We are not investor friendly

[BlackToffee]

Just been thinking about the Man City investment and I've come up with a few thoughts.

When an investor comes to a club they look for a going concern. They will look at the potential for growth and all the other business type things.

The only difference is that football often defies the normal laws of commerce. So to buy a club you would want to:

a) Ensure that you can pay off the debt (Investors can do that with Everron, but estimates put that up to £60m)

b) You would want a stadium already in place. Chelksi spent £500m on players alone to get to the top. We would be asking someone to pay £400m if not Kirkby for a "World class" stadium.

c) You would want to spend your money on getting success, and that would be a good manager, but more importantly world class players. Perhaps you'd have to invest around £60m on players for us to start with.

d) Any monies paid to buy out current investors. Heaven knows what that is off hand, but let's estimate £40m.

My very rough and ready calculations would mean an investor would need to pay £560m to own and develop the club.

Despite the fact that investors are rich, I really believe that no investor is going to pay £400m of their money (figure based on the rs stadium costs), so we are not a good investment, thus Kirkby.

This is not a pro kirkby thread. Just saying that the stadia issue will potentially block any meaningful investment, and the one thing that we don;t want an investor to do is load debt on the club like the rs and manure.

Until the issue is resolved, I think we can forget about an investor stepping in Man City style. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Kirkby is definitely the key in my opinion.

 

[Dejan79]

Just been thinking about the Man City investment and I've come up with a few thoughts.

When an investor comes to a club they look for a going concern. They will look at the potential for growth and all the other business type things.

The only difference is that football often defies the normal laws of commerce. So to buy a club you would want to:

a) Ensure that you can pay off the debt (Investors can do that with Everron, but estimates put that up to £60m)

b) You would want a stadium already in place. Chelksi spent £500m on players alone to get to the top. We would be asking someone to pay £400m if not Kirkby for a "World class" stadium.

c) You would want to spend your money on getting success, and that would be a good manager, but more importantly world class players. Perhaps you'd have to invest around £60m on players for us to start with.

d) Any monies paid to buy out current investors. Heaven knows what that is off hand, but let's estimate £40m.

My very rough and ready calculations would mean an investor would need to pay £560m to own and develop the club.

Despite the fact that investors are rich, I really believe that no investor is going to pay £400m of their money (figure based on the rs stadium costs), so we are not a good investment, thus Kirkby.

This is not a pro kirkby thread. Just saying that the stadia issue will potentially block any meaningful investment, and the one thing that we don;t want an investor to do is load debt on the club like the rs and manure.

Until the issue is resolved, I think we can forget about an investor stepping in Man City style. It ain't gonna happen.

Dont think stamford bridge and goodison are that different apart from a few posts here and there

 

[Makis]

b) You would want a stadium already in place. Chelksi spent £500m on players alone to get to the top. We would be asking someone to pay £400m if not Kirkby for a "World class" stadium.

Why? If someone wants to bankroll a CL win what would they need the new stadium for?

And where in the world did you get the 400 million? For 200 million you would turn Goodison Park into a world class stadium.

c) You would want to spend your money on getting success, and that would be a good manager, but more importantly world class players. Perhaps you'd have to invest around £60m on players for us to start with.

This is the clincher, to make Everton compete for the big titles (PL, CL) I'd say you need to invest in the region of 100-150 million minimum (100 million assumes almost faultless transfer policy, e.g. every signing is a success).

My very rough and ready calculations would mean an investor would need to pay £560m to own and develop the club.

Of course if you say we need to put a billion into the stadium, you would get an even bigger figure.

Despite the fact that investors are rich, I really believe that no investor is going to pay £400m of their money (figure based on the rs stadium costs), so we are not a good investment, thus Kirkby.

Kirkby is in no form a good deal, and it would have cost something like 150 million, so why would a stadium somewhere else cost 400 million? I mean, you could build a cowshed like that for 150-200 million, and if it's enough then why insist on 400 million? Either Kirbky is enough or it isn't. Which is it?

You don't need Emirates to win the PL or CL. In any case, Everton won't draw attendances of 60,000 - 70,000 until they have been succesful in the CL for a number of years, so it would be counter-productive to try to create the money to win the CL by building a stadium of that magnitude first.

Rather, update GP to 50,000 and improve facilities. Invest in the playing staff. Win a few CL's. THEN build the world class stadium, in maybe 10-15 years time. If you want a new stadium quicker, build it smaller initially but plan to expand. Key here is location and original design (it has to be good with reduced capacity and the expansion should fit in nicely).

Of course that's a pipe dream that will never happen, but no club does it in reverse order. Only successful teams build world class stadia.

 

[teppic]

one can only guess if they even considered us for a takeover.

but they didn't. so bollocks.

 

[Dejan79]

one can only guess if they even considered us for a takeover.

but they didn't. so bollocks.

there was an interview on sky with one of their representatives, he said they considered city the barcodes and one other who i cant remember

 

[Makis]

there was an interview on sky with one of their representatives, he said they considered city the barcodes and one other who i cant remember

They probably knew Everton wasn't for sale. If the stadium is the issue, why would they have been interested in Newcastle? As far as I know, they still play in SJP...

 

[teppic]

SJP? are newcastle looking to move? it hosts england games and holds 55k?

 

[kenada_blue]

I believe we are. I never used to be, but after what's happened to Citeh (2 billionaires in just over a year), we're the only top ten side without big financial backing.

Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle, Villa, Pompey (to a degree), Spurs, City, United, Chelsea all have got massive financial clout compared to us. Your top 4 clubs have debts in excess of £400million. Man Utd'd debt is in the 700million, as are Chelsea's, Arsenals is around 400million, the Shites is rising from 400mill too. Compared to our debt, its pocket change.

And those debts are brought on buy the investors because if the club can make ends meet (league postions, cups, chams league, selling of players for big money etc) that debt is managable in the scheme of things.

Maybe Kirkby would get the ball rolling quicker. But I'm sure there is someone out there just wanting to play Fantasy Football with a big club (like the Arabs with Citeh). I just think Kenwright is a bad judge of character and is scared of letting go to the wrong person.

I just believe this is our last season of getting the best out of what we got. Everyone around us is improving and we've stood still at the moment. We need investment or the club will slowly drop.

 

[BlackToffee]

This is not a pro or anti kirkby thread...

before people go off on a tangent about Kirkby, the point is not pro or anti Kirkby. Its about what will make people invest in our club, and to me a football stadia which they don't have to pay for is a key component.

All the clubs that have been brought have a stadia which doesn't have to be built. One or two are developing those stadia after some years (Madjeski, Portsmouth, if memory serves me correct).

Its not a kirkby thread....
its not a kirkby thread...
Now repeat after me....
Its not a kirkby thread....
its not a kirkby thread...

Ps You can tell I've got time on my hand, I'm working from home.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle, Villa, Pompey (to a degree), Spurs, City, United, Chelsea all have got massive financial clout compared to us. Your top 4 clubs have debts in excess of £400million. Man Utd'd debt is in the 700million, as are Chelsea's, Arsenals is around 400million, the Shites is rising from 400mill too. Compared to our debt, its pocket change.

And those debts are brought on buy the investors because if the club can make ends meet (league postions, cups, chams league, selling of players for big money etc) that debt is managable in the scheme of things.

But it only takes a serious run of bad luck before people come looking for their money. Plus, there comes a point where you have to balance books. You can't keep taking on more and more debt merely to remain a success on the pitch, surely? Why is football somehow not privy to the same laws as other economic ventures? I realise there is often egoism involved with the owners of these clubs. But these people are not going to spend billions over a lifetime just so they can boast a football club in their portfolio. And debts come from somewhere. At some point you pay back, with interest, what has been borrowed.

Or maybe I'm dangerously deluded. I've just got a feeling that some bubbles will burst in the not too distant future.

 

[kenada_blue]

True but those clubs have assets that could re-coup a large chunck of the debt if they should them. Players, stadiums, shares, facilities, and if all else fails you do a Leeds, go bankrupt and wipe clean all of your debts. Minus points all round, yes, but it gets everything down to zero.

Its all about managing debts. If those teams start to drop in the pecking order then they would find it hard, but could cope. Chelsea flogging 3 players for £20million eachand slashing a wage bill will or could take off close to a £100mill of outgoings. The [Poor language removed] could lose out big time, especially with Citeh on the scene. If they didnt qualify for the Champions League, they'd struggle a bit, they'd start to flog players.

Its all manageable if you have assets to sell. We would be okay I feel being our debt is low compared to clubs around us. Dont forget we're the 21st richest club in the world. How? I havent a clue but its official for some strange reason. So we cant be that much on our arse for investors to shy away from.

 

[davek]

If a buyer was there with limitless funds and being advised on the English game and the paramount importance of identity they'd push a major renovation of Goodison Park through. As supporters groups have shown, this can be done piecemeal, and with a major backer shouldering any loss of revenue in terms of a slight fall in capacity whilst building takes place this wouldn't be the problem for this stadium solution that's always levelled at it.

We are not for sale, though. That's what the club signed off on the Kirkby stadium deal with: no director is willing to sell their shares. Attracting investors isn't the problem, we know this because all other top club's have a major investor. Sorry Black Toffee, but the issue of Kirkby is central to this discussion because whilst it remains a possibility certain parties at the club wont consider selling.

 

[FCConnecticut]

I agree that getting the stadium issue sorted is key, if there is to be any hope, for investment. As a Yank I have new personal interested in where or how just that it gets sorted.

 

[BlackToffee]

If a buyer was there with limitless funds and being advised on the English game and the paramount importance of identity they'd push a major renovation of Goodison Park through. As supporters groups have shown, this can be done piecemeal, and with a major backer shouldering any loss of revenue in terms of a slight fall in capacity whilst building takes place this wouldn't be the problem for this stadium solution that's always levelled at it.

We are not for sale, though. That's what the club signed off on the Kirkby stadium deal with: no director is willing to sell their shares. Attracting investors isn't the problem, we know this because all other top club's have a major investor. Sorry Black Toffee, but the issue of Kirkby is central to this discussion because whilst it remains a possibility certain parties at the club wont consider selling.

I think that you have a point, but the point I was struggling to make is that a stadia per say is what is needed. Whether that be Kirkby, or a re-built GP, or a location within the boundaries. To me it doesn't matter where it is, it matters who builds and funds it.

In terms of Bill Kenwright, my own view is that he would welcome investment, but not a sale. He wants to do it in the same way that Parry has done by bringing in investment to the rs, but still holds a lot of the reins. Bill is terrified that letting go might turn the club over to people who have no interest in the history of the club. In a sense I would share those views.

Just heard a report about citeh. Their chief executive said "the name Dunn doesn't go down well in Beijing" -erm Dunn happens to be the citeh captain!!! Citeh is now no more than a play thing of a multi billionaire. I think Evertonians would want someone with a real feel for the club, and that might be a stumbling block.