Jump to content


Photo

Kenwright


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#81 Matt

Matt

    United we stand, divided we fall...

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,221 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 10:44

I like Bill and I make no secret of it. I have no problem with people who don't like him and put forward a rational argument as to why they don't like him. I do have a problem with people (few and far between on here but rife on other forums) who suggest he is in it to line his own pockets and that his search for investment is a smokescreen.


im with you here Mike. I like Bill, and love the fact that he is a blue. if you dont like him, at least come up with a decent arguement as to why not. im not going to repeat everything thats already been said, theres no point. Just dont forget, we got to where we are today with BKs help.

the mirror article is spot on too. i think that some evertonians got a taste of relative sucess, got greedy, want more and more but dont want to wait for it. i too want sucess, but im happy to wait for it, knowing that when it comes (and it will come) it will have been won through hard work and team work. it wont be a 'bought' sucess, which will carry so much more meaning to me....
  • 0

#82 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,210 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 11:04

But what's the alternative? He's not got any money to invest and DM needs cash to improve the squad. If he doesn't provide the funds everyone rants on that he must go because he's not backing the manager, if he does provide it (the only way he currently can) he's got to go because he's saddling the club with debt.
The man can't win :) .


:blink:

That's why I have the view that he needs to go, he doesn't have the finances to run a Championship club, nevermind a PL side.

Edited by Romey 1878, 19 Nov 2009 - 11:04.

  • 0

#83 duncanmckenzieismagic

duncanmckenzieismagic

    Howard Kendall

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,609 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 12:04

Pretty much implies not all, get it?



Lol " pretty much all of it" implies that you disagree with the vast majority of it so no I dont get it
  • 0

#84 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 12:35

Unspectacular progress behind the scenes? I think the amount of chief execs we have had in recent years points to something very spectacular behind the scenes - of which we do not know about. The steady progress you refer to is Moyes successful dealings in the bargain basement with success owing to a team spirit that at times has been built on a siege mentality. I can't see anything that has gone on from a commercial aspect that has made me think that anyone else is due plaudits. So if you know commercially what I do not know, please enlighten me. Again to repeat many a blue's opinion, the progress has been made in spite of, not because of Kenwright and co.

When players such as Arteta comment on the 'family' aspect of the club, again surely that is credit to Moyes, the backroom staff and the players, unless Mikel has a masters degree in econometrics and has been doing his bit to help out the guys in power suits who spend their days working out how to make our club profitable without sacrificing playing staff.


So where do you get this impression that it's 'us v them' in the Everton backroom, Moyes and his players versus the 'power suits', the former struggling endlessly to overcome the obstacles put in their way by their masters? Is that really how you think it is? Hasn't Moyes himself come out and said what a great, supportive chairman Kenwright is, how his relationship with his boss has been one of the major factors in him staying at Everton and in the team's rise up the Premier League? Do you suddenly not trust 'magician' Moyes's point of view on that, or do you just conveniently chose to forget that your idol is one of Kenwright's most vocal supporters at the club, and happens to be the manager? All this 'in spite of Kenwright' stuff is nonsense - give me one concrete example where a decision Kenwright has taken has seriously damaged the progress of the club on the pitch, instead of talking vaguely about murky goings on behind the scenes.
  • 0

#85 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 12:37

There are some aspects off the field that have improved, but what about the debt that has increased quite dramatically since Kenwright came in? Then we've sold off everything we own apart from Goodison, even that state of the art training ground was sold before it was even built. Also, Kenwright has piled mortgage ontop of mortgage and taken out loan after loan. That doesn't look so good does it?

I'm much like Steve; I don't think he's a bad man and I appreciate that he's a blue but he has to go.


It hasn't - what figures are you looking at?
  • 0

#86 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 12:39

im with you here Mike. I like Bill, and love the fact that he is a blue. if you dont like him, at least come up with a decent arguement as to why not. im not going to repeat everything thats already been said, theres no point. Just dont forget, we got to where we are today with BKs help.

the mirror article is spot on too. i think that some evertonians got a taste of relative sucess, got greedy, want more and more but dont want to wait for it. i too want sucess, but im happy to wait for it, knowing that when it comes (and it will come) it will have been won through hard work and team work. it wont be a 'bought' sucess, which will carry so much more meaning to me....


Spot on mate couldn't agree more
  • 0

#87 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 12:48

Record turn over every year( its tripled since the days of PJ), new state of the art training ground, the biggest shirt sponsorship in the clubs history, the biggest commercial deal in the clubs history(kitbag), the 2 new club shops and last but not least getting Tesco & Knowsley to stump up for our new ground

Oh and who do you think appointed Moyes and who stuck by him when most people were calling for his head?


im in danger of sounding like a real PJ fan, but we havent got 2 new shops. PJ opened the one at goodison (and still rents the shop to EFC) and the other shop was opened and run by Kitbag, but i'll give you that one.

do not try to make the Tesco/Knowsley stump up for the ground as a positive argument. and if you do think Tesco are paying for this, please read the open letter by Terry himself on evertonfc.com

the mirror article is spot on too. i think that some evertonians got a taste of relative sucess, got greedy, want more and more but dont want to wait for it. i too want sucess, but im happy to wait for it, knowing that when it comes (and it will come) it will have been won through hard work and team work. it wont be a 'bought' sucess, which will carry so much more meaning to me....

i think you miss a lot of the fear we have. its not a case of wanting success now, im scared of losing the club completely. we are in massive debt, people always say not as much as the big boys, but they bring in a lot more cash to cover them. we are on the brink! we have sold everything we own apart from GP (and bellefield but with no PP we wont sell it to anybody)
i just want someone to come in who can stabilise the club, not arsed about buying all the worlds stars, just let us run from scratch again, that would give us a transfer budget of £15m+ each summer. maybe even buy back finch farm. but just to make us safe is priority number one for me.

It hasn't - what figures are you looking at?

oh my god, you dont even look into any of this before posting.
anybody can go and find the company accounts, they are clear for anyone to see. we have increased debt year on year.

Edited by StevO, 19 Nov 2009 - 13:09.

  • 0

#88 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 16:26

What figures are you looking at nogs? The debt has increased around £65million since 1999.

Have a look at this site - http://www.scribd.com/SwerveEFC - a load of published accounts since mid Johnson era.

SteveO - You Johnsonite!! ;)

You know what.. PJ might be a good guest for Talking Toffee.
  • 0

#89 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 16:50

You know what.. PJ might be a good guest for Talking Toffee.

i may be able to sort that out
  • 0

#90 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 17:16

If you can sort it... sort it. :)
  • 0

#91 hafnia

hafnia

    Self-Proclaimed Oracle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,139 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 19:34

Record turn over every year( its tripled since the days of PJ), new state of the art training ground, the biggest shirt sponsorship in the clubs history, the biggest commercial deal in the clubs history(kitbag), the 2 new club shops and last but not least getting Tesco & Knowsley to stump up for our new ground

Oh and who do you think appointed Moyes and who stuck by him when most people were calling for his head?


I'll do this in stages:

1.
Record turnover every year??? You would like to think so, inflation has a lot to do with that. In the words of Bill after anouncing record turnover: "Our debt is a big debt and a worrying debt, but it is manageable because of our performance on the field and because we do well each year as a business, thanks to David (Moyes). But it is too much debt that every year is going to be added to" "Every summer it's the same problem. David must think 'every summer, how can I do it?'. He must be sitting there looking at these figures thinking 'they have given me nothing again and they want the Champions League'. "But we do manage to sustain the debt. We have a good bank and we have had to go to them again this summer. All we can do is borrow and that's what we are doing again this year to give David not nearly enough money to take a club that's finished fifth in the last two seasons even higher.

2.
Finch Farm was acquired in 2006 by Everton who later sold the land on for £2.1 million and then had it developed to the club’s specification by developers ROM Capital (an arm of the aAim Group). On completion, Finch Farm was valued by ROM Capital at £17 M. Everton signed a 50-year tenancy agreement with ROM Capital for Finch Farm.[2] Everton have an option to purchase the site after 5 years. So we are renting somewhere whilst we are lumbered with the problematic site in Bellefield which can not be built on.

3. Biggest shirt sponsorship in the clubs history - £2m a year. Let's put that into perspective... Liverpool have signed one worth £20m a year with Standard Chartered, Man City and Spurs and Arsenal more than double what we are on £5m a year, Fulham receive £4m a year from LG.

4. Kitbag haver the rights to sell our kit which is estimated at £3m a year. Based on the fact that it is Le Coq Sportif, I can't see your neutral fan clamouring for it ala Nike/Adidas. The deal we got from Le Coq Sportif was not much better than the one Man City had with them when they were struggling in the league. Before they went to Reebok. Again - is it a success story???

I think I won't even get onto the club shops and knowsley stadium move as I am now suitably depressed.

So where do you get this impression that it's 'us v them' in the Everton backroom, Moyes and his players versus the 'power suits', the former struggling endlessly to overcome the obstacles put in their way by their masters? Is that really how you think it is? Hasn't Moyes himself come out and said what a great, supportive chairman Kenwright is, how his relationship with his boss has been one of the major factors in him staying at Everton and in the team's rise up the Premier League? Do you suddenly not trust 'magician' Moyes's point of view on that, or do you just conveniently chose to forget that your idol is one of Kenwright's most vocal supporters at the club, and happens to be the manager? All this 'in spite of Kenwright' stuff is nonsense - give me one concrete example where a decision Kenwright has taken has seriously damaged the progress of the club on the pitch, instead of talking vaguely about murky goings on behind the scenes.



Where did I say that it is us v them in terms of players/coaching staff versus powersuits? Must have been where you read the financials....

Edited by StevO, 19 Nov 2009 - 23:59.

  • 0

#92 Bailey

Bailey

    Kevin Ratcliffe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,315 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 20:29

"i think you miss a lot of the fear we have. its not a case of wanting success now, im scared of losing the club completely. we are in massive debt, people always say not as much as the big boys, but they bring in a lot more cash to cover them. we are on the brink! we have sold everything we own apart from GP (and bellefield but with no PP we wont sell it to anybody)
i just want someone to come in who can stabilise the club, not arsed about buying all the worlds stars, just let us run from scratch again, that would give us a transfer budget of £15m+ each summer. maybe even buy back finch farm. but just to make us safe is priority number one for me."


For me this is the casing point for all those fans that are against Kenwright as Chairman rather than as a person. I dont care about a billionaire owner coming in and buying us the ROnaldos and Messis of this world, I just want the club to be safe from going under as well as a few million each year for Moyes to buy a couple of players but MORE IMPORTANTLY not so we have to sell anyone to get the funds. It may have started with Lescott this summer, but we keep going the way we are then itl be Rodwell in January with the likes of Pienaar, Mikky, Jags etc going next year. Sooner or later it will be Moyes jumping ship and we will be back were we started under the reign of PJ. I fear that if Kenwright doesnt leave or find funds soon then all the progress he and Moyes have made in the last few years will be undone...
  • 0

#93 hafnia

hafnia

    Self-Proclaimed Oracle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,139 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 20:35

"i think you miss a lot of the fear we have. its not a case of wanting success now, im scared of losing the club completely. we are in massive debt, people always say not as much as the big boys, but they bring in a lot more cash to cover them. we are on the brink! we have sold everything we own apart from GP (and bellefield but with no PP we wont sell it to anybody)
i just want someone to come in who can stabilise the club, not arsed about buying all the worlds stars, just let us run from scratch again, that would give us a transfer budget of £15m+ each summer. maybe even buy back finch farm. but just to make us safe is priority number one for me."


For me this is the casing point for all those fans that are against Kenwright as Chairman rather than as a person. I dont care about a billionaire owner coming in and buying us the ROnaldos and Messis of this world, I just want the club to be safe from going under as well as a few million each year for Moyes to buy a couple of players but MORE IMPORTANTLY not so we have to sell anyone to get the funds. It may have started with Lescott this summer, but we keep going the way we are then itl be Rodwell in January with the likes of Pienaar, Mikky, Jags etc going next year. Sooner or later it will be Moyes jumping ship and we will be back were we started under the reign of PJ. I fear that if Kenwright doesnt leave or find funds soon then all the progress he and Moyes have made in the last few years will be undone...



You speak for me there.
  • 0

#94 duncanmckenzieismagic

duncanmckenzieismagic

    Howard Kendall

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,609 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 23:12

I'll do this in stages:

1.
Record turnover every year??? You would like to think so, inflation has a lot to do with that. In the words of Bill after anouncing record turnover: "Our debt is a big debt and a worrying debt, but it is manageable because of our performance on the field and because we do well each year as a business, thanks to David (Moyes). But it is too much debt that every year is going to be added to" "Every summer it's the same problem. David must think 'every summer, how can I do it?'. He must be sitting there looking at these figures thinking 'they have given me nothing again and they want the Champions League'. "But we do manage to sustain the debt. We have a good bank and we have had to go to them again this summer. All we can do is borrow and that's what we are doing again this year to give David not nearly enough money to take a club that's finished fifth in the last two seasons even higher.

2.
Finch Farm was acquired in 2006 by Everton who later sold the land on for £2.1 million and then had it developed to the club’s specification by developers ROM Capital (an arm of the aAim Group). On completion, Finch Farm was valued by ROM Capital at £17 M. Everton signed a 50-year tenancy agreement with ROM Capital for Finch Farm.[2] Everton have an option to purchase the site after 5 years. So we are renting somewhere whilst we are lumbered with the problematic site in Bellefield which can not be built on.

3. Biggest shirt sponsorship in the clubs history - £2m a year. Let's put that into perspective... Liverpool have signed one worth £20m a year with Standard Chartered, Man City and Spurs and Arsenal more than double what we are on £5m a year, Fulham receive £4m a year from LG.

4. Kitbag haver the rights to sell our kit which is estimated at £3m a year. Based on the fact that it is Le Coq Sportif, I can't see your neutral fan clamouring for it ala Nike/Adidas. The deal we got from Le Coq Sportif was not much better than the one Man City had with them when they were struggling in the league. Before they went to Reebok. Again - is it a success story???

I think I won't even get onto the club shops and knowsley stadium move as I am now suitably depressed.



Yes we all know the club has massive debts, along with just about every other club in the Prem, but the fact remains the club has nearly tripled its turnover in the past few years so I cant see your point there

You complain that the shirt sponsorship is not as big as the likes of The Shite Man City and Arsenal, well get real that was never going to happen its still the best deal the club has ever done

As for Kitbag yes I also think that was a good deal and so yes I do beleive it is a success story seeing as though its the biggest deal in the clubs history

I see all of these things as a move in the right direction yet you just want to knock it so what would you suggest is the way ahead?

,
  • 0

#95 hafnia

hafnia

    Self-Proclaimed Oracle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,139 posts

Posted 19 Nov 2009 - 23:49

Yes we all know the club has massive debts, along with just about every other club in the Prem, but the fact remains the club has nearly tripled its turnover in the past few years so I cant see your point there

You complain that the shirt sponsorship is not as big as the likes of The Shite Man City and Arsenal, well get real that was never going to happen its still the best deal the club has ever done

As for Kitbag yes I also think that was a good deal and so yes I do beleive it is a success story seeing as though its the biggest deal in the clubs history

I see all of these things as a move in the right direction yet you just want to knock it so what would you suggest is the way ahead?

,


Not to insult, I just think you have set your sights lower than I have. I'm not about knocking the club, i'm merely putting your commercial victories in perspective, the glaring ommision on your point about shirt sponsors was Fulham - twice the amount we get. The kitbag deal was hardly deal of the century - as I say a struggling Man City got a similar Le Coq Sportif deal. The turnover was primarily down to the success on the pitch and player sales - not down to commercial activity, which was the original part of my point.
  • 0

#96 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 20 Nov 2009 - 00:08

Yes we all know the club has massive debts, along with just about every other club in the Prem, but the fact remains the club has nearly tripled its turnover in the past few years so I cant see your point there

You complain that the shirt sponsorship is not as big as the likes of The Shite Man City and Arsenal, well get real that was never going to happen its still the best deal the club has ever done

As for Kitbag yes I also think that was a good deal and so yes I do beleive it is a success story seeing as though its the biggest deal in the clubs history

I see all of these things as a move in the right direction yet you just want to knock it so what would you suggest is the way ahead?

the other clubs who have big debts, like liverpool and united far exceed out income so can manage better. the other clubs who have big debts have been in trouble, the likes of pompy and west ham. it cant go on forever.

i think the kitbag deal is good in terms of the club shops and online store. but it is disappointing when fulham get a better deal, but all round im happy with that. i think elstone done well to get that deal in a relatively small amount of time.

we have moved in the right direction in terms of the commercial aspect, but we are still falling behind the other clubs around us.
  • 0

#97 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 20 Nov 2009 - 00:16

I'm inclined to agree with Hafnia.. the reason for the turnover increase is to do with increasing amounts of TV revenue coming in because SKY are paying the Premier League more. In April 2010, the club will announce an even higher revenue amount; Lescott's sale, the FA Cup run prize money and a record breaking TV deal.

The kitbag deal was an improvement upon the JJB one by far. The JJB one was ridiculed by fans because JJB didn't restock when a product had been sold and they refused to hold a store in the city centre.
  • 0

#98 duncanmckenzieismagic

duncanmckenzieismagic

    Howard Kendall

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,609 posts

Posted 20 Nov 2009 - 08:47

Not to insult, I just think you have set your sights lower than I have. I'm not about knocking the club, i'm merely putting your commercial victories in perspective, the glaring ommision on your point about shirt sponsors was Fulham - twice the amount we get. The kitbag deal was hardly deal of the century - as I say a struggling Man City got a similar Le Coq Sportif deal. The turnover was primarily down to the success on the pitch and player sales - not down to commercial activity, which was the original part of my point.



I am not setting my sights low at all and I have never claimed that these are the best deals of the century just the best deals in the history of Everton Football Club

So from that perspective I think Robert Elstone is doing a good job and thats my point
  • 0

#99 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,478 posts

Posted 20 Nov 2009 - 10:57

I'll do this in stages:

1.
Record turnover every year??? You would like to think so, inflation has a lot to do with that.

This is the problem I have. You open up with "facts" like that and lose all credibility imo.

Annual inflation has been running roughly between 1.3% and 2.3% this decade so that, if applied to the £46.5m turnover (in 02/03) it would have accounted for an increase to just over £50m last year when in fact we turned over just short of £80m. So inflation has had a relatively minor part to play. Certainly not "a lot."

I don't understand the point in saying it. I'm not for a minute suggesting that the rise has been down to Bill's boardroom brilliance, it's down to many factors (as you rightly pointed out), but inflation certainly isn't a biggie :) .
  • 0

#100 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 20 Nov 2009 - 14:18

What figures are you looking at nogs? The debt has increased around £65million since 1999.

Have a look at this site - http://www.scribd.com/SwerveEFC - a load of published accounts since mid Johnson era.

SteveO - You Johnsonite!! ;)

You know what.. PJ might be a good guest for Talking Toffee.


Right, someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong with clear, undisputable evidence to the contrary - here are the official accounts from 2003 and 2008, clearly stating that our debt was £34m in 2003, and £39.5m in 2008. I don't fully understand the balance sheets, but i do know that all the stuff listed in 'creditors' does not equal our debt - if you add all those figures in brackets up, you get a massive sum of money, but that's not 'debt' as in borrowings, it's stuff like money invested by shareholders (i.e. what would be owed if the club was for some reason forced to but back all shares at once) and money owed in transfer deals.

http://www.evertonfc...ccount_2008.pdf
http://www.evertonfc..._Accounts03.pdf

I think it's important to get this sorted coz it as Everton fans no one is really clear what the financial situation of the club really is, so how can we make a judgment.
  • 0

#101 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 20 Nov 2009 - 14:27

I'll do this in stages:

1.
Record turnover every year??? You would like to think so, inflation has a lot to do with that. In the words of Bill after anouncing record turnover: "Our debt is a big debt and a worrying debt, but it is manageable because of our performance on the field and because we do well each year as a business, thanks to David (Moyes). But it is too much debt that every year is going to be added to" "Every summer it's the same problem. David must think 'every summer, how can I do it?'. He must be sitting there looking at these figures thinking 'they have given me nothing again and they want the Champions League'. "But we do manage to sustain the debt. We have a good bank and we have had to go to them again this summer. All we can do is borrow and that's what we are doing again this year to give David not nearly enough money to take a club that's finished fifth in the last two seasons even higher.

2.
Finch Farm was acquired in 2006 by Everton who later sold the land on for £2.1 million and then had it developed to the club’s specification by developers ROM Capital (an arm of the aAim Group). On completion, Finch Farm was valued by ROM Capital at £17 M. Everton signed a 50-year tenancy agreement with ROM Capital for Finch Farm.[2] Everton have an option to purchase the site after 5 years. So we are renting somewhere whilst we are lumbered with the problematic site in Bellefield which can not be built on.

3. Biggest shirt sponsorship in the clubs history - £2m a year. Let's put that into perspective... Liverpool have signed one worth £20m a year with Standard Chartered, Man City and Spurs and Arsenal more than double what we are on £5m a year, Fulham receive £4m a year from LG.

4. Kitbag haver the rights to sell our kit which is estimated at £3m a year. Based on the fact that it is Le Coq Sportif, I can't see your neutral fan clamouring for it ala Nike/Adidas. The deal we got from Le Coq Sportif was not much better than the one Man City had with them when they were struggling in the league. Before they went to Reebok. Again - is it a success story???

I think I won't even get onto the club shops and knowsley stadium move as I am now suitably depressed.




Where did I say that it is us v them in terms of players/coaching staff versus powersuits? Must have been where you read the financials....


Your phrase 'in spite of Kenwright' to describe our success on the pitch in recent doesn't exactly suggest you think everyone in the club is working together
  • 0

#102 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 20 Nov 2009 - 16:56

Right, someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong with clear, undisputable evidence to the contrary - here are the official accounts from 2003 and 2008, clearly stating that our debt was £34m in 2003, and £39.5m in 2008. I don't fully understand the balance sheets, but i do know that all the stuff listed in 'creditors' does not equal our debt - if you add all those figures in brackets up, you get a massive sum of money, but that's not 'debt' as in borrowings, it's stuff like money invested by shareholders (i.e. what would be owed if the club was for some reason forced to but back all shares at once) and money owed in transfer deals.

http://www.evertonfc...ccount_2008.pdf
http://www.evertonfc..._Accounts03.pdf

I think it's important to get this sorted coz it as Everton fans no one is really clear what the financial situation of the club really is, so how can we make a judgment.

not one of our shareholders has invested a penny in the club. Elstone laid that one out on the table in public. the money they spent was to buy the shares and nothing else at all.

you might not know the situation, i do. anyone who does understand the figures and has taken the time to read them knows our situation has become worse year on year. it sort of levelled out when Rooney was sold.

just because you might not know the situation, dont think other people dont too.

Your phrase 'in spite of Kenwright' to describe our success on the pitch in recent doesn't exactly suggest you think everyone in the club is working together

i'm not saying i think that, but a lot of his comments about the lack of transfer fund would make lots of people think he hisnt happy with the situation.

Edited by StevO, 20 Nov 2009 - 17:01.

  • 0

#103 hafnia

hafnia

    Self-Proclaimed Oracle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,139 posts

Posted 21 Nov 2009 - 14:32

This is the problem I have. You open up with "facts" like that and lose all credibility imo.

Annual inflation has been running roughly between 1.3% and 2.3% this decade so that, if applied to the £46.5m turnover (in 02/03) it would have accounted for an increase to just over £50m last year when in fact we turned over just short of £80m. So inflation has had a relatively minor part to play. Certainly not "a lot."

I don't understand the point in saying it. I'm not for a minute suggesting that the rise has been down to Bill's boardroom brilliance, it's down to many factors (as you rightly pointed out), but inflation certainly isn't a biggie :) .



Maybe a learning on my part to be more specific about the inflation I was referring to. However to protect my credibility - which should be in tact regardless - here is some reading.....

http://www.independe...on-1764258.html

I'm not into point scoring, but I do like to back up my posts with facts given the scrutiny (rightly so) they will receive.

anyhows COYB!!!

Edited by hafnia, 21 Nov 2009 - 14:33.

  • 0

#104 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,478 posts

Posted 21 Nov 2009 - 17:15

A survey of 4,000 fans about what it costs to attend games (including stuff like train fares) creating an imaginary concept that the Independent has the sense to put in inverted commas :mellow: .
That's what you meant by inflation?

Fair enough.
  • 0

#105 hafnia

hafnia

    Self-Proclaimed Oracle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,139 posts

Posted 22 Nov 2009 - 02:58

A survey of 4,000 fans about what it costs to attend games (including stuff like train fares) creating an imaginary concept that the Independent has the sense to put in inverted commas :mellow: .
That's what you meant by inflation?

Fair enough.



how sad, let it go....... you like me and many others post on this site when a game is up and running looking for freebie sites, you either don't go because of money reasons, responsibilities, or maybe you don't care, surely not! - reason..... cost of going to game?

You have a problem in that you post something that someone can disagree or disAprove OF. Get over it, there are other fans out there with access to www.google.com
  • 0

#106 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,478 posts

Posted 22 Nov 2009 - 12:04

:mellow: Not quite sure what that's all about.

Seems you're saying you can go through point by point disagreeing with someone, you can back up your points and "protect your credibility" but when I do the same thing I have a problem and need to get over it.

I don't "disapprove" of you opinion but I do disagree with some of it so I said so. This is a forum...that's what it's for isn't it?
(What has access to Google got to do with anything :mellow: ?)
  • 0

#107 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 23 Nov 2009 - 11:04

not one of our shareholders has invested a penny in the club. Elstone laid that one out on the table in public. the money they spent was to buy the shares and nothing else at all.

you might not know the situation, i do. anyone who does understand the figures and has taken the time to read them knows our situation has become worse year on year. it sort of levelled out when Rooney was sold.

just because you might not know the situation, dont think other people dont too.


i'm not saying i think that, but a lot of his comments about the lack of transfer fund would make lots of people think he hisnt happy with the situation.


Not being funny but you haven't answered the question - is our debt just under £40m or not? Coz these are public accounts which under law have to be truthful, which kinda makes me inclined to believe them. If we do have a debt of £40m, as i posted elsewhere in this thread, that's lower than most prem clubs, and hasn't increased significantly in the past five or six years at least.
  • 0

#108 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 23 Nov 2009 - 12:28

Not being funny but you haven't answered the question - is our debt just under £40m or not? Coz these are public accounts which under law have to be truthful, which kinda makes me inclined to believe them. If we do have a debt of £40m, as i posted elsewhere in this thread, that's lower than most prem clubs, and hasn't increased significantly in the past five or six years at least.


im not being funny, but im not here to do the maths for you.
pur debt has increase over the past six years, and our assets have also decreased, which is also a massive problem as we have used up pretty much all of our liquidity apart from the playing staff.

you can either go and work it out, or not. its upto you mate, i know my reasons for my opinions, but it seems your opinions are based off BK being a nice guy and us having less debt than united liverpool and arsenal. i dont need to keep backing up my opinion, but educating yourself on the issues before posting may be useful.
  • 0

#109 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 23 Nov 2009 - 13:01

im not being funny, but im not here to do the maths for you.
pur debt has increase over the past six years, and our assets have also decreased, which is also a massive problem as we have used up pretty much all of our liquidity apart from the playing staff.

you can either go and work it out, or not. its upto you mate, i know my reasons for my opinions, but it seems your opinions are based off BK being a nice guy and us having less debt than united liverpool and arsenal. i dont need to keep backing up my opinion, but educating yourself on the issues before posting may be useful.


And Villa, and Spurs, and Sunderland. Not to mention Pompey, Bolton and two of the teams relegated last season, Newcastle and Boro.

I know my reasons for my opinions as well, and it's got nothing to do with BK 'being a nice guy'. Just to reiterate my original point, in case you missed it - football has become all about buying success, which I think is not only a shame, it is putting the future of clubs at risk. All clubs borrow money to invest in the team to try to win trophies, so it becomes a matter of balancing debt against success. A tiny few - Chelsea and now Man City - are fortunate enough to have super-rich investors who hand them interest free loans. These are a tiny minority and not really anything to aspire to as attracting a billionaire who's prepared to invest hundreds of millions out of their own pocket is highly unlikely. Others - like Man Utd and Arsenal - have developed a big enough 'brand' over many years of success to make large-scale borrowing viable. Most teams fall somewhere in the middle - even those with rich 'investors' most often use them to leverage more borrowing in the form of guaranteeing loans. As I said, it then becomes a question of balancing borrowing to invest in the team with success on the pitch - if you stretch yourself too far and success doesn't follow, you're in trouble, as seen by Leeds, Newcastle, Pompey, West Ham and, potentially, Liverpool.

So i think BK's biggest 'crime' is caution - he could have gone hell for leather and borrowed more and more to try and strive for the top four, but he knew the risks to the club's future if we didn't get there. In either case, to some sections of the club's support he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't - if he borrows too much, he gets slammed for the levels of debt, if he doesn't invest in the team, he gets slammed for that too.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I accept fully that we're never gonna get to where we want to be without serious investment, which will mean the end of BK's time in charge. But the facts as I see them are that we've been better run for the past ten years than a hell of a lot of other football clubs, which means we've got a better chance of attracting the right kind of investment than we did when BK took over.
  • 0

#110 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 23 Nov 2009 - 22:10

And Villa, and Spurs, and Sunderland. Not to mention Pompey, Bolton and two of the teams relegated last season, Newcastle and Boro.

I know my reasons for my opinions as well, and it's got nothing to do with BK 'being a nice guy'. Just to reiterate my original point, in case you missed it - football has become all about buying success, which I think is not only a shame, it is putting the future of clubs at risk. All clubs borrow money to invest in the team to try to win trophies, so it becomes a matter of balancing debt against success. A tiny few - Chelsea and now Man City - are fortunate enough to have super-rich investors who hand them interest free loans. These are a tiny minority and not really anything to aspire to as attracting a billionaire who's prepared to invest hundreds of millions out of their own pocket is highly unlikely. Others - like Man Utd and Arsenal - have developed a big enough 'brand' over many years of success to make large-scale borrowing viable. Most teams fall somewhere in the middle - even those with rich 'investors' most often use them to leverage more borrowing in the form of guaranteeing loans. As I said, it then becomes a question of balancing borrowing to invest in the team with success on the pitch - if you stretch yourself too far and success doesn't follow, you're in trouble, as seen by Leeds, Newcastle, Pompey, West Ham and, potentially, Liverpool.

So i think BK's biggest 'crime' is caution - he could have gone hell for leather and borrowed more and more to try and strive for the top four, but he knew the risks to the club's future if we didn't get there. In either case, to some sections of the club's support he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't - if he borrows too much, he gets slammed for the levels of debt, if he doesn't invest in the team, he gets slammed for that too.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I accept fully that we're never gonna get to where we want to be without serious investment, which will mean the end of BK's time in charge. But the facts as I see them are that we've been better run for the past ten years than a hell of a lot of other football clubs, which means we've got a better chance of attracting the right kind of investment than we did when BK took over.


Villa Sunderland and Spurs all have wealthy backers, their debts are not in any danger.
what happened to Leeds did not happen to Newcastle. do you remember what happened to Leeds? they spent so much and then had to sell it all for a loss and still pay wage compo to half of the players. Newcastle did not have to sell and still do not have the financial problems of Leeds.
Liverpool can sell up within weeks if their owners would let the club go.
im not saying BK should spend, hes borrowed so much im suprised we can still get any sort of finance (it help when uncle Phil says please)
im happy to agree to disagree, as i said previously, most of your arguments were unfounded when you didnt know the club was so badly in debt, just appeared to me that you were making lots of assumptions.
im sure BKs reputation will be set in stone one day, but not a day soon enough for me.
  • 0

#111 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 24 Nov 2009 - 11:15

Villa Sunderland and Spurs all have wealthy backers, their debts are not in any danger.
what happened to Leeds did not happen to Newcastle. do you remember what happened to Leeds? they spent so much and then had to sell it all for a loss and still pay wage compo to half of the players. Newcastle did not have to sell and still do not have the financial problems of Leeds.
Liverpool can sell up within weeks if their owners would let the club go.
im not saying BK should spend, hes borrowed so much im suprised we can still get any sort of finance (it help when uncle Phil says please)
im happy to agree to disagree, as i said previously, most of your arguments were unfounded when you didnt know the club was so badly in debt, just appeared to me that you were making lots of assumptions.
im sure BKs reputation will be set in stone one day, but not a day soon enough for me.


No, my entire argument is that we're NOT that badly in debt, for a top-flight football club, based on the published FACTS that our debt is around £39m, secured on a turnover of £75m-plus. I'm not asking you to change your opinion on Kenwright, but if you're going to dismiss my arguments in such a patronising way you could least do me the courtesy of putting a figure on the club's debt as you see it, and where you got it from.
  • 0

#112 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 24 Nov 2009 - 12:20

No, my entire argument is that we're NOT that badly in debt, for a top-flight football club, based on the published FACTS that our debt is around £39m, secured on a turnover of £75m-plus. I'm not asking you to change your opinion on Kenwright, but if you're going to dismiss my arguments in such a patronising way you could least do me the courtesy of putting a figure on the club's debt as you see it, and where you got it from.

ok, so your facts say that our turnover is 75m and our debt is 39m.
the facts that matter to me is that we make a loss every year, and every time that happens we increase our debt. its not like were spending the money on transfers because we tend to spend about £3m a year after player sales.
im happy to agree to disagree (offering my hand to shake on it) but i dont see how you dont see our financial situation as worrying and stil think we are manageable.
  • 0

#113 duncanmckenzieismagic

duncanmckenzieismagic

    Howard Kendall

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,609 posts

Posted 24 Nov 2009 - 14:07

http://www.mirrorfoo...icle231125.html


Round 3 with Maddock and again I agree with him!
  • 0

#114 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 24 Nov 2009 - 19:05

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/columnists/david-maddock/Bill-Kenwright-DOES-deserve-respect-for-his-Everton-tenure-the-final-installment-article231125.html


Round 3 with Maddock and again I agree with him!


i agree with a lot of what he says in round 3.
and in reaction to the last question, we dont need a billionaire, just a millionaire to steady the ship and let us run as a club on our own from scratch, which out reaching for the stars. in my opinion anyway.
  • 0

#115 Bailey

Bailey

    Kevin Ratcliffe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,315 posts

Posted 24 Nov 2009 - 22:29

i agree with a lot of what he says in round 3.
and in reaction to the last question, we dont need a billionaire, just a millionaire to steady the ship and let us run as a club on our own from scratch, which out reaching for the stars. in my opinion anyway.


I think we would need more than just one millionaire or the guy should be an almost-billionaire. I certainly agree with the last point, I just want Everton to get to the stage where they are not a selling club. We have done well in the previous years as we have kept hold of our best players and built upon it. However now it looks as though we will have to start selling players in order to get some new ones in and thats a shame.

With regards to the whole debt debate, as someone said they either have financially strong backing and/or they generate more turnover or at least have some assets in order to cover that debt. We only have Goodison as an asset, even some of the car park has been leased or sold off. We cant sell Bellefield becuase of the planning permission, Finch Farm is owned by someone else and the only other assets we have are our players. At the moment we are taking loan upon loan in order to run the club and buy players and we are now taking money out against our future income (I think, and its only think, thats what Leeds did?) and if we either do really crap (well we cant do much worse right now!) or the banks either decide they want there money back or dont want to lend us anymore then we could be screwed.

I think up to this point Kenwright has done alright as the chairman of this club, however if he stays on much longer without providing funds then he will be resented by a lot more people than there are now.
  • 0

#116 Bailey

Bailey

    Kevin Ratcliffe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,315 posts

Posted 25 Nov 2009 - 01:34

Right, someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong with clear, undisputable evidence to the contrary - here are the official accounts from 2003 and 2008, clearly stating that our debt was £34m in 2003, and £39.5m in 2008. I don't fully understand the balance sheets, but i do know that all the stuff listed in 'creditors' does not equal our debt - if you add all those figures in brackets up, you get a massive sum of money, but that's not 'debt' as in borrowings, it's stuff like money invested by shareholders (i.e. what would be owed if the club was for some reason forced to but back all shares at once) and money owed in transfer deals.

http://www.evertonfc...ccount_2008.pdf
http://www.evertonfc..._Accounts03.pdf

I think it's important to get this sorted coz it as Everton fans no one is really clear what the financial situation of the club really is, so how can we make a judgment.


If you look at these reports and compare them to the previous year it would show that Everton arent doing too bad. In the year 2008 they had some significant costs (i.e. Finch Farm) and still made 5mil operating profit before player fees which more or less meant the club broke even for the financial year. This is ok but it means we arent eating into our debt and seeing as there is no cash available, all future transfers have to occur via the use of more loans. Our long term debt is around the 30mil mark which isnt too bad providing we can pay any capital repayments and the interest. Given the fact the Moyes couldnt spend any money this summer (only re-invested Lescott money) it hints that we may be struggling a wee bit. With the current financial situation banks may want more capital back from their borrowers, which is the opinion of a few posts that I have read into. If this does occur then it will certainly hinder any potential transfer dealings as any operational profit will be put straight into that pot rather than the transfer kitty.

We have creditors of around 83million, although not all of this is exactly what it seems. For instance 17mil of this is from pre-paid season ticket money. In accounting terms its 17mil that the club owes the supporters in football viewing. This means that whilst this figure is high, there is more than meets the eye and the banks wont come knocking at Blue Bills door asking for the money back (or at least that what financial experts on toffeeweb are saying!).

The problems arise if we cant keep maintaining the high finishing position and extra revenue from cup games. We need to finish above 7th/8th in order to get a decent TV money, which this year is looking a bit shaky. Should we not make the next round of Europe or the FA Cup then we will be short again and this will hinder Moyes' transfer kitty even further. Add this to the continuing stadium proposal money and the additional interest of the 30mil loan we agreed for the begnining of this season then it does raise some slightly concerning questions, although nothing to start panicking over just yet.

However if Everton could continue in a similar vein as 2008 or improve then we would be in a pretty solid financial state as we will be able to service our debt and improve the squad by around the 5mil mark each season. Yes that isnt much but we do have a decent squad when everyone is fit and we could probably go through January and next september without having to buy any new players, if need be. I expect this years figures to be down on 2008 although seeing as we technically didnt spend in the summer we may see similar numbers, we will see. I have to admit though its not in as bad a state as I thought although it could quite quickly turn if on the pitch performance doesnt improve.

Edited by Bailey, 25 Nov 2009 - 01:38.

  • 0

#117 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,478 posts

Posted 27 Nov 2009 - 12:03

OS...

Everton chairman Bill Kenwright has spoken for the first time since the Club's ground plans were rejected by the Government.

And he reiterated the fact that although the Kirkby scheme would not be going ahead, the football club is still in need of investment to move forward.

"The first thing to say in terms of Kirkby, is that the chapter is over and the book is closed.

"The motivation has only ever been to improve the finances of the football club.

"They need to be stabilised, improved and expanded.

"As everyone knows, the club doesn't currently have a chairman or a board in a position to do those things.

"We have had some of the best financial experts helping us with our search for investment for some considerable time now – and that will continue."

"Inevitably the search will throw up questions about where the club will play its football in years to come.

"And the response will be: 'We are happy to be at Goodison Park while we regroup, reassess and consider all options available to us there and possibly elsewhere’.

"At the end of the day, the club's finances will be key to everything."

Kenwright has repeatedly said that he would immediately step aside if the right investor came along as the search continues for a major cash injection.

  • 0

#118 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 27 Nov 2009 - 13:08

ok, so your facts say that our turnover is 75m and our debt is 39m.
the facts that matter to me is that we make a loss every year, and every time that happens we increase our debt. its not like were spending the money on transfers because we tend to spend about £3m a year after player sales.
im happy to agree to disagree (offering my hand to shake on it) but i dont see how you dont see our financial situation as worrying and stil think we are manageable.


Handshake accepted... B) As Dave Prentice said in the Echo today, we should all stop bickering about the rights and wrongs of the club really coz it doesn't do anyone any good. The fact is, at the moment the team is playing shite and we all need to get behind them, we need to sort a new ground and all need to make our voices heard on getting a realistic solution sorted asap, and Kenwright - however we judge his pat record - is probably not the right guy to take us forward if we wanna make the next step forward. I reckon we can agree on that much anyway ;)
  • 0

#119 nogs

nogs

    Trevor Steven

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,154 posts

Posted 27 Nov 2009 - 13:18

If you look at these reports and compare them to the previous year it would show that Everton arent doing too bad. In the year 2008 they had some significant costs (i.e. Finch Farm) and still made 5mil operating profit before player fees which more or less meant the club broke even for the financial year. This is ok but it means we arent eating into our debt and seeing as there is no cash available, all future transfers have to occur via the use of more loans. Our long term debt is around the 30mil mark which isnt too bad providing we can pay any capital repayments and the interest. Given the fact the Moyes couldnt spend any money this summer (only re-invested Lescott money) it hints that we may be struggling a wee bit. With the current financial situation banks may want more capital back from their borrowers, which is the opinion of a few posts that I have read into. If this does occur then it will certainly hinder any potential transfer dealings as any operational profit will be put straight into that pot rather than the transfer kitty.

We have creditors of around 83million, although not all of this is exactly what it seems. For instance 17mil of this is from pre-paid season ticket money. In accounting terms its 17mil that the club owes the supporters in football viewing. This means that whilst this figure is high, there is more than meets the eye and the banks wont come knocking at Blue Bills door asking for the money back (or at least that what financial experts on toffeeweb are saying!).

The problems arise if we cant keep maintaining the high finishing position and extra revenue from cup games. We need to finish above 7th/8th in order to get a decent TV money, which this year is looking a bit shaky. Should we not make the next round of Europe or the FA Cup then we will be short again and this will hinder Moyes' transfer kitty even further. Add this to the continuing stadium proposal money and the additional interest of the 30mil loan we agreed for the begnining of this season then it does raise some slightly concerning questions, although nothing to start panicking over just yet.

However if Everton could continue in a similar vein as 2008 or improve then we would be in a pretty solid financial state as we will be able to service our debt and improve the squad by around the 5mil mark each season. Yes that isnt much but we do have a decent squad when everyone is fit and we could probably go through January and next september without having to buy any new players, if need be. I expect this years figures to be down on 2008 although seeing as we technically didnt spend in the summer we may see similar numbers, we will see. I have to admit though its not in as bad a state as I thought although it could quite quickly turn if on the pitch performance doesnt improve.


Cheers for that summary Bailey - much better than I could have managed! What I do agree with even when I'm arguing that our finances are not as bad as is made out sometimes, we are walking something of a tightrope, and it does make investment in players difficult. In defence of the Kenwright regime, I think it's fair to say he's steered us on a course of steady, gradual progress on and off the field. In criticism, steady progress might not be enough when our rivals can invest more heavily in the team, meaning we risk grinding to a halt altogether if we can't keep finishing in the top seven or eight. And, crucially, he's failed to deliver us a new stadium.

As I've made clear I think kenwright has done a good job, but we need more than he can offer now. I'd be delighted to see the club sold to the right person - but only the right person
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users