Hafnia Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 If we were top of the league there wouldn't be a banner in sight regardless of who was the owner. Club with a vision and means of creating revenue = Club can compete for the best players = club has a strong football team = top of the league so based on that Patto - we will not be top of the league as we have no vision or means of creating revenue which is why fans are split. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Like I said before, it never will be My guess 5% Bill is great 2% vocally unhappy 28% generally had enough but just stick to following the team 65% don't care about what goes on behind the scenes, just want to watch us play. I would say 5 % Bill is great 5% Bill is the devil reincarnated 5% Bill is an idiot and want him out but despise the way the BU go about it 85% Bill has done a good job but we now need change , but despise the way the BU go about it I don't believe anybody doesn't care what goes on behind the scenes, unless of cause you mean kids who are oblivious to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) I would say 5 % Bill is great 5% Bill is the devil reincarnated 5% Bill is an idiot and want him out but despise the way the BU go about it 85% Bill has done a good job but we now need change , but despise the way the BU go about it I don't believe anybody doesn't care what goes on behind the scenes, unless of cause you mean kids who are oblivious to it I know quite a few actually. They want to see us do well, have season tickets (one commutes from Switzerland for the home games), but it's just not that interesting to them. Edited August 28, 2015 by Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddock Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Ha ha I go to the game home and away, I was brought up in Liverpool and still live there , I drink in Liverpool, most of my family and friends support the blues and I have met hundreds if not thousands of Evertonians in my travels around the world and yet I have never heard anyone say " I'm sorry about Bill Kenwright mate" You're right though if all we do this window is keep Stones then its been a disaster and the club have a lot to answer for When I say apologist Dunc , I mean make excuses not actually apologise I was born and bred here too mate, been going home and away for years, lived in Liverpool all my life also and have also met thousands and I know plenty of them who constantly make excuses up for him. He's one of us, he does his best etc etc. as I've said I'm not exactly anti board but my patience is wearing thin with the current board. IF and I do stress IF we do nothing in this window you will get people saying "but we kept Stones that was more important" and all sorts of shite. Those are the apologists I'm talking about. This is exactly the type of situation our board take full advantage of and certain sections of our fans lap it up. ThereHAS to be money for signings andthere HAS to be a marquee signing for me for the board to come out of this with any of their reputation in tact. That's my take on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddock Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 I would say 5 % Bill is great 5% Bill is the devil reincarnated 5% Bill is an idiot and want him out but despise the way the BU go about it 85% Bill has done a good job but we now need change , but despise the way the BU go about it I don't believe anybody doesn't care what goes on behind the scenes, unless of cause you mean kids who are oblivious to it I would say that was pretty acurate and I definitely come in the 85% bracket but I think if they don't sign a big-ish name those figures are going to change quite dramatically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 My best mate who goes the game with me, doesn't care what happens at board level as long as he can enjoy going the match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 When I say apologist Dunc , I mean make excuses not actually apologise I was born and bred here too mate, been going home and away for years, lived in Liverpool all my life also and have also met thousands and I know plenty of them who constantly make excuses up for him. He's one of us, he does his best etc etc. as I've said I'm not exactly anti board but my patience is wearing thin with the current board. IF and I do stress IF we do nothing in this window you will get people saying "but we kept Stones that was more important" and all sorts of shite. Those are the apologists I'm talking about. This is exactly the type of situation our board take full advantage of and certain sections of our fans lap it up. ThereHAS to be money for signings andthere HAS to be a marquee signing for me for the board to come out of this with any of their reputation in tact. That's my take on it. I agree that just keeping Stone simply isn't good enough, it would be criminal if we go another window without getting a number 10 in Although on the flip side if The Board were just using the club as a cash cow as some would have you believe, surely Stones would have been gone by now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 I agree that just keeping Stone simply isn't good enough, it would be criminal if we go another window without getting a number 10 in Although on the flip side if The Board were just using the club as a cash cow as some would have you believe, surely Stones would have been gone by now One of the board is taking money from the club that is pretty much true - Vibrac, Robert Earl. As for the rest who knows - do you honestly think that the cost of finch farm led to such a huge leap in operating costs? like £200k a week vs Bellefields £50k??? The operating costs wouldn't be able to swallow the £40m stones money, they know that! The loose change from the bily, distin and heitinga purchases from the lescott money maybe. As stated unless a full financial investigation is run (not an audit) - an investigation we will never know. Believe what you want but er yeah the added TV revenue if it doesnt result in marquee players etc will cause great unrest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Operating costs again. Mike already covered that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Operating costs again. Mike already covered that. Exactly. Plus, looking at the facilities at FF compared to Bellefield, I can easily believe it: Description[edit]The facility boasts some of the finest training facilities in the world, and features 10 full-size grass pitches on three plateaus, one of which is a floodlit along with an additional floodlit synthetic pitch and specialist training areas for fitness work and goalkeepers, as well as an exact recreation of the pitch at Goodison Park. Inside the training complex there are extensive changing facilities for both the senior squad and the Academy players. The state-of-the-art facilities on offer will arguably make Everton a big draw for future signings and should also provide a boost in the development of the Club's Academy players, with the facilities including the following: Gym Synthetic indoor training pitch Hydrotherapy pools Spa Sauna Physiotherapy rooms Media centre Video lounges including a video editing suite How much of that was available at Bellefield, and at the same standard? Easily worth 4 times the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) They certainly exist like that, but I'd be interested to know the percentage behind each one. That'd really show how "split" the fanbase is. Also, those 3 groups will always exist, regardless of Bill or not. http://footballcarbon.com/polls/55e056bf36a1eef22a06518d ask and thou shalt receive not saying its definitive, but very interesting results so far edit> as it stands: How Would Everton fans like the club to move forward , considering on field performance as well as off field commercial performance. a: I trust current board and direction they are taking club 0.00% b: I trust the current board but I am unsure they have a plan 60.87% c: I don't trust the board ,stance on John Stones has impressed 30.43% d: I don't trust the board and demand change 8.70% Edited August 28, 2015 by Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Operating costs again. Mike already covered that. having the same operating costs as other clubs is not an explanation - going from 50k a week to 200k a week deserves some explaining as far as i'm concerned. We rent it at a cost of £1m per year.... £20k a week. So really I am at a loss. £180k a week aside from the rent (assuming that maintenance etc is carried out by the council - as they own it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 having the same operating costs as other clubs is not an explanation - going from 50k a week to 200k a week deserves some explaining as far as i'm concerned. We rent it at a cost of £1m per year.... £20k a week. So really I am at a loss. £180k a week aside from the rent (assuming that maintenance etc is carried out by the council - as they own it) I've explained that, no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Exactly. Plus, looking at the facilities at FF compared to Bellefield, I can easily believe it: Description[edit]The facility boasts some of the finest training facilities in the world, and features 10 full-size grass pitches on three plateaus, one of which is a floodlit along with an additional floodlit synthetic pitch and specialist training areas for fitness work and goalkeepers, as well as an exact recreation of the pitch at Goodison Park. Inside the training complex there are extensive changing facilities for both the senior squad and the Academy players. The state-of-the-art facilities on offer will arguably make Everton a big draw for future signings and should also provide a boost in the development of the Club's Academy players, with the facilities including the following: Gym Synthetic indoor training pitch Hydrotherapy pools Spa Sauna Physiotherapy rooms Media centre Video lounges including a video editing suite How much of that was available at Bellefield, and at the same standard? Easily worth 4 times the price. Matt we rent it for £20k a week as per post above - we rented it at a cost of £1.4m a year before the council bought it and they rented it to us cheaper - believed to be £1m per year. The rent includes those facilities - we arent paying seperately for them, So if the supposed operating costs of £200k vs £50k are Finch farm vs Bellefield, what is £180k a week going on.... £9.3m per year. Lets assume there are more coaches recruited - certainly nothing to warrant that increase.... what else is there??? What has significantly changed Finch farm vs bellefield other than the fact we rent it for £1m per year as opposed to owned Bellefield..... it doesnt add up. Edited August 28, 2015 by Hafnia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Fair enough, I mixed up my numbers. Edited August 28, 2015 by Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Fair enough, I mixed up my numbers. no its ok - its concerning though isnt it.... some interesting financials to come out in october.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 no its ok - its concerning though isnt it.... some interesting financials to come out in october.... Concerning isn't the right for me, more intriguing because we simply don't know whats behind it. Concerning would be what we would find. Will be very interesting to see the latest set of book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 The fact it is similar to other clubs of the same standing satisfied me. I doubt it will include rent anyway, surely there will be a rent column in the accounts. I'll have to check again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) The fact it is similar to other clubs of the same standing satisfied me. I doubt it will include rent anyway, surely there will be a rent column in the accounts. I'll have to check again. Surely most other clubs own their own facilities and thus at least they are maintaining their own asset and not somebody elses? Let's say you sold Finch Farm for 2m (to keep the maths simple) and it was redeveloped for 20m. That means it cost the owners 22m all in. Now you pay back 1m a year in rent AND 700K a month running costs? that's adding up to 9 million a year! that's just madness. The owners recover all their costs in under 3 years? surely that can't be right? You may as well have slummed if for a few years and just developed it yourself. Are you sure the running costs are 200K a week and not per month? (even per month it's shocking). Edited August 28, 2015 by BlueSky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Surely most other clubs own their own facilities and thus at least they are maintaining their own asset and not somebody elses? Let's say you sold Finch Farm for 2m (to keep the maths simple) and it was redeveloped for 20m. That means it cost the owners 22m all in. Now you pay back 1m a year in rent AND 700K a month running costs? that's adding up to 9 million a year! that's just madness. The owners recover all their costs in under 3 years? surely that can't be right? You may as well have slummed if for a few years and just developed it yourself. Are you sure the running costs are 200K a week and not per month? (even per month it's shocking). The debate is about the proportion of unspecified "other operating costs" within the clubs accounts. The training facilities are a part of that but by no means define it so the argument is moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 We didn't have the money to build it. It's simple, we could have maybe built it and not have the money to buy Fellaini, not sure how it fits in the timeline but similar costs. If the club would have said we aren't spending money on players this summer, we are building a training ground instead, there would have been all kinds of abuse. We needed a training ground, they found a way to find it. It's not ideal not owning it, but at least the council owning it has lowered the rent by a big chunk. But it's not like we are maintaining it and the owner will sell it off at our expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanchesterCity Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 We didn't have the money to build it. It's simple, we could have maybe built it and not have the money to buy Fellaini, not sure how it fits in the timeline but similar costs. If the club would have said we aren't spending money on players this summer, we are building a training ground instead, there would have been all kinds of abuse. We needed a training ground, they found a way to find it. It's not ideal not owning it, but at least the council owning it has lowered the rent by a big chunk. But it's not like we are maintaining it and the owner will sell it off at our expense. Yeah I understand not being able to afford to have it built but that why I semi-joked that you could have slummed it for a couple of years in order to be able to afford it. As you say though, the fans wouldn't have liked that at the time. But still, if you end up paying back 9m a year, and even if all of that 9m isn't going to LCC, let's say only 2m is. They are still quids in within 6 years! (if they paid 12m for it). That's a very quick return on LCC's investment. I don't think there's a problem with not owning it. City don't own their stadium. But if you're covering the entire cost of development in such a short time frame, it doesn't sound a very healthy deal, it sounds disproportionately in favour of LCC (although I do realise the initial deal wasn't with them). Obviously I'm not intimately acquainted with all the details, but at a superficial level it sounds akin to a payday loan deal! Everton get 2m quid cash in hand, urgently, and they're paying it back for years to come, many times over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 One of the board is taking money from the club that is pretty much true - Vibrac, Robert Earl. As for the rest who knows - do you honestly think that the cost of finch farm led to such a huge leap in operating costs? like £200k a week vs Bellefields £50k??? The operating costs wouldn't be able to swallow the £40m stones money, they know that! The loose change from the bily, distin and heitinga purchases from the lescott money maybe. As stated unless a full financial investigation is run (not an audit) - an investigation we will never know. Believe what you want but er yeah the added TV revenue if it doesnt result in marquee players etc will cause great unrest. Haf the fact of the matter is that if BK and The Board were the parasites that you make them out to be they would have taken the money and they wouldn't have to hide it, it would be their money to do with as they please http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bill-kenwright-turned-down-very-9948503 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 Haf the fact of the matter is that if BK and The Board were the parasites that you make them out to be they would have taken the money and they wouldn't have to hide it, it would be their money to do with as they please http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bill-kenwright-turned-down-very-9948503 BK and the board parasites? Not sure I've referred to them as parasites but I think I've clearly identified reasons why they are out of their depth and identified some gaps in the financials that require investigation. Robert earl is clearly profiting at the club's loss so there's one parasite for you. A £40m sale of the club's best player (£10m less than that lot sold David Luis for) was not wise especially with a 15% sell on, the tv money coming in and the euro's next year. So forgive me if I haven't got overwhelmed with excitement. I'm actually looking at them to buy a £15m plus playmaker. Do I think that the board would sell a £40m asset and filter the money through operating costs? Not even they are that stupid. I do however think that a non sale of a player is somehow going to be used as some means of an excuse for non activity in the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 BK and the board parasites? Not sure I've referred to them as parasites but I think I've clearly identified reasons why they are out of their depth and identified some gaps in the financials that require investigation. Robert earl is clearly profiting at the club's loss so there's one parasite for you. A £40m sale of the club's best player (£10m less than that lot sold David Luis for) was not wise especially with a 15% sell on, the tv money coming in and the euro's next year. So forgive me if I haven't got overwhelmed with excitement. I'm actually looking at them to buy a £15m plus playmaker. Do I think that the board would sell a £40m asset and filter the money through operating costs? Not even they are that stupid. I do however think that a non sale of a player is somehow going to be used as some means of an excuse for non activity in the market. Haf please explain to me why they would have to filter the money through operating costs? If they are as bad as you say they are why couldn't they just sell and keep the money? This is typical of you, if we had sold Stones you would have been on lambasting BK and The Board, instead they stood firm and your on here having a moan about them anyway. They cant win with you whatever they do I fully agree that we still need that playmaker and if another window goes by without us addressing that then yes you have grounds for complaint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 Haf please explain to me why they would have to filter the money through operating costs? If they are as bad as you say they are why couldn't they just sell and keep the money? This is typical of you, if we had sold Stones you would have been on lambasting BK and The Board, instead they stood firm and your on here having a moan about them anyway. They cant win with you whatever they do I fully agree that we still need that playmaker and if another window goes by without us addressing that then yes you have grounds for complaint How am I moaning about the board for keeping stones? Stating that they made the only sensible decision is not moaning. For fucks sake Duncan you will be awarding them gold stats for spelling their names right next. So the question is "why couldn't they sell and keep the money?" Answer:- "because they know they are on thin ice, they know the most ardent of their "support" would turn against them and they would be treated to a hicks and Gillette style ousting. They find it difficult to explain a £9m per year increase in operating costs, I don't think they fancy a lynch mob" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 How am I moaning about the board for keeping stones? Stating that they made the only sensible decision is not moaning. For fucks sake Duncan you will be awarding them gold stats for spelling their names right next. So the question is "why couldn't they sell and keep the money?" Answer:- "because they know they are on thin ice, they know the most ardent of their "support" would turn against them and they would be treated to a hicks and Gillette style ousting. They find it difficult to explain a £9m per year increase in operating costs, I don't think they fancy a lynch mob" It's actually £4.5m (assuming you're talking about the most recent figures) that they don't explain in detail ("other operating costs"). The other half is clearly itemised as amortisation of players' registrations, staff costs and depreciation; as explained in the notes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 It's actually £4.5m (assuming you're talking about the most recent figures) that they don't explain in detail ("other operating costs"). The other half is clearly itemised as amortisation of players' registrations, staff costs and depreciation; as explained in the notes. The leap in other operating costs was attributed to finch farm, so unless another extraordinary cost can be attributed to wages, costs, depreciation etc then there is a big gap. It doesn't explain why one year it jumped so much based on a move to a place we rent for £20k a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 It wasn't fully out as finch farm, that was a throw away example that was given when questioned. There are various other things in there, other wise they would probably have labelled it "training ground running costs". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 How am I moaning about the board for keeping stones? Stating that they made the only sensible decision is not moaning. For fucks sake Duncan you will be awarding them gold stats for spelling their names right next. So the question is "why couldn't they sell and keep the money?" Answer:- "because they know they are on thin ice, they know the most ardent of their "support" would turn against them and they would be treated to a hicks and Gillette style ousting. They find it difficult to explain a £9m per year increase in operating costs, I don't think they fancy a lynch mob" I have no idea what a gold stat is so I certainly wont be handing any out The Board should be applauded for showing a bit of backbone in the Stones saga but you are trying to turn a positive into a negative. You have them down as a bunch of lying crooks who are fleecing the club , yet they have massively backed the manager by turning down a record bid for a defender You're quick enough to moan about the Board and throw around wild accusations and conspiracy theories, at least have the balls to acknowledge when they get it right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.