Trevor Birch on Everton

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15051909.stm

[FanchesterCity]

This was the article that inspired me to raise the New Ground thread - but people seemed to find it a touchy subject.

 

The article is misleading because it leads one to believe that United's 3M per game vs Everton's 600K is a result of the stadium - which isn't true.

 

There are far more reasons for United's average revenue per game, but of course, the ground IS part of that.

 

Sadly, Everton are unlikely to command 75K a game, not without amazing success and some serious ticket price reductions, and even then it would be hard work. (That's not a slight on Everton, I don't think any other club could attract that many - United are an exception for many reasons).

 

What I don't quite understand is this:

 

On the surface, you have very good attendances, and you don't spend excessively. I assume ground maintenance is higher than usual, and possibly your merchandising leaves a bit to be desired (just an assumption). You're not paying outlandish wages, and your policing costs shouldn't be too much more than average. So you ought to be competitive with many other teams.

 

Now it could be that Everton are being realistic and the likes of Spurs are spending 'speculatively' - and beyond their means.

It's pointless comparing with United - and City and Chelsea aren't working with the same parameters. Liverpool have a stronger name (based on their past success) - but other than that, Everton SHOULD be competing with Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal, Villa etc - so where's the money going?

 

Is it a case of Everton being realists, or is it a case of poor marketing off the field? (or a combination of both)?

[pete0]

This was the article that inspired me to raise the New Ground thread - but people seemed to find it a touchy subject.

 

The article is misleading because it leads one to believe that United's 3M per game vs Everton's 600K is a result of the stadium - which isn't true.

 

There are far more reasons for United's average revenue per game, but of course, the ground IS part of that.

 

Sadly, Everton are unlikely to command 75K a game, not without amazing success and some serious ticket price reductions, and even then it would be hard work. (That's not a slight on Everton, I don't think any other club could attract that many - United are an exception for many reasons).

 

What I don't quite understand is this:

 

On the surface, you have very good attendances, and you don't spend excessively. I assume ground maintenance is higher than usual, and possibly your merchandising leaves a bit to be desired (just an assumption). You're not paying outlandish wages, and your policing costs shouldn't be too much more than average. So you ought to be competitive with many other teams.

 

Now it could be that Everton are being realistic and the likes of Spurs are spending 'speculatively' - and beyond their means.

It's pointless comparing with United - and City and Chelsea aren't working with the same parameters. Liverpool have a stronger name (based on their past success) - but other than that, Everton SHOULD be competing with Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal, Villa etc - so where's the money going?

 

Is it a case of Everton being realists, or is it a case of poor marketing off the field? (or a combination of both)?

 

It's very hard to put a number on how many people would go. Officially theres 4000 obstructed views at Goodison, but thats under the definition of either (or in some cases both) goal view being obstructed. Theres probably another 8000+ obstructed views. In the past I have missed games where there has been bad seats left. Everton have a much larger fan base with in the city and surrounding areas, we're not like man city and man u. Everton fans make up the better share of pop. in our city. Before last year I seen more Liverpool shirts in Manchester than city. More a case of, if you build it they will come. Not if we splash every wall in the shittest shade of blue and buy some super stars some Stockport, Oldham and Bury fans will come.

[FanchesterCity]

You're right, it is hard to put a figure on it, but there are 'limits' too. City are probably at their limit now, and I suspect you'd be similar if things on the pitch were a little bit better (and they aren't bad as it stands).

 

I think it's very easy for fans to get carried away with notions and 60K and more, but in reality, it's not so easy to build up the numbers consistently without many years of hard work and of course, success.

 

The North West in general does exceptionally well, and, if some of the other clubs went to the wall, I'm certain Everton would get a good share of those fans (as would the other remaining clubs).

 

For me personally, I can totally see why many fans want to keep Goodison. But I think the pragmatic answer has to be 'if we could afford it, we'd move'.

 

That said, and this is purely my own belief - football's heading for a serious crash, and those staying with their current ground (even if not state of the art etc) might be making the right move. What 'seems' to be happening at the moment is that clubs are competing as businesses not as football teams - who can make the most on merchandise / sponsorship / image rights etc - and of course that ultimate influences the quality on the pitch - but in order to operate as a 'business' clubs are encouraged to take on more debt, new grounds, seek external investment etc. Before you know it, you owe money on the ground, you owe money on players from 5 years ago, and your shareholders want a return on their investment... and WE the fans have to pay for it all. Yes you have a nice car park and food court - but it's 10 quid to park and 5 quid for a pint etc.

 

Maybe, just maybe sticking at Goodison MIGHT just be a wise choice in the longer term. But there's also a danger that I'm wrong and football doesn't crash - and a handful of clubs that grasped the bull by the horns and marketed themselves to high heaven eventually leave the rest behind.

 

Yes City have painted themselves all over town - but is that so wrong? We live in the shadow of one of the world's greatest clubs - kids on the street are very easily drawn to supporting United and if we don't grab them, United will. We have to market ourselves IF we want to be selling millions of shirts instead of 1000s. We need to market ourselves IF we want the blue chip sponsors to know who we are and put their name on our shirts etc.

 

You might THINK Everton are a world reknowned name (I don't know) - but I can assure you, they're not (neither are City). We are having to compete with Man U, Barca, Real Madrid - these really ARE the big names. If clubs like Everton don't sell themselves, they'll eventually suffer.

 

I don't particularly like the way football's gone in the last 20 years - but I'm just a fan and either go with it, or stop going to the game altogether.

 

I think 'build it and they will come' is only partially accurate. You have to do MORE than that these days, because plenty of other companies are out to grab potential fans money.

[rubecula]

To be honest I think we missed a trick in the King's Dock Stadium plans. Goodison is our home but it won't seat 60,000 let alone 75,000. (Odd that our record attendance is nearly 80,000. but that is before seats were compulsory) I think if we could accomodate a big attendance we would get one. Unfortunately, Goodison as it stands is out sized by many top grounds.

 

Catch 22 to get revenue we need bigger attendances, to build for bigger attendances we need more revenue.

 

I would prefer to be rich through revenue than by having a "sugar daddy" myself, as I don't trust rich investors that much. If they ever walk away and leave the club to it's own devices how could we pay the wages of top stars? We could end up going into administration by that route.

 

Just for info, I never wanted to go to Kirkby, let alone Widnes (As Peter Johnson wanted) Quite liked the idea of King's Dock, but a massive Goodison is something I would dearly love to have.

[FanchesterCity]

I think all fans would prefer to build from genuine revenue, but as you say it's catch 22, plus it's still always going to be complex...

 

Most of the fans in the north west aren't awash with money - it doesn't mean their support is any less of course. People can argue all they like about 'through thick and thin', but if clubs started charging 70 quid a ticket, it WOULD price many fans out of the market. And it would be unfair to blame those fans for not being able to afford to get to games.

 

Arsenal on the other hand seem able to charge a fortune (but I have no doubt there are plenty of Arsenal fans without money too).

 

The like of United can say "we 'earned' our money" - but did they? did they REALLY? or was some it simply a result of their tragedy, and of happening to be a good side at a crucial time in the game?

I'm not knocking United, just trying to say that 'earning' the money isn't quite as simple as some fans think.

 

And of course, Chelsea and City have seriously wealthy owners so they stand out a mile, but even Mr Kenwright isn't without money, and people could say "yes, well it's ok for Everton, but Bill wouldn't be interested in Tranmere would he?" etc

 

It's becoming a quite viscous circle - with fewer and fewer teams able to compete. And Champions League only serves to make matters worse - plowing money into the 'elite'. Spain has 2 teams winning time and again - Scotland the same - Germany similar and England's gone the same way. There's something I just don't like about that.

 

And of course, we the fans are not without blame - cos we WANT better players all the time, and keep asking why money isn't being spent etc.

 

 

As for Goodison, I think in a perfect scenario - you'd 99% rebuild the ground and keep a few elements for posterity. Something United have been rather fortunate in being able to do. Not so easy for Everton who like City had no real option to expand and then there's the transport issues associated with bigger gates etc.

 

The new stadiums are great, but they don't have the brilliant feel of older grounds - I accept that changes have to be made for safety, and partially for comfort. But there's just something about that pitch being the same pitch played on for over 100 years.

 

But - it's not going to happen, and I think Everton fans have to come to terms with that.

I want to take my son to Goodison Park (and Anfield) and show him history. Show him the Hillsborough memorial and remind him that football is FAR more than a game. So I wouldn't want to see either of those grounds go - but - I'm an old nostalgic fart.

If I were an advisor to the club - I'd be saying "it hurts, but you have to do it"

[FanchesterCity]

The sugar daddy thing is always a worry.

 

You always have to think... why us? - it's not cos they love us - it's because they see us a business opportunity. It might NOT be to make money, simply a vehicle to promote themselves or their brand, but still, they are in it for THEM, make no mistake.

 

But then you can look at most chairmen and ponder the same thing - are they 100% in this for the love of the club, 100% for themselves, or the most likely of all, they fancy a dabble with their favourite team, or with football in general, and ideally not lose much, and perfectly make a few bob.... even then, it's a 'dabble' and a bit of fun for them (when they start out).

 

At City, we had a LOT of old City boys running the place - jobs for the boys with good intentions and people who loved the club. But, they were morons with football money. Far too emotionally attached in the club and made bad choices. What we have now is the opposite - merciless businessmen who've got the club bang on track - but a lot of the 'family' feel is lost, but they've probably kept us alive.

 

What do you believe Ken's motives are?

[pete0]

I think all fans would prefer to build from genuine revenue, but as you say it's catch 22, plus it's still always going to be complex...

 

Most of the fans in the north west aren't awash with money - it doesn't mean their support is any less of course. People can argue all they like about 'through thick and thin', but if clubs started charging 70 quid a ticket, it WOULD price many fans out of the market. And it would be unfair to blame those fans for not being able to afford to get to games.

 

Arsenal on the other hand seem able to charge a fortune (but I have no doubt there are plenty of Arsenal fans without money too).

 

The like of United can say "we 'earned' our money" - but did they? did they REALLY? or was some it simply a result of their tragedy, and of happening to be a good side at a crucial time in the game?

I'm not knocking United, just trying to say that 'earning' the money isn't quite as simple as some fans think.

 

And of course, Chelsea and City have seriously wealthy owners so they stand out a mile, but even Mr Kenwright isn't without money, and people could say "yes, well it's ok for Everton, but Bill wouldn't be interested in Tranmere would he?" etc

 

It's becoming a quite viscous circle - with fewer and fewer teams able to compete. And Champions League only serves to make matters worse - plowing money into the 'elite'. Spain has 2 teams winning time and again - Scotland the same - Germany similar and England's gone the same way. There's something I just don't like about that.

 

And of course, we the fans are not without blame - cos we WANT better players all the time, and keep asking why money isn't being spent etc.

 

 

As for Goodison, I think in a perfect scenario - you'd 99% rebuild the ground and keep a few elements for posterity. Something United have been rather fortunate in being able to do. Not so easy for Everton who like City had no real option to expand and then there's the transport issues associated with bigger gates etc.

 

The new stadiums are great, but they don't have the brilliant feel of older grounds - I accept that changes have to be made for safety, and partially for comfort. But there's just something about that pitch being the same pitch played on for over 100 years.

 

But - it's not going to happen, and I think Everton fans have to come to terms with that.

I want to take my son to Goodison Park (and Anfield) and show him history. Show him the Hillsborough memorial and remind him that football is FAR more than a game. So I wouldn't want to see either of those grounds go - but - I'm an old nostalgic fart.

If I were an advisor to the club - I'd be saying "it hurts, but you have to do it"

Seriously, City's wage bill is higher than Kenwrights net worth

 

You're right in an ideal world the redevelopment of Goodison would probably be the most favoured, but financially in is unrealistic and also as you said the legal red tape would be hard to get around, plus the council (unless your Liverpool and can build where ever you want)

[Hafnia]

Kings dock.......... Devastating miss.

[FanchesterCity]

Seriously, City's wage bill is higher than Kenwrights net worth

 

You're right in an ideal world the redevelopment of Goodison would probably be the most favoured, but financially in is unrealistic and also as you said the legal red tape would be hard to get around, plus the council (unless your Liverpool and can build where ever you want)

 

We pulled an exceptionally good move with the Commonwealth Stadium - very very lucky with that one. We didn't have money back then and it was a dream opportunity (other than the heartache of having to leave Maine Road - which actually was a shambles by then, but you can't see it at the time!).

 

I'm sure you could build on the same footprint, but you'd have to move for a couple of seasons. You'd just never get permission to build a new structure (I don't think) and the costs would be more than nice empty field in the middle of nowhere (and it's usually empty for a bloody good reason! nobody else wants it!)

 

I just think Trevor Birch or the BBC were slightly disingenuous - Goodison Park is only a part of the issue - the real issue is that the whole game is becoming a marketing exercise, and Champions League is the 'train' upon which the advertising is served best. If you don't get on that train, you get left behind, and once in a while, they offer a little ride for a clubs like Spurs and City just to show how 'nice' they are at UEFA, then kick us off soon after!

 

The whole game is designed to fulfill the needs of 16 teams or so, and Everton and City aren't on that list I'm afraid. IF City's money manages to start improving the life of Mr Blatter and Co, then they might put us on that list, but it will be with a heavy heart.

 

If City can manage to get TWO stadiums built and 17 pitches as part of their new 'complex' - why can't Liverpool's council start being a bit more open minded towards Everton and say "ok, let's turn the Stanley Park area into something special. Build a great new stadium, and make a genuine difference to a deprived area AND keep the ethos of Stanley Park - a park for the community to enjoy.

 

Casting aside the differences between you and Liverpool - surely a joint venture on the 'complex' could work - even if you had two different stadiums. Kids in Liverpool can still benefit no matter what the colour of their shirt. I'd much rather see two healthy fit kids in jobs one wearing red one wearing blue than two out of work drinking vodka in the streets and chanting about how they'll never surrender etc

 

Pipe dream?

[MikeO]

A "football quarter" has been proposed but seems to be going nowhere...

 

http://www.keioc.net/index.php?page=football-quarter

[Hafnia]

A "football quarter" has been proposed but seems to be going nowhere...

 

http://www.keioc.net/index.php?page=football-quarter

 

I'd settle for a football eighth if it meant a 50,000 seater

[pete0]

Everton and Liverpool already have great youth set ups, it's just a stadium that both clubs need. Theres many examples of clubs sharing a stadium and it's silly that the clubs are trying to build to separate stadiums. We already play on alternate weekends, share a neutral colour and both have debt. Common sense to work together, but this is football.

Edited September 25, 2011 by pete0

[Avinalaff]

Everton and Liverpool already have great youth set ups, it's just a stadium that both clubs need. Theres many examples of clubs sharing a stadium and it's silly that the clubs are trying to build to separate stadiums. We already play on alternate weekends, share a neutral colour and both have debt. Common sense to work together, but this is football.

 

I'm sure the clubs are all for saving money. Unfortunately they listen to fans too much. If it was me, I'd be inclined to tell fans this is how it is and if you don't like it feel free to take up golf.

[FanchesterCity]

Aye, if you actually let fans run a club, you'd be bust in a year and you'd be playing with 10 strikers playing 'entertaining football' and relegated with the largest goal difference in history.

 

But the pies would be 20p each and free parking - so there are SOME merits

[FanchesterCity]

I just assumed suggesting 'sharing' a ground would be seen as provocative!

 

It makes a lot of sense, but with the number of games these days, it's getting less viable unless pitch technology improves.

 

Now I know Everton and Liverpool are great rivals, but I suspect Milan and Inter are just as much so, and they manage. Even United and City managed for a while.

 

YOU are the club, not the stadium - but I suspect there's a fair few fans not willing to contemplate the notion.

 

 

I wasn't implying youth setups weren't good (or bad), simply that doing 'more' than a stadium can improve community links and win over councils - good PR and makes football more accessible (in theory).

 

When I was a lad, you could play football in the streets - I don't think it's quite as easy now - not since the dipstick at number 23 with the tattoos got a new motor and doesn't like us using his Beamer to play 'wally' (pronounced wall-ee for those too young) against

[pete0]

I just assumed suggesting 'sharing' a ground would be seen as provocative!

 

It makes a lot of sense, but with the number of games these days, it's getting less viable unless pitch technology improves.

 

Now I know Everton and Liverpool are great rivals, but I suspect Milan and Inter are just as much so, and they manage. Even United and City managed for a while.

 

YOU are the club, not the stadium - but I suspect there's a fair few fans not willing to contemplate the notion.

 

 

I wasn't implying youth setups weren't good (or bad), simply that doing 'more' than a stadium can improve community links and win over councils - good PR and makes football more accessible (in theory).

 

When I was a lad, you could play football in the streets - I don't think it's quite as easy now - not since the dipstick at number 23 with the tattoos got a new motor and doesn't like us using his Beamer to play 'wally' (pronounced wall-ee for those too young) against

Your knowledge seems to be very naive and based on the assumption that throwing a load a money at a problem fixes it, but you havent done any homework on us. Everton are one of the most innovative and community orientated clubs in the world, even Barcelona have followed one of our models (think its the former pros assistance charity) we even adopted the local basketball team for a short while.

We only need 2 things, a new or improved stadium, and a larger share of the foreign fan market. This would then generate the larger revenue streams to compete with out our hands tied behind our backs.

[Louis]

I think that's naive, in the unlikely situation of Man Utd allowed Everton to play their home games there, we wouldn't get anywhere near bringing in £3million like Man Utd do.

[Avinalaff]

I think the stadium is a big part of the club to be fair mate. Our whole history give or take a few years across the park is in Goodison park. Fans come and go, players, managers, owners come and go, but Goodison Park is still there. All my memories of Everton Football Club, other than tv and radio, are at Goodison Park. The route to the ground, the bus fare, the train fare, the drive, the styles, the terraces, the stairs, the view of the pitch, the toilets, the crowd, the atmosphere; it's all Goodison Park.

 

Manchester City fans were led by an Arab Pied Piper in exactly the same way as if I was to open a bigger and better forum, and ask all our members to come and post there on the premise that I'd call it Toffeetalk. It's a terrible example, but it's an easy one to understand.

 

You all think you are supporting Man City. You're not.

 

Much of Manchester City died when they bulldozed Maine Road, and so did the culture in the area, and the small businesses etc etc. You have nothing left that resembles Man City, other than a name, and memories, and that is the same as calling the Isle of Man England and going to live there, or another forum Toffeetalk.

 

All your memories of Manchester City football club exist in Maine Road. What you have now is a new club, and a new adventure. An evolution if you like. You might want to call it another chapter, but is it really?

 

You don't agree? Let me ask you this .............

 

Go find an 80 year old man who no longer goes to the match, and ask him to describe his memories of Manchester City football club. Then tell him that it's all gone now, but he can still find them at the Etihad stadium. I wonder what that man will say to you in reply.

 

The owners or who ever built Etihad didn't need the history of the club. They didn't need the old stadium. They just needed 40,000 fans to join them.

 

What if they had simply built a 3rd great club in Manchester, and called it Manchester Athletic? Would you have become an Athletic supporter? What if they hadn't wanted to call the new club Manchester City? What if they wanted to call you Etihad town?

 

The fact is that they could have done that. Just built a new stadium, with new owners, new players, new identity, and won the league playing to an empty stadium every other week. They don't need the revenue of the fans, as it's clear they are spending so much money, that they can 'never' earn it back through football and merchandising. They might have actually gotten a 'new' set of 40,000 fans. Who knows, as there are enough folk in Manchester and surrounding areas. They could have let them in for free.

 

Well, they did all that, but called it Manchester City, then bulldozed what was left of the 'real' Manchester City, and all your fans gladly jumped ship for promises of riches.

 

I'm being hard, but my words are legitimate if you think about it logically.

 

Fans are 'not' Everton FC. They are witnesses to it.

 

Everton FC is what it is, and much of that is not physical.

 

It's the combination of lots of things, but it's not the fans alone, and it's probably something different to every one of us. If I die today, Everton FC will get by just fine, and so will all the other fans. Only if 'all' the fans died today, be it match goers, or armchair fans, would it have an impact on the club, but the club would still be there, even if much of the revenue had gone, and any body passing would still be able to point and say "There's Everton Football Club".

 

Some of my fondest memories of Everton have been as a child, listening to the radio, where there are no fans, no ground, just hope. Fans are for sharing the experience with, and the memories with, and also the anticipations with, but to say that fans are the club, not the ground?

 

No, I can't accept that.

 

The day Goodison Park is bulldozed, or stands empty, will be the day part of my heart lies empty as an Everton fan, and you can guarantee that I won't be alone. Yes, I'll embrace the new ground, and the new 'chapter' but it won't be Everton any more, especially if there is no Moyes, no Kenwright, and a bunch of new players.

 

I'll still have my memories though as I do now.

 

If you can tell me that it isn't like that for you, then I'll believe you, but I'll question it all the same.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Avinalaff

[FanchesterCity]

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!

[FanchesterCity]

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!

[Avinalaff]

I actually said fans 'shouldn't' be allowed to make the decisions, but that's another debate.

 

What you've just written is another debate too, as whether it's best to move from Goodison is a totally different conversation than whether the ground represents the club or not, as I'm sure you will agree.

 

Relocating or redeveloping or even rebuilding? I think there is a thread or two on this very subject already, but I'd be happy for a ground share, if it benefited Everton, and I'd be happy with building a new ground on the same plot. Basically, I'd be happy with what is best for the club regardless of what that was. I don't live in Liverpool, so it is different for me than it might be for other fans. Also my active supporting days are coming to an end, so what happens next will effect the existing, and future supporters more than it will effect me, so I certainly wouldn't get involved too much in that side of things. I've had my time as they say. I think if they do relocate, it will certainly be the start of a new era, and if the relocation was at the hands of new owners, with new staff and players to follow, that would be something I'd find hard to have any feelings for. In fact it would probably be the time I find another pass time.

At the end of the day, it's just a game, and Everton, and everybody else are just football clubs. We all get a little too sentimental at times.

[pete0]

I think that's naive, in the unlikely situation of Man Utd allowed Everton to play their home games there, we wouldn't get anywhere near bringing in £3million like Man Utd do.

 

We'd get no where near there, but would be significantly more than we get now, educated guess would be at least double the revenue now, maybe even more if you factor in the difference in running cost actually a lot more once you factor in the corporate functions as well.

[FanchesterCity]

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.

[Lowensda]

Another view taken in response to an article from the Times.

 

http://www.dixies60.com/2011/09/26/how-the-barca-ownership-model-might-work-for-everton/

 

 

 

How the Barca ownership model might work for Everton

 

Patrick Barclay, Chief Football Commentator of The Times, is not a man we always agree with. Back in early 2010, when Carlo Ancelotti was in the midst of his troubled time at Chelsea, Barclay suggested that Abramovich hire David Moyes and sign Arteta and Pienaar – we were not best pleased and said so. However in Saturday’s (Sept 24) Times newspaper, his interesting article entitled “If the players can dig deep, so can the fans” discusses the Barcelona, Real Madrid, Athletico Bilbao model of club ownership, or perhaps more accurately stewardship, and how it might be relevant to Everton. These Spanish clubs are not organized as limited companies, whose shares can be bought and sold, but as registered associations, rather like co-operatives, who own and control the club; Barcelona currently has 170,000 members of their association. Barclay considers the dangers involved in so called sugar daddy ownership, pointing to the Hicks Gillett farce at Liverpool, the Glazers at United and, in a near miss of which we were unaware – how Everton might have contributed Alexandre “Sacha” Gaydamak to that list - had not Kenwright spotted a bad ‘un, refused to sell and sent him packing, after which he settled on Portsmouth and quickly took them into administration.

 

Up until now putting money into a football club has, unless your pockets are so richly lined that it doesn’t matter, been a mugs game. But as Barclay says the landscape is shifting. The Bostonians who have taken over at Anfield have made their move because Uefa’s Financial Fair Play regulations will make football a more viable commercial proposition, the new rules will level the playing field. Similarly Arsenal have built their business model on the sound foundations of financial self-sustainability based on the huge cash flows from their new stadium and the imminent introduction of the Financial Fair Play regulations, rather than the petro-dollars or rubbles of a mega-rich owner.

 

Barclay calculates that £75m would be needed to buy Everton and that if we imagined that the club had 75,000 supporters we might, to be conservative, estimate that 10% of them, or 7,500, would be willing to put their hands in their pockets and each invest £10,000, yielding the required £75m. Or if 15,000 supporters each invested £5,000, or 75,000 supporters £1,000 each – you get the picture. Judging by the high-end vehicles which stream into the Park End car park on match days the club certainly has its fair share of affluent fans but those who couldn’t afford cash up front could venture a subscription in return for future season ticket concessions. The arrangements could be tailored to suit all types. These numbers are hypothetical, just meant as an example of how it might work in principle.

 

However Everton in its current financial situation needs a solution with a slightly different slant. What is urgently required is for fresh capital to be injected to pay down all, or part, of the – again to be conservative - £50m debt burden and for investment in the playing staff. So let’s take Patrick Barclay’s £75m and estimate that the supporters co-operative (for want of a better name) buy a 51% controlling interest from existing shareholders for £37.5m and use the remaining £37.5m as a capital injection, to reduce indebtedness and invest in the playing squad, in exchange for an issue of ‘new’ shares. Thus the co-operative would end up owning, say, 80% of Everton. As a result of this issue of ‘new’ shares the pre-existing shareholders would see their remaining holdings diluted down – though in exchange for a smaller percentage stake they would be holding shares in a better capitalized, more viable entity, with its debt virtually gone.

 

Or more radically the whole amount could be used to re-capitalize the club with £75m of ‘new’ shares being issued to the co operative. Under this scenario existing shareholders would have to accept substantial dilution, to well below the point where they control the club, but all the debt would be paid down and funds remain for player purchases. Of course if more than £75m was raised, then all the better, if less, then it could still work.

A plan like this would need flexibility, imagination and a willingness by all involved to compromise. Most of all it would require existing shareholders,

including Kenwright and Earl, to accept a dilution (reduction) of their percentage interest in the club and thus to cede control to the co operative. It would also need leaders, people who would lend it credibility. Let’s think about Evertonians in public life or with successful business experience, men like Sir Terry Leahy, retired CEO of Tesco, Andy Burnham MP, former cabinet minister and Blues philanthropist Dr David France.

Barclay signs off by saying that the notion that a Premier League club cannot make the Barcelona model work is illogical and that the optimium moment is approaching. He is right; absent the increasingly fanciful idea that after all this time some rich potentate is about to ride to the rescue perhaps it’s about time Evertonians stopped bickering and looked to ouselves for the solution.

[StevO]

I actually said fans 'shouldn't' be allowed to make the decisions, but that's another debate.

 

What you've just written is another debate too, as whether it's best to move from Goodison is a totally different conversation than whether the ground represents the club or not, as I'm sure you will agree.

 

Relocating or redeveloping or even rebuilding? I think there is a thread or two on this very subject already, but I'd be happy for a ground share, if it benefited Everton, and I'd be happy with building a new ground on the same plot. Basically, I'd be happy with what is best for the club regardless of what that was. I don't live in Liverpool, so it is different for me than it might be for other fans. Also my active supporting days are coming to an end, so what happens next will effect the existing, and future supporters more than it will effect me, so I certainly wouldn't get involved too much in that side of things. I've had my time as they say. I think if they do relocate, it will certainly be the start of a new era, and if the relocation was at the hands of new owners, with new staff and players to follow, that would be something I'd find hard to have any feelings for. In fact it would probably be the time I find another pass time.

At the end of the day, it's just a game, and Everton, and everybody else are just football clubs. We all get a little too sentimental at times.

 

i agree with most of what you have said in this thread, but i know you've been a fan for years. surely you have seen the squad change completely over the years? im 27 i can think of at least three or four completely different squads. players come and go, they have to. the players are the only thing that i dont see as part of the club. (but strangely i see them more as part of the club after they have gone)

[Avinalaff]

 

i agree with most of what you have said in this thread, but i know you've been a fan for years. surely you have seen the squad change completely over the years? im 27 i can think of at least three or four completely different squads. players come and go, they have to. the players are the only thing that i dont see as part of the club. (but strangely i see them more as part of the club after they have gone)

 

You can change components of your engine over time, and not notice it, but replacing the whole car in one go is something completely different, and that is what I would hate and hope to avoid where our club are concerned.

[StevO]

You can change components of your engine over time, and not notice it, but replacing the whole car in one go is something completely different, and that is what I would hate and hope to avoid where our club are concerned.

 

Fair enough mate.

[rubecula]

I think the stadium is a big part of the club to be fair mate. Our whole history give or take a few years across the park is in Goodison park. Fans come and go, players, managers, owners come and go, but Goodison Park is still there. All my memories of Everton Football Club, other than tv and radio, are at Goodison Park. The route to the ground, the bus fare, the train fare, the drive, the styles, the terraces, the stairs, the view of the pitch, the toilets, the crowd, the atmosphere; it's all Goodison Park.

 

Manchester City fans were led by an Arab Pied Piper in exactly the same way as if I was to open a bigger and better forum, and ask all our members to come and post there on the premise that I'd call it Toffeetalk. It's a terrible example, but it's an easy one to understand.

 

You all think you are supporting Man City. You're not.

 

Much of Manchester City died when they bulldozed Maine Road, and so did the culture in the area, and the small businesses etc etc. You have nothing left that resembles Man City, other than a name, and memories, and that is the same as calling the Isle of Man England and going to live there, or another forum Toffeetalk.

 

All your memories of Manchester City football club exist in Maine Road. What you have now is a new club, and a new adventure. An evolution if you like. You might want to call it another chapter, but is it really?

 

You don't agree? Let me ask you this .............

 

Go find an 80 year old man who no longer goes to the match, and ask him to describe his memories of Manchester City football club. Then tell him that it's all gone now, but he can still find them at the Etihad stadium. I wonder what that man will say to you in reply.

 

The owners or who ever built Etihad didn't need the history of the club. They didn't need the old stadium. They just needed 40,000 fans to join them.

 

What if they had simply built a 3rd great club in Manchester, and called it Manchester Athletic? Would you have become an Athletic supporter? What if they hadn't wanted to call the new club Manchester City? What if they wanted to call you Etihad town?

 

The fact is that they could have done that. Just built a new stadium, with new owners, new players, new identity, and won the league playing to an empty stadium every other week. They don't need the revenue of the fans, as it's clear they are spending so much money, that they can 'never' earn it back through football and merchandising. They might have actually gotten a 'new' set of 40,000 fans. Who knows, as there are enough folk in Manchester and surrounding areas. They could have let them in for free.

 

Well, they did all that, but called it Manchester City, then bulldozed what was left of the 'real' Manchester City, and all your fans gladly jumped ship for promises of riches.

 

I'm being hard, but my words are legitimate if you think about it logically.

 

Fans are 'not' Everton FC. They are witnesses to it.

 

Everton FC is what it is, and much of that is not physical.

 

It's the combination of lots of things, but it's not the fans alone, and it's probably something different to every one of us. If I die today, Everton FC will get by just fine, and so will all the other fans. Only if 'all' the fans died today, be it match goers, or armchair fans, would it have an impact on the club, but the club would still be there, even if much of the revenue had gone, and any body passing would still be able to point and say "There's Everton Football Club".

 

Some of my fondest memories of Everton have been as a child, listening to the radio, where there are no fans, no ground, just hope. Fans are for sharing the experience with, and the memories with, and also the anticipations with, but to say that fans are the club, not the ground?

 

No, I can't accept that.

 

The day Goodison Park is bulldozed, or stands empty, will be the day part of my heart lies empty as an Everton fan, and you can guarantee that I won't be alone. Yes, I'll embrace the new ground, and the new 'chapter' but it won't be Everton any more, especially if there is no Moyes, no Kenwright, and a bunch of new players.

 

I'll still have my memories though as I do now.

 

If you can tell me that it isn't like that for you, then I'll believe you, but I'll question it all the same.

 

This 100%. (Wish I could have phrased it that eloquently.) I was sure I ws the only one on here who felt like this. Thanks for posting me old mate.

[FanchesterCity]

I agree with him too, but the future of the club doesn't lie with me, it lies with the kids...

 

Pandering to my nolstagia would have been the wrong move. And looking back, City made the right choice.

 

It's a bit different for Everton anyhow though... City were faced with a bit of a gift horse with the stadium, it was far easier (but still not easy) to grab the chance whilst we could.

 

For Everton, it's much worse (now), having to fork out for the full cost of the stadium.

 

That said, it's usually a lot more expensive / troublesome to do up an existing ground than build a new one - depending on how adventurous the plans are, and the very thing that makes Goodison Park so appealing (being right in the midst of the streets) is also what makes it so much more complicated.

 

The existing Everton fan base is literally 'dying' - and more and more clubs are going all out to grab the kids and get them attached to their club. I've seen kids wandering about in Chelsea shirts!! Not that there's anything wrong with a kid picking a club and following it - but if Everton don't market to them, other clubs will.

 

The stadium is only one aspect of the marketing, but it can be quite a significant one when it comes to sponsorship and corporate hospitality etc

 

One route that MIGHT be interesting to go down, and very unique - would be to somehow make a real play on the age of Goodison, and spend money not so much on modernising it, but making it more of an historic stadium. In a sense, a little like Fulham is 'unusual' and how Highbury had that old feel. That could be a quite clever trick for Everton, playing on the history - wooden seats, tiles etc... BUT actually in decent condition Call it 'retro'

 

Might be a fanciful idea but sound nicer than just one more modern stadium - again, nothing up with them, but they lack a lot of character.

 

But it all comes down to cost - time and again, and it seems other clubs have looked into it umpteen times, and keep coming to the same conclusion - you get more for your money on a brownfield site and knock up a big concrete affair.

Edited September 28, 2011 by FanchesterCity