FanchesterCity

I don't think anybody really thought of Everton as a laughing stock. I think most thought they did what they thought they had to. Like some have said, if it was week in week out, then yes, you'd end up like Stoke (who have actually started playing a bit recently!, or Bolton of old). Most fans know you've not got pots of money, and know that Moyes has done a pretty impressive job with only a few minor blips now and then. Most 'speculate' how well he could do with some money - but we might never know, it's pure speculation. Everton have always been a pretty well respected, understated club / team. Nobody fancies playing you, even the top teams, since you're capable of causing an upset. I do think though, that folks lump you in with Aston Villa as being a bit... don't get mad... 'dull'. I know that sounds unfair and it's not dire football, it's just a tad short of something exciting. There are worse teams who have a real history of entertaining football (west ham, newcastle?). The problem you seem to have now if the finance, where you can't AFFORD to start being flambouyant - since every place in the league counts, every cup run brings in a little more money, and with such a tight league, even very good teams like Everton can lose a couple of players via transfers, and a couple through injury and find themselves in a relegation dogfight of 10 teams. I'm honestly not saying Everton are relegation material, just highlighting how damn quickly a few mishaps can get out of hand and you start noticing the likes of Wolves and Blackburn only being 3 points behind you etc. You just have to play the 'percentages' at the moment - in my opinion

If you take a club worth (say) 100 million and it owes 30 million... you can dilute the shares (double the number of shares, and make each one worth less) - that can upset the existing share holders who see their share half, BUT it can put much needed cash into the company. But, the company stays the same... if it wasn't a profitable company before, it won't be after. Of course you can keep the wolf at bay for a while, but you'll eventually perform just the way you always did - unless there's a regime change that goes with it. IF you can convince investors that you need a specific cash injection to CHANGE the way something is working (and not just offset a current debt) then that is more attractive. So, for instance, IF you say "we need to raise 200 million for a stadium, and here's how the stadium will then contribute to a much better financial situation for the club" On a basic level, it's like asking your mate to lend you another 10 quid so you can gamble on the horses again... nothing's changed. If you "lend me 10 quid so I can buy some new tools and get myself a job and pay you back" then that stands a much more likely chance of working. Slightly simplistic analogy, I accept, but sometimes, reality is quite simple.

90% of sound financial advice would tell you to pay off the debt - as you say, it stops the interest payments too... BUT, you have to ask yourself how did you get into that debt, and what's changed to prevent it? anything? Not only that, but even if you get back to 'zero' - you then have to set about making a profit which is damn hard to do. You COULD put up your ticket prices (but that can be a highly dangerous move), and you're making as much from gate receipts as most other clubs. It's the commercial arm of Everton that's not doing as well as it should - and some of that is due to the stadium, some of it possibly not marketing yourselves as well as others - BUT, you need to have something to market like... a new ground, marquee signings blah blah blah. I just can't see how a one off cash injection to pay off the debt will do anything other than give your a holiday for a couple of years then you'll start slipping back again. This seems to be the pattern for virtually all clubs with the exception of the sugar daddy ones. No matter how much you give a club, they spend it and end up where they began, or worse still, in more debt than ever. Almost like gamblers who keep borrowing 50 quid to win back their losses.... I'm not really sure what the answer is to be honest. I really fear for the whole game and think there's a huge crash coming. I just hate to think of fans ploughing yet more money into clubs and losing that too. They're already being taken for a ride (Everton fans included) and don't deserve to be shafted even more. And when I say 'taken for a ride' I don't mean specifically mean Everton fans, I mean ALL fans. We're all being taken for a ride by our clubs, make no mistake!

I can sympathise with the 'negative' view BUT... You're in financial difficulties, ever place in the league means a little more money for you, and at a push, you COULD get back into Europe - it's not impossible. It's probably asking a bit much to get CL, but Europa league is doable. On the balance of probability, Everton did the right thing and almost got a point. Just out of curiosity... IF it was the last game of the season, and losing meant you went down.... and you were facing City... would you still go for the win, or hedge your bets and go for the draw?

Look at it this way... If a club can't find very smart investors prepared to invest their money in the club and run it as a decent business and hopefully get a great team going too - then what's that saying? By the time the fans are offered the option, nobody else wanted it. Bit cynical, but that's the long and short of it. Admittedly, the fans won't expect the same 'return' on their investment - they'd probably settle for good performances and a bit of success... but the most likely scenario is that 100,000 fans stump up say 500 quid each = 50,000,000 that's 50 million. Pay off the debt? spend it on players? what? - two years down the line, the money's gone and you're back to square one. The ONLY way Everton can really get back on track is with sustained investment and of course, a real turnaround as a business (unless you get a sugar daddy in). Football clubs tend not to make any money - they're a hiding to nothing, and therefore YOUR money would be a hiding to nothing. You'd be buying a short lived improvement in Everton's fortunes. The only serious money coming into clubs is the CL teams and the associated extra revenue from that. And even those teams are generally not doing too well financially (except Arsenal) So no, I wouldn't be investing in Everton (or any other club) as an 'investor' it's a mugs game. Even Chelsea and City aren't invested in to make serious money - they are vehicles to promote other stuff. Football clubs are just bad business 'as is'. Pure and simple..

I think it's a DISASTER to look at Barca - it's just unrealistic, and they owe a fortune! Of course, in theory, any club could eventually rise the dizzying heights of Barca / Real / Utd etc - but realistically, it's folly to go down that path. Make no mistake here, you (the fans) are already putting in plenty of money into Everton with gate receipts and pies etc... Everton's weakest area is in the corporate side, and that's not something fan ownership will help. It's very romantic to think fan ownership if the answer - but you still end up with the same issues - do you, or don't you move? do you, or do you not sell a key player? etc, and you still end up with 50/50 split amongst the fans. The people making the decisions at Barca are still an elite few. The fact that Barca HAPPEN to be superb at the moment is nothing to do with the ownership - they've been fan owned for ages (late 50s I think) and didn't do particularly well for donkeys years. Barca are a wonderful club, and happen to be fan owned, but don't make the mistake of thinking Everton can be similar. Barca have (approx 23% of the Spanish fan base). No club in England comes close. United MIGHT be about 10% at a push. In Spain, they don't call it 'shareholders', it's membership, but for all intents and purposes, there's not a huge difference, other than (would have to check facts on this), you can't buy multiple memberships (so you can't have a 'bigger' say, in theory). Nice idea, but in there is no evidence to suggest it's any better an option than private investors buying shares and injecting some money. When you've put in a grand of your own hard earned money and the club get relegated - it's still going to hurt just as much AND you'll get bitter too!.... and at least 50% of you will still think there are idiots running the club. Just my opinion like!

disgruntled@everton.com

That article? yeah it's rubbish. Did Everton get stuck in? yes. Was there a dodgy tackle from Neville on Silva? yes - I was 20 yards from it. It was worth a booking and no more. Was Kompany's tackle dodgy? possibly yes, there's a case for both players getting a yellow on that one! and a definite red IF you believe Kompany set out to stamp on Cahill. I'm not sure he did, and go on past history - it's not his style (doesn't mean he didn't though!). That's about the long and short of it. Moyse is BOUND to have a moan - it's what managers do. It's hardly grounds for disrepute and all that rubbish. I wouldn't say it was dirty game, from either side and believe me City can dish it out when they want to - there's some big lads at City too.

Yeah, those days are largely gone now. You still seem to get the odd one or two, but it really IS the odd one or two. But to be fair, if someone's waving triple your salary under your nose - do you take it? There's a life after football - wife, kids etc and there's no guarantee your current club won't ditch you or sell you at a moment's notice.

Definitely, but then it's the same for a striker - if he's on a great team and getting chances galore he can look superb, stick him in a poor team and he looks lost. Or the classic - when you get a very high class player (you'll remember those days right? *smirk*) and he's playing balls into nowhere - cos the other players just aren't at the same level. Can be quite funny for a while.

The more you listen to it, the more you realise they know about as much as we do.... not much. It's all 'after the fact'. Very rarely doesn't anybody accurately predict stuff before hand. Worst of all (and we have one at City) are players that keep taking freekicks time and time again, and one in 10 times they score - only for people to say "and THAT is why he is a great free kick taker" it's crap! - or "incredible finisher" - erm yes, after 20 chances and missing 19.

Aye I do agree - a good footballer doesn't equate to a good commentator (or manager) I was half expecting an Andy Gray love in, given his past at Everton, but I cannot for the life of me see why he's deemed a top 'TOP' pundit. It's interesting watching Neville having to give honest appraisals of other teams - to be fair to him, he appears to be doing so fairly even handedly. He could teach Gray and Alan Greene a thing or two!

With Saha's days numbered (it seems) and Cahill not able to perform miracles - I'm still not sure what the problem with Beckford was. It seems to me that either you're going to have to buy (unlikely) or bring through someone from the academy and have a LOT of patience with them. Since it doesn't look like you can be an out and out attacking team (at least not for some time), your strength seems to be on the break - but playing that games means less chances and a need to take those chances when they come - i.e. a merciless finisher. I know this is a massive over simplification, and Cahill's not a bad player at all - but I'm just not sure he's a merciless finisher, and it's hard work for him on is own. Although not a striker, I think you could have done well with Shaun Wright Phillips, or tried your luck with a cheeky bid for someone like Defoe? Are things REALLY that tight on the money front ?

What's the general consensus of opinion on Andy Gray (not at a player) but as a commentator? I struggle with him - he comes across as very arrogant and I rarely agree with his opinions. Surprisingly, I'm finding Gary Neville's views fairly sound - and that is NOT easy for me to say! So, I know Mr Gray had a pretty good time with you guys and it might taint your view - but really is it just me that thanks he's a poor commentator?

Yeah, hard to know the real detail - on the surface though, it sounds like a) passage of time changed things or Liverpool put more effort into the matter and found ways of appeasing the Council, or keeping in line with the covenant. A similar issue happened with Oldham Athletic - huge area to the side had a covenant that the land must stay as playing fields - and they tried to get around it by creating a replacement area elsewhere, and move the ground onto the existing playing fields - they failed (but Latics and Oldham Council have been a bit of a joke too). This is partly what I was trying to say about the 'extra facilities' etc... it's not that you necessarily NEED them - it's all part of the game of winning over council officials and making them look good in the process. If you say "we're moving Everton" they says "so what?"..... if you say "we're moving Everton and will create a new recreation center, sports science academy, a new retail area etc etc then their ears prick up cos they can claim it's all THEIR doing... and they save some money off their budget cos Everton are building paying for it, and not them". Sadly, it's not really an option that Everton today can afford - not without a serious punt from the banks, or new investment into the club. I'm not one for accumulating more debt on clubs, but sometimes, in business, it's necessary to take on more debt to finance such plans... but I'm not sure in the current climate anybody would be prepared to spend the 200-300 million? to create a new stadium and extra complex, and wait 15 years for their investment to start paying off. You seem to be trapped in a catch 22... clearly a big club who COULD be doing a lot better financially if your commercial arm got its act together, but the commercial arm needs a bit more success on the pitch (CL?) and better stadium (or just better facilities as a 'compromise').

The figures quoted are misleading - it's based on total revenue divided by the number of games played and resulting in average revenue per game. United of course, charge a tad more than Everton at the gate (but not massively more) but not far off double the gate. But where United kill most teams is the commercial side. It's also where teams like City are leaving Everton behind too. Everton and City make approx the same on the gate receipts (City charging a tad less than Everton) but the commercial side at City is much better (wasn't always the case, that's for sure). With a new ground, and I'm loathe to say it... more corporate boxes / restaurants / all the rest of the adornments, Everton would be every bit as successful. In that respect, the ground probably is holding you back. There's a lot to be admired in not 'selling yourselves' and remaining understated etc etc... but it comes at a high price. I'm not sure Everton can afford to not to sell themselves more. I mean there ARE two top class sides in Liverpool, and Liverpool's a football passionate city. Everton have been pretty successful in the not too distant past - they just need to hype that up again and get some enthusiasm back into young Liverpudlians - letting them see that Blue is a totally viable alternative to Red! It's hard to know if Ken is to blame - I'm not sure. I've heard tales that he's 100% Everton through and through, but technically hasn't put his own money into the club, and still treats it entirely as an investment, in which he hopes to make a profit, or at least break even. Waiting for the 'right' buyer sounds good too - but how honest that really is remains to be seen, and how will he actually KNOW the right buyer? We thought Francis Lee was right for us - City through and through - but he ended up getting in people HE liked / trusted (Alan Ball) and not who was best. That's perhaps the issue with owners who love the club. It's a mixed bag and they end up as bad as fans - clouded judgment and unable to think rationally.

Many (blue) moons ago - Everton were refused permission for Stanley Park on 'greenbelt' grounds (I believe) - although it might have been some covenant on Stanley Park being kept as a park blah blah blah - regardless they were denied the chance to rebuild there. So, years later, Liverpool DO get permission. OK - time has passed, and things change you might say - and that's a valid theory. BUT, my question is this: IF Liverpool have been granted planning permission for Stanley Park - then can't they also grant the same to Everton? My understanding of planning permission is that one simply has to present a valid case, building plans, intention for the building etc etc and it's those 'plans' that are approved (not the club). Therefore - SURELY the same can be applied to Everton right? Now, putting aside conspiracy theories: a) Have Liverpool spent more time / effort on getting plans for Stanley Park and meeting the criteria necessary in order to win planning permission? (and therefore Everton haven't?) Am I wrong in believing that IF Everton also submitted similar (or the exact) same plans, they too would be granted the same permission? c) Do Liverpool have some additional 'hold' on Stanley Park that Everton don't? d) If the justification more than the plans alone, but based on the PERCEIVED viability of Liverpool FC over Everton FC? Anybody with brain cell can see that in a perfect world (and assuming you can't expand on the current site because of the school and housing next to Everton), that Stanley Park is just about as brilliant a location as you can get (and putting aside the issue of the land being lost to a stadium and all that goes with it, instead of open park land - which is a debate in itself). I'm struggling to see why Liverpool can manage to get permission and Everton can't - unless they've simply done a better job, or someone's reckoning Liverpool are less risky than Everton? (NOT a dig at Everton, just saying that some numpty MIGHT look on paper and say that their long term viability looks better than yours).

Not sure I agree Hafnia... If you'd lost 6-2 there'd be a hell of a lot of Evertonians saying "what on earth was he thinking trying to out play THAT lot?" Great entertainment for neutrals, but his job (ultimately) isn't to provide entertainment. It's to sustain Everton in the Premier League and accumulate as many points as possible in order to improve the financial stability of the club. That's the long and short of it. Negative tactics - absolutely, but I don't see Everton as a negative team (a la Stoke). I just think he did what he thought was the best solution that MIGHT grab a sneaky win, and it didn't work. On another day (when we come to Goodison) the very same tactic might work. It certainly wasn't a fundamentally 'wrong' tactic that could never work. It just didn't on the day

There won't be a Moyes, or a Kenwright, and there WILL be a whole new squad. I wanted Peter Barnes to play forever. I wanted Corrigan to play forever. I wanted Peter Reid to manage us forever. I wanted Maine Road to stay Maine Road, but be like the Nou Camp. I was young. Now I'm older and I want all the same things for different reasons. And that's not gonna happen either. You're totally right that IF you move grounds, it's a whole new start and a lot of your Everton is lost. Can't argue against that for a moment. That's why I think the idea option is new stadium on the old site. But it's unlikely to be allowed. Like you said earlier - that's why fans should be allowed to make the decisions!

Maine Road is only my (and my other's memory). But my son? never got to Maine Road, he only knows the new place. The attachment is purely emotional - of COURSE it's brilliant to look back and miss aspects of things, but the world changed. Had to sit down instead of stand, had to pay to park etc etc. But actually looking back now, Maine Rd became a nightmare... added on here and there and it became a mess. But it was OUR mess. But the truth remains, it was old and would likely have become unsafe without serious amounts of money, and it wouldn't hold the numbers it had once held... the largest ground after Wembley at one point. It was the right move in the long run, for us. What's right for Everton is anybody's guess, but maintaining Goodison will cost money. More money than a modern ground. Policing it may also increase costs (but not certain on that). And for what? So the current Everton fans can remain nostalgic? I do 100% understand where you're coming from and if that's the price you want to pay to keep the ground, then great - good luck with it. Many fans would love going to an older ground and remembering some history there. But is it ACTUALLY best for the long term success of the club? Do you stay in the same home you first got married in because 'it was your first home, and where your kids were born etc etc" or do you say "nothing can change what happened there, but it's time to move on"? That's why I harped on about the extra facilities... NOT because you necessarily need them, but because it's what the bloody councils expect these days. Building a new ground is one thing, but they want their palms greased in creative ways - i.e. new facilities created that help them be creative with their own spending cuts! It's no longer enough to say "We'd like to build a new stadium and it's not gonna cost you ( the council ) a penny... they want to know "what in it for US?"... and how City are wangling the stuff they are doing. They'll make a huge complex and say it's cost 500 million to build (when in reality the deal will cost say 250, with lots of staged payments and deals to obfuscate the real cost). Then, over the years, it will start to look like they are making a solid return on the project and they'll be able to claim that as revenue (whilst offsetting the 500 million 'loss' as investment into facilities). Plus, since it's a sports complex, it makes it harder for UEFA to get shirty about (rather than some retail park / hotel) AND it gets the local council on side too. I'm not saying it's all a sham, it's not, but it's clearly serving a number of purposes - some of which are 'sharp practice' shall we say? City also had a great youth academy for many many years, didn't win us much mind you! For me, the best option for everton would be to build a brand new stadium in the same footprint they have now, and the only way that could happen (to my mind) is with similar creative practice. Unfortunately, since money is tight, you need additional help from the council to cut the red tape and actually HELP a business. Once you had a 50K stadium, you MIGHT start filling it and be able to offer them some revenue share in your gates (... something in it for them). To the outside world (and admittedly it's not as informed as it should be), the Liverpool and Everton new ground issues have been around for at least 10 years with lots of money already spent and no tangible progress... effectively tossed off millions whilst umming and ahhing. And it looks like it might be another 10 years of the same at this rate!

Oh and if they made clubs 'not for profit' organisations, that might help. As long as you have investors in the club... investment tends to suggest an expectation of a return. Donations welcome, investments should be treated with caution. Barcelona, despite their 'member owned' status still owe approx 50% of their worth... i.e. worth about 1Billion, owe 500million (there abouts). That is a shocking state of affairs for the most successful 'business' (similar with Man United)... how can it be that our 'success' stories in the game owe so much? To me it means the following: 1) In order to BE successful, it's necessary to use financial muscle, and when it's used, it's being used well beyond 'reasonable' business levels. or 2) Even the most successful and popular clubs in the world can't seem to actually run a decent business or 3) Both of the above Now, some might say Man U and Barca are amazing examples of well run big business... but I say - Just because they are big - doesn't make them sound. They are nigh on the Bairing's Bank of football. Accidents waiting to happen. City and Chelsea are different and disasters for football for other reasons

Pretty sure that's what I said ... it's unlikely to break up the top 4, just make it a top 5 which isn't really the answer. I do think football's killing itself and needs to be brought back down to earth - totally. And in principle the financial fair play rules are a good thing BUT... I don't believe they will actually do what they claim. I'd far rather have a proper spending cap - full stop. All clubs at level 1 get (say) 40 million a year to spend on wages and transfers. Any profit they make can go back into youth academies, facilities, lower ticket prices for their own club. If you only spend 30 million in one season, you can carry over the 10 million. If you blow the lot and get relegated, so be it. You had the same 'chances' Sadly, the bigger clubs will always argue against that and claim their profit should allow them to buy better players etc and 70K at United deserve to see better entertainment than 15K at Fulham blah blah blah. The limits would have to be across Europe, it not worldwide. It's not going to happen. Nobody running the sport cares about real competition, they CARE about subscription fees and sponsorship and hyping up the Champion's League. Fancy song and big build ups etc etc. Have you SEEN the abomination of 'The Draw' - when in reality we do our Cup Draws with next to no fuss. I'm in complete agreement with you on every point - but it's not gonna happen. Since it's not gonna happen and this footall has now become a matter of spectacle not sport - if you can't beat 'em - join 'em. If I'm gonna be shafted by Sky and Uefa and in reality my own club, I might as well lube up and try to enjoy it - as opposed to fighting it and getting internal injuries during the process! And I say 'shafted by my own club', because that's the truth, and not particularly cos it's City, it's true of all the Premier League clubs - we are 'punters' and that's that. Misguided, emotionally attached punters. Now, admittedly I'm not an Everton supporter, and many Everton supporters may not think such a think of their own club. However, I would say it's unlikely Everton have any more consideration for you than other clubs have for their fans (very little in reality!) And I do still maintain, we as fans are as much to blame as anybody. - how long before they want us to travel across Europe for away games in the "Euro Prem" league?

Thank God I'm not Torres....

I happen to share the same belief - impending doom for football - like the bank crisis. Some of the debts being run up now are ALL assuming the gravy train keeps getting bigger every year and for the next 20 years. If Man U stop winning the league or don't get in Champions League for a few years running it'll come crashing down. It's ALL based on maintaining the status quo. There are aspects of what Arsenal are doing that I cant abide (the prices), but also, keeping their house in financial order (seemingly) is to be applauded. As for City? hmmm it's money 'we' can afford (i.e. the owner) but it's not money we as a club can afford. I don't believe the Sheik actually wants to throw money away, it's just that he can afford to throw money at a hurdle to overcome it. Most clubs can't. I can't ask you to support City, but I think it's reasonable enough to hope folks are in favour of any move to break up the monopoly that currently stands. Be it Everton, Spurs, Newcastle et al, I don't mind - it's just good for the game if more teams can win stuff. Unfortunately City buying their way into the 'break up' will most likely not break it up, just add one more to the 'elite' which isn't good. But it's not the fans fault. We've been watching the wife trying to striptease for 40 years to little effect.... and along comes Jennifer Lopez.... it's hard to turn down. On a serious note... I've waited all my life to go to Wembley to see my team win something, and I know that most fans will never get that chance EVER. As a dad, it's a moment that you hope your kids remember - when they stood at Wembley with their dad and we won the cup etc. It is very compelling when a sugar daddy comes along and gives you that chance. For most City fans it really WAS a once in a lifetime experience. Can't blame us for taking the money, even if we know it might end in tears in the long run. Everton fans have had that chance in more recent years with a brilliant 80s team. And that's where we let ourselves down... we love our clubs SO much we get taken for a ride and pay the prices. 40 quid for a shirt that costs 3 quid to make. 10 quid to park on a dodgy wasteland. Paying Sky to listen to the idiots Keys and Gray (sorry lads). We have ourselves to blame in so many ways.

yeah... stop masturb.......