The answer has to be an unequivocal and emphatic...NO!
Elstone's record is abysmal, even taking into account the unfortunate fact that the Board he works for and answers to are the worst board in the club's history. Bill Kenwright and the Board are no excuse, he was Keith Wyness?s deputy before accepting the top job, he cannot plead ignorance.
Let?s move on to Elstone's record: Deputy CEO and CEO of Everton during Destination Kirkby ? millions of pounds spent; end result ? nothing. Everton Place ? millions spent, one hole in the wall later and the project collapses with a number of excuses given. So that?s two major projects and I haven?t even mentioned his lamentable defence of the club's transfer policy; how the club spends its money that was taken apart by the Blue Union; and his "85p in the pound is spent at Finch Farm", yet.
Everton are falling behind their Premier League peers, not just in terms of facilities, but commercial revenue.
Everton earn ¬£17 million from commercial sources (sponsorship, kit deals, conferences etc); Liverpool?s new kit deal is worth ¬£25 million per season. Everton's kit deal is worth ¬£0.6 million by comparison. Also of interest is that Bolton, a small-town club based on a hill outside Horwich, earn ¬£17 million from commercial sources. It?s not all Elstone's fault, the decision to outsource merchandising and catering was made by his superiors, but he has done precious little to improve the club's commercial income.
"85p in the pound is spent at Finch Farm" ? is the current party line spouted by Elstone, a chartered accountant, but it just doesn?t stand up to scrutiny. 85% of ¬£82M is ¬£70M. 97% of the wage bill goes to the players, which is ¬£56M; subtract this from the ¬£70M then divide by 365 and you?re left with ¬£38,000 per day. As many Toffeewebbers may have noticed, this doesn?t add up, Liverpools academy in Halewood costs ¬£8,000 a day, Finch Farm in the same local authority costs an extra ¬£30,000 and the reasons given are not convincing ? be it lawn mowers or medical equipment.
The main source of contention for me is that Elstone has offered the Kirkby finance model as the only way to secure a new stadium. My objection to this is not based on my initial objections to Kirkby, but on the outcome of the Public Inquiry in which he participated and attended that rejected not only the scheme, but had a few harsh words about Everton's funding formula. In short, Elstone is lying.
?We have to look for a new site and use the Kirkby funding model which involved 40% to 45% of the capital cost coming from retail uplift subsidy.
?I don?t think there are a shortage of sites, I believe there is a shortage of funding.
?I think our optimum capacity is around 50,000, which generates an extra ¬£5m [a year]. That means it's tight, it needs a great naming rights deal or subsidy, or probably both.?
The Kirkby funding Model simply didn?t exist.
The Everton board and CEO know this and to suggest to the supporters five years later that such a model is viable is a lie. Tesco were not going to give Everton 40 to 45% of the capital cost.
8.3.18 The Council is funding the Stadium through the uplift in the value of its land which is being passed on to Tesco. ? From the Report to the Secretary of State on the planning application for Destination Kirkby. He must have read the report.
As for the shortage of sites for retail-led enablement, he means that there is a shortage of sites for such developments in Liverpool. As for shortage of funding, that's solely down to the Board of Directors that haven?t invested a single penny in the club, but are demanding a free lunch in the form of a retail enablement in order to increase the value of their shareholding.
There is also no demand for a 50,000-seater stadium... in fact, there is no demand for Goodison as evidenced by the falling attendances this season.
?Chelsea FC recently did some work about the challenge of redeveloping and staying at Stamford Bridge, and it said their capacity would go down.?
He said the London club had been told it would be hugely complex and also cost ¬£600m.
?There are similar problems to rebuilding Goodison.
?The only sensible option is land acquisition. I genuinely believe that the redevelopment of Goodison is not a realistic option.?
The Chelsea example makes no sense for a number of reasons: It?s not going to cost ¬£600 million to redevelop Goodison nor will it require land acquisition on such a scale. It could be done on the existing footprint, but we don?t know that because as Elstone knows a feasibility study has not been commissioned.
Retail led enablement is the only option ? a decision made by Bill Kenwright on a train journey that he shared with Terry Leahy. Man sits next to a fella on a train and enters into a major construcution project with him that leads to nothing and costs the club ¬£4 million...
So Elstone is lying, but at Everton Football Club that's no surprise when you take the Board and Chairman into consideration. It?s a necessity.
My major concern is that Elstone is still pushing a Kirkby model that he knows to be a non-starter. Allied with his poor performance in improving the club's commercial income and his failure to control the senior management team that have succeeded in taking from him some of his responsibilities, Baxendale-Baxter is now Chief of Operations, that Bill Kenwright doesn?t trust him to find the necessary funds to keep the club afloat. What is Robert Elstone doing to earn his quarter of a million?
Elstone's major failure is that he can?t convince the board to follow a new strategy, to abandon outsourcing and retail-led enablement. I don?t think he has tried... or, if he has, he hasn?t tried hard enough. He may be an employee and he has to do as the Board tell him, but has he offered them an alternative? I believe a good CEO should offer his own ideas to an organisation, not just follow orders.
Yet that is what Elstone is doing and that in my opinion makes him worse than the much maligned Keith Wyness. He had a backbone and stood up to the interference from the advisor.
Elstones not going to do that, he?s just parroting the Board's discredited position on retail-led enablement and approving dismal commercial deals that do little to enhance the clubs finances. No wonder Bill has to work around the clock to get the funds to keep the club afloat; if he left it to Elstone the interest rates on the mortgage would rival that of a payday loan from Wonga. He?s also being undermined by his senior management team, the only people around Everton that want him sacked.
I don?t want Robert Elstone sacked; I think he should resign and negotiate a handsome pay-off. He just isn?t very good, he can organise an attack on a fans group, but that was only necessary because he gave the militants access to the Chairman. The nicest thing you can say about him is that he has charisma, an over-rated quality, but nothing else. A Charismatic Void.
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
539 Posted 21/03/2012 at 07:06:09
541 Posted 21/03/2012 at 07:39:09
Elstone is nothing more than a shield for the current board, just as Wyness was. A convenient mouthpiece who will lie to fans, spout the party line and dish out meaningless platitudes wherever his boss can't be bothered to.
There isn't a CEO in the world who could make a blind bit of difference working under this board.
Knowing how Bill acts I genuinely doubt he carries anything like the same authority and responsibility held by others in his position.
545 Posted 21/03/2012 at 08:31:58
547 Posted 21/03/2012 at 07:33:28
548 Posted 21/03/2012 at 08:51:32
549 Posted 21/03/2012 at 08:51:32
550 Posted 21/03/2012 at 08:51:32
552 Posted 21/03/2012 at 08:59:53
554 Posted 21/03/2012 at 08:57:06
he may sound a nice honest man, but every word he has spouted in his time with us has been riddled with lies and if you could bother to read the Kirkby inquest Alex, it shows his lies and yet here he goes again rambling on about the Kirkby model.
559 Posted 21/03/2012 at 09:18:15
Remember too, Alex doesn't have to prove that Elstone is doing a decent job. The null hypothesis is that he is until it can be proved that he isn't. David's article is just the same old innuendo, lack of understanding why EFC's revenue is low compared to big clubs and plain old opinion as facts.
DK wasn't a bad idea neither as it got us a new ground at a low cost. It was just handled very badly. Anyone got any better ideas on how we get a new ground?
560 Posted 21/03/2012 at 09:27:29
Both articles have valid points but miss the main target: Kenwright.
He sets the standards for the club, he sets the vision, the buck stops with him.
And right now he must be laughing his head off, in disbelief that two of his lightning conductors have once again just taken a full blast on his behalf.
Get rid of Kenwright, get someone in who knows how to run a football club, and things will soon improve. Leave him there and any other CEO will perform to his tune - and continue the failure.
563 Posted 21/03/2012 at 09:37:59
By their own admission, we will be looking a losses again for the next financial period, a lot more than the ¬£5m posted in the latest accounts.
We are a basket case.
565 Posted 21/03/2012 at 09:38:44
Martin "Kirkby not a bad idea" I agree it wasnt a bad idea for the directors to make ¬£54 million on there shares, as for Everton, god only knows where it would have left us!! It failed though Martin so did Everton Place,
Proof that the guy in charge couldn't be trusted to make a cup of coffee!!
566 Posted 21/03/2012 at 09:56:42
568 Posted 21/03/2012 at 09:57:43
571 Posted 21/03/2012 at 10:09:25
Elstone is merely a stooge and hired mouthpiece for the current failed board. In terms of developing the stadium he is merely towing the official line which continues to see the only viable option as continuing with the failed destination Kirkby model which enables the silent major shareholders who have invested zero money in the Club besides their shares to potentially recoup their money with a favourable return.
576 Posted 21/03/2012 at 10:31:29
On 29th February Tottenham announced more deails of the Northumberland Development Project. This is their plan to build a state of the art stadium along with a revamp of North Tottenham - see link:
I hope you take a look, because it not only involves commercial partners ? particularly Sainsbury's ? but also the local community and Haringay Council. Spurs have driven this, they were not frightened to go for the Olympic Stadium in the High Court and then charge Boris Johnson for the legal fees plus ¬£8.5m towards the project.
Well what have Liverpool City Council done with all this EU money? Last installment of ¬£313m due 2006. Please see BBC link below with all the promises made from the council.
As you can see, the council earmarked a huge chunk for the regeneration of the Anfield area to help with the new Anfield stadium. Why didn't Everton jump down there throat and say, "This money is for the people of Liverpool ? what about us?"
The new stadium will not happen, the EU money has gone, the board are incompetent and without vision and the City Council are... well we all have our view on them.
605 Posted 21/03/2012 at 12:26:08
Here's a quote from an article discussing their current ownership's outlay over 9 years of $140 Million. Dollars not pounds.
"This American icon that once was cramped and congested now has more seats and spaces, wide open concourses, new and improved facilities and many more food and beverage options for our fans. Leading up to its 100th anniversary in 2012, our focus has been always to improve and expand the physical structure without disturbing the warmth, charm and authenticity that surrounds this ballpark,"
At $140 million over 9 years! ¬£600 million? What an insult to intelligence.
I wonder often just what it is this group intends? Players the only assets left to sell. Two failed attempts at a new stadium. Really, I'm not even taking shots at them. What exactly are their plans? They must have SOME idea. Yet, we just keep dripping and drabbing along.
At this stage, I can't see interested parties swooping in without a significant drop in asking price which seems is only coming along if relegation does.
And we're not even asking some new financial wheel be invented. Between American and European professional sport, many simple revenue streams have been well-established. We're not even copying some of them.
There's really no plan at all? None?
What the Fuck?
609 Posted 21/03/2012 at 12:37:59
I find the man patronising and did not like the scare stories he was spouting during the DK farce to make people accept the dubious move.
In short, the sooner this bloke is out of our club the better. And that goes for the clowns above him in the boardroom.
616 Posted 21/03/2012 at 13:00:22
What is the latest on the interested parties wanting to buy us, or just more shite from the board???
618 Posted 21/03/2012 at 13:10:51
Kenwright tried to sell Everton out by relocating to an unsuitable stadium in an unsuitable location nine miles from the city centre. Anyone thinking that this was a good idea is a fool. Nobody in their right mind would build a stadium there, no other Premier League club has a ground that far away from their regional centre, so why was it proposed?
Because it offered Kenwright the ability ? just the ability, not the guarantee ? to recoup the money borrowed from Green and the money invested by Green through that other waste of space Earl.
Kenwright is up to his neck in debt and needs the opportunity of getting a sizable return to pay off his debt ? not Everton?s debt, his debt. Staying at Goodison and doing the most cost-effective and sensible thing that is best for the future of the club won't enhance the price of the club. Kenwright is acting in his interests and not that of Everton or Evertonians.
Kirkby would have added value to the club?s balance sheet at a rate redevelopment will never do, hence Kenwright, through his poodle Elstone,¬† persistently promoting the need to find a scheme with the highest yield and that type of scheme is an enabling development. Kirkby was ¬£78m in and, potentially, ¬£130m out. It would have improved the chances of Everton being sold for a decent price but at what cost to the club because there was no money from Tesco towards the cost of the stadium...Who believes people give you money for nothing?
For a club with a negative balance sheet (business-wise), this enabling trick makes sense. The problem for Everton as a long-term business, and more specifically for Evertonians, is that, as evidence has shown, Kenwright is happy to relocate to any area, irrespective of the fact that it would be detrimental to the future health of the club; Kirkby ? with its poor transport, inability to reach government transportation targets, meaning capping, and being a grossly unsuitable location to take advantage of non-football income because of its location away from the city infrastructure, even before you consider the extra inconvenience to people that actually attend the games ? was perhaps the worst idea put forward by any board in the clubs history. Most fell for it, some didn?t; some things never change, some of them are still clapping him ? proving in the process that they?re as thick as a gurkha?s cock.
Blaming the council is a lame excuse. Everton lied to the council over the Kings Dock and those lied to are still at the council today. In today's Echo Joe Anderson offers a thinly veiled swipe at Everton when he says ?We are in discussions with both clubs about how to develop the area they are in. Nothing will happen without it coming through cabinet. Our relationship with Liverpool is fine and we have regular dialogue as the stadium issue is one we are involved in.?
If that needs spelling out to you then thank god we have some fans who actually understand about the relationship between the club and the city.
Everton has too many phonies working for them: Kenwright with all his Boys? Pen rubbish shouldn?t fool any decent blue, but he does. Elstone, a Liverpool supporter, is as much use as a chocolate teapot... and now we have another Red replacing Ian Ross, a man who held Evertonians in exactly the same contempt as Bill Kenwright does.
Anyone handing money over to prop up this traitorous regime needs to revaluate their reason for being an Evertonian, away from all the rhetoric such as, born not manufactured and standing together...¬†
Stephen Kenny is right; he's doing Bill's bidding, he has no interest in the club and little ability. In short, a poodle.
620 Posted 21/03/2012 at 13:20:38
Why you having a go at the pink kits? I for one like them; real men wear pink.
*I'm not gay.
**Each to their own.
621 Posted 21/03/2012 at 13:15:34
623 Posted 21/03/2012 at 13:42:43
630 Posted 21/03/2012 at 14:37:23
Elstone's a City fan.
631 Posted 21/03/2012 at 14:43:27
Paul Watson (576), surely you must accept that there will be a degree of cynicism / reticence on behalf of LCC when it comes to dealing with a board who have previously proven incapable of delivering? Officers and Councillors may have changed, but many will remember the Kings Waterfront fiasco, when political pressure was applied to elevate Everton's bid from "7th out of 6 bids" (according to RS Councillors at the time) to Preferred Bidder.
I've worked on multi million pound schemes on both sides of the fence (private and public sector), and to be honest it's human nature to treat certain scheme promoters with a dose of "'kin 'ell, they've gotta be joking" due to previous history.
I think you'll find that now extends to potential private sector enablers after the DK fiasco.
Whilst I am not their biggest fan across a number of issues, I'll give LCC a pass on this one.
654 Posted 21/03/2012 at 16:49:14
657 Posted 21/03/2012 at 16:44:21
As for Everton place that was supposedly a cash-neutral ¬£9million pound project that went all the way to the construction phase, until the owners of the land called a halt to it.
"The new development plan was unveiled by chief executive Robert Elstone at a Shareholders Forum before a match versus Everton Chile on Wednesday.
Mr Elstone said the plans would be "self-funded" as cash would be taken from extended deals with catering partner Sodexo and retail partner Kitbag."
Thats were the millions of pounds spent came from an advance from existing contracts. Putting in development plans, legal agreements/contracts and knocking down a wall, that's many hours of work that must have run into the millions. Of course I can't find the total costs I would have to ask an evasive CEO for them. That it ran into millions is a reasonable assumption-it got as far as the construction phase-and is apparently due to start up again this summer...watch this space.
The substantive point of disagreement is that you believe that Elstone has done a good job. The chairman and SMT at GP don't quite share your faith in his abilities.
659 Posted 21/03/2012 at 17:11:13
I'm not saying he's done a good job. A CX is supposed to lead the management team in delivering the objectives of the business plans as agreed by the board of directors.
I just really don't see what his job is. Every time he speaks at a public event, he has nothing to say, and it's obvious. His self-apologising manner of speaking publicly at such events bears this out in my opinion.
Clubs these days pay their top execs big money as well as their top players. Garry Cook, the much-maligned CEO at Man City till a careless email did for him was on ¬£1.8m a year, or around ¬£35k a week.
How much do you think Bob is on at Everton? I'd guess less than what Bully was on. We just are a small club from the board to the training pitch I'm afraid.
661 Posted 21/03/2012 at 17:18:27
Now, Matt, what is the nature of your disagreement with my OP?
718 Posted 22/03/2012 at 00:55:59
A lot of Moyes fans would like to see how he would operate under new owners. I'd also like to see how Robert Elstone would work. If I had to put money on one departing into the wilderness when BK eventually goes, it wouldn't be on our CEO.
But it's all hypothetical.
721 Posted 22/03/2012 at 01:12:11
What figure are you calculating 97% of? Certainly none of the figures you've quoted.
97% of 82 is 79.54
97% of 70 is 68.
56 is 97% of 62, what does that 62 represent in your calculations?
723 Posted 22/03/2012 at 01:29:02
If the board think that the only viable solution is another Desperation Kirkby then they need to go NOW.
But I suspect that this statement is a little seed planted to grow into a statement later regarding another ground move with an enabling commercial development.
I smell a rigged vote coming on.
751 Posted 22/03/2012 at 09:23:34
Sometimes I go in the Lower Bullens ? it's not changed since I first went in 1962 with me dad!
787 Posted 22/03/2012 at 12:56:11
818 Posted 22/03/2012 at 15:45:13
Says it all really.
A new stadium debate is pointless under white flag Moyes.
Turning away in their droves as the truth of this mans ineptitude is becoming clear.
822 Posted 22/03/2012 at 15:34:53
The council may have a better relationship with Liverpool FC because it seems to be run as a business?. There is nothing businesslike about EFC board and so there is nothing for the council to work with in regard to EFC.
If we had a business brain on the board, EFC could ask the council to reroute roads around the ground to extend the footprint, relocate the school, work out a lease arrangement for the yard at the back of the Bullen's if they really wanted to redevelop Goodison. Yes it would cost money but on an 'Invest to Save' model some financial institution would surely be interested in putting the money up?
834 Posted 22/03/2012 at 11:30:36
There are no free lunches for a club of the size of Everton, Kings Dock, Kirkby and Goodison Place confirms this and tells you that this board, through its mouthpiece, doesn?t have a clue and if the council and these other agencies are listening to keioc why don?t the board see sense and speak with them? Because they think it?s a waste of time talking with people who actually want to improve the club, strange they want free money but they?re not willing to accept free advice and if measured on performance, its exceptionally good advice.
Everton can?t deal with the council, their fans can, it?s not rocket science is it Ray?
835 Posted 22/03/2012 at 18:22:09
The council would engage as enablers but the board would have to invest or borrow the finances to invest. If i want to improve my shop, i borrow to invest-i dont stand outside the Town Hall singing 'Buddy can you spare a dime'/
849 Posted 22/03/2012 at 19:43:08
Spot on: he should be sacked or resign. The fact that he takes orders and acts on them from Kenwright is no excuse. How many of Hitler's Generals tried to hide behind the same old "just obeying orders" bullshit.....
Anyone who hasn't read the e.mails needs to read them before making a comment. Plotting against the fans to hide the truth... he's a dog.
Again ... spot on....
883 Posted 23/03/2012 at 00:59:23
You didn't mention a figure of ¬£58m in your previous post and David has just cut and paste it so the same incorrect calculation appears in his post.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to Fan Articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.