Board/Owners Related Stuff

[Matt]

5 hours ago, Hafnia said:

 

the worlds biggest blue wants to stay for a bit in his £2m a year role…. I thought he did all this out of the goodness of his heart and cos he knows what’s best for Everton. Get gone kenwright and take little miss dynamite with you, maybe she will flog free tickets to blood brothers to the community, won’t make you any money but it may get her some awards. 

Of course he'd prefer to stay, he loves the club (whether he's good for it is a different discussion). End of the day, Bill has no say in it and if Moshiri wants to sell, its his shares he's selling. 

Personally like to have him in a cutover roll so there's at least some one who knows the club during the transfer. The idea of absolute strangers walking in not understanding the club worries me a lot. 

[Hafnia]

2 minutes ago, Matt said:

Of course he'd prefer to stay, he loves the club (whether he's good for it is a different discussion). End of the day, Bill has no say in it and if Moshiri wants to sell, its his shares he's selling. 

Personally like to have him in a cutover roll so there's at least some one who knows the club during the transfer. The idea of absolute strangers walking in not understanding the club worries me a lot. 

He’s been at the club for the past 6 years when it’s been financially mismanaged.   He was at the club previous to that where he had us dangling by a thread cos he took our bad loans, got us in bed with Phillip green and nearly moved us into a tinpot stadium in Kirby.

“We’ve had some good times” my arse, the man is a buffoon and if we had been relegated would not be here to pick up the pieces. He would have sloped off.  
 

he’s handing round like a bad smell cos he wants to be cutting the ribbon at bramley Moore and no doubt get his name somewhere. Tired of him years ago, he needs to be well away from the club as the fans have had enough of him and it won’t be nice to see a man get the insults he will attract. 

 

 

[Romey 1878]

23 minutes ago, Matt said:

Of course he'd prefer to stay, he loves the club (whether he's good for it is a different discussion). End of the day, Bill has no say in it and if Moshiri wants to sell, its his shares he's selling. 

Personally like to have him in a cutover roll so there's at least some one who knows the club during the transfer. The idea of absolute strangers walking in not understanding the club worries me a lot. 

He’s wanting to stay even after Moshiri sells his shares, just like he did when Moshiri arrived.

I don’t want him to stay for any period of time once the club is sold. It didn’t help us last time and it won’t help us this time because he is who he is. An absolute disaster. 

[Zoo 2.0]

I've always been a backer of Bill, but I want him nowhere near the club. A fresh start is badly overdue and the stench from any of our current board is something which shouldn't be accepted. 

I've no hate for the guy, but he just doesn't have a place at the club for me, and is/will do more damage than good.

[Hafnia]

I’m gonna be honest, I don’t want him to stay because I wouldn’t like to see him treated the way he could be treated….. there are many more fans out there who spout absolute hatred and diabolical things about him because of how he has been at our club. 
 

he is a walking insult to the intelligence of every Everton fan. Sat and had a meal with Daniel Levy…. Which resulted in a £40m bid, only Chelsea coming in sorted Spurs out. 
 

he is one of the highest paid board members in world football….. let that sink in. So when we are talking about whether we should pay a player £40k a week…… that’s what bill gets paid.  True blue, we are struggling to get players and need to get rid of talent and he is taking money. 

[MikeO]

21 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

he is one of the highest paid board members in world football….. let that sink in. So when we are talking about whether we should pay a player £40k a week…… that’s what bill gets paid.

Where does that figure come from?

Guardian reported when Moshiri bought the club that, "Kenwright is believed to have paid around £9m for his shareholding and in his 16 years as the Everton chairman has never been paid a salary or expenses."

Then the Echo, reporting on the club's financial results in 2018 said the highest paid, but unnamed diector was paid £578,000 (£11,000 a week); I'd assume that to be Denise, about right for a CEO at a "company" the size of Everton (by comparison in 2016 Liverpool were paying £1.2m, United £2.5m, Chelsea £1.5m and Karen Brady was on £650,000 at West Ham).

How does the highest paid shareholder quadruple their salary in four years, even if you accept it to be Kenwright (which I don't)?

[Goodison Glory]

From the Athletic. It's a pay site so I'll post here rather than the link (subscription is only $1 per month at the minute)

The Premier League, Everton’s losses and a row that won’t go away

Like apples, mattresses and racecourses, when talking about deadlines, firmness is everything.

There are things that simply must be done by a certain time, and everyone knows it, and there are other things that should be done by a certain time but probably won’t because the significance of doing said thing at said time was not nailed down or mutually agreed.

Examples of the former would be getting through airport security, defrosting a turkey on Christmas Day or filing your annual tax return; examples of the latter would be most of the pieces I write. The trick to dealing with deadlines is knowing which is which.

Everton are up against a deadline this week but its firmness is uncertain.

Talk to some in the Premier League (or those who were recently there) and they will tell you the Merseyside club must sell at least one player for a substantial profit by close of play on Thursday, June 30, or the sky will fall in at Goodison Park.

But talk to others and that deadline gets softer. Sure, they say, it would be helpful if Everton could sell a player or two but if it happened on Friday, or even three weeks on Friday, it would not be the end of the world. Direction of travel is the important point, they say — which is also what I tell my editors.

Everton look set to sell Richarlison to Tottenham, in a deal worth up to £60million, as reported exclusively by The Athletic. But do they really need to flog him, Dominic Calvert-Lewin and perhaps even Anthony Gordon by Thursday evening or face the prospect of swapping places with Burnley in the Championship? Or can they turn their phones off, make Tottenham Hotspur chairman Daniel Levy et al sweat a bit and proceed with their player-trading plans at a more orderly pace next week?

According to one source, they must sell at least one of them, and a significant sale is in their forecast for the financial year. Others at Premier League clubs are deeply annoyed about Everton’s profligate spending and wonder if transfer bans, fines or even points deductions are in order.

Sources closer to Goodison Park, however, point out that the club have been talking to the Premier League about their troubling accounts for a year, there are no surprises in there and there is no requirement to sell by Thursday. If there was, they say, why isn’t Everton holding a fire sale?

Let’s establish some facts.

Everton have lost ludicrous amounts of money over the past three seasons.Their pre-tax losses for 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 were £112 million, £140 million and £120 million, which comes to a total of £372 million.

Sure, there is a pandemic in there and almost every football club on the planet has lost money as a result, but Everton’s losses are £150 million worse than the Premier League’s next biggest loss-maker for the same period, Chelsea.

Under the league’s financial fair play regime, clubs are only allowed to lose a maximum of £105 million over a rolling three-year period, which would appear to put The Toffees in a sticky spot.

However, because of the aforementioned pandemic, the league has allowed clubs to treat the two affected seasons — 2019-20 and 2020-21 — as one big season, with the financial result being an average of the two and the rolling period now being four years, instead of three.

This helps Everton as it enables them to use the loss they made in 2017-18 in their 2021 FFP calculation. A good return on player sales that year meant they only lost £13 million overall.

Furthermore, the league has said it will let clubs discount any losses directly caused by COVID-19 from their FFP calculations. And, as always, clubs will also be allowed to strip out any costs related to community work, infrastructure, the women’s team or youth development. As Everton have already spent significant amounts on their new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, the infrastructure exemption is particularly significant.

Long story short, these caveats and deductions bring Everton’s FFP gap for 2021 down from that whopping £268 million to a figure that might just creep inside the £105 million limit, depending on how generous you are feeling.

That is certainly Everton’s take, anyway, and — to be fair to them — it is one they proactively took to the league last year when it became clear just how close they were to becoming the first Premier League club to breach spending rules.

But crucial to this story is Everton’s claim that it got a worse case of COVID-19 than any other club in the country.

In her foreword to the 2020-21 accounts, club chief executive Denise Barrett-Baxendale writes: “The pandemic has had a profound effect on all of us and these accounts show the scale of that impact on our club from a financial perspective.

“Losses of at least £170 million are attributed to the impact on the club of COVID-19, with a further market analysis indicating that the figure could be as much as £50 million higher. For the year covered by these accounts, £103 million of the losses are associated to the pandemic.”

If that sounds like a lot of money for a club with match-day revenue of just £14.2 million in 2018-19, the last audited season before the pandemic struck, it is because Everton are also counting the cost of the rebate clubs had to pay broadcasters for the interruption to the 2019-20 season, a reduction in commercial income and the impact coronavirus had on the global transfer market.

Everton are not the only club to make these points — they are just the only club to put such an outsized number on it. Clubs with huge match-day revenues in normal seasons, like Arsenal and Manchester United, have also put notes in their accounts about how much the pandemic has cost them, but it still cost Everton more.

Central to Everton’s case is that claim about the transfer market.

“With less certainty and less income, clubs across Europe and the world became increasingly reticent to spend and, in many cases, trade,” explains Barrett-Baxendale in the accounts. “As such, the value of departing players decreased and our flexibility in the market was significantly hampered.”

When you have bought as many duds as Everton have over the last few years — and paid them as handsomely as they have — not being able to sell players is a problem.

The only solution was to ‘fess up, agree to a tighter budget and lean on their very generous owner Farhad Moshiri once more. And that is what Everton did.

Big earners like Bernard and James Rodriguez were moved on, spending last summer was reduced to a wafer-thin £1.7 million and, even when faced with the very real prospect of relegation, they largely balanced the books in terms of January transfer window activity by selling Lucas Digne to Aston Villa, a domestic rival.

All that said, Everton have so far only accounted for “crystallised” pandemic losses of £82 million. This was probably enough to keep them on the right side of the league’s FFP watchdogs last season, with the remaining £140 million of claimed pandemic-related costs looking more like a bargaining chip for future assessments.

Which brings us back to June 30, the end of the current financial year, when 2017-18 drops off the FFP equation and the two plague seasons become “T-1” in the parlance.

According to The Esk, a well-connected Everton fan who blogs about the club’s finances, the Premier League side are expected to make a pre-tax loss of almost £80 million in 2021-22.

The Athletic has heard it might be a bit better or a bit worse. Either way, it means the total loss for 2018-22 total will be north of £300 million, which means, even after the usual deductions and Everton’s “crystallised” corona costs, the club is looking at a Richarlison and “DCL”-sized gap between their FFP number and the permitted limit.

The number that is doing the rounds is £50 million. That is not a £50-million fee, by the way, it is a £50-million player-trading profit for Everton. Some much-needed black ink in a ledger full of red.

But does that gap really, really need to be filled on Thursday? Or is that deadline a little softer than relegated Burnley or any of the clubs who want to take advantage of Everton’s financial embarrassment would like it to be?

Well, again, it depends on who you ask.

Some say Everton promised the league they would bank a big player-trading profit in the 2021-22 books. Only Richarlison, Calvert-Lewin or Gordon have the right combination of book value and expected transfer fee to deliver that, but neither the club nor league will comment on whether such a commitment exists.

Burnley think it should and they and Leeds United threatened Everton and the league with legal action for, respectively, breaching the rules and failing to enforce them.

But, in time-honoured fashion, Leeds’ interest in a legal row appears to have waned since they avoided the drop, while Burnley, hardly the most popular kid in class, no longer have a seat at the table.

That is not to say that Everton are in the clear. Far from it — never underestimate the power of self-interest in football.

Burnley might find they have some unexpected support in London at the moment, and it would also be fair to say that some clubs have “kept receipts” in regards to Everton’s strong opposition to Project Big Picture and the European Super League.

The Merseyside club hit out at the “preposterous arrogance” of the rebel clubs involved in the damaging breakaway in April 2021, denouncing those who signed up as conspirators “betraying the majority of football supporters”.Barrett-Baxendale led calls for swift action in the emergency Premier League meeting and Everton chairman Bill Kenwright was still manning the Super League barricades in his foreword to their last accounts. He might, perhaps, have been better advised to stick to his own club’s troubles.

But Everton believe the league is happy with the cost savings they have already made and those that will be realised when the likes of Fabian Delph and the unsellable Cenk Tosun come off the wage bill on Friday.

The club also think the league will not force them to take a time-sensitive price for their best players when they can get better prices next week. After all, moving the club back to something resembling sustainability is what the league wants. There is also an element of fairness at stake, in that enforcing what Everton believe is an arbitrary deadline will weaken them relative to their competitors.

Some of you will read that and shout, “Tough! They shouldn’t have kept giving fading stars, with no resale value, Champions League-level salaries then!” And you would be right.

But then the clubs you support will be thinking, “Yeah, but they’re going to be in a relegation battle again next season, Moshiri has lost hundreds of millions and is trying to sell the club, and it could easily be us one day, so let’s leave it… it’s only Burnley, after all.”

And stuck in the middle, as ever, is the Premier League.

It hates rows between its shareholders and is terrified of jeopardising Moshiri’s sale — or even just Everton’s recovery and move to its new home. But it is equally worried about setting a precedent that says its spending limits are closer to guidelines and its deadlines are soft.

 

[Matt]

3 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

He’s wanting to stay even after Moshiri sells his shares, just like he did when Moshiri arrived.

I don’t want him to stay for any period of time once the club is sold. It didn’t help us last time and it won’t help us this time because he is who he is. An absolute disaster. 

That's why I said a cutover role. Project Management phrasing maybe, im just so used to the phrase  Basicially means a short transition aide from old to new, then gone. 

3 hours ago, Hafnia said:

He’s been at the club for the past 6 years when it’s been financially mismanaged.   He was at the club previous to that where he had us dangling by a thread cos he took our bad loans, got us in bed with Phillip green and nearly moved us into a tinpot stadium in Kirby.

“We’ve had some good times” my arse, the man is a buffoon and if we had been relegated would not be here to pick up the pieces. He would have sloped off.  
 

he’s handing round like a bad smell cos he wants to be cutting the ribbon at bramley Moore and no doubt get his name somewhere. Tired of him years ago, he needs to be well away from the club as the fans have had enough of him and it won’t be nice to see a man get the insults he will attract. 

Don't disagree. My point was of course he wants to stay on, regarding the article, and I see benefit for a short term transition. I'm very worried about no one who gets the club being in the club during transition because, as much as some people want this and for understandable reasons, the new owners will gut the place and my primary concern is they'll cut the values. E.g. EITC - if it's to be run as a profitable modern business, nice guy things like EITC cost, not earn. I want someone like Bill to keep that attachment to the clubs roots with 0 other role or influence. Don't care what mistakes he's made in the past, this Kenyon group will be ruthless and I think he can help transition. 

[Romey 1878]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

That's why I said a cutover role. Project Management phrasing maybe, im just so used to the phrase  Basicially means a short transition aide from old to new, then gone. 

You say that like he'd actually be good at the role. He's been here for this entire mess, he's a part of the problem and he needs to be as far away as possible from any decision making at the club.

There is zero evidence to suggest he'd be a help in a transition.

There's one thing Bill Kenwright is good at and that's looking after Bill Kenwright. He wants to stay on not to help the club, he wants to still be here when we open BMD so he can get himself in the limelight and lap it up even though he's fuck all to do with it.

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

You say that like he'd actually be good at the role. He's been here for this entire mess, he's a part of the problem and he needs to be as far away as possible from any decision making at the club.

There is zero evidence to suggest he'd be a help in a transition.

There's one thing Bill Kenwright is good at and that's looking after Bill Kenwright. He wants to stay on not to help the club, he wants to still be here when we open BMD so he can get himself in the limelight and lap it up even though he's fuck all to do with it.

Up until now hes had too much power and influence. Heart in the place, head isn’t meant for the roles he's tried to play. Much like Moshiri funnily enough.

If his scope is defined well, he could be good at it. In my head he has 12 months of challenging the new owners in case they try to strip the club of its ethics or links with the community in the name of good business practice and profit. Nothing more than that, and it would play to his strengths because he can be theatrical and emotional to explain what the new guys won't and can't know; that the club has much deeper emotions and connections to the area than they can ever understand.

[Romey 1878]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

Up until now hes had too much power and influence. Heart in the place, head isn’t meant for the roles he's tried to play. Much like Moshiri funnily enough.

If his scope is defined well, he could be good at it. In my head he has 12 months of challenging the new owners in case they try to strip the club of its ethics or links with the community in the name of good business practice and profit. Nothing more than that, and it would play to his strengths because he can be theatrical and emotional to explain what the new guys won't and can't know; that the club has much deeper emotions and connections to the area than they can ever understand.

I wish he'd theatrically fuck off!

I seriously cannot believe that there is anyone that wants him to stay on to show the new owners how things are done. All they need to do is look at what the likes of Kenwright have been doing for the past decade and do the complete opposite! He doesn't need to be here for that.

When there's disease you cut it out, you don't leave it to fester. That's a big part of what Moshiri got wrong and I hope the new owners will have far more sense than he did.

[Matt]

4 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

I wish he'd theatrically fuck off!

I seriously cannot believe that there is anyone that wants him to stay on to show the new owners how things are done. All they need to do is look at what the likes of Kenwright have been doing for the past decade and do the complete opposite! He doesn't need to be here for that.

When there's disease you cut it out, you don't leave it to fester. That's a big part of what Moshiri got wrong and I hope the new owners will have far more sense than he did.

I didn't say how things were done though. I said promote and protect the ethics and beliefs of the club.

I do get your point. All I'll say is careful what you wish for. 

[Romey 1878]

Just now, Matt said:

I didn't say how things were done though. I said promote and protect the ethics and beliefs of the club.

I do get your point. All I'll say is careful what you wish for. 

It just feels like what happens with politicians when they're shite at their job - get moved into a different role when they should be out on their ear. And tbh, if they're not going to uphold the ethics of the club or whatever then they'll just do that once he's skipped off into the sunset anyway.

Nah, he's got to go. We need a clean slate.

[StevO]

1 minute ago, Romey 1878 said:

It just feels like what happens with politicians when they're shite at their job - get moved into a different role when they should be out on their ear. And tbh, if they're not going to uphold the ethics of the club or whatever then they'll just do that once he's skipped off into the sunset anyway.

Nah, he's got to go. We need a clean slate.

You’d think the £40m (or whatever it was) would have been enough to take his train set from him. Instead he wants his money and to keep the trains and probably wants the brand new station named in his honour. 
 

One think I’m certain of, the day he leaves the board will be the last day he visits Goodison Park. No chance he comes back, can’t see him taking shit off people without the protection he’s had for two decades to throw them out. 

[Romey 1878]

1 minute ago, StevO said:

You’d think the £40m (or whatever it was) would have been enough to take his train set from him. Instead he wants his money and to keep the trains and probably wants the brand new station named in his honour. 

He must be mates with John Burns.

[StevO]

1 minute ago, Romey 1878 said:

He must be mates with John Burns.

I was expecting to see his name

[Goodison Glory]

21 minutes ago, Matt said:

Up until now hes had too much power and influence. Heart in the place, head isn’t meant for the roles he's tried to play. Much like Moshiri funnily enough.

If his scope is defined well, he could be good at it. In my head he has 12 months of challenging the new owners in case they try to strip the club of its ethics or links with the community in the name of good business practice and profit. Nothing more than that, and it would play to his strengths because he can be theatrical and emotional to explain what the new guys won't and can't know; that the club has much deeper emotions and connections to the area than they can ever understand.

More PMO language there Matt 

[Romey 1878]

 

[Hafnia]

5 hours ago, MikeO said:

Where does that figure come from?

Guardian reported when Moshiri bought the club that, "Kenwright is believed to have paid around £9m for his shareholding and in his 16 years as the Everton chairman has never been paid a salary or expenses."

Then the Echo, reporting on the club's financial results in 2018 said the highest paid, but unnamed diector was paid £578,000 (£11,000 a week); I'd assume that to be Denise, about right for a CEO at a "company" the size of Everton (by comparison in 2016 Liverpool were paying £1.2m, United £2.5m, Chelsea £1.5m and Karen Brady was on £650,000 at West Ham).

How does the highest paid shareholder quadruple their salary in four years, even if you accept it to be Kenwright (which I don't)?

Kenwright Is on £2m a year.  Seen a few sources quote it over past few weeks so will look. 
 

even if he was on a quarter of that my question would be what the fuck does he do for that? 

[MikeO]

11 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

Kenwright Is on £2m a year.  Seen a few sources quote it over past few weeks so will look. 
 

even if he was on a quarter of that my question would be what the fuck does he do for that? 

But (as yet) you can't provide a source of any kind to back any of that up, only what you've "seen" but can't immediately link; if you have several sources should be pretty simple I'd have thought.

Will await clarification with interest.

 

[Hafnia]

 

[MikeO]

7 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

 

Which proves what?

Highly reputable source though it may be....or maybe.

[Hafnia]

33 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Which proves what?

Highly reputable source though it may be....or maybe.

Not getting into the numbers proof, otherwise we will have the whole James Rodriguez was he wasn’t he on £200k a week…. Which obviously now we know either way was a number we needed to remove from the books.  
 

but yes…. Our highly remunerated board.  Esk knows far more than most and he has been spot on about kenwright.   Do you think the board are good value for money Mike? 

[Matt]

11 hours ago, Goodison Glory said:

More PMO language there Matt 

Sorry

[Matt]

7 hours ago, Hafnia said:

Not getting into the numbers proof, otherwise we will have the whole James Rodriguez was he wasn’t he on £200k a week…. Which obviously now we know either way was a number we needed to remove from the books.  
 

but yes…. Our highly remunerated board.  Esk knows far more than most and he has been spot on about kenwright.   Do you think the board are good value for money Mike? 

Thought it was 250k last we chatted on here because it made maths easier for the accountants who needed all the help they could get 

[MikeO]

8 hours ago, Hafnia said:

  Do you think the board are good value for money Mike? 

Now you're moving the goalposts; the issue is that you stated, unequivicably, that Bill was taking £40,000 per week out of the club. I questioned that with some evidence to back up my view and now you're talking about our "highly remunerated board" rather than naming Kenwright in particular other than to say that "The Esk" (who said nothing to suggest Bill gets anything, let alone £40,000 a week) has been right about him in the past. 

More holes in your argument than Swiss cheese.

[Hafnia]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Thought it was 250k last we chatted on here because it made maths easier for the accountants who needed all the help they could get 

£200/£250k let’s go with £200k eh? £10m in wages….. you reckon it wasn’t a necessity to move him on? 

[Hafnia]

40 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Now you're moving the goalposts; the issue is that you stated, unequivicably, that Bill was taking £40,000 per week out of the club. I questioned that with some evidence to back up my view and now you're talking about our "highly remunerated board" rather than naming Kenwright in particular other than to say that "The Esk" (who said nothing to suggest Bill gets anything, let alone £40,000 a week) has been right about him in the past. 

More holes in your argument than Swiss cheese.

So, we have a board member on £2m a year.  Esk and Swiss ramble confirm that….. who possibly could it be?

if it’s not kenwright / then who is earning £2m a year for being absolutely shite and almost running the club into oblivion???

If kenwright was on £25,000 a year it would be too much. The blokes an idiot. Went into hiding after the Burnley game… 

[Matt]

5 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

£200/£250k let’s go with £200k eh? £10m in wages….. you reckon it wasn’t a necessity to move him on? 

I think for £200 he was a bargain

[MikeO]

4 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

So, we have a board member on £2m a year.  Esk and Swiss ramble confirm that….. who possibly could it be?

Two anonymous sources "confirm" we have an unnamed board member earning £2m a year.

Club financials (fact) confirms that, in 2018, our highest paid board member (do you not agree that everything, as I detailed before, points to that person being Denise?) earned £578,000. 

When Moshiri buys in Kenwright is taking no salary at all from the club, and never has. Why suddenly start? 

The £2m figure is probably from the 2020 accounts, "Everton’s four-person board received £4.2 million (2019-20: £3.5 million). The highest paid director (assumed to be Brands) received £2.04 million."

https://www.toffeeweb.com/season/21-22/comment/editorial/41993.html#:~:text=Director's remuneration,Brands) received £2.04 million.

You're trying to build a house on sand to amplify your hate for the man, I get you don't like him but don't pass on groundless, unprovable and improbable theories from social media as fact to back your position; doen't hold water.