Season 2011-12
The Mail Bag

Support for Kenwright

 29 Comments: First  |  Last

A significant minority joined the march on Saturday and, whilst I respect their views, I think their voice was drowned out when Kenwright appeared on the screen. Not the most scientific survey, but I think you?ll agree there are far more fans in support of Blue Bill than against him.

Excluding the top 4, would we swap our position with any other club in the country? I for one wouldn?t.

Villa ? had a buyout from a rich foreigner, splashed a bit of cash at first and then reverted to selling more than they buy to make a profit for said foreigner. Looked very average on Saturday and not going to do anything this season.

Newcastle ? had a buyout from a rich English man, completely inept at running a football club. They sell far more than they buy, star players out with token average players in.

Sunderland ? rich backers, but they still sell star players to fund the purchase of average players.

Liverpool ? had a second buyout from rich foreigners ? going very much down the line of Villa. Splashed the cash at first, now selling away in the background. Net spend stands at around £35 million (or Carroll). Stadium plans have gone from world class arena in Stanley Park, to redevelop Anfield... to let?s see what happens. They don?t have the money and will in my opinion regret this takeover as much as the last.

Spurs ? backed by rich investors, and do buy quality players year-in, year out, but even that slowed this year when, despite big sales on transfer deadline, there wasn?t enough money for Cahill. They can?t afford a new stadium and are fighting to get the Olympic stadium as a solution.

A couple of buyouts have obviously been different: City SECOND time around, Chelsea etc but the vast majority haven?t improved the situation.

We currently roughly turn over what we spend, give or take a couple of million, and until turnover increases or wages decrease, we can?t justify a new owner saddling us with fresh debt to fund new players. Even if a new owner paid off all our current debt, that would only free up about £4 - 5million a year ? wages for one top signing, obviously excluding a transfer fee.

The way I see it, a new owner would have to pay £100 million for the club, plus debts of about £30million at the moment. Let?s say another £100 million to refurb half of the ground, or £200 million for a new stadium. Then let?s says 5 new signings who could make a difference for the club. Let?s say an average fee of £15million, plus average of £60k per week wages. That?s a total outlay of £150million ? fees plus wages over 5 years (don?t forget our current turnover can?t afford these new wages).

Not including current players who now want a wage increase to match the new signings. And we only get 5 new players ? in reality, we?d need a couple of players each year thereafter. That?s a total outlay of something like £350 - £500million and an investor is going to want an annual return of something like 7% on any investment ? at least £25million a year.

In effect, we?d then have to qualify for the CL every year, with 6 or 7 other teams in the same boat. This is why we don?t have investors fighting to take over. City fell lucky ? probably because they didn?t have the stadium issue. But with the UEFA rules changing, I can?t see another deal like theirs being done for a while.

Be thankful for what we have, instead of hoping to get out of this frying pan into a fire.

Neil Mulhearn, Leigh     Posted 12/09/2011 at 11:03:37

back Return to the Mail Bag  :  Add your Comments back

Comments

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


James Marshall
1   Posted 12/09/2011 at 14:36:30

Report abuse

Nice one, Neil and well delivered.

Be careful what you wish for, I say. We don't have any money to spend but the list of rich benefactors is a very small one. In fact, I don't think there is a list at all.
Andrew Ellams
2   Posted 12/09/2011 at 14:33:44

Report abuse

I think the problem at one or two of those clubs is more down to the managers than the investors. Steve Bruce seems to think quantity is more important than quality and sour face old git (Clattenburg is anti Liverpool, the best line of the season by far) across the park is new to this modern football and all of it's money and is throwing it around all over the place and making poor purchases, much like Rafa.

Whilst I'm not sure Moyes is the man to take the club forward if we do get the money behind us, I guarantee he would never throw away £75million on Henderson, Downing and Carroll.
Gavin Ramejkis
3   Posted 12/09/2011 at 14:54:46

Report abuse

I think a true report would be that the majority (most certainly in the Park End) did neither. The majority of fans in the ground neither booed or applauded.
Jason Heng
4   Posted 12/09/2011 at 15:18:35

Report abuse

Using the current squad's achievements and potential as a benchmark, fans have little to gripe about.

But for how many summers more can Everton go without signing new players? We only replaced Arteta, Yakubu, Yobo, Pienaar, Vaughan and Beckford, with Vellios, Barkley and 2 LOAN signings


Based on age alone, we've got to replace Neville, Cahill, Saha, Distin in the near future at least. We also have to convince the likes of Fellani, Heitinga, Coleman and Rodwell to secure long term contracts soon. How can we NOT demand change?

Sadly, it is always a minority in a community able to look ahead.
Karl Meighan
5   Posted 12/09/2011 at 15:24:56

Report abuse

What the fuck are they doing showing his face during the game anyway? Lets just say everybody had booed how would that have affected the players?

No one is more important than the players at any time imo and certainly not during a game. The only thing i am certain of regarding Kenwright is that his image is not going to get us 3 points.
Anthony Hughes
6   Posted 12/09/2011 at 15:35:24

Report abuse

I don't know about out of the frying pan and into the fire, i think our frying pan is actually on fire.

Okay some of the clubs mentioned have sold so called star players but at least they've brought players in on a permanent basis.

At present the debt may have been slightly reduced via the sales of Arteta et al but with still no signs of investment coming into the club then in the next couple of transfer windows what do you think is going to happen other than more players sold.
Robert Daniels
7   Posted 12/09/2011 at 15:41:34

Report abuse

Would you have said the same after the QPR game?
Rob Teo
8   Posted 12/09/2011 at 15:47:42

Report abuse

Hmmm, Neil, I can see where you're coming from, but what if we reversed the view? What would your summary of Everton be?
In the same vein as what you've written for the other clubs, this would be my summary for Everton in its present state:
Everton: Cash-poor English owner, completely inept at running a football club (see the marketing, investment and development failures), sell far more than they buy, regularly have to sell star players with none in return, have looked very average in many games for many seasons now, close to zero ground assets, no discernible plan or direction for the future from chairman or CEO, has a history of embarrassing planning failures in recent times, and has been held by its proverbial balls by their bank for quite some time now (according to the Chairman himself in a recently published interview).
I'm really sorry, but how exactly are we better off than any of the other clubs you've described?
Dan McKie
9   Posted 12/09/2011 at 16:10:50

Report abuse

If all the figures being banded around over the last few weeks are correct, then most of us estimate that Everton's debt will be around the £30 million mark, and with wages saved, we should actually be in the black if we turnover another £80 million this year (based on that we were spending £85 mil, saved an estimated £9 mil on outgoing wages, and estimate £3-4 mil or under for the 2 new boys), and if this is right then happy days. What now though? The bank still wont lend us anymore money as I dont think they have much confidence of that £80 million turnover rising anytime soon, so the best we can hope for is that we sell to buy, which makes it difficult to build a stable squad, and usually means you are always selling your best/most valuable players in order to bring others in, which is a gamble year on year. This is why we need a new owner who if needs be, has that little bit extra to spend BEFORE it comes in.
Danny Broderick
10   Posted 12/09/2011 at 16:10:41

Report abuse

All depends on how much the board are looking for. If the board are looking for £100 million, we do not look like a good investment. But if the board would accept a similar amount to what they have invested in the shares in the first place, things suddenly seem a lot more attractive. I hope the BU keep up the pressure. Eventually we have to force the board's hand.
Colin Fitzpatrick
11   Posted 12/09/2011 at 16:32:30

Report abuse

Neil, spot on, one of the first posts that has put an argument to counter the opposing view, in my book. Just one point, why would anyone need to pay £100m for the club?
Ciarán McGlone
12   Posted 12/09/2011 at 16:42:59

Report abuse

Be thankful for what we have?

Nothing?


Be thankful for nothing?

Is this serious?
Dan McKie
13   Posted 12/09/2011 at 16:48:15

Report abuse

Robert Daniels (6), what I said after the QPR game, albeit in rash anger, was nothing to do with money. It was 'Moyes Out!' as it wasn't money or Bill Kenwright that made him play 1 up front against a newly promoted side that had not long been thrashed, then proceed to take that 1 off and instead of using any of the 3 strikers he had on the bench, thought it a much better idea to bring on a midfielder!! This was before Arteta, Yak, Beckford or Yobo had gone. Bill can be blamed for many things regarding Everton, but that QPR defeat was not one of them.
Dan Brierley
14   Posted 12/09/2011 at 16:54:44

Report abuse

As far as I am aware, there hasnt been any valuation report released so this 100 million figure is not even true yet, but those living in the land of paranoia and fantasy have yet again massed behind it in order to make it true.

Even funnier, is those jumping around it suggesting 100 million is 'too much', even though they admit they know nothing about how a valuation of any business is made.

For reference, the City takeover was around 200 million and Liverpools closer to 300 million. People suggesting we should be sold for 30 million are just plain fucking stupid. Baines and Fellaini alone are worth more than that.
Robert Daniels
15   Posted 12/09/2011 at 17:06:23

Report abuse

Dan, I was commenting on the original poster who said, after the applause for Billy Boy on Saturday, there are far more supporters of him than against.

It could be argued that against QPR, the majority of support was against him. The clapping meant nothing. Dan you are quite right Moyes was to blame for QPR, negative as usual, but Billy Boy should shoulder some blame as well.
Gavin Ramejkis
16   Posted 12/09/2011 at 17:13:59

Report abuse

Dan unless we have an absolutely barn storming cup run in both cups (which I really cant see with such a small squad) wont be near the £80m income this season, we're already down a big slice of the £20m that ticket sales bring in with 4000 season ticket holders not renewing.
Gavin Ramejkis
17   Posted 12/09/2011 at 18:03:13

Report abuse

Dan #13 clubs will only pay what they think a player is worth hence the derogatory first bid for Arteta, every one and his dog knows the club is on its arse (and no thats not thanks to the BU but information available in the public domain. The players contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on whether its four years or one year left on them they can be sold.

As for the price of the club at £100m thats got to be taken into consideration when weighed up during due dilligence against assets and debts not so much of a case of being "fucking stupid" but taking a look at the offer on the table and saying whether or not its a good one.
Garry Corgan
18   Posted 12/09/2011 at 18:12:35

Report abuse

The OP's assessment of the situation appears to me to be extremely wide of the mark. The Blue Union isn't pushing for someone to come in with a billion pounds to throw at Everton. Instead, they/we want to see the club sold to somebody who can sort out the business side.

I would be happy for somebody with a business brain (and not necessarily an endless sack of cash) to come in and put in a 5-10 year plan to grow revenues by whatever means come available.

From the last set of accounts, we're running a £5m deficit each year, and that's with no new players coming in. Hopefully the sales of Arteta, Yakubu, Beckford, Vaughan, Pienaar and Yobo will narrow the gap a bit but that's still unsustainable.

A new owner needs to buy out Kenwright and the other major shareholders. For argument's sake let's say that totals £100m if that's what Bill is looking for. They don't necessarily need to pay off the £40 debt straight away, finance a new stadium or invest in the side. If they can generate a £10m surplus each season then that alone would be enough to start turning around the club's fortunes off the pitch. Also, Gillette and Hicks had to accept a deal where Liverpool's debt offset the owner's valuation, so Kenwright may be forced to sell for £60m, with the other £40m going to the bank. You can't have your cake and eat it although I expect that's exactly what Kenwright is trying to do.

We need to invest any surplus, in the short term, in better merchandising deals, marketing in the far east, more corporate boxes, etc. These are the things that the incumbent board have had eleven years to sort out and have utterly screwed up.
Roberto Birquet
19   Posted 12/09/2011 at 20:14:40

Report abuse

Villa ? had a buyout from a rich foreigner, splashed a bit of cash at first and then reverted to selling more than they buy to make a profit for said foreigner.
--------------------------
Sorry that is well off. Randy Lerner has sunk many tens of millions into Villa, and frankly, O'Neill did not deliver. Nearly, maybe, but not. Villa were regularly behind us in that time.

Villa may not be splashing the cash like they did, but at the time that O' Neill spat his dummy out and walked, the club was spending 95% of its revenues on wages. That is totally unsustainble even for an extremely rich sugar daddy.

And when they needed a goalscorer last year: Wallop, £24 million. I do not believe Everton should follow that lead, but hats off to a chairman who poured his millions away. He does not deserve to be labelled a profiteer, far from it.
Ciarán McGlone
20   Posted 12/09/2011 at 20:34:47

Report abuse

Dan. It's not really the best approach to lecture people about accountancy, whenever you've got a tenuous enough grasp of it yourself. Even dozy bill knows player values have sod all value to a balance sheet. Your method of valuing the club on player valuations is sheer nonsense.
Pat Finegan
21   Posted 12/09/2011 at 21:50:42

Report abuse

We spend nothing. At all. Last transfer window we sold 15 million quid worth of players and brought in 2 loanees. I'm really not complaining because we're no worse off than we were in August. Whether you want to credit Moyes, the youth coaches, scouts, or a combination thereof, someone is doing something right to keep the talent flowing into our club with nothing to spend.

My point is that we have nothing to lose if the club is sold. If we get sold to someone who only has a little money to spend, that's fine because Bill Kenwright has absolutely nothing to spend.
Drew O'Neall
22   Posted 12/09/2011 at 22:00:40

Report abuse

Ciaran, what's the balance sheet got to do with the value of Everton Football Club?

The balance sheet broadly tells you that we break even, we slip behind if we try to pay our players too much but swiftly get ahead by selling a player or two.

Regardless of your assertions to the contrary, the value of our players has everything to do with the value of our club and, if people realised this instead of trying to compare us to Northern Rock, we could have a sensible conversation.

As for the original post, my only grievance with Kenwright et al is that they haven't managed to reduce the debt to make us more sustainable. I think in addition to Neil's comments, the two clubs which I envy in terms of their ownership are Stoke and Arsenal who only spend what they can earn and are run as viable businesses.
Kevin Tully
23   Posted 12/09/2011 at 22:38:31

Report abuse

Player value is related to how long their contracts have left to run.

Fellaini's current value is around £15-20M.

If he runs down his contract as Pienaar did, we might only realise £5m for him in his last year.

All very subjective trying to put a fixed value on players.

Robert Daniels
24   Posted 12/09/2011 at 22:46:21

Report abuse

Drew,

We sold arteta because the bank told us too...............

Ask this question of the club,

What happened to the park end development?

When you know the answer to this question.

You,ll know what trouble we are really in.
Anthony Manning
25   Posted 12/09/2011 at 22:22:14

Report abuse

Neil, you make some interesting points. does that mean your happy with BK and his current board? I`m certinaly not, the current regime is dripping in lies and mistakes. Sports Fortress, N T L, Kings Dock, Kirkby, banning A G M`s, only 2 shops in the world where we can by merchandise from, selling players not to buy but to survive, the list goes on.
Ciarán McGlone
26   Posted 12/09/2011 at 23:21:17

Report abuse

what has assets, profit and liabilities got to do with the value of everton football club? Are you serious
Andrew Mackenzie
27   Posted 13/09/2011 at 00:07:40

Report abuse

I think the apologists are getting a little carried away with themselves... did anyone notice that the cam panned in on his gormless face when the subs, inc loan 'signing' (ahem) warmed up and ran towards the steet end... sorry but I think a few were clapping for him, good luck next time Bill!
Eric Myles
28   Posted 13/09/2011 at 02:24:16

Report abuse

Neil, what we have is a totally inept clown running the club.

And you're thankful for that?
Brian Waring
29   Posted 13/09/2011 at 11:52:31

Report abuse

Neil, you say on Villa and Lerner, "Selling more than they buy to make a profit for said foreigner".

Two questions: after putting millions into Villa, then doesn't Lerner have every right to be making a profit?

After not putting a bean into the club, if BK sells, and makes a huge profit, would that be okay with you?

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

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.



© ToffeeWeb