FanchesterCity

Same the world over... Rangers and Celtic, Mancs, Brummies, Milan. Very special days, but not unique to Liverpool. Anyway... it's an early night for me. Best of luck ALL... looking forward to a cracking match as a neutral. Genuinely can't predict it, and would prefer a draw to neutralise you both! Be good out there, and watch out for them scousers!

The maths looks about right - you're spending 3 million a year on him, plus he's falling in value - like a car! in 3 years you'll have spent 9 million on him, and he's lost 9 million, so that's actually 18 million gone. (if you sold him tomorrow, you'd be 18 million better off over 3 years).

For Everton, as things stand... a long term contract for a player is a gamble... (actually it's always a gamble) but the banks will be telling you to be risk averse (avoid the risk). In some ways, it's like you being on the edge of bankruptcy and having 100 quid left, and deciding to bet it on Man U coming higher in the table than say... Aston Villa. Pretty sound bet, BUT it's a bet all the same. When you're loaded, you can afford the gamble. When you're skint, you'd be strongly advised not to do it. He could get injured - (ok he'll be insured, but then you're forking out insurance for him). He might go off the boil. Fall out with the manager. All manner of things could go wrong with him. I swear this is like losing your bloody job... just when you need the most help, you get the least amount of it. So 5 year contracts will be harder work when you're skint. How many times have we seen great prospects and thought "this guys gonna be worth a fortune"... and got it wrong. That said, you do want to keep your best assets! it's catch 22 every time.

Slight spanner in the works though: Let us assume Fellaini's worth 10 million now. and he's worth nothing tomorrow (cos he can go on a free). Just getting him to sign a contract is not necessarily the right move. If you offer him a 3 year deal, he will still depreciate (to say 2 million in 3 years), AND you've committed yourself to his salary for 3 years. If his salary comes to more than 8 million over 3 years, you could be losing out vs just letting him go now. Of course IF you're absolutely sure you want and need him for 3 years, it's good business. But often clubs cut these deals, then his form drops off quicker than you'd imagined. you're 18 months in and want to off load him... can't find a buyer, he's not playing... now you're not getting the value from him (on the pitch) and still paying his wages whilst he depreciates. This is one of the chief failings of many clubs. Securing 5 year deals on high salaries only for players to fall out of favour 1-2 years in. I can cite instances of players (and managers) still being paid by previous clubs some 7 years after they left!!!

Crossed wires it seems So according to my accounts you owe me a beer and I owe you a packet of pork scratchings

oi! behave! it IS just like saying saying "I spent 40K on my house extension it's worth 40K" and the buyer saying "I don't care". A player's contract can be accounted for in multiple ways. Sometimes they'll account for it as a 10 million purchase up front, and amortize that over 3 years, but in other cases, they haven't actually PAID for the player yet, that IS accountable as a liability - no ifs no buts. Of course that's not the actual player, it's the contract / due payment that's a liability. Do you disagree on this? and can you point me to anything substantiating a different view? I'm happy to provide material from my side -- I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's certainly not my understanding that there's any formal rule for the representation of specific intangible assets. Alas, I'm not an accountantant. Chancery Division's not my forté either.

Ha! so he did - forgotten all about that, and it's been on telly all week. I actually like him a lot - it's the 'messiah' thing I can't be doing with. Not his fault of course.

Torres would be a great 'punt' for a club. I honestly think he'll come good. Confidence is a huge factor.

Intangible assets (such as players) are often completely omitted from financial reports, as there is no standard way of accounting for them. Moreover, to the potential buyer, SOME 'assets' can be seen as liabilities too. So if you have Messi - most of would see him as an asset with a worth (but no accurate way to account for his worth). If you take Tevez - it can be argued he's a liability in the accounting sense of the word, since you have agreed to pay him a salary and other costs for the next 5 years. IF you can't sell him, you must still honor that contract. If you're the buyer - you'll use that to your advantage. Seller says "he's worth 20 million", and the buyer says "only if I can sell him, which isn't proven, but I KNOW he's costing me 250K a week regardless" When the selling business presents their assessment of their worth, it's only to help substantiate their claim. The buyer is then entirely at liberty to deconstruct it and 'pick holes' that suit his own valuation. Fellaini's worth 10 million say Everton - and the buyer says "perhaps - if I sell him now, then I have to replace him, like for like, at market value - that's erm... 10 million" For this reason, player worth holds little sway

All great derbies are like that. But the fact remains - the outcome of both teams seasons will not be determined by tomorrow's game. If Liverpool lose tomorrow - will Dalglish resign in shame? no - cos you all know deep down, it's NOT the entire season in one game. Huge game emotionally. It's not a huge game to decide long term fate.

Have you ever thought of a career with the Samritans? When you put it like that, yes, there's not light at the end of a tunnel other than the train coming towards you. Looks like you have only the following possibles: 1) The youth / cheap players strategy pays dividends and you get a crop of exceptional talent coming in, and you start competing for a top 4 finish (improbable) 2) You keep on bringing in youth and cheap imports but they prove to be average, even with moyes getting the best out of them - that will bore the fans in the end, and gates will fall - mid table ad infinitum - really means you slip backwards. 3) You do something very exceptional in the next two seasons and scrape a CL spot - possibly generating enough revenue to pay down a large chunk of the debt - great news, but since the money pays off the debt, it's not going on players, so becomes a 'one off' moment in the limelight. 4) You go down, and have a massive cull of costs, BUT you start winning games again, it's entertaining and it's a full house every week. - awful scenario at first, but other clubs have done it. 5) Some lunatic with money decides he can't make much money with Everton, but he CAN make a name for himself - using Everton as the vehicle to promote himself. He starts tossing money at you, get you back on track whilst in the process of renaming you to "Cheese and Evertonion Crisps FC" - moves you to the PotatO'shea Stadium and then returns you to former glory, albeit having lost much of what you regard as the real Everton. Yep, on reflection, you're well and truly screwed. Come to think of it - can you think of any recent takeover that's proven to be a success? - I can think of a few that haven't been disasters, but can't think of one that's been a success. Have to ignore Chelski and Citeh - these are different propositions to real life business!

StevO's right Players don't really count for much (and some simply can't count!). They are worthless in 3 years. It's a bit of a touchy subject players - but for all intents and purposes - you may as well discount them when valuing the business. I know it sounds stupid - but take Mr Tevez... worth 40 million one night... 20 the next. You can't value a business onunpredictables.. They do actually have a value, but not in the way folks think with their "he's worth 10 million of anyone's money etc etc"

Not sure how you can be that worried! you played a so called 'title contender' and sure, you lost, away, but not without a good showing - however negative you might see it. So now you're at home against (in theory) a weaker side than City. EVERYTHING to play for. If you win this, you got above Liverpool and have a game in hand. Folks are talking about how decent Liverpool are at the moment - so with a win, surely that's putting you in an even better light than them? Your season won't be determined by what happens tomorrow - whatever the outcome.

Blackpool had no money, and they were very entertaining. That said - they went down. Still, only JUST went down.

Sport and Law don't mix well. FIFA and UEFA think they are law makers and keep getting found out. UEFA have already lost a number of cases relating to ticket price monopoly. Man United / Umbro / Allsports / JJB / Sport Soccer / Blacks and The Football Association have all been found guilty of colluding to price fix (on replica kit) You just don't hear about this stuff too much - they like to keep it quiet! (case CA98/06/2003) if you're that way inclined.

Yes, it's not a good time for Everton, but even so, you're no fighting it out at the bottom of the league. The team looks to have a good spirit and capable of mid table in their sleep - so even in the dire times, it's holding up very well. There's not that much evidence against Everton to say they couldn't finish in the top 6. So 'on it's arse' might be a mild overstatement! Plus, other clubs with similar issues at least tells you that it's probably not entirely down to Everton management - there are other factors at play - so sacking the board might not be the best option. If it was JUST Everton, then it would be more worrying.

But it's perspective and relativity. You can think your club is in a bigger mess than it really is. Half the issue with fans IS comparison with others and wanting to compete. And if you don't look at what happens elsewhere, you might end up as Venkytonians. BK might not have Jack Walker's wealth, but he's not Mike Ashley either. It's not so much taking pleasure from others misery, just taking solace in 'it could be worse... and there's proof of what can happen when folks just want a sugar daddy" etc

Thank God for that! I was beginning to start the 'deluded' post! haha - people DO come out with stuff like that!

That really is a quite daft statement. Sorry mucker, but Villa deserve more respect than that. Over 100 years in the top flight, (yes, just behind Everton). European Cup winners... ,comparable gates over the decades, they've been around a bit, they've done a bit. If people are (rightly) to be respectful of Everton FC for their proud history, you have to accept that Aston Villa are hardly half the club you are. Just saying like. ;-)

A penny for your thoughts?

But yeah I agree, and vice versa really. One you filter out the obvious rubbish of 'your team is dross, and mine is wonderful' etc etc it's interesting hear. And it can cheer you up sometimes - when you think you're down and out and a blackburn fan points out to you THEIR owners... suddenly things look a lot brighter!

Yeah... like 3 of them ;-)

Yep, spot on - if it's the right price it will sell. Regardless of economy... the economy doesn't stop transactions happening, it just means folks don't want to pay so much for stuff anymore. In many ways, if BK said "I don't want to see at this moment, because I think the market is 'down' and it would be in our interests to struggle on for a couple more years until the market picks up" - then fair enough - there's logic to that (however right or wrong the action is). I think a lot of fans get really upset and see it as a slight on their club when people point out the pros and in particularly the cons of a club. People not wanting Everton is sod all to do with the team, or the club per se. If it helps, you could say Everton are like an Alfa Romeo - bit of tradition, nice touch of class - and Villa are a VW Golf - but you try selling both of those cars on the second hand market.... the Gold will sell every time. Awful analogy really, but it helps illustrate how a classy little runner doesn't mean everyone wants to buy you. I have precisely this argument with other fans moaning / wondering why Man City were chosen. They don't seem to understand the value of that ground and just as importantly, all that spare land around it - it's a fantastic blank canvas for the owners to 'build their empire' on. The actual club have little to do with it really. I do have a lot of sympathy for BK's view that it needs to go to the right people, in principle he's totally right. But how you determine the 'right' people is a total gamble really. City got a guy in who we thought would be the perfect answer (Francis Lee) - all the right motives. But his judgment was clouded cos he was a blue - he starting bringing in friends, it all went wrong. We then went for a a foreigner who turned out to be a bit of a wide boy (Frank Sinatra). It was him who flogged us off in a hurry to the Sheik - who so far have proven to be pretty 'tempered' but sharp. We used to be a lovely homely 'shambles' - with the woman at the ticket office having HP sauce on her blouse from the bacon butty she'd just polished off and giving you your tickets with grease prints all over 'em. You could sniff them for a week and it felt like you'd have a full breakfast. But now, it's all very posh and nice clean uniforms etc etc. I miss the old days, but it was no way to run a business.

Don't shoot me for this BUT... The reason something doesn't sell - ultimately is price. Since we know 'football clubs' are wanted - it's not like you're selling a product that doesn't work... other similar products have sold. It's CLEARLY price. Now, of course there are 'issues' with Everton e.g. the debt, the ground and more.... but that's still ultimately coming down to price again. Market conditions are not favourable - that's true - it makes selling your house tricky, but you WILL sell it if you offer it at the true market value, or a little below. What appears to be happening as that they aren't getting the price THEY think it's worth. So of course, you can keep holding out and you might get what you want in the end, but the market doesn't lie - no buyers = nobody wants it. What Bill needs to realise is - whoever wants to buy is almost certainly looking at how to get a return on their investment. It's one thing to buy Everton at (say 100 million, and taking on all the debt too) - it's quite another to then say "the only way I can take the club forward financially is a new stadium, and that's another 200 million (twice what I paid for the whole club!) It's only like me looking at a house. If I just want to live in a house and like one at 100K that's fine. But if I'm a property developer, I'm looking at what it's going to take to make it attractive to tennants (sponsors/fans/tv). You're a top 10 supported team, quite possibly top 6 depending how far back you want to go with the attendances. You've got a decent revenue that's top 10. Your player wages are below the top 10 (thereabouts) so there's nothing extreme in your spending or income compared with other clubs. Where it's ALL going tits up is the off field commercial activities. You're slacking. Dare I say, getting left behind / overtaken. Now it's SOMEONE's job at Everton to taking care of that. It's boring, it's not players, it's not football, but it's a LOT of money. Of course, some the commercial activity involves players - marquee signings / image rights etc For the last 10 years, pardon my French here - you've been fannying about over a stadium and missed the bloody boat. I know it's not all Everton's fault this... the council have been wonderfully obstructive too, and you've been trapped in a cycle of "need a stadium to make money vs need money to make a stadium". BK could have foreseen this to some extent, but didn't look to get in a buyer back then - he was happy to be running the show during the financial glory years (for football in general). Now times are hard, and the boat missed and realised he's steered you (unwittingly) down a dead end - he's finding it hard to sell. You do have to blame BK for a lot of it - however well intentioned. Let's not forget that Liverpool also have found it hard to compete of late. Arsenal bought a new stadium, AND invested in property around the ground, from which they are now reaping the rewards - higher revenue than Man U Manchester United are a bit of a phenomenon anyway, and command more revenue than they would normally be expected to have due to exceptional worldwide appeal (and CL success etc etc) Chelsea's revenue has grown incredibly thanks to being bankrolled to buy superstars which in turn has made them a commercial 'success' (albeit from the bankrolling) Manchester City just got incredibly lucky TWICE - snatching a new stadium on the cheap and only spending 30 million on converting it for football (and rev sharing with the council) and on a site that was dump - and prime for development. Along comes some Arabs looking to make a name for themselves, looking at which club might work for them... and they spot some poorly performing outfit with a good fan base, new stadium!... they can't believe their luck... and spare land around it? acres and acres of it? - so they snap it up. So they did a Chelsea too, and now their revenue's sky rocketing past Everton. It's not Everton the club that's unattractive - it's got all the same ingredients as some of those other clubs. It's that ground. I'm telling ya. I know you all love it. Born and bred in the place. But the folks moving in don't like the decor, don't like what you've done with the place, there's nowhere to land the helicopter, and their snooty investment pals that like sponsoring 'nice' clubs think it's a bit "olde worlde" for them to sponsor - wrong image, so 'retro'. And that is the issue. There's nothing wrong in your nostalgic taste in decor.... but the new buyers are wanting the Magnolia look, and as much as you hate it - it's what the punters are buying. BIG time investors want Magnolia football clubs so they can stamp their brand ALL over it. Everton aren't magnolia - and that's something to be very proud of. But it's coming at one hell of a cost.

I can confirm 99% of Evertonians are possessed.