Palfy

1 hour ago, StatesideToffee14 said:

So essentially like the Palace match at Goodison a couple seasons ago. Will we have fans storming the pitch afterwards again?

That would be good to see. 

48 minutes ago, Matt said:

I'm trying to stay optimistic. The league are pushing us into bankruptcy. But I think any new owners will only buy with the stadium as part of the deal, allowing them to pay off all the stupid loans we've been lumped with using a remortgage and hopefully decent marketing opportunities. There's so much potential revenue with the stadium, we are still an attractive business venture in that regard so long as the league don't continue in their quest to destroy the club.

Fingers crossed something positive happens for once. 

42 minutes ago, Matt said:

Think Pickford, DCL, Onana and Braithwaite will go for £200m if we're lucky. Replacing Pickford and Braithwaite will eat 40% of that, the other 2 maybe mean 60% if we can convince anyone to actually join. But we still have assets we can command good fees for. If we can get a new owner who buys the stadium too, we can remortgage against it too. Just need to know which owner it will be and hope they have some common sense...

So we need to find a buyer who has around 1 billion in cleared funds to buy the club and pay off all companies who have put hundreds of millions into the build of the stadium, because until they are paid off we can’t borrow against the stadium. 
I know there are people out there who can find that sort of money, bar the stadium I don’t think we are a good enough proposition for any company to risk that sort of investment. 
I wonder if Chong and Thelwell went on Dragons Den whether they could convince the Dragons to stomp up the money. 

18 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

No, what I mean is...

The asset makes the debt 'safe'.

Like, I owe X amount on my mortgage. So I'm in debt.

But my house is worth twice as much as my mortgage. So, I'm OK. No panic. Keep making my payments, everyone's happy.

If I need to lend more money, I can. Because I've got this asset that I can still get cash against.

If, for some mad reason my wife went off with my boys, I'd have 2 rooms spare. Now I can rent them out and make money.

So now I have an asset worth more than my debt and it's generating me income.

Happy Days!

If you can carry on making your mortgage repayments until you are ready to sell and the value of your property is more than mortgage then yes it’s an asset. 
BMD should have been an asset to the club in more ways than just financially, but because we can’t afford the loan repayments and still haven’t borrowed all the money needed to pay for it, it’s turned out to be a millstone around our neck. 
Have you told your wife and kids of your plans for a financially secure future for yourself, when you do let me know how you get on when you get out of hospital

Just now, Newty82 said:

Does the stadium not become an asset that offset some of the debt? No doubt the stadium value will be more than the cost to build.

It would if we had time to sell it, but doesn’t that go against the whole philosophy of building a stadium owned by the club so we could increase our earnings and not deplete them by renting. 
I said before we should have filled the dock and mothballed the build and saved the club until we were financially secure enough to recommence the project. 

Now maybe people can understand why I’ve been banging on about it wasn’t the right time to build a Stadium, we were already 450 million in debt with over 90% of our turnover going on wages, yet we committed to 800 million stadium to bring our debt to somewhere around a mind boggling 1.25 billion, without the funding to do it. 
Like I said I would love a nice new shiny stadium but not a the cost of the club. 

Goal difference could play a big part on who stays up this season hopefully between Luton and Forest, we should get to safety before the last game of the season which will make the last game of the season enjoyable. 
I’m going with Sheffield, Burnley, and Luton to go down, for me that’s no surprise that the 3 who came up will be the 3 that go down. 
We go on about the gulf between the top 4 or 5 in the league and how it’s getting bigger so less chance of bridging the gap, well I see that divide between the PL and Championship getting bigger so the teams coming up will struggle to stay up. So much for all the years of FFP rules. 

6 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

Luton aren't happy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hpr7rp

They need to concentrate on staying up through merit on the pitch, instead of acting like sad losers before the season’s over. 
I have no sympathy for people who look to prosper on others misery, if you want to succeed go and work for it. 

1 hour ago, Btay said:

I rate Pickford but I would be shocked if a team was to pay £70 million for a keeper, especially a premier league team with this new found focus on FFP.

I agree Virginia looks to have potential but throwing him in to a bottom half team would be a massive risk.

Alex Meret of Napoli is somewhat rated & his contract expires this year.

Ideally I would keep Pickford but this is the business model thrown upon us now. I would sell Onana or Pickford, in that order before Branthwaite though.

I agree, we would get no more near 70 million for Pickford we would get 30-40 max. 
Pickford must save us at least 15-20 points a season, without trying too sound to dramatic if we lose him we stand a very good chance of getting relegated next season, people shouldn’t underestimate what he gives, he saved us last season and he will save us this season. 

13 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

Hopefully branthwaite is left alone , I'd sell Pickford before him. 

50/50 for me mate I’m hoping we keep them both, Onana can definitely go if we can get 50 million plus. 
It’s a shite situation when we are having to sell players and can’t use the money to reinvest in the squad but use it to pay debts. 
It won’t be to long before we start having to play the under 21s to make the 1st team numbers up. 

44 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

Key part of this is that of the 17 teams who have submitted their finances for last year (wonder who the 3 who haven't are?), total losses are £600mill.

For ONE year!

I often look at the turnovers of most PL clubs, vs their spend on transfers and wages, and wonder how most can stay within PSR?

Well, clearly they can't. Hence, it all changes next year!

It does seem bizarre. 

9 minutes ago, Wiggytop said:

Two points from me on Saturday.

1 we needed the win, achieved any way we could, it was ugly, a boring first 45, we got it. Job Done

2 Dyche post match remarks, sarcasm by any chance?

No not sarcasm, if he didn’t intend to play that way he would have gotten the message out to Pickford after 10 to cut the hoofing it up the field out, or it half time he would have cancelled it, but oh know he was elated by how well we were playing he asked for even more. 

9 hours ago, Newty82 said:

That's kinda my point...we've not been happy with hardly any!

Ancelotti, in my opinion, got away with his name. But so often we were dull as fuck to watch. However, I think if he'd stayed, with the funds we had then, different story a season later.

I think we sacked Silva too early. I liked him. But, again, we shit the bed and fans were calling for his head as soon as results didn't go our way.

Same happened with Koeman.

Allardyce and Benitez shouldn't have been near the club.

Dyche, while far from perfect, deserves more credit than what he's sometimes being given.

You say Allardyce should have been nowhere near the club, yet he came in to rescue a season that was in free fall and ended up getting us too 8th. 
Now from looking back through old posts only one person backed what he had done and that was PeteO, nearly everyone else including myself hated his style of football, then a few moaned about him throwing people under the bus in interviews after a game. 
For me the football is getting worse as the weeks go on under Dyche, and all this long ball stuff is disgusting and not what I want to see from any Everton team, and then for the manager to come out with the statement he did was cringe worthy, that the only tactic that he could come up with to beat Burnley, was to kick it long from the keeper and try to get a dirty win, if that was against City or Liverpool I may have given him the benefit of the doubt, but if he thinks that’s only way available to beat Burnley then we are fucked. 
And for me that alone makes him the worst manager we ever had at this club, talk the talk as much as he likes, but it’s blatantly obvious clear or should be that he’s in capable of walking the walk, he’s a absolute shit stain on this club. 

8 hours ago, Newty82 said:

True.

So with your experience in the trade, how much would we of had to pay if we put the shovels down? How would the agreement be made up? Is it a percentage of total costs? What would a normal contract look like?

Firstly they would be paid for the work completed to date, then they would try and negotiate a payment to cover any costs that they had occurred, if they couldn’t reach an agreement they would then refer to the contract, which wouldn’t say that Everton couldn’t stop the build due to financial constraints or difficulties, it wouldn’t say that if Everton did force Laing to stop the works that Laing would be paid a specific percentage of the contract costs. 
It would state the both parties should enter talks to reach an agreement, if no agreement can be reached then it goes to arbitration, where both parties will make a submission to the arbitrator who is a trained barrister or Judge who has extensive knowledge in contractual disputes, Laing would be pushing for loss of earnings, which they would undoubtedly win, that means they will be only entitled to what they made as a percentage of profits from their last full set of accounts, so let’s they there last set of accounts showed a net profit of 3% and the signed contract value for the Stadium build was 500 million, they would be entitled to a loss of earnings of 15 million and for any works completed. 

7 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

Potentially in position...I try not to be definitive with my opinion because it's just that. My opinion.

I don't know enough about what goes on at the club to say for sure.

To split hairs...Usmanov was sanctioned about a month after we'd finished filling the dock.

Usmanov also continues to appeal his sanctions. Possibly, maybe, at the time he didn't think he'd be cut off so bad.

Plus, possibly, I can't imagine we can just stop and not have some sort of fee to pay or something along those lines.

I'm not convinced any of these things, the size of the project, the years of planning etc, are just a simple 'lay down your shovels lads, jobs fucked'

Nothing is ever as black and white as that.

But, I'm also a million miles away from having any knowledge of how stadium builds work!

I’ve covered most of what you have mentioned above. 

30 minutes ago, Haiku said:

It was a poor piece of business from the start. I believe we were desperate and he wasn't even our fifth choice. Considering his stats at Udinese, in an inferior league, it seems we've been ripped off. There are plenty of similar players in the French league who could perform just as poorly for under 5 mil. At one point we were linked with Serhou Guirassy from Rennes, who ultimately moved to Stuttgart for a bag of sunflower seeds and is currently tearing up the German Bundesliga.

Agreed a panic buy, but if he wasn’t and he had been a long time target of Dyche’s, then I wouldn’t like to see his panic buy’s if that’s what is educated buy’s are like. 

20 minutes ago, Haiku said:

When Usmanov was sanctioned the loan deals had already been finalized along with agreements with Laing O'Rourke and other subcontractors. At that point there was no turning back or putting the construction on hold.

The loan deals hadn’t been completely finalised hence MSP bailing us out for hundreds of millions and 777 giving us nearly 2 hundred million towards the stadium, and we still have a shortfall of some where between 1 and 200 million and need to borrow more to get it completed. When Usmanov was sanctioned and the position the stadium was in you could have renegotiated with Laing and come to an agreement on work completed, and costed costs that Laing can prove they’ve incurred, and if no agreement could be reached it would then go to arbitration to be settled. But we couldn’t have been forced to carry on, and the fraction of the cost to settle with Laing wouldn’t have seen somewhere near 1.1-1.2 billion in debt. 

9 minutes ago, Gwlad said:

Indeed, surely someone would have squawked to the Currant for cash?

Not necessarily if they were all Portuguese and never had a clue who the ginger twat and his mates were, and they may have thought Gomes was a waiter if he tried to calm it down as well

9 minutes ago, Sev said:

Yes, agree on that, been a mess. And would just like to add that one of the major important factors is who or what will be the owner of the club. I'm not too hooked on those casino partners really.

To be honest Sev anyone would be an improvement on Moshiri. 

5 hours ago, RuffRob said:

when you look back to forests 4 points, I think we have already been harshly treated with the 6 we have already had taken off us. 

It will be a real kick in the teeth to loose more points this season.

We should be sitting in a relatively relaxed position of 35 points with 7 games to go. 

Instead we are on a very uncomfortable 29 points, sweating on us having the 4 points earn taken this past week off us. 

1) The commision have a straight forward get out clause to give use zero points this time around - 6 points penalty (less 4 becasue we have been penilised for 2/3) plus 2 point off for being helpful (as Forest go). So 0 points deduction. Given we got a harsh 6 points last time, then a generouse 0 this time around would be fairer balance overall. A outside possibility, but I don't see this happening 

2) or 6 points (less to 2 points for being helpful), so 4  the same as Forest. Then factor in the 2/3 of the period already having been punished, so 1/3 being - 1.22 points - do they round to 1 point or take the 0.22 as a point as well - A case for 1 or possibly 2.

3) The give us exactely the same as Forst - substancial beach but we worked with the PL and they take no notice of the fact we have already been punished for two of the three years - 4 points - this would be very harsh.

4)All of our disclaimers on why the account are over this period (lost sponsorship due to Ukraine, Stadium costs etc) are upheld by the commission and we are found to be exhonorated of the charge in this accounting period. 0 points.

My gut feeling is we will get 1 point deduction based on arguement 2) and would only get 0 points if 4) us upheld. 

 

 

Nearly spot on Rob fair play mate

2 hours ago, MikeO said:

Two points apparently. We're appealing, quite rightly.

https://x.com/ALANMYERSMEDIA/status/1777320212229935188

Well that’s better than I expected as you can see from my post above. 
You could have been more considerate and posted this half hour earlier, then I wouldn’t have made my earlier comments

26 minutes ago, Sev said:

I still believe Martinez was told/ordered to ride on the wave Moyes (who was struggling quite a lot at times during his period for us) had made, but were given "free hands" for his second season where it all went wrong.
I never saw Martinez as a particular good manager for us, but I do admit his first season was spectacular.
But those were indeed other times, Palfy. It's a very different story now where we're desperately trying to survive what Moshiri and an incompetent board has done to us. A lot of work is waiting.

Your right they were different times and we may not have known it then but we would all rather be back there now instead of where we are now, but shit happens Sev and it’s how you deal with it that matters, and not just accepting it and letting it worse, and that’s what has been happening in my eyes particularly over the last 3 seasons. 
 

2 hours ago, RuffRob said:

when you look back to forests 4 points, I think we have already been harshly treated with the 6 we have already had taken off us. 

It will be a real kick in the teeth to loose more points this season.

We should be sitting in a relatively relaxed position of 35 points with 7 games to go. 

Instead we are on a very uncomfortable 29 points, sweating on us having the 4 points earn taken this past week off us. 

1) The commision have a straight forward get out clause to give use zero points this time around - 6 points penalty (less 4 becasue we have been penilised for 2/3) plus 2 point off for being helpful (as Forest go). So 0 points deduction. Given we got a harsh 6 points last time, then a generouse 0 this time around would be fairer balance overall. A outside possibility, but I don't see this happening 

2) or 6 points (less to 2 points for being helpful), so 4  the same as Forest. Then factor in the 2/3 of the period already having been punished, so 1/3 being - 1.22 points - do they round to 1 point or take the 0.22 as a point as well - A case for 1 or possibly 2.

3) The give us exactely the same as Forst - substancial beach but we worked with the PL and they take no notice of the fact we have already been punished for two of the three years - 4 points - this would be very harsh.

4)All of our disclaimers on why the account are over this period (lost sponsorship due to Ukraine, Stadium costs etc) are upheld by the commission and we are found to be exhonorated of the charge in this accounting period. 0 points.

My gut feeling is we will get 1 point deduction based on arguement 2) and would only get 0 points if 4) us upheld. 

 

 

Mine is 6 reduced to 4 they aren’t going to treat us any differently than they did Forest. 
If Forest hadn’t broken PSR I think it would have been a straight 6 points, in line with our last penalty after the appeal. 
Unfortunately Rob you’re trying too put to much reasoning on sensibility into your statement, but they seem to have made their decision’s before they hear the case. 

3 hours ago, Sev said:

Oh please, Palfy. Martinez didn't do anything but continuing what Moyes had build up for his first season. And then what happened?

Martinez out played teams like the likes of Arsenal, at Goodison we gave them a lesson in there own game beating them 4-0 I believe, they had never been so out played and humiliated like that for years, and there were many others that got the same treatment, but to say it was all Moyes is totally wrong, Martinez allowed the players in midfield and upfront to play were Moyes didn’t under him they were defenders before attackers, he would bring in some decent strikers, but they never shone under him because he never played too their strengths Martinez change that he played players too their strengths. The proof of that was Moyes teams lacked goals not the case with Martinez his teams revelled in goals. 
But I agree Martinez lost the balance at the end between attack and defence, which cost him his job which was a shame imo but holy justified, when you only win 1 in your last 10 you are gone, just can’t get my head around how Dyche’s not gone with only 1 win in 14 or none in 13, and playing absolutely shocking football as well, that just goes to prove that now the club lack any leadership from above.