Season 2011-12 Fan Articles
Will Everton Learn From Their Mistakes? Part I
By Simon Magner :: 23/03/2012
43 Comments (»Last)
Part One: Desperation Kirkby Revisited
The questions surrounding the long term future of Everton FC always come back to one subject, the future of Goodison Park. Goodison remains the spiritual home of Everton Football Club, but the inability of the Grand Old Lady of English Football to generate the level of match day and non-match day revenue, to enable Everton to compete with its peers, remains the key subject that has been debated since the present incumbents came to power.
The stance of the board and the executive team is clear and was delivered by CEO Robert Elstone recently at the Global Entrepreneurship Congress. Mr Elstone stated: "I genuinely believe that the redevelopment of Goodison is not a realistic option".
To say that the statement was disappointing would be an understatement; but not as disappointing as his later assertion that "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."
Apart from ridiculously seeking synergy with Chelsea's £600m redevelopment forecast, the major flaw in Mr Elstone's statement was that there was no funding model in relation to Destination Kirkby, at least not the one that Everton FC led it's supporters to believe. It's probably a good time to refresh Mr Elstone's convenient short term memory and go over just why a similar model to Kirkby will not work.
The move to Kirkby was presented as the answer to Everton's long standing stadium and revenue problems. Fans were told that Tesco were acting as an enabler who was providing £52m towards the cost of a £130m world class stadium that would provide £10m a season to the manager.
Everton actually told their shareholders that they were receiving £52m, from Tesco, towards the cost of a new stadium; this isn't the Blue Union's version of events, here's what they club actually said:
"Normally when a club has to look for a new stadium, it has to look at financing the whole depth of the new stadium itself. In this case we have been able to work with Tesco and Knowsley to create a situation where Tesco will make a contribution of £50m towards the cost of a new stadium. That is a huge contribution and we believe that with stadium naming rights and proceeds from the sale of Goodison and with some additional debt that we will be able to deliver a world class stadium that will be up there with anything in the Premiership."
The reality was there was no money, not a single penny, it was nothing but semantics. There was no subsidy for use towards the cost of the stadium, there was no £130m world class stadium and the manager never was going to receive a £10m transfer budget every season.
What Everton were receiving was completely different to £52m, it was a £52m VALUE derived from the increased value of the land once planning permission was granted, a value that would have eventually appeared on the Everton balance sheet and was revealed in the report to the SECRETARY OF STATE by the Government planning inspector; the financing of the stadium was described thus, "being funded by the council through Tesco by the uplift in the value of its land to facilitate an increase in the value of the club for the benefit of its present owners and no doubt the value of the club to its owners would increase if a new stadium could be provided at a subsidised cost."
There it is in black and white... "for the benefit of its present owners". Quite simply, Bill Kenwright and his board are guilty of misleading the club's fans and once again, four years later, four years after nothing has happened, quite disgracefully, the CEO is once again perpetuating the lie.
The question is why and The Blue Union will tell you exactly why he has said this and, as usual, with Everton, the devil is in the detail.
At the Global Entrepreneurship Congress fringe meeting Mr Elstone stated that the redevelopment of Goodison was unaffordable and as far as it goes this statement is truthful. What he omitted to say is that the redevelopment of Goodison is unaffordable for the current owners. This board has no desire to invest a single penny into the club, they never have and they never will; even the redecorating of the Dixie Dean suite this season was an insurance job after the pipes burst last year.
Stating that redevelopment isn't achievable and that increased revenue streams will only be brought about by a new stadium, funded through an unrealistic and undeliverable funding mechanism, ensures that the board can continue to do nothing as the possibility of any enabling development within the city is non-existent.
The enabler in the Kirkby proposal wasn't Tesco; it was Everton. Regional and national planning regulations, and indeed Knowsley Council's own Unitary Development Plan, restricted the size of any retail development, at Kirkby, to one suitable to service the needs of its 40,000 population without damaging the offer at the regional centre, Liverpool. Tesco disagreed with this, Tesco wanted to exceed this restriction by 250% and to achieve this they required the cooperation of Knowsley Council and Everton Football Club.
Tesco's plan was to build a stadium alongside their development; the stadium brought prestige and jobs to Kirkby and allegedly addressed cash strapped Everton's desperate need to upgrade their old stadium. Tesco gave the planners an ultimatum, "no stadium no development, no development, no stadium". It was an all or nothing gamble by Tesco but Government Inspectors discovered the inappropriateness and the dubious relationship between Council and developer. But for Evertonians, the greatest revelation was that there was no £52m subsidy from Tesco and that the strictly to be enforced regulations meant no additional income, free usage of the facility by the council and Europe's most strictly enforced no parking zone without public transport to match. In short Everton were being dumped in a white elephant of a stadium "for the benefit of its present owners".
It was nothing but a value and as such it could not have been used as a contribution towards the cost of the stadium. In reality Everton were building a £78m stadium. When completed, the value on Everton's balance sheet would have been £130m which would have been realised when the club was sold. Who would have bought the club is a mystery; it's debateable that any legitimate owner would want a club with a stadium nine miles from the city centre with questionable transport links except somebody living in a one bedroom flat in Singapore. So why did Bill Kenwright's board advocate such a blatant dereliction of their duty as directors which is looking after the best interests of the club?
The answer lies if the murky financing behind the shares "owned" by Kenwright and Earl. The majority of this finance came from Philip Green; his security is the ticket sales of Kenwright's shows, meaning that his money is safe and he'll be paid back when the club is sold, hence the obsession with wanting to improve the value of the business in favour of ensuring the long-term viability of the club. Nobody can supply any factual evidence that Everton need to move to a 50,000 seat stadium; they can provide a desire but no quantitative evidence whatsoever.
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, isn't being pursued by the board. Kenwright is acting in his interests and not that of Everton or Evertonians. He is willing to look at anything which will offer the ability to pay back Philip Green and therein lies the danger for all genuine 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?
If you think the possibility of Everton moving away from the city is over think again. In the last few weeks the leader of Knowsley Council, Ronnie Round, when being attacked in the council chamber over a policy decision on Kirkby's civic facilities, mocked his attacker by saying "and don't think Everton won't be back on the agenda soon" . Knowsley, as a borough, is vastly semi-rural and has lots of land which they're not embarrassed to hand over to private companies and flaunt the best value rules. They did it with Liverpool's Academy. Everton has a presence in Halewood, not far away they will soon be opening their Free School and it is known that certain people have long since talked about Everton's presence in South Knowsley as can be seen here.
Kirkby will go down as the greatest fiasco to befall Everton in its 134 year history. The facts, once known, reveal a litany of lies and deceit that formed the basis of mistrust between loyal Evertonians and a board who placed self-interest before that of the club and whose track record confirms them as the most incompetent in Everton's history.
So once again, the question has to be asked, where was Everton FC getting the money from to fund the last stadium, and where does Mr Elstone plan to get the money from to finance a new one? A very prudent question given the fact that at the moment Everton FC are so cash strapped they have sold almost £40m of assets in the past eighteen months, of which the manager of the football team, essentially our business, has seen just 5% for strengthening the smallest squad in the premiership.
Some may be tempted to dismiss these actions as prudent financial measures in harsh economic times but they will be ignoring the reason why we're in such dire straits in the first place and the real elephant in the room being you can't keep selling assets for ever.
In part two of this article we will examine what the future holds for Everton and how a solution can be found for Everton's financial problems that have become a symbol of Bill Kenwright's reign at Goodison.
Simon Magner is Secretary of The Blue Union
Reader Comments (43)
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
2 Posted 23/03/2012 at 20:06:27
3 Posted 23/03/2012 at 20:09:26
4 Posted 23/03/2012 at 21:05:39
Enormous task getting past the kenwright smarming of the local and national press not to mention his lackeys at NSNO, BlueKipper etc.
The self interest of Kenwright and his cohorts at the expense of the club is a scandal.
5 Posted 23/03/2012 at 21:48:18
Would that help? Going down the road of putting our money elsewhere as suggested on another thread could work, but fans with a passion for the club would draw them back.
I myself am waiting for either Moyes to apologise for the derby fiasco, or walk. At the moment, I don't want to go to another match, but the draw of the place is getting stronger until I eventually go back.
6 Posted 23/03/2012 at 23:16:31
7 Posted 24/03/2012 at 01:06:54
8 Posted 24/03/2012 at 04:01:43
9 Posted 24/03/2012 at 06:26:15
10 Posted 24/03/2012 at 06:46:47
11 Posted 24/03/2012 at 06:37:10
You can attack Elstone 24/7 and some will do this regardless but he is absolutely right in saying that a financially weak club such as EFC can only get a new ground if the money is provided by external uplifting such as combining the ground development with retail development and the one subsidizing the othe. This isn't atom splitting, a broke club can't redevelop its own ground or buy another.
EFC fucked up with DK big time but it wasn't because the basic idea was bad only that it was never going to get past an enquiry. Remember also that a majority of supporters voted for it.
Wtf has DK got to do with today? Just another excuse to use the platform of this site to berate the EFC board again? DK is history.
13 Posted 24/03/2012 at 08:27:33
The land wasn't sold to Tesco with a price hike, it would be the building of the stadium on it that increased the value of it.
Tesco on oath said they weren't subsidising the stadium to the tune of a penny.
External uplift isn't funding ? it's a value increase of the final build which is only beneficial to the majority shareholders, again repeated on oath at the hearings.
The majority of supporters didn't vote for DK; the majority abstained.
But then again, Martin, you've repeated this before and been shown how it's all untrue to no avail with you claiming it's just opinion despite it being admitted by the one person you have defended, Rob Elstone on oath.
14 Posted 24/03/2012 at 08:40:32
Excellent post. DK was an horrendous howler, and fundamentally flawed in almost every respect. It was indeed the enabler for big business to get what it couldn't otherwise get, and not the otherway round. There can be no other similar retail-led scheme sanctioned in the whole city-region, end of story. Therefore Elstone's insistance on this being the only model is both laughable and insulting to the collective intelligence of Evertonians. Funny how his recent anouncements have coincided with heightened discusssions and developments regarding the football quarter. The focus will increasingly be placed on the club's plans for the future, and they're already tryingh to get their excuses in. This crowd have no intentions or even the gumption to attempt to deliver anything. They have had to farm out practically every aspect of the club's operation and have sold everythin to just stay afloat. Charlatans and fakes backed by serial lies and incompetence. If Johnson had presided over a fraction of this he would've been run out of the place years ago.
15 Posted 24/03/2012 at 09:23:11
That the majority of Evertonians abstained is irrelevant because by abstaining they lost their right to influence the decision or complain about it afterwards. The majority of Evertonians who had the balls to put their money where their mouth is voted for the move.
That I have been shown to be incorrect in the past is incorrect in itself, it is your opinion.
I'm always amazed at the number of bar room lawyers, coaches, managers and economists among the ranks of Evertonians who seem to have developed complaining about the club to an art form and to ever higher levels and yet who are incapable of offering any feasible ideas on what the board could do differently to what it is doing now to improve our fortunes. Of course we are all entitled to raise our opinions but attacking the bord and Moyes is a cracked record now.
DK was a failure but it was a valid attempt to get us into a new ground , a possible staging point for recovery.
I don't like what is happening at Everton any more than you Gavin but I don't complain. The reason is that I don't believe that the board and manager can do anything to stop the rot and my complaining won't help a bit. I don't think that it's unreasonable or not in the Club's interest for a director to state that the best , or only, way EFC are going to get a new ground is by taking something similar to the DK route
16 Posted 24/03/2012 at 08:45:59
We need a 50,000 stadium?? Are we likely to fill it except for 2 or 3 games per season? Are we likely to fill it given the shite we have to watch? In our last glory days, the average was 37,000.
Work on 33,000 (16.5k x 2) go to 16.5k x 3 = 49.5k. What we actually need is a 50%(?) hike in ticket prices.
And a phased redevelopment of the Goodison site.
Oh and a new Board
Is this likely to happen??
17 Posted 24/03/2012 at 10:22:39
DK represents a complete dereliction of duty by the board to engage in even the basics of this process. At NO point did the club demonstrate a valid planning or design process. At NO point were the full spectrum of options studied and thoroughly evaluated, as shown throughout and even long before the inquiry.....
DK was the result of an old pals act with fag-packet planning. The glaring gaps and omissions were filled with lies and rhetoric to force our square peg into Knowsley's and Tesco's round hole. All thankfully long exposed.
For Elstone to now repeat the long-discreditted nonsense only highlights the incompetence and ulterior motives of this regime. The whole retail package could not yield more than £12m towards construction costs. Out-of-town retail sheds have only limited fundraising potential in these respects.
In any case, nothing similar will ever be proposed or delivered in the whole city region......... these are the simple facts. Not opinion at all. Elstone's latest is nonsense based on nonsense. Same old same old!
18 Posted 24/03/2012 at 11:06:55
It?s undoubtedly a theory, but the way you?ve conveyed the information makes the conclusion as simple as identifying the culprit when a puppy sits next to a pile of dog shit. Â Â
Martin (92), I did not know that the land in Kirkby was sold by the council to the developers nor that the money obtained from this transaction was to be used to subsidise the stadium. Have you a link to this or can you offer an official source that confirms this?
You say, ?I have to say that I'm staggered that there are people who can't see how the Kirkby leveraging worked and how it genuinely subsidised the Stadium for EFC.? I may be wrong here but it appears to me that it is you that is grossly ignorant of what was attempted at Kirkby and of the business processes involved.
TW is meant to be a place for serious discussion amongst well informed Evertonians. My understanding, and I believe the general consensus, is that the land wasn?t sold at all, that the land was handed to Tesco for a nominal undisclosed fee and that after planning permission was obtained, this greenspace land, would have had a much higher value.
The portion of the land required for the stadium, plus the surrounding infrastructure, paid for by the NWDA, which now had a value of £52m placed on it, was to have been transferred to the ownership of Everton under a 999-year lease. Added to the £78m construction cost, paid by Everton, gives the £130m value, so no money, as confirmed by Tesco and Knowsley council, was to pass to Everton ? hence Tesco?s reliance on the phrase, ?our contribution is derived from the value of the project.?
I?m no expert on this but I know a few people on here are by virtue of their qualifications and involvement in the public inquiry, I think Tom is one of those.
I think I have a reasonable understanding of the relevant issues but I?m always open to persuasion if the facts are presented in an indisputable manner. The floor is all yours Martin.
19 Posted 24/03/2012 at 11:31:21
Any such application should be thrown out by a responsible council. Perhaps it will be. Many provisions will have to be made.
Move the traffic away from the people? This is how it is done in London and that works to some extent. We are likely to have to park & ride thousands more cars ? Aintree?
Don't expect redevelopment to be quick, cheap or easy to access. 5 years? In your dreams.
The Football Quarter is a great idea but relies on people with money buying into the dream. Now Peel are some way to making progress perhaps that will be a factor but they are notoriously ruthless when it comes to money ? they don't spend if they don't have a very good chance of getting it back.
If we truly cannot fill a 50,000 stadium then long term we will stand no chance of competing for the top. To suggest we should be happy where we are is to suggest we are always going to be a mid-league club. How do we get our sons to support that?
20 Posted 24/03/2012 at 12:39:48
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting on Martin to respond to your direct question.......... he can't because if he has read the public inquiry fully as he's forever claiming, he will know you are right, rendering his previous assertions and flawed stance a complete nonsense. As you said...... the floor is yours Martin.
21 Posted 24/03/2012 at 13:47:30
"That the majority of Evertonians abstained is irrelevant because by abstaining they lost their right to influence the decision or complain about it afterwards. The majority of Evertonians who had the balls to put their money where their mouth is voted for the move".
Absolutely, 100% not true.
They might have voted for A move, but they certainly didn't vote for THE move.
Because had it actually happened, THE move would have involved supporters being herded onto rail platforms and for some, having to wait 1 hr 45 mins after the game.
THE move would have meant only 1000 car parking spaces.
THE move would have meant 1000 on bikes.
THE move would have meant a bog standard ground.
THE move would have NOT provided a free ground.
(this is all in the report by the way Martin but..well you'll know that won't you).
So what move DID they vote for?
They voted for a free stadium.
They voted for a state-of-the-art stadium.
They voted for the best transport links in the country.
And why did they vote for those things?
Because that's what they were told they'd get.
Truth is (like a battered wife who stays with her abusive husband) they chose to believe someone who had lied to them before, over and over and...
Luckily for us, not all Everton supporters were as gullible and some even had 'the balls' to 'put their money where there mouth is' and help PROVE we'd been lied to and help kill what would have been, imo, the dumbest fucking move in our history.
22 Posted 24/03/2012 at 14:14:40
24 Posted 24/03/2012 at 15:30:20
Who Else? Councils? REALLY?? Broke again. Government? Maybe if they want to promote growth in Liverpool but from the events last week we have to assume they don't.
Which leaves us with big business. Paying for infrastructure etc while we just pay for a cheap stadium - cos it HAS to be cheap. Geddit?
Like it or not we either persuade a large company we are worth including in a project - preferably one that neighbouring councils won't oppose (including Liverpool) - or we gracefully subside until the loss of Moyes triggers steep decline - because it will.
Conspiracy theories? You can't have Kirkby being a disaster and the death of EFC AND the board lining their pockets.
1000 spaces in Kirkby? Spin again. there were plans for 10 times that amount in the surrounding areas - which is exactly how many other clubs manage.
Kirkby is dead - forget it. Phone up Peel and beg them to be included in their plans somewhere at least half suitable and let us trust our biggest assets - our fans - and build something big enough to get 50 000 in at least.
25 Posted 24/03/2012 at 17:06:31
"1000 spaces in Kirkby? Spin again. there were plans for 10 times that amount in the surrounding areas - which is exactly how many other clubs manage"
Wow!
Well, if there were 'plans' for 10,000 new parking spaces in Kirkby, you'll have no problem showing us them.
26 Posted 24/03/2012 at 17:53:24
Packaging the club with a brand new stadium (just anywhere) to artificially elevate its value for a sale is just that. It will benefit the seller... whereas it might not necessarily benefit the club in the medium to long term, especially if the stadium is poorly planned or designed. There is no contradiction nor conspiracy theory there! A white elephant is a white elephant, brand new or not!
There are several good books and articles relating to stadium planning, and location is nearly always the primary issue. Out of town stadia have predominently failed, and you would struggle to find any experts extolling the virtues of this model (certainly not for local clubs, as opposed to international venues).
The current trend (last 25yrs) is for more centrally located stadia. These often have little or no on-site car parking. Because it isn't needed, the infrastructure and public transport is in place. DK was a cobbled-together effort in every respect. Its key selling points were all based on lies..... every single one.
The transport scheme decended into farce long before the actual inquiry. It was soon realised that the Public Transport provision for Kirkby was only a fraction of that for Goodison. This is a logistical constant that would've been the case even if Merseytram had been in place. Park and Ride eventually gave way to Park and Hike when it was realised that there simply wasn't enough surplus buses/drivers in the system to serve the scheme.
At no point, even after several revisions could the transport planners model a workable scheme. The access and egress issues could not be resolved, and the inevitable over-reliance on cars had Knowsley building in capacity-capping clauses when they realised their residents where going to be over-run and grid-locked.
We could've in effect been going to a smaller capacity stadium than the one we have, while paying for expensive capacity we could not use. The club's transport experts were literally laughed out of the inquiry. Hence one of the reasons why the club dropped the hot-potato at the first opportunity.
Simon Inglis, the world renowned stadium expert, stated that if it was his club proposing to move so far out of town, he would be very worried. Any similar proposal should arouse the same worries.
27 Posted 24/03/2012 at 20:15:11
Do you know how the majority commute to & from Old Trafford? Wait for hours in their car after the game or wait for hours for a tram or walk a few miles. Sound familiar? Where would you rather be? And it works. They are quite successful at making money with that model.
Like I wrote - find a big comapny and some land - Peel seem to have most of it at the moment - North docks anyone?
Kirkby is dead, let's move on. It WILL need a similar deal to enable us to get a better stadium. Lets not be quite so quick to condemn the next time - you and I both know there were at least as many not wanting to move from Walton as there were making every effort to ensure that this project wouldn't work - indeed they still won't, treating the club as 'their' property. Keep the club in Walton would be more accurate.
28 Posted 24/03/2012 at 21:17:05
For decades the area has been more than capable of a significant throughput of traffic and parking as its on arterial links to the city centre. As for the 10,000 car parking spaces in Kirkby I always found the stadium at Kirkby to be the biggest pile of excrement I have ever heard about. Kirkby is a town of just over 40-42,000 souls. Where the hell would you put enough car parking in a town that small sufficient to house cars for a quarter of its populus?
The council won't and shouldn't fund a stadium as clubs are private businesses and its an abhorrence that millionaires go cap in hand to tax payers for a handout, then again they don't exactly put their own hands in their pockets either so a dead rubber that one too.
29 Posted 24/03/2012 at 21:14:56
You can be as strident as you like, your "Now let me set you straight on a few things" tone is fooling nobody
No facts (AT ALL), just (more) tuppenny-ha'penny guesswork.
I must admit though, I do wonder......why?
30 Posted 24/03/2012 at 21:42:49
31 Posted 24/03/2012 at 18:20:23
Kirkby was bad for the club and bad for the fans. It was brilliant for the balance sheet, it would have added £52m to it and ENABLED the owners to ask for a better price ensuring a return on their outlay on shares in 1999.
Old Trafford? Not sure the last time you went there but when I was last there I walked into Deansgate in no time because it?s close to Mancheter City centre and backs up everything Tom has outlined. It?s teeming with transport, trains, buses, trams unlike Kirkby which is nine miles from the city and doesn?t need any transport infrastructure. You?re not related to martin are you?
Peel are not interested, if you know anyone from keioc they?d tell you that they?ve spoken with John Whittaker, the chairman of Peel, and the answer is an emphatic no to a stadium on their best known development, Liverpool Waters. Any move to assemble an enabling development at Stonebridge Cross will bring about a massive objection from Knowsley who had a similar objection upheld there prior to Kirkby. That's about it for suitably sized developments, it ain't going to happen.
Kirkby should never be forgotten Thomas. Evertonians should never be misled as you are demonstrating over the car parking issue. Originally the car park was both surface and basement parking for 1,000 vehicles. This was later changed, as the construction was to be on a former rubbish tip, due to problems with venting gases which prevented the inclusion of a basement car park meaning onsite car parking was cut to only a small number sufficient for directors, players and corporate guests.
This stadium was to be built within Europe?s most heavily enforced no parking zone, a strictly enforced zone extending two miles around the stadium. There was no provision for parking within that zone, the council assured the residents no matchday parking would be tolerated. Along with the necessity to comply with government ratio targets on public / private transport, failure to do so would have seen the stadium capacity capped, meaning that our fans would have really been ?crush loaded? onto public transport. I sat through the last ever general meeting at Everton when all this was laughed at, the board, the management and their advisors sat there looking like amateurs.
Regarding the money for infrastructure improvement, I know this is a revolutionary idea for some on toffeeweb, but the only place Everton, a private business, is ever going to obtain money for investment in their infrastructure is from their owners in the form of equity investment or debt finance. Not as revolutionary as you think as it has been done by all other premiership club; even City who were fortunate to be in the position to rent their stadium from their council are investing in their infrastructure.
I appreciate Robert Elstone is speculating, on a stadium naming rights deal, as heavily now as he was over Kirkby, the reason nobody could understand where the money was coming from, but he either starts living in the real world or he should be kicked back to the accounts department to do some book keeping, which is about his level. When he stops fantasising and starts to understand that whilst Everton has a £650k a year shirt deal with Le Coq Sportif, Nike is no better, Liverpool will be getting £25m a season from Warrior and that tells you everything you need to know about the size of Stadium naming rights deal a mere accountant is likely to deliver.
The only thing to look for is a new owner and the only thing people should worry about is not the new owner but that Bill Kenwright, who sold the club out over Kirkby, is involved in the process.
32 Posted 24/03/2012 at 22:39:04
Old Trafford is just 2miles from the city centre. It is connected to it via trams, trains and buses galore. Manchester United also have the biggest out of town support in the country, and could probably fill their stadium if it was in the capital, yet even they wouldn't leave their centrally-located stadium..... so I'm not sure what your point is regarding them and the relationship with DK.
Simply packaging a product for a sale is a mere window dressing exercise. This is what DK was all about. Any "apparent" balance-sheet value increase is meaningless if set against the fact that the resultant stadium is dysfunctional and fundamanetally flawed..... DK fell apart at the inquiry, otherwise the club could've followed up on it. They didn't for all the obvious reasons outlined.
33 Posted 25/03/2012 at 13:56:15
If even the Revenue go to the back of the queue when the shit hits the fan, why should ANYBODY pump money into football in general and Everton in particular?
Blue Bill might once have hoped to have made a killing on the money he borrowed to invest but, as the years go by, he must see just getting that money back as a mega result.
Tales of another DK proposal or even a major re-fit of Goodison can, in my view, be regarded as just that: tales... spun, no doubt to answer those well-meaning souls who think the management are squirrelling away huge sums (management costs, as in `Where`s the money gone, Bill?) when they could be spending it on ground and players.
My view is that the Club is living from hand to mouth and day to day and is totally controlled by its bank. I have a terrible feeling that BU or no BU, things are only going to get worse!
34 Posted 25/03/2012 at 14:27:58
What has always amazed me about football finance is how bankrupt clubs sell whatever can be sold to pay off transfer fees owed on players, settle the contracts of players and managers, and tell all other creditors to take a running jump. They take the 10-point hit and then carry on business as usual or, like Portsmouth, do it over again several times!
As far as that basket case is concerned, I've now lost count of the number of their motley owners who thought they had `secured rights` over Fratton Park only to find they`d been well and truly shafted by the last `benefactor` but three!
35 Posted 25/03/2012 at 15:27:10
"I have a terrible feeling that BU or no BU, things are only going to get worse!"
Well (nb: and this is as rare as a rare thing from Raretown) I agree with you.
I agree with you the club is living from hand to mouth.
Like you, I believe we're totally in the hands of the bank.
And I agree things are only going to get worse.
In fact the only real difference is that this is not something that occurred to me..this afternoon.
Like some, I had my suspicions about our perilous state before DK, but if I'm honest, I wasn't sure and so was no wiser than anyone else.
I DID know before that (because it had been proved - see list as long as King Kong's arm) that BK was a liar, BUT him being a Tom Pep wasn't actually proof that the club was up shit creek, so still no wiser than anyone else.
DK however WAS proof.
After that I WAS sure.
I was sure, financially, we were fucked.
I was sure our board were useless and bent.
And all I (anyone!) had to do, to be convinced, was follow the enquiry
(oh and Fatty Wyness' infamous "there is no plan B" was also a massive give-away imo).
Anyway, all-in-all, it pretty comprehensively spelled out S-H-I-T C-R-E-E-K
A situation by the way that has got worse every year since, as every asset we had was flogged (now up shit creek without a paddle OR a boat!)
As for the BU?
Not really sure why you would say 'BU or no BU'.
The BU are not the Cavalry, they're simply Evertonians who, out of desperation, are trying..something
And for me, in a situation like we're in, something is usually better than nothing - even if it's only helping helping put a media spotlight on The Useless Squad and their innate shiftiness.
I actually believe that because of the BU, it's now a tiny, tiny bit more difficult for Kenwright, Elstone et al to get away with being inept and shifty.
Because we're now seeing pieces about our situation in the National media which, although not a big deal on the face of it, HAS to be better than them just being under 'scrutiny' (ie: NO scrutiny) of the pitiful lick-spittles who 'report' for the Echo
As I say, not a huge difference but...something.
Will the BU make mistakes?
Almost certainly.
Will they save the situation?
Almost certainly not.
Will thy make ANY real difference?
Well..that remains to be seen.
However I know that if they DID, there would still be plenty saying "It wasn't them like, it was just coz we got new owners.." etc blah.
For me, given what we KNOW, 40,000 should be marching, simply to show their contempt for the way the club has been run into the ground, but..I know it'll never happen.
In fact, as long as we pick up a few wins and don't get relegated, that (it seems) be enough for the majority and everything in the garden will be rosy.
But I believe it WILL piss down soon and when it does, I think it'll be a fucking monsoon.
36 Posted 26/03/2012 at 00:07:04
I still don't get what current ownership is planning. Having Moyes will keep the club up. That's it?
We only have assets to sell that will weaken the club. We have to sell 2 or 3 of those assets to keep the bailiffs off short-term.
Even allowing Moyes will keep us from going down, he can't do anything to increase the value of EFC by himself. Strictly an ownership issue and ours doesn't seem to have a viable plan to do so.
What the Fuck?
Kenwright OUT!!!
37 Posted 26/03/2012 at 03:30:55
The thing that I'm very pleased with is that more and more posters are joining the "realist" camp realising where EFC are and what we can and can't do to get out of it.
38 Posted 26/03/2012 at 05:38:26
"we will not remember the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends".
So, you see it as a very simplistic situation of enemies and friends? I could interpret this as you won't listen to anybody who disagrees with you and you think you have support that is somehow treacherous because it doesn't get out its pitch forks and flaming torcehes. Get a life mate, please.
39 Posted 26/03/2012 at 09:25:14
40 Posted 26/03/2012 at 09:30:03
41 Posted 26/03/2012 at 09:02:02
I LOVE this expression!
I love it's suggestion (by those that use it) that they spend their days in some world of hang-gliders, Martinis and models.
That they somehow are not as 'sa-a-ad' as the rest of the herd..
The inference that YOU spend YOUR time foolishly bickering on TW.
It's suggestion of.. "Oh yes I ALSO come here, but ONLY to do you a favour - to impart my wisdom before hopping into my power boat and heading over to the Carlton for lunch with Shagella.
Each time I read it on TW, I think "Bet he spends 90% of every week, slumped over his computer pulling the guts out of himself".
There are other (TW) expressions I have come to see as..erm..'revealing'.
'We need to move on' for instance.
This is the politician's pal, usually applied when someone's argument starts to fall to pieces and they're getting whupped.
Imo you might as well say "Shit, get me OUT of here!"
I also like "I'm entitled to my opinion".
This is a REAL 'straw-clutcher' and usually follows the biggest load of bollocks ever heard.
"How can you say Tiger McLaughlin was better than Allan Ball!?"
"Look, I'm entitled to.." etc.
There's also a lot of use and misuse of 'pot-kettle'.
"Ok I got it wrong and you got it right but..pot-kettle"
Eh?
Another one many TWers REALLY seem to like is 'be careful what you wish for' - an expression that can actually be used as a (none-thinking) 'argument' for ANY contrary opinions.
This one I actually find annoying, as it's dumb-as-fuck, yet is always stated as if with a knowing nose-tap.
"I think Moyes should play two up front at home against Sponkton Athletic"
"Well, all I'll say is be careful what you wish for".
"Fine...i wish you'd come up with a sensible opinion as to why you disagree and shove your lazy fucking adage up your freckle"
42 Posted 26/03/2012 at 10:18:59
I agree that the board started the rot. Perhaps the difference is that I believe it was every board since perhaps 1970 not just this one. This board has only been shuffling the deck chairs as we near the iceberg.
Please remember Peter that we are all concerned Evertonians. Our only differences are what we feel can be realistically done, how, when and by whom.
43 Posted 26/03/2012 at 10:36:44
44 Posted 26/03/2012 at 16:42:57
If I could travel back in time, one of the first questions that I would ask Sir John Moores is how would he feel when the training complex that he funded and bequeathed to Everton was sold off by the current incumbents to pay off the debt that has sky-rocketed during their tenure?
45 Posted 27/03/2012 at 19:00:55
Maybe Martin might even attempt a response to Eugene.
Class. Michael, you could sell this.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, 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 Talking Points submissions across the site.
1 Posted 23/03/2012 at 19:04:00
Over 5-10 years Goodison can be modernized at a price not remotely close to these £500-600 millions spouted.
What I don't get is what exactly is this group hanging on for. The value of EFC can only go down.