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

[Walken]

Absolutely , I'm glad we signed pienaar as a footballing deal but explain to me how that deal fits into any business model because clearly it doesn't . Whatever you write though mate and I think although light-hearted it's probably spot on others will point the finger and say "yeah but it could be worse we could be Pompey or Blackburn " or truly staggeringly "Chelsea " .

We have so many fans that would happily starve in the tent rather than take a risk of going outside because well "who knows what's out there"

the current trend to use Chelsea as an example to support our own dreadful regime, though a welcome break from the Portsmouth argument, is truly staggering

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Absolutely , I'm glad we signed pienaar as a footballing deal but explain to me how that deal fits into any business model because clearly it doesn't . Whatever you write though mate and I think although light-hearted it's probably spot on others will point the finger and say "yeah but it could be worse we could be Pompey or Blackburn " or truly staggeringly "Chelsea " .

We have so many fans that would happily starve in the tent rather than take a risk of going outside because well "who knows what's out there"

Taking risks can be good.

But taking a risk for the sake of it is generally a poor approach to take.

Any change has to be carefully considered and any action to be taken has to be done with as much protection for the club itself as absolutely possible.

Just because some people aren't happy to leap feet first into the ocean doesn't mean they're wrong. Some people, me included, would prefer to dip their toe in first before slowly easing themselves in.

Just because they have a different attitude to change doesn't make them wrong or scared. It just makes them more cautious and less willing to take a gamble when the future of a club they love is possibly on the line.

Surely you can see that?

 

[Allezfan]

Taking risks can be good.

But taking a risk for the sake of it is generally a poor approach to take.

Any change has to be carefully considered and any action to be taken has to be done with as much protection for the club itself as absolutely possible.

Just because some people aren't happy to leap feet first into the ocean doesn't mean they're wrong. Some people, me included, would prefer to dip their toe in first before slowly easing themselves in.

Just because they have a different attitude to change doesn't make them wrong or scared. It just makes them more cautious and less willing to take a gamble when the future of a club they love is possibly on the line.

Surely you can see that?

If the current situation isn't working, then you have to change it though. Sticking with a failing regime is every bit as much a risky choice as bringing in a failing regime and every bit as damaging.

 

[zirc]

14 years mate. That's enough time to consider risks and although there have been a few disastrous examples like Blackburn and Portsmouth, most of the clubs that have changed hands in that time have done so for the better.

I'm also not sure why Villa is held up as an example of a failed takeover. If Moyes got even half of the money O'Neill squandered we'd be perennial CL competitors.

 

[sheeds]

Taking risks can be good.

But taking a risk for the sake of it is generally a poor approach to take.

Any change has to be carefully considered and any action to be taken has to be done with as much protection for the club itself as absolutely possible.

Just because some people aren't happy to leap feet first into the ocean doesn't mean they're wrong. Some people, me included, would prefer to dip their toe in first before slowly easing themselves in.

Just because they have a different attitude to change doesn't make them wrong or scared. It just makes them more cautious and less willing to take a gamble when the future of a club they love is possibly on the line.

Surely you can see that?

I'm not suggesting we sell to the 'first bloke in a bedsit' that comes along. I am saying that the current , and I use the term loosely , business plan is unsustainable . The idea that change must be dismissed because its bad seems ridiculous this is the mentality that keeps failing marriages and governments going and even dictators in power. I'm not dismissing people who are concerned about change that's absolutely natural and we'd be mad not to be but it's also mad to stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best.

 

[Dell Boy]

Foul and abusive yet again Dell, no need lad, this forum welcomes unusual/novel opinions from the likes of yourself and other business/industry leaders if you can just restrain the language. Which were the other clubs damaged by the NTL failure btw ?

I'm not being abusive. You're taking on this pathetic childish line of attack time after time and it's getting very tiresome.

 

[Allezfan]

I'm not suggesting we sell to the 'first bloke in a bedsit' that comes along. I am saying that the current , and I use the term loosely , business plan is unsustainable . The idea that change must be dismissed because its bad seems ridiculous this is the mentality that keeps failing marriages and governments going and even dictators in power. I'm not dismissing people who are concerned about change that's absolutely natural and we'd be mad not to be but it's also mad to stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best.

Yeah, even kenwright says that we can't compete with the current model and that his main priority is to sell the club to someone else.

I don't see how you can support the current board, when even the current board don't.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Yeah, even kenwright says that we can't compete with the current model and that his main priority is to sell the club to someone else.

I don't see how you can support the current board, when even the current board don't.

there's a difference between not supporting them and assembling a lynch mob though and some people on this forum can't seem the tell the difference.

I think if the anti Kenwright stance was a little more balanced and slightly less abusive, most people would probably see the argument.

A lot of people are seemingly getting defensive due to the fact that even though the current model isn't working, there doesn't appear to be a decent answer on the horizon other than selling to the "right" person and, ultiimately, how the fudge do you know who the right person is until you sell it and they either do well or do poorly?

That's scary dude. That's why stuff like Blackburn is on people's minds, because we've seen it happen before and it's freaking them out that it could happen to us.

It probably won't. Idiots like Venky's are a special breed of idiot that rarely come along. Doesn't stop me worrying that someone like that will buy the club and sink it.

At least we're floating right now, even if we're treading water

There's still time to fix things for the moment as well. No need to be sticking Kenwright's head on a pike just yet.

 

[Groucho]

Lads, disagree (or agree) with eachother by all means, but the aggression apparent further above stops now, or infractions then suspensions will follow.

 

[Chang Elephant]

I'm not being abusive. You're taking on this pathetic childish line of attack time after time and it's getting very tiresome.

Abusive again Dell. I'm a forum contributor, not some lower level management lackey you can kick around in your Top 100 corporate boardroom. Which were the other clubs damaged by the NTL failure ?

 

[Groucho]

Lads, disagree (or agree) with eachother by all means, but the aggression apparent further above stops now, or infractions then suspensions will follow.

Benefit of the doubt given as it was probably being typed as I was posting - stop the personal squabbles pronto.

 

[D410]

So then, nothing changed on the GOT poll. How long has that been running now? The SOS survey will be out soon they had a big response i understand.

 

[Brennan]

there's a difference between not supporting them and assembling a lynch mob though and some people on this forum can't seem the tell the difference.

I think if the anti Kenwright stance was a little more balanced and slightly less abusive, most people would probably see the argument.

A lot of people are seemingly getting defensive due to the fact that even though the current model isn't working, there doesn't appear to be a decent answer on the horizon other than selling to the "right" person and, ultiimately, how the fudge do you know who the right person is until you sell it and they either do well or do poorly?

That's scary dude. That's why stuff like Blackburn is on people's minds, because we've seen it happen before and it's freaking them out that it could happen to us.

It probably won't. Idiots like Venky's are a special breed of idiot that rarely come along. Doesn't stop me worrying that someone like that will buy the club and sink it.

At least we're floating right now, even if we're treading water

There's still time to fix things for the moment as well. No need to be sticking Kenwright's head on a pike just yet.

Why is Blackburn on people's minds more than:

Chelsea
Man City
Liverpool
Sunderland
Newcastle
Stoke
Villa
Arsenal

All of whom have current owners that financially backed the squad more than Kenwright. The only reason Villa are in trouble is because O'Neill spunked money up the wall. Same thing happened with Sunderland, lots of transfer money given and lots of transfer money wasted.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Why is Blackburn on people's minds more than:

Chelsea
Man City
Liverpool
Sunderland
Newcastle
Stoke
Villa
Arsenal

All of whom have current owners that financially backed the squad more than Kenwright. The only reason Villa are in trouble is because O'Neill spunked money up the wall. Same thing happened with Sunderland, lots of transfer money given and lots of transfer money wasted.

Blackburn is the extreme end of the spectrum and it's always the extreme's that rest on your mind.

That and Portsmouth are "worst case scenario's" and some people, like me, worry about those kind of things

 

[njligernj]

I think if the anti Kenwright stance was a little more balanced and slightly less abusive, most people would probably see the argument.

Okay here is a slightly different take (although one which has probably been made already):

I would welcome a takeover from someone smart even if they had less money than BK.*

Of course this person would be another "custodian" type who will hopefully just keep the club Euro competitive long enough for a big money takeover. (This is also a hypothetical and doesn't address if BK would sell to a person like this ... which I don't think he would.)

However I believe (as do many on this side of the aisle) that the club has been mismanaged independent of financial concerns. We all talk about needing money (most people don't fantasize about a mildly positive event -- if we're going to daydream it will be about a billionaire showing up) but I'd be happy with someone who was more capable of squeezing every last penny out of this club's potential.

I think there is an extra 5-10m a year out there which with the right people in charge we could grab.

Lack of money is the most glaring and obvious problem with the current regime but it's FAR from the only problem.

That said it's hardly an exciting prospect compared with getting a billionaire so it's rarely mentioned. Ideally you need three things: a great manager, smart owners and lots of money. We've gotten pretty far on a manager; if we could have a great manager *and* a super smart owner we might be able to close the gap a little more (but we'd still need money eventually to compete at the highest levels).

*Less money is effectively the same money as BK because the club runs on its own revenue ... my point is whether the person has the same, less or slightly more they don't have to be a billionaire to improve us.