look in the boardroom, its full of them.

well done, starting a post with the words absolute rubbish.

as for naming a team that has been run in the same manner as Everton, I can name several clubs that have been run much worse.

Portsmouth.

Charlton.

Southampton.

Ipswich.

Hull.

Carlisle.

Barnsley.

Oldham.

Derby.

Leicester.

Chester.

Newport County.

Swansea.

Swindon.

There are many more.

I know we need new owners. Painting the current ones as the anti-christ isn't for me part of the solution.

 

[Elong]

Leeds United

 

[Neiler]

West Ham.