Would you want a Man city/Chelsea style takeover

[pete0]

For me a takeover of this magnitude would sever any connections i had for the club. To me it would be a stranger, a complete other team with a badge similar to the team i supported.

I find it hard to see why anyone who wants the easy fix, of us to be taken over by a billionaire and buy a team of super stars and win trophies in this way. I would not be able to identify that team as Everton. I don't see how anyone can be happy for this scenario, it's like cheating on a test and getting an A. I'd rather the club rolled up their socks and earned it on merit or not at all. For those who would favour a billionaire 'saviour' way, why haven't you jus swapped to a different team already? As the only thing that would be untouched is the name and surely no ones affiliation is solely down to a name of a club.

[Matt]

no, absolutely not. Id rather be poor with a soul than rich and empty.

[Romey 1878]

If that's what we got the I'd be fine with it, but it's not what we need or what I have in my head when I think of us being taken over. I just want us to be able to compete financially with at least the teams around us, not read stories that we're being priced out of moves for players who are available on free transfers .

 

I don't really get why people feel they would lose their connection to Everton if we were all of a sudden rolling in money and buying the best players. We were once the Mersey Millionnaires and simply blew other teams out of the water with our financial power. Obviously it's on a different scale nowadays but it's a comparable situation. We haven't always been paupers.

[marcopaulo]

no..mainly because of the risk of them just walking away

[StevO]

as mark said, we did that a long time ago? the john moores take over? we were rich and breaking transfer records. not to city/chelsea scale but for the time it was big.

 

look through history, how many times have we changed our badge? plenty!

 

we dont need a new stadium, just make the most of what we have.

 

the only difference was john moores wasnt a foreigner.

 

i'll be voting yes, right now its getting embarrassing.

Edited August 5, 2011 by StevO

[Hafnia]

Not voting, because it would add credence to many peoples belief that what we want is an owner with the ability to buy Kaka, Messi, Ronaldo, pay them £300k a week and build an 80,000 seater stadium.

 

Put this down as a third option maybe:

 

What I want is an owner that can provide Everton with the platform that would enable 50,000 to watch a team carefully selected by the manager, who have realistic wage demands, a well organised and structured corporate hospitality facility. This is what we should have had ten years ago. We don't expect the manager to spend £100m each year - that is downright stupid. We want him to be armed with adequate funds that the self sufficient business generates.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Hafnia

[GoodisonRoad]

Ideally i would love to be in the situation of Spurs. They have a chairman who was a fair amount of money and is a big fan of the club and yet they always spend reasonable amounts of money every window, okay not in the amounts of City and chelsea but they for me personally are a model i would love to see in place at Goodison. Never gonna happen, but one can dream

 

Edit: Basically what Hafnia says above as "Third Option"

Edited August 5, 2011 by GoodisonRoad

[pax]

Can someone explain to me how Everton can get a new stadium, buy new players every season and pay their wages and increase revenue streams around the world without a huge injection of cash?

 

To get to the point where we are self sufficient we need the above. We do not need the type of money being spent on the Man City squad and i'd hate to see that happen, but we need 'silly' money to get the club to self sufficient status that enables us to consistently challenge for trophies.

 

So, in effect, without a huge cash injection from a seriously wealthy individual or group, this club can't be a self sufficient successful football club. Stagnant, standing still, no ambition, not good enough, we are a big club, Nil Statis and all that bollocks will still be evident without such an investor !

[codders78]

Not voting, because it would add credence to many peoples belief that what we want is an owner with the ability to buy Kaka, Messi, Ronaldo, pay them £300k a week and build an 80,000 seater stadium.

 

Put this down as a third option maybe:

 

What I want is an owner that can provide Everton with the platform that would enable 50,000 to watch a team carefully selected by the manager, who have realistic wage demands, a well organised and structured corporate hospitality facility. This is what we should have had ten years ago. We don't expect the manager to spend £100m each year - that is downright stupid. We want him to be armed with adequate funds that the self sufficient business generates.

 

Excellent post and in 100% agreement

[Matt]

Not voting, because it would add credence to many peoples belief that what we want is an owner with the ability to buy Kaka, Messi, Ronaldo, pay them £300k a week and build an 80,000 seater stadium.

 

Put this down as a third option maybe:

 

What I want is an owner that can provide Everton with the platform that would enable 50,000 to watch a team carefully selected by the manager, who have realistic wage demands, a well organised and structured corporate hospitality facility. This is what we should have had ten years ago. We don't expect the manager to spend £100m each year - that is downright stupid. We want him to be armed with adequate funds that the self sufficient business generates.

completely agree with this but its more rare than billionaire playboys!

[pax]

Ideally i would love to be in the situation of Spurs. They have a chairman who was a fair amount of money and is a big fan of the club and yet they always spend reasonable amounts of money every window, okay not in the amounts of City and chelsea but they for me personally are a model i would love to see in place at Goodison. Never gonna happen, but one can dream

 

Edit: Basically what Hafnia says above as "Third Option"

 

Spurs have absolutely no chance of winning the league. They will have to have their key players stay injury free and p[lay very well to have a chance at 4th and Champions League, which i don't think they will get and they are still a selling club. Modric and Bale won't be there long.

 

If that's what you want for the club, surely you are accepting mediocrity, surely that's not good enough, surely after a few season of consistently finishing 5th and 6th that becomes stagnant etc.

 

You cannot talk about ambition and being a big club, only the best will do on the one hand and on the other suggest a club structure where the only thing that happens is that we go up the league table a couple of places and get further in cups. It's hypercritical.

[Matt]

 

Spurs have absolutely no chance of winning the league. They will have to have their key players stay injury free and p[lay very well to have a chance at 4th and Champions League, which i don't think they will get and they are still a selling club. Modric and Bale won't be there long.

 

If that's what you want for the club, surely you are accepting mediocrity, surely that's not good enough, surely after a few season of consistently finishing 5th and 6th that becomes stagnant etc.

 

You cannot talk about ambition and being a big club, only the best will do on the one hand and on the other suggest a club structure where the only thing that happens is that we go up the league table a couple of places and get further in cups. It's hypercritical.

Every club is a selling club.

[StevO]

Every club is a selling club.

 

this!

evidence - Ronaldo

[marcopaulo]

the term selling club is too grey for me..every club sells players but every club isn't a selling club..if that makes sense

[GoodisonRoad]

 

Spurs have absolutely no chance of winning the league. They will have to have their key players stay injury free and p[lay very well to have a chance at 4th and Champions League, which i don't think they will get and they are still a selling club. Modric and Bale won't be there long.

 

If that's what you want for the club, surely you are accepting mediocrity, surely that's not good enough, surely after a few season of consistently finishing 5th and 6th that becomes stagnant etc.

 

You cannot talk about ambition and being a big club, only the best will do on the one hand and on the other suggest a club structure where the only thing that happens is that we go up the league table a couple of places and get further in cups. It's hypercritical.

 

I know what your saying, but what i meant was that if we had a structure in place similar to spurs at the moment (Decent wages, Decent Transfer Budget combined with a chairman who is a big fan) then we could possibly be challenging for that title spot, but not loose the heart and sole of the club. This, loosely based on we have been sniffing around the 4th spot for quite a few years now on very limited money, so what i was saying is, if we had the money spurs had (Not tens of millions spent every summer, but the right squad additions when we need them, N'Zogbia being a prime example) Then who knows what we could achieve?

Edited August 5, 2011 by GoodisonRoad

[StevO]

id just like to be a buying club! just for a couple of days maybe

 

 

I know what your saying, but what i meant was that if we had a structure in place similar to spurs at the moment (Decent wages, Decent Transfer Budget) then we could possibly be challenging for that title spot, based on we have been sniffing around the 4th spot for quite a few years now on very limited money, so what i was saying is, if we had the money spurs had (Not tens of millions spent every summer, but the right squad additions when we need them, N'Zogbia being a prime example) Then who knows what we could achieve?

 

excellent! my thought exactly. not billions to dominate the world, just enough to spend it when an opportunity arises or when we need it.

Edited August 5, 2011 by StevO

[Matt]

 

I know what your saying, but what i meant was that if we had a structure in place similar to spurs at the moment (Decent wages, Decent Transfer Budget combined with a chairman who is a big fan) then we could possibly be challenging for that title spot, but not loose the heart and sole of the club. This, loosly based on we have been sniffing around the 4th spot for quite a few years now on very limited money, so what i was saying is, if we had the money spurs had (Not tens of millions spent every summer, but the right squad additions when we need them, N'Zogbia being a prime example) Then who knows what we could achieve?

we have 2 out of 3 then!

[StevO]

we have 2 out of 3 then!

 

we dont have decent wages compared to the teams around us. we have a handful of players over 40k a week. arteta is on what? 70k as our top earner?

[Hafnia]

 

Every club is a selling club.

 

Spot on. Football is a business. With the exception of city, Chelsea and real Madrid. Who have debts that can be written off. Every player has a price. If city bid £250m for messi, does that make barca a selling club? No it's that every player has a price.

[Matt]

 

we dont have decent wages compared to the teams around us. we have a handful of players over 40k a week. arteta is on what? 70k as our top earner?

sorry, but people on 40k a week, more than my annual wage for a job that costs me minimum of 55hrs a week, should consider themselves on decent wages.

[marcopaulo]

he did say compared to teams around us though

[pax]

Every club is a selling club.

 

Who have Barcelona and Real Madrid sold without actually wanting to sell them ?

[Matt]

 

Who have Barcelona and Real Madrid sold without actually wanting to sell them ?

Real is an exception, along with City and Chelski. Barca.... good question but im not sure they wanted Eto to go.

[StevO]

sorry, but people on 40k a week, more than my annual wage for a job that costs me minimum of 55hrs a week, should consider themselves on decent wages.

 

you have to look at it on scale though mate. teams around us can pay players 30k a week more than we can.

teams above can pay 130k a week more than we can.

 

add to that we take pienaar, vaughan & turner off the wage bill, then cant afford bartons wages.

[pax]

 

I know what your saying, but what i meant was that if we had a structure in place similar to spurs at the moment (Decent wages, Decent Transfer Budget combined with a chairman who is a big fan) then we could possibly be challenging for that title spot, but not loose the heart and sole of the club.

 

Ok, so i have some questions. If you're club is soley relient upon your rich owners pocket (Spurs), where does that stand on the heart and soul of the club remaining in tact or being lost?

 

Where does mediocrity start and end?

What does 'Only the best will do' mean?

Where does stagnation start and end?

What defines ambition?

 

As far as definition's go, surely we strive to win the league title every season and if we are not, all the above applies to our club. So taking the strategy outline by Hafnia, we have zero chance of winning the league and no plans to win it. So his plan shows a lack of ambition, stagnation, mediocrity and goes against 'Ni Statis' !

 

How confusing.

[StevO]

spurs dont rely on their owner, thay have a massive sponsorship deal, they sell a lot of season tickets and are over subscribed on their corp seats.

they bring in a lot of money.

[pax]

Real is an exception, along with City and Chelski. Barca.... good question but im not sure they wanted Eto to go.

 

So every club is not a selling club. Barca wanted Imbra more than they wanted Eto, so they were prepared to let him go. With the exception of Ronaldo, who have Man Utd been force to sell?

[pete0]

Not voting, because it would add credence to many peoples belief that what we want is an owner with the ability to buy Kaka, Messi, Ronaldo, pay them £300k a week and build an 80,000 seater stadium. Put this down as a third option maybe: What I want is an owner that can provide Everton with the platform that would enable 50,000 to watch a team carefully selected by the manager, who have realistic wage demands, a well organised and structured corporate hospitality facility. This is what we should have had ten years ago. We don't expect the manager to spend £100m each year - that is downright stupid. We want him to be armed with adequate funds that the self sufficient business generates.

This would be ideal, but is the most likely to go tits up, can only think of villa but they've sold 3 of their best 4 players. Like matt says more chance of a billionaire playboy.

Edited August 5, 2011 by pete0

[pax]

spurs dont rely on their owner, thay have a massive sponsorship deal, they sell a lot of season tickets and are over subscribed on their corp seats.

they bring in a lot of money.

 

Are you really suggesting that without Daniel Levy, Spurs would be operating in the same way they are now? Seriously?

 

 

Tottenham Hotspur

Turnover: £113.0m

Operating profit: £18.4m

Net debt: £45.9m

Interest payment: £8.0m

Spurs have gone into debt to build a new training ground in Enfield. The club is paying an annual interest rate of 7.29 per cent on £30m of its borrowings. But it does not have to pay this back until 2024. A planned new 56,000-seat stadium should increase match-day revenues, although it remains to be seen how much the project itself will cost, or the terms of the financing.

Edited August 5, 2011 by pax

[pete0]

 

you have to look at it on scale though mate. teams around us can pay players 30k a week more than we can.

teams above can pay 130k a week more than we can.

 

add to that we take pienaar, vaughan & turner off the wage bill, then cant afford bartons wages.

This would only cover Yobo and Yakubu's wages so were at the very limit of our wage-budget until we can offload some one else