Everton’s wages to turnover ratio isn’t 75% as widely reported: it’s 79% as stated in the accounts by the guy who has left to be replaced by one of Robert Elstone’s mates from Deloitte. The spin to lower this figure, spin that journalists swallow because they have little or no understanding of what they’re reporting, is that it's more representative to add back the cost element to the figure received from our outsourcing partners which makes the ratio only 75%.
This smacks of desperation to me and it’s laughable. What's Elstone going to do next, increase the matchday figure by adding back the discounts given on concession tickets to kids and the £17-a-head block bookings offered to companies?
Here’s what was said by our chief executive four years ago:
“The relationship between wages and turnover (the wages: turnover ratio) is a key barometer of the financial health of any football club, as Deloitte continue to comment upon in the Deloitte Annual Review of Football Finance (Appendix 7 for the May 2008 edition). Deloitte comment that the management of a football club with a wages: turnover ratio of 50% or less is performing excellently. The dividing line between comfort and concern is around 70%. A ratio significantly over 70% may be a matter for concern depending on a club’s circumstances.”
When Robert Elstone wrote this in 2008 Everton’s wage bill in actual terms was £44m, today its £63m, a £19m increase. In that same period our turnover has only increased by only £4m, from £76 to £80m, in an era when the Premier League is the biggest game on the planet... there’s the problem, it’s staring everyone in the face. We can’t cut the squad any lower, we can just about field a team now so we have to get more turnover in and we’ve the wrong man in for the job. Our neighbour's combined shirt deals from Standard Charter and Warrior alone brings them in £45m and their commercial guy, somebody with a track record of actually running businesses, is re-negotiating higher figures.
In my opinion, the reason why we’re so poor is that the board have appointed an accountant to run the club instead of an experienced businessman. He gets away with it because Bill Kenwright hardly knows what time it is. I’ve sat there with Bill for hours, it’s embarrassing to be honest and God knows what potential buyers must think. It you want a story, Bill’s your man; if you want a trophy-winning club you need professionals in the boardroom and in the offices as well as on the pitch.
Bill talks about the need for trust in the accounts, he tells us all how important it is and asks us to trust him because he's an Evertonian. Again how laughable is that from the man who told us the Bullens Road stand was going to fall down, and that we were getting a load of money off Tesco that proved to be a lie, and worst of all was going to sell to a guy from Singapore just because he met his asking price!
Only a fool would trust anything Bill says and you'd be a bigger fool to trust anything Elstone says. How many deals has he told us will make a difference to David's transfer kitty?
Something on Twitter this afternoon told me everything about the type of people who fall for this bullshit. David Gold called Everton's 75% wages ratio madness; he was wrong of course, it's 79% and he doesn't know about the piss poor turnover performance behind that ratio. He was replying to someone telling him that Everton are a well run club — that someone was Mike Parry. There are far too many Mike Parrys supporting this broken regime, in my opinion.
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
352 Posted 04/01/2013 at 20:11:03
Having read your post, am I correct in assuming you are a shareholder, particularly as you say you have sat for hours with Bill Kenwright discussing the finances at Everton?
Is David Gold the same person who owned Birmingham City Football Club a few years back?
373 Posted 04/01/2013 at 21:16:57
Kenwright is just an actor who got lucky with his theatre empire but he's no financial wizard so I can't really blame him but he should bring in the right people with the right pedigree.
And then you have the rest of the mob sitting on the board who between them are worth about £1.7 BILLION yet won't even offer the club a short term loan of £5 or £10 million till the new TV deal kicks in. There was a good article on The Times website about this. They're only Evertonians when it suits them.
379 Posted 04/01/2013 at 21:20:52
I think this whole article captures the hopelessness of the issue, although I'm not sure I'm any the wiser what the answer is.
- even IF we changed CEO, and got the world's sharpest marketeer and commercial negotiator in
- even if they were pumping at 100%, priced tickets at the optimum level for price elasticity, managed to get over fair value for every sponsorship opportunity, sorted out the catering to make off match day revenue generating run at full capacity, managed to find extra margin from the direct sales over and above the deal with kitbag, etc, etc...
It would all be, at best, marginal to that ratio figure. If with all that work the ratio went down from say 79% to 69% we'd still not be where you would want to be to be sustainable.
The only other way to attack that ratio is to lower the total wage bill by getting the prestige players off the books. Can you imagine the reaction from the fans if we did that? The fans (rightly) want more big names not fewer. Christ knows what the answer is.
The tragedy of the Premier League is that even being the best business man in the world isn't enough to compete, if you try to run the club as a sound business you are aiming to fail. You seem to have to find someone who is willing to happily bank roll at a massive loss. Football finances are madness. It's ruining the game.
411 Posted 04/01/2013 at 22:59:25
I really hope we can find a new owner who can nurse us back to health financially. The longer this is put off, the harder it will be. But the crux of the argument is that we cannot keep on running at a loss. According to the accounts, we have reported losses of £52 million over the last 7 years. That simply can't go on, or we'll reach the point of no return.
The manager, if he stays, will have to play his part in all of this. It's all very well trying to keep his best players together, but what are the long term implications on the club of paying Cahill £60,000 when he was past his best & selling him for a pittance, as opposed to maybe £10 million 2 years previously?
What if we could have sold Pienaar in the summer for around £8 million, as opposed to £3 million in January? Given that the only assets we have left are players,it's important we sell them at the peak of their value.
I am not knocking Moyes here, as his transfer record is as good as anyone's. but if we can't break even off the pitch, we have to balance the books with the players we have got. This should come from the top down, & the manager would have to go along with it.
It might not be popular, but if any of us wanted to start up a business,& went to see a bank manager and told him we have a business model where salaries account for 75% of turnover, he would stop you there.
We are playing Russian roulette with our long term future. We are running at a significant loss, and the longer this goes on, the more damage is being done. We need to start cutting our cloth accordingly, however painful that may be.
444 Posted 05/01/2013 at 00:31:37
Or maybe its the £1.7 million we pay for Finch Farm every year because Billy Boy sold it? Bill must be getting loans from wonga.com. We have a tiny squad, there's no way wages could make up 79 percent of turnover!
I'd also love to know how, after getting rid of Cahill, Yobo, Bily – all big earners... not to mention half the academy getting sent on loan – how wages are up? And now we have players signing new long term contracts?? Can somone enlighten me???
448 Posted 05/01/2013 at 00:59:12
456 Posted 05/01/2013 at 01:28:22
To work this strategy must now see a return, which I believe to be 5th or sixth and Europe, but ideally a CL spot, the latter being a tall order for one of the poor clubs. All this means that in terms of everyday operations and the year end accounts its simply about survival until the extra sky money can be used to pay back around £30m of the debt, over three years, and then fund the inevitable operating loss caused by increased wages and general costs each year, probably another £6m pa.
You cannot seriously expect our Board to slash wages now ? Their strategy is dependent upon keeping a core of top performing players who would grace most of the rich list clubs. Right now we have Baines, Felli, Jags, Piennar, Mirallas and a squad generally better than it has been for a while, despite being painfully thin.
Barry.....I believe that the wage to turnover ratio is going to drop back to 70/75% in the next accounts. But your point is well made in a business sense, just not the business of PL football in 2013. I don't have the evidence but would be amazed if there are better than half a dozen clubs in the PL right ow that don't have a ratio of lower than 68%. So yes we are on the wrong side of that but if you exclude City, Utd, Chelsea then there will be few with a ratio outside the 70% to 75% mark. Of these clubs some rely totally on rich benefactors to bail them out....it's happening right now at Sunderland, a club who could be in real trouble if they go down, despite those gates. So in reality, our CEO was spot on when, as you point out, he mused that exceeding a wage to turnover ratio of 70% was not good.....but he also added a caveat about "different clubs circumstances". This is I suspect how he would answer questions on the dangerously high ratio.......right now it's about coping with desperately limited resources yet mounting a wholly unexpected push for a CL spot.
The ratio badly needs to come down and it will. Ignore the ranting of David Gold because if you trust his judgement after what he did with Birmingham then your trusting the wrong guy. Your points are perfectly valid in terms of how bad the accounts look.
But looks can be deceptive and though dire in accounting and yes, "the future" terms, things could change, albeit slowly. I'm horrified at how little Robert Earl is prepared to do to help, even a no interest loan of £15m this year would possibly be the catalyst for a CL drive and then the return might be really interesting. But as many have said despite the brutally obvious need, and the complete absence of anyone having dipped into their own bank balances before this, the real crisis here isn't that poor ratio it's the now glaring and spectacular failure of several Board members, not BK as he hasn't any real money, to take a half decent interest in our club and surely in the process improve their own investment ?
This is what now matters and for me the BU strategy should be to target Earl and Woods and basically pound out the message in all media....why won't you take a small risk with your vast fortunes and give us the relatively small boost we need, right now ? Emails by the thousands, petitions, planes over Goodison, USA based blues getting stuck in....why not ?
481 Posted 05/01/2013 at 07:30:26
I hope you are right and that we qualify for the CL and everything is ok. But as I said earlier, it is effectively playing Russian roulette, putting everything on black and hoping it comes in.
Fingers crossed we finish the season like we have started it...
484 Posted 05/01/2013 at 07:27:11
Then why employ business men that are useless if even the best may not be good enough? That's a recipe for failure from the start.
485 Posted 05/01/2013 at 06:53:38
In my opinion, a one-time cash injection by the owners would not be addressing the fundamental issue, ie, how can Everton Football Club be run as a profitable and self-sustainable business entity?
OK, I see your point that taking a calculated risk and pumping in money could possibly push us into the CL and then we hope that it becomes a virtuous cycle – success (on the field) feeding success (financial profitability). But it is a dangerous game to play as many clubs have discovered (Leeds, Portsmouth).
So, where does the solution lie?
(a) Find new buyers – that is the popular opinion, but I don't think it is easy to find the right buyer in the present economic climate;
(b) As Mark suggests, the present owners seem to be doing a careful balancing act – try to meet fans' aspirations with just sufficient funds to support a manager who is brilliant at unearthing uncut gems and bringing out the best of players from lower/foreign leagues or players who have lost their way a little bit. At the same time, not going overboard with huge risks. And hope that Uefa / The FA bring in some changes some day to make it a more level playing field.
From the Guardian table, it is ridiculous to expect Everton with ~£80 million turnover and ~£60 million in wages to compete in the same league with Man Utd whose turnover is £330 million (4 x Everton) and £150 million (2.5 x Everton) in wages. Just doesn't make sense, but then that it is why we are proud of the Mighty Blues, aren't we?
486 Posted 05/01/2013 at 08:49:21
I am proud to be a blue; however, I'm disgusted at the way the club has been neglected by one of our own and I'm ashamed of our fan base for allowing him to do it!!
489 Posted 05/01/2013 at 08:33:17
"Come aboard, lads, we're sailing off to Kirkby to make our fortune... Mega-malls for you and your shops, Mr Green... and Mr Earl, for you it's casinos and hotels packed with cashed-up tourists..." Well, we all know how that farce panned out.
So the two said gentlemen who really run the club have decided enough is enough. Now these two gentlemen wan't their money back — and they will get it back, it might take longer than they wanted but, sooner or later, it will happen. Over time, they will be taking their money out and certainly will not be putting any in, so don't expect any superstars to arrive shortly. As long as Everton remain in the Prem, and I believe they will, then they'll happily siphon off their money.
See, that's the good thing about business — you don't have to make a profit to make money — just ask Starbucks! In today's world of global business, sham offshore accounts and unexplainable tax breaks, then EFC might even be a handy business asset for these two Arthur Daleys.
So what does the future hold for the Mighty Blues? — more of the same, I'm afraid. Whoever the manager is, he'll be working under the same constraints — buy to sell, living in hope, loans for journeymen and crocks. We'll all still follow Everton in one way or another but I really have stopped believing in fairies; this is as good as it gets.
493 Posted 05/01/2013 at 09:26:37
499 Posted 05/01/2013 at 09:45:37
And is it true the car park at the Park End has been sold off and is leased back, similar to Finch Farm?
502 Posted 05/01/2013 at 08:13:30
Q. If true none are taking money out the biz why throw good money after bad?
A. They KNOW the investment is gilt edged.
The declaration a year or so ago of enquiries every week adds up and among the nutters enough serious suitors call to confirm their money is safe. But like all businessmen they're after the big bucks and unless Mansoor's brother turns up "Kirkby" is still the aim albeit rebranded as "Speke" or similar.
Smoke and mirrors.
505 Posted 05/01/2013 at 09:51:41
One of Everton's problems is the stadium limits secondary revenue generation.
I'm not comparing us with them, but as an example of the differences, Arsenal has benefitted hugely from their move to Ashburton Grove. They have paid down more than half of the stadium debt due to the redevelopment of the Highbury ground into flats, and sit with (last accounts) £135m cash at hand. Arsenal fans are pissed off because they see themselves as unambitious etc. but the point is they have the resources and the revenue. Their main beef now as a club is they feel that signing a 10 year deal with Emirates was unwise, as they felt that naming rights have moved on. They are in the last knockings of that deal now, but don't seem able to buy themselves out of it (like Man Utd did with DHL in their training kit sponsorship deal).
Everton's real problem is we don't earn enough from matchday and commercial streams. We are too dependent on broadcast revenue. We have most "control" over the first 2 however.
Now people are saying that attendances are up this year compared to last, and they are, but the club has offered incentive deals like block bookings (mentioned by the OP) and also the child discounts. It's laudable to do this, but from a pure economics point of view it's another bum on a seat, but one that's low yield, and likely not spending much on other areas.
Everton has a tough job to sell the club. But some of the commercial deals we've entered into grossly under-value the club brand, and are too long and likely with onerous exit-clauses. This reduces the attractiveness of the club to buyers - or at the very least will impact on the price offered.
I appreciate some fans really aren't arsed with this, and just want to cheer the team on. That's understandable, but the club need to have a great team off the pitch as well as on it to ensure it generates enough revenue to have a team of highly paid players and manager/coaches to entertain us.
509 Posted 05/01/2013 at 09:47:35
There is no point analysing football club accounts using the same criteria that you use to assess business accounts of proper companies. Nearly every contributor to TW is clamouring for BK to release funds to bring in more and better players, do they think that these players will come to us for the love of Everton? — if not, we will end up with an even higher wage bill.
We need to generate more income and will only do that with a bigger ground with a bigger capacity that is more or less full each match day. If any of you have a viable suggestion as where that will be and how it can be funded, don't waste time telling TW how easy it is — just get on with it and do it. There is no point in wasting time on fruitless marketing exercises until we have a brand that is recognised as being successful.
511 Posted 05/01/2013 at 10:20:43
513 Posted 05/01/2013 at 10:28:06
514 Posted 05/01/2013 at 10:10:53
"What's Elstone going to do next, increase the matchday figure by adding back the discounts given on concession tickets to kids and the £17-a-head block bookings offered to companies?"
IMO I think we have seen a major change at Goodison - one that is aimed more televised games and also increased recognition of the club.
That major change is the style of play Everton are now playing. Moyes has thrown his defensive game plans out of the window, the sit back and nick one, the kick the shit out of the opponents better players and also the guaranteed last spot on MOTD.
If you have gone to GP over the past 5 years you will have noticed this. Not only at GP but also at away grounds, EFC play attacking footy. We have scored in all but one of our EPL games, we get plaudits from everywhere (including the fucked up RS twats on MOTD and even Redknapp who I believe detests Everton) - also take a look at the number of Sky matches we are scheduled to play or have already played.
I believe Everton is changing, no more 40 points thank you very much - well done Moyes, EPL footy guaranteed again next season. We are going for it, the CL places and attacking football. Everton are opening the eyes of lots of people and lots of people of taking notice.
Now the above game plan wasn't dreamed up in one of Moyes nightmares, it was started with sale of Rodwell to City (no one saw that deal coming) and the purchase of two wide players, good ones at that. Moyes has changed his game plan totally hence the reason why we are also conceeding goals - we are so fucking busy attacking their goal.
So yep, I think changes are on the go at Goodison and as much as we would all like to think that the board were too busy pissing it up too notice - I'm sure they sat around the table with Moyes and had a chat.
517 Posted 05/01/2013 at 10:27:57
523 Posted 05/01/2013 at 11:10:03
It would probably/likely/definitely show up the lack of serious funding policy the board has in mind, the one where they give Moyes pittance with the keep us up remit; Moyes in the past has definitely been party to this and has in some ways been bought off with his massive wages.
I get the feeling he is fed up with it now though and sees his future elsewhere, hence the change in attitude being demonstrated on the pitch. He will want to prove that he can coach a team to play exciting attacking football and catch the eye of the richer clubs.
526 Posted 05/01/2013 at 11:28:29
Although it would raise badly needed funds, it would also dilute the shareholding of Bill.
"Only wants what's best for Everton"? — my arse.
527 Posted 05/01/2013 at 11:27:24
1) We increase our revenue. This seems to be what the board are relying on in the shape of the new TV deal. Will it be enough to claw back our debt and shore up our losses? Who knows. But, as stated above, our reliance on TV money does not speak very highly of those running the club... especially when compared with some other clubs of our stature.
2) We slash our wage bill. I don't understand how our wage bill is so high and yet our squad so small. It would be interesting to see a breakdown. I suppose Moyes and Fellaini alone count for a lot. One things is for sure and that's if the increased TV deals do not stem the flow of our losses then very soon we will have to lower the wage bill. One manager who could probably successfully replace outgoing high paid stars such as Fellaini with able, more affordable players is Moyes; but I'm not so sure he will be around to do that.
539 Posted 05/01/2013 at 12:03:32
543 Posted 05/01/2013 at 11:55:23
The commercial performance is abysmal; therein lies the seed to our success or survival, coupled with cost. Management, no easy or comfortable solution. Whilst increases in revenue from TV rights will buy the club more time, unless we grow commercially, the business risk will be exponentially greater every season.
The financial management has been appalling for the last 20 years: living on a credit card and hoping to win the lottery is hardly a business plan. Sell of your assets rather than grow, plan or invest. The legacy of BK may be one that will hang around the neck of our club for another decade, if we are lucky.
So what needs to happen?
1. Need to get everyone on the same hymn sheet, all in unison, that's, fans, board, team and shareholders. To do this, bridges have to be repaired. BK talks of trust; I am not sure if this was a dig at the fans but his credibility is low. It's time for him to step down as Chairman; being a majority shareholder and a fan is not enough, we need leadership and overall business turnaround ability.
2. We need a commercial director to drive through commercial agreements that are driven by growth and profitability to the club. Where are the successes to date?
3. The club needs to have its profile raised globally and domestically. Pre-season tournaments that see the best teams play each other. Whilst it was great to see the team in Australia and the US, the opposition was poor, the commercial exploitation was non-existent.
4. Realization that there are a number of shareholders hoping for a significant payday despite the state of the club. Forget "the club is for sale" — it's not and never has been. What is for sale is either diluted shares or someone's shareholding. That's what is being envisaged, not the sale of 51% of the club's shares. Assuming that BK will not walk away, someone else will have to or all shareholdings will have to be diluted, something they may not agree with. They haven't warmed to this suggestion before so we can only assume another Directors' shares are up for grabs. Indeed, this may well be the real stumbling block for the new investor who may demand controlling shares for their investment. I would, given the track record and current position of the club.
5. Everton FC should bite the bullet with respect to debts and reduce it through the control of future wage costs for the next few seasons and assignment of TV income to repurchase back Finch Farm and an expansion plan for Goodison Park. At this moment we cannot afford a new stadium.
6. Prices need to rise. If all of the above are set in place, I have no doubt that the fans will see the increase for what it is, assisting the club to improve. Without any or all of the above, fans will only see it as money down the drain.
We have to break the cycle before we disappear down the pan.... Trust?
549 Posted 05/01/2013 at 12:47:35
I've been to 30 different sports shops in Ireland. I cannot get an Everton shirt. Every store I walk into has Liverpool shirts, Man Utd, Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, Celtic...
550 Posted 05/01/2013 at 12:47:25
Football clubs are only marketable when they are successful and winning trophies. No-one in Indonesia is going to give a rat's ass about Everton just because they turn up once a millennium to play in some Mickey Mouse cobbled together tournament against Jakarta Jaguars and Brisbane Bucaneers.
No one in the US gives a monkeys about soccer. No one organising a significant pre-season tournament will include Everton because we have won nothing.
If we had the marketing budget of Coca Cola we could inundate the world's media with adverts to raise our profile but as this was around $11 billion in 2012 I suspect this is unlikely.
Point 5 will only result in Everton being less competitive and having players of lesser ability.
Point 6 will happen when hell freezes over. Do you honestly believe that fans will pay more to "assist" the club? If that is the case, there is nothing to stop them handing over their money now.
556 Posted 05/01/2013 at 14:16:44
I have spent the better half of the last 15 years turning companies around, whilst I agree that a football club is a different animal, the principles and management are the same as any other business, you need a product and a plan to market the product and fund it. That's what this board are obliged to do.
558 Posted 05/01/2013 at 14:13:12
Peter #526, the 'diluted shareholding' theory is bullshit, the board are free to buy more shares to maintain control.
Phillip #520, I suspect that what holds most fans back from 'handing over their money now' is BK and his cronies, if these multi-millionaire owners won't put their hands in their pockets, why should the fans? That's why something like Trust Everton is important.
Trust Kenwright? Never.
561 Posted 05/01/2013 at 14:51:22
571 Posted 05/01/2013 at 16:00:22
As for a credibility debate about BK/BU – who has more/less.... well, that depends on the cognitive biases of those making the claims. Objective reality makes it easier for all concerned if they put their opinions to one side.
573 Posted 05/01/2013 at 15:20:45
To some extent, Arsenal did likewise; the idea of cas-rich benefactors is only really true from Abramovich onwards. Before that, it was clubs generating their own commercial deals. Spurs haven't exactly got an oligarch and equally don't have some third-rate soap actor/clown in charge and out of his depth.
575 Posted 05/01/2013 at 16:12:41
579 Posted 05/01/2013 at 16:36:27
If Bill doesn't have the cash to purchase any new shares made available through a share issue, then his existing shares would be diluted.
This is why the option of making more shares available is not an option. I'm sure the rest of the shareholders could afford to purchase more new shares in order to maintain their existing % of power.
583 Posted 05/01/2013 at 16:43:13
586 Posted 05/01/2013 at 16:48:43
I would personally source a shirt manufacturer who is going to give us a better percentage return. I feel we have gone with Nike because of the name and, although I don't know the profit margin on a Nike shirt, I am sure if we did what the neighbours did, we would certainly get a retrospective clawback which would be a lot more favourable. At the moment, we sell the shirt in the team shop — which is great if we made the shirts ourselves — but, to appeal to the world market, we need to sell in other outlets.
For sponsorship, we need a specialist business person in that role; as you said, Chang is a good sponsor... but what else — apart from matchday beer — do they bring to the table? There must be better-appealing commercial sponsorship than that; maybe get sponsored by a building company or a steel company who would also benefit with the building of a stadium?
I do not have all the answers but one thing is for sure: if we aren't making a profit that makes us solvent and there is only so much your assets can be worth, we need to start working on the solution before our great club goes down.
589 Posted 05/01/2013 at 17:09:14
598 Posted 05/01/2013 at 17:38:19
1) We have spent about 6 times less on players than EACH of the clubs above us.
2) Ticket prices are on par with the cheapest in the league.
3) The average income of our fans is in the bottom quartile of those in the EPL.
4) The average spend per fan is in the bottom quartile.
It is a minor miracle that we are where we are. Name one Premier League club that was sold on a COMMERCIAL basis in the past 5 years that's doing better than us. If you want a much easier question, how about name one club that has done a lot worse since being sold in the past 5 years.
How have we managed to out perform our competitors? Is it just luck? Obviously it's not down to the club management is it? Just sayin......
607 Posted 05/01/2013 at 17:57:47
Let's further assume that the basis is the current share price – they have been trading at around £1,200 each. Also assuming fees for arranging a Rights Issue were around 2%, plus underwriting fees, and there had to be a discount offered as an incentive for subscription by existing shareholders, as outlined above, say each new share netted £1,000.
I reckon that, for the existing Board to retain overall control, ie, 50% of the shares, diluted by them not taking up the Rights Issue, around 14,000 shares could be issued which would raise around £14m for the club.
I own a share; I don't really want two... I bet there are loads more like me, so getting a share issue away I imagine is not attractive to a stockbroker while retaining the existing board.
As I see it, raising not a massive amount of money, in the world of football anyway, while retaining the control the board have, is unlikely to help the club move forward.
I am sure the figures are right, but if they are not then please feel free to put me right; no offence will be taken.
631 Posted 05/01/2013 at 20:29:29
a number of us have advocated a rights issue in the past but Bill will not hear of it.
He would sooner mug some of his pals so he can retain control longer.
You are correct in assessing a rights issue generating around 15 to 20 million but I disagree with you that it could be used effectively to either:
1. put an extra tier and corporate boxes in the Park end which would increase capacity by around 8000 and enhance our corporate income.
2.Improve the squad and thereby generate extra income from Europe and/or higher league placing.
3. Pay off some debt and thereby reduce interest payments.
4. Buy Finch Park back and save the astronomical lease payment.
What we need is a bit more vision and leadership instead of the deceiptful incompetence that has been the hallmark of Kenwright's reign.
634 Posted 05/01/2013 at 20:47:47
Plus they might actual produce a decent shirt.
635 Posted 05/01/2013 at 20:56:49
639 Posted 05/01/2013 at 20:38:22
Ian #607. When you read your post, and other similar ones I've seen elsewhere, it's hard to understand why so many seem to be get very exercised about a share issue? If all its oing to raise is a one off £14m AND produce the same leadership, or worse, what's the point ?
645 Posted 05/01/2013 at 21:21:30
650 Posted 05/01/2013 at 21:16:41
I think everyone on here is capable of making their own minds up about posters without your help thanks.
652 Posted 05/01/2013 at 21:31:41
When you hear phrases of plucky little Everton and "punching above our weight" it makes you cringe.
Do supporters even realise that up to 1991 we were on a par with Utd and Chelsea and City were also rans.
At a time when football income is so high our board should be ashamed of themselves for the lack of interest in the club.
655 Posted 05/01/2013 at 21:51:49
Put aside the fact that the directors are not turkeys voting for Xmas...
How much would it raise, realistically? £15m?
So suspend reality, and say the majority shareholders agreed with it, and we got it fully subscribed, and you got your £15m. What do you do with it?
Cover Moyes' new contract? (maybe 4 years?)
Pay down some of the bad debt?
Make 1 semi-marquee or 2 minor signings?
657 Posted 05/01/2013 at 22:02:25
Both have to be done otherwise it's a waste of time.
658 Posted 05/01/2013 at 21:50:09
It has been mentioned many times on this forum how good it is to finish above the RS a) because we finished above them and b) because they have spent 4 times as much as us on players.
Whatever way you look at it, if we won the league, it would be a greater achievement than the RS, Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal. Why? Because we would have punched above our financial weight.
Finishing in the top 4 would also fall into this category in my opinion. I think this is a realistic perspective on matters. By definition, whether we punch above our weight or not can only be gauged on the strength of the teams around us. The strength of the teams we compete against is not something we can singularly control and therefore it is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about if we find we punch above our financial weight, in fact I'm proud of it.
660 Posted 05/01/2013 at 22:08:16
I've been lucky enough to see aggregate and club figures covering leagues in Germany, Italy, Spain and UK and frankly it fascinated me.
I remain convinced we are in the money league, the place to be in terms of governance (cf Spain, Italy). I recall that EFC were pioneers of this EPL concept.
I am utterly convinced that we're being slowly but surely run into the ground financially. We're not a sell-to-buy club, we have to sell-to-stay-in-existence, except some of those sales are masqueraded as "wanted to go".
The closer we get to the buffers, the more likely we'll be sold. That in itself means we're running the risk of ending up in the hands of a vulture group. Then those that cautioned "Be careful what you..." etc (can't even finish that redundant phrase) can sit back and smugly say "I told you so".
662 Posted 05/01/2013 at 22:07:01
There are 2 basic models a club like Everton can follow:
Model 1: downsize by reducing expenses and applying tight financial management, for example, capping salary roll relative to turnover. Result: long term security, but we'd have to accept playing in a lower league where we don't have to compete against clubs that don't have to make a profit as they get bailed out by wealthy owners. More and more clubs are being forced down this route now and some are having success, that is if you want to gauge success by making a profit and having long term security, rather than challenging at the top of the EPL.
Model 2: (much higher risk) run a highly geared club, compete with the best in the top league and bank on hitting the financial jackpot before it's too late, by winning something or qualifying to the CL, or selling big players for big profit. This then buys more time to do the whole cycle again. Much higher risk, and it does put the future of the club at risk, but when you're not competing on a level playing field with all the other clubs in your league, it's the reality for this model.
663 Posted 05/01/2013 at 22:15:20
The problem is, the performance off the pitch, which is the responsibility of the board, bears absolutely no resemblance to the performance on the pitch. We as supporters seem to be happy to accept this situation.
What is even worse about the current situation is that they have no plan to fix this situation other than to hold out the hope that some extremely rich businessman is stupid enough to pay them over the odds for the club so that they can ride off into the sunset having made a killing.
Judging from her posts and intelligent analysis over the years, I would suggest that the club could do a lot worse than flying Christine over to give them a hand to turn this situation around!
665 Posted 05/01/2013 at 22:36:12
I think you might be the apathetic one if you believe the Board aren't ultimately responsible for the performances on the pitch.
668 Posted 05/01/2013 at 22:44:19
I saw a comment earlier about only clubs with rich benefactors are winning pots.
Man U? Geared and leveraged to fuck. But they'll be fine as long as they're there or thereabouts. Good job Sir Alex thrives on pressure.
672 Posted 05/01/2013 at 22:47:37
This is taken from Colin Fitzpatrick's presentation in October 2011.
Spurs 1999 - Net Assets: £41 Million
Everton 1999 - Net Assets £20 million.
Spurs 2011 - Net Assets: £70 million.
Everton 2011 - Net Liabilities - £35 million
This is how low that we have sunk as a club off the pitch. Your comments about us punching above our financial resources on the pitch take no account of the board's complete failure to improve our income streams off the pitch in the period in which Bill Kenwright has been in charge of the club. The failure to secure the Kings Dock is the single biggest mistake in the club's history.
That isn't the only failure and it is these failures that have put us in this position. Taking Chelsea and City out of the picture there is no reason, other than complete incompetence, why we as a club shouldn't be in a position off the pitch to be amongst the top 5 or 6 clubs in the league.
673 Posted 05/01/2013 at 23:16:55
However, the Trust Everton aims and objectives are very much related to this debate, and may be able to make a postive difference for the benefit of all stakeholders.
On a lighter note, I seem to recall from TW that Christine interupted her wedding day to go to Goodison for a game. I don't recall if she mentioned whether her husband was in attendance or if she changed her dress!
675 Posted 05/01/2013 at 23:40:39
677 Posted 06/01/2013 at 00:05:51
However, the stumbling block about a new rights issue is it would need to be under-written. The last time there was a rights issue, Peter Johnson provided that guarantee.
679 Posted 06/01/2013 at 00:00:51
Jay (#631), I quite agree, my earlier post was trying to highlight that a rights issue with the present incumbents on the board and in control is unlikely to raise a largest by the standards of the Premier League finances. Your ideas for the spend are all laudable.
Eric (#675), just so that we are all clear, please can you clarify how his shares were bought please? I am not looking for hearsay about such a vital subject, but evidence and specifics. I want to know the actual facts, and I am sure that there a few more on here who will be interested in your sharing what you know.
Being slightly devious, he could actually sell the rights to some of his shares to create money to buy a few more. So, he would own more shares but technically dilute his holding and power.
686 Posted 06/01/2013 at 00:19:14
I believe that both are entirely normal. To deal with the latter, the Board have to indicate any reason why they may not be able to continue the business, which is obviously reliant on Bank support; the statements simply give comfort that they believe that they have that support subject to a few issues — one being end-of-season placing... for example, they may not be forthcoming upon our relegation.
Most Banks operate on the basis that overdraft facilities are extended subject to annual renewal, and proof to their satisfaction that, on renewal, they still think they could get repaid. Repayment of one facility may well be in the form of a further facility, a bit like Greece and other euro economies; and, as the Banks appear to have no appetite for lending to football clubs now, it will be subject to variations in interest rates and fees payable. Anyone self-employed will concur, I am sure.
Lastly, some say we do not own our ground. We do... but subject to mortgages, like many of us own our homes. I bought the house with one mortgage loan and borrowed some more later on another loan. I see it as all one loan but, when I check the annual statement, , the Bank see it as two loans. Hence the 14 facilities Everton FC Co Ltd.
The relevance? Imagine you are a big insurance company with a client who borrows loads off you, at a rate of interest you were okay with... but now you wish you could get more; they come to you for more money you do not want to really give them but, if pushed, you will. What would you do?
I would say to the borrower that they can have the money, subject to a new mortgage, subject to my fees and a new interest rate not only for the new loan but also for the rest of the loans. If they don't like it, we'll not have the new money.
Sorry to ramble!
687 Posted 06/01/2013 at 00:23:45
Regards the share rights issue raising a one-off sum of £15m - £20m surely this is exactly the same type of "one-off" income generation that selling Bellefield did... and the same that one-off sales of players does? The usage of the monies generated is what would appear to be more important, such as the purchase of Finch Farm — which I believe to be in the same region that would remove a long-term debt from the annual debt servicing required by the club. The club is in significant debt in relation to its ability to service it; the removal of any chunk of this would be a step in the correct direction and make any asking price (should it be for sale) far more attractive.
Ian, I believe it was Mihir Bose who reported that Anita Gregg lent BK £7M for the purchase of Peter Johnson's shares, he was paid £20M and (as was the case for subsequent share purchases) that money and shares swapped hands and not a penny went into the business itself. TBH stakeholders included Paul Gregg, Jimmy Mulville, Willy Russell and Jon Woods. It was dissolved and left Gregg, BK and Jon Woods, the others were obviously repaid their stakes. When Gregg left and was replaced by Earl, there was also the matter of repaying Anita Gregg's loan of £7M – I've no idea where this was ever recorded but I'm certain, given the animosity of the split, it wasn't done on the never-never.
694 Posted 06/01/2013 at 00:57:36
My understanding of Man Utd is that it was bought by a Company, owned by the USA people. The loans taken to do it were to be repaid by the family or the vehicle they use. The family or vehicle they use will receive income to enable them to pay those loans. The income will come from the club to the vehicle or family. The income from the club will be provided in part at least from ordinary bods paying at the turnstile.
How it is treated as an accounting issue I am not sure, being really devious and at risk of causing a bit of an issue on here, it would not be something to do with Operational Expenses would it??? Would it???
695 Posted 06/01/2013 at 01:09:35
700 Posted 06/01/2013 at 01:12:33
Every year, we see the same armchair economists telling us how the club is failing. It's all very well saying we should reduce debt, and invest in long term assets, but the reality is that the money used to fund those activities would ultimately come out of the pot that pays for the team. I don't see a way of having both with our poor income.
I can understand the frustrations of many fans, but the reality is that we have to operate this way in order to compete. My anger is towards the Premier League, who are responsible for selling the soul of our game to the highest bidder.
702 Posted 06/01/2013 at 02:03:33
703 Posted 06/01/2013 at 02:16:02
Could you imagine the outcry if they raised ticket prices by £10 a match next season? Just for 20 matches, assuming we only had 2 home Cup matches and no European matches, it would be an additional £7 million with an average attendance of 35,000. But I would bet there would be outrage by every single person on here complaining about the debt. It's like a nations debt, people bitch and moan about it, but with their next breath will complain about having to pay taxes.
704 Posted 06/01/2013 at 02:28:55
I do believe supporters would pay more to assist the club, I believe they would also invest in the club if they had the opportunity. It you are going to eat at the top table then don't expect to do it at McDonald's prices.
705 Posted 06/01/2013 at 02:41:23
But you just said it, you wouldn't pay more now, but you have no problem complaining about our lack of income. The fact is that people are showing up to the matches, we just charge a lot less than most clubs. So it's not like we have half a stadium empty every match because of dissatisfaction with the board.
706 Posted 06/01/2013 at 02:42:56
But if you expect to know the selling price just because you go on Everton websites and buy the odd shirt for your kids, you live in a dream world. Yes, there has been clubs sold over the last decade. But, with the exception of Chelsea & Man City, which of those takeovers have resulted in sustained challenges for the title? The answer is, none. All those takeovers, investments etc. have won the grand total of fuck all.
Arsenal fans are pulling their fucking hair out at the moment as they are miles behind, regardless of their excellent business plan. The astute proven business acumen of Randy Lerner has failed miserably in the Premier League, even after £100 million of investment. Liverpool's vast investment has also shown that it is not a simple task; you need to spend hundreds of millions now, AND sustain that with huge wages.
This talk of suggesting that we can sustain title challenges by selling a few thousands more shirts is bollocks. In my humble opinion, of course....
714 Posted 06/01/2013 at 06:33:35
What I said was that people would be prepared to put faith in a new order to get us out of the mess we are in. Or another analogy of logic: take the US and Chapter 11, where you trust the idiots who got you in the mess to get you out of it by allowing them to trade on without responsibility to creditors... to overcome their own incompetence!
We are where we are financially because of the Board of Directors and the decisions they have or have not taken and the poor fiscal management of the club commercially.
Dan, quite agree. A few thousand shirts alone ain't enough but can only help if it is to be part of a larger commercial and marketing strategy. If you're saying there is no other solution than become a rich man's toy, I disagree, but it took 20 years of poor decisions to get us into the mess we are in... it will take another 10 to get us back on track and profitable with good management.
We can dance around the problem till the cows come home but the problem is one of the price someone is willing to pay and the true worth. It's clear that the present incumbents aren't interested in a long-term solution anymore, so it's down to a price the board will accept.
718 Posted 06/01/2013 at 07:31:17
Four points I want to add:
The commercial management of the business has been a disaster and if we invest money nowhere else, the board must appoint a world-class commercial director appointed directly from business;
Now a lot of that may be unpalatable as it confirms what we fear, that we do not regard ourselves as 'big' club. But it is far better than placing our hopes in a rich oligarch, businessperson and sheikh buying the club as their latest plaything until they get bored. It is also the model that European clubs such as Lyon and Borussia Dortmund follow, which has brought them European football year on year and domestic trophies.
723 Posted 06/01/2013 at 08:30:41
728 Posted 06/01/2013 at 09:16:24
Whether this person never makes a post again is none of your or my business and is totally irrelevant. It's a valid opinion, just because you or me may not agree with it doesn't mean we have to try and undermine the legitimacy of the poster themselves, or the content of their post. It's 'trite' is it? No it's a different opinion, you or me are no better than any other poster on here.
Notice you haven't made any similar accusations against people who have the same opinion as you, but then you wouldn't would you.
732 Posted 06/01/2013 at 09:45:55
734 Posted 06/01/2013 at 09:32:42
If we'd have charged an extra £20 a ticket for the last 10 years and fans had still bought the tickets, the picture would be very different, but of course we wouldn't have bought them as we're not as wealthy on the whole as Spurs fans. Their fan base has an A/B demographic whereas we are on average C; Premier League fan surveys show this.
This is one of the reasons it's difficult to sell our club; Liverpool is differen,t they have one of the highest proportion of fans travelling from more than 50 miles away (second only to Man Utd). The result: the RS tap into a higher demographic of fan, who spend more on merchandise etc.
737 Posted 06/01/2013 at 10:10:36
741 Posted 06/01/2013 at 10:25:34
It's depressing but I just have a horrible feeling that we are being left behind and seasons like this where we are scrapping for 4th or 5th may be the best we can hope for in the short term future. Maybe I've just woken up on the wrong side of the bed.
744 Posted 06/01/2013 at 11:02:38
745 Posted 06/01/2013 at 10:59:50
Chris, if you want to see examples of the club plants, trawl through the posts on ToffeeWeb back in the days of Desperation Kirkby there were some absolute pearlers who, like the charlatans they represented, disappeared without trace. If you want a poll of views if they happened or not, post a mailbag item asking the question.
747 Posted 06/01/2013 at 11:14:58
You are now just resorting to personal abuse, are you feeling threatened that the world doesn't always agree with you? Want me to stop challenging your attempt to belittle any opinion that's different to yours? If Heitinga was as defensive minded as you we might have a few extra points. Respect man.
751 Posted 06/01/2013 at 11:57:13
755 Posted 06/01/2013 at 12:03:11
Can we be more specific please and could someone explain to me why it makes sod all difference? Surely someone giving a pro-BK view on this board just opens up an excellent opportunity for someone else to counter it with a well reasoned response as to why BK should go? That helps the less well informed such as myself understand the debate some more. There appears to be a tendency sometimes for pro-BK views to simply be slagged off, dismissed as irrelevant or naive, yet it doesn't seem to happen the other way around very often.
At the end of the day we all know that some people are pro-BK, others anti and some don't-knows. I have to admit I fall into the don't-knows, not because I don't care but because I just haven't had access to enough information to form a considered opinion. How many have? I would love to know exactly what's gone on but I can't see a time that's ever going to happen until BK decides to quit.
Having said that, I have great respect for those with the determination to try and find out more.
I would like to hear both sides of the debate, TW is one place were a small degree of insight might be gained, if only those on both sides of the argument could debate with mutual respect.
756 Posted 06/01/2013 at 12:33:58
BTW, Andy calling for mutual respect on the internet is akin to calling for abstinence in a brothel. Sad, but true.
760 Posted 06/01/2013 at 12:45:40
801 Posted 06/01/2013 at 15:42:24
But that is a smokescreen anyway as the comparable "wealth" has been fairly constant over the last 100 years.
The major difference is Spurs have actively exploited commercial oportunities and managed their finances much better than the buffoon and his cronies.
Even forgetting our commercial inadequacy, nobody has ever explained why "other operating costs" have jumped from £1 million to £24 million a year since Kenwright took control.
831 Posted 06/01/2013 at 16:50:58
Spurs season ticket band £730 - £1845
EFC £443 - £672
Can you explain how the above figures are a 'smokescreen'? Have they really actively exploited commercial opportunities, or is it they are just able to charge more for the same merchandise? Outside of Europe, Spurs are LESS known than we are.
On the subject of 'Other Operating Costs', your 'benchmark' Spurs posted a figure of £35 million in 2011, an increase of nearly £7 million on the year before. Your 'Other operating costs' argument is the real smokescreen, it is constantly pointed to a mismanagement, yet our figures are LESS than the top six clubs.
846 Posted 06/01/2013 at 18:05:34
My main queation is how come operating costs rose from 1 million to 24 million since Kenwright took over while our controllable income has not risen significantly.
The reason their operating costs are high is they manage their own facilities which we farm out so we do not have the cost of running our catering or merchandising operations.
Do you not think it is totally unacceptable that the chairman makes a statement that he doesnt know where 24 million of our income goes.
We were in the Premiership under Johnson and made a profit almost every year and had a net asset position so despite significantly increased outside revenues we have made a loss every year since Kenwright took over.
Does that not raise any red flags for you?
853 Posted 06/01/2013 at 18:27:30
I guess not because if you had you would know the FACTS.
The last survey published in 2008 showed the average salaries of fans as follows:
Spurs fans £45,000 pa
Everton fans £34,000pa.
This is not a Mickey Mouse Survey it's the biggest of its kind. The 2012/13 survey is being done now - this is the first since 2008.
Here the link to the evidence
Enjoy the read!
856 Posted 06/01/2013 at 18:47:10
861 Posted 06/01/2013 at 19:11:04
863 Posted 06/01/2013 at 19:19:25
865 Posted 06/01/2013 at 19:24:24
How about, instead of looking for excuses, we ask those in charge to take responsibility?
868 Posted 06/01/2013 at 18:56:41
You sometimes come across as someone that blindly believes some of the other people on here that suggest the club is badly managed by throwing around statements about Operating Costs and other conspiracy garbage. My advice would be to do your own research on these things, and come up with your own conclusions. Whilst I fully recognise the club is not in perfect shape, I also can tell you it's not half as bad as what some people try to make out.
870 Posted 06/01/2013 at 19:35:08
871 Posted 06/01/2013 at 19:34:06
I remember years ago being offered work there at 3 times my wages and worked out I was only marginally better off if I bought an equivalent house.
Doubtless it's still the same.
879 Posted 06/01/2013 at 19:48:58
The only thing I can think of to try and benchmark it, is to compare it to other PL clubs and its around the average when you do this. One positive is that the operational costs have fallen this year.
880 Posted 06/01/2013 at 19:57:51
Either 1) the Spurs fans are indeed more wealthy;
Or, 2) They are prepared to pay an extra £20 a head per match to watch their club than our fans.
I go for 1).
885 Posted 06/01/2013 at 20:30:07
Disagree with Mr Ramejkis + don't post constantly = club plant; apparently?
898 Posted 06/01/2013 at 21:21:03
You also say "I also can tell you it's not half as bad as what some people try to make out." Is that why we have one of the lowest credit ratings in the history of the Football League? And why Bill states "We are at the mercy of the Banks"?
Andy# various: having lived in London from 1984 to 1992 and having gone to many Spurs games, I can tell you that, after paying an extremely high mortgage or rent, the disposable income of an average Spurs fan is not that much greater than the average Everton fan — particularly if you have a couple of pints or eat out. And FYI Spurs ticket prices have always been high, even before the Premier League.
Now I grant you, Spurs Corporate facilities and income are on a higher level but I am purely talking about their ability to exploit commercial opportunities as opposed to our board's apathy in this regard.
Also, I am sure if you asked Daniel Levy what the makeup of their operating costs were, he would not reply "I am only the chairman I don't know about these things".
941 Posted 07/01/2013 at 01:13:12
We meanwhile have invested nothing in facilities and are still trying to sell up to 13,000 obstructed views. Despite all this, our operating costs have risen almost tenfold in the last few years...... I don't know where they're getting the blue gravel from but it's got to stop!
945 Posted 07/01/2013 at 01:42:42
"Whilst I fully recognise the club is not in perfect shape, I also can tell you it's not half as bad as what some people try to make out."
That sentence is loaded with a staggering amount of BS!
You must have missed the email from a senior club official stating that the club was in "financial meltdown". And Elstone confirming that the Clubs financial strategy of asset disposal and utilisation was unsustainable, but if you want to pretend that its not that bad and in the process construct provocative strawmen arguments to prove your point... don't let me stop you.
Some people... indeed.
979 Posted 07/01/2013 at 10:43:17
Sell a two bedroom house in Kirkdale, Andy and see what you get for the money in Tottenham. You will be forking out more than 33% extra to buy similar.
981 Posted 07/01/2013 at 10:47:51
Flip, even you must see the deterioration of our position in even the last 5 years never mind the last 10! So please, tell me just how we are not as bad as we think...
I think we are one bad season away from administration... brinkmanship??
995 Posted 07/01/2013 at 12:00:00
So where did Bill get the money to pay her back? That's never been disclosed but it's interesting to note that her husband has stated that when he sold his shares he was paid for them by Phil Green. So maybe if Bill had a friend like Phil he could have paid Anita Gregg the money owed?
063 Posted 07/01/2013 at 16:19:40
077 Posted 07/01/2013 at 17:06:08
It reminds me of London cab drivers who appear to operate under the mistaken assumption that I'm fascinated by their 'take,' on Cameron's legislative agenda..
100 Posted 06/01/2013 at 21:07:49
And Christine, you make my 'not as bad as people make out' point perfectly with your 'one bad season from administration' comment. Sensationalist nonsense.
121 Posted 07/01/2013 at 19:28:58
Btw Kevin, assumed your dig was aimed in my direction, or maybe I presume too much, but there are some excellent business people who comment in the forum, to compare them to a cabbie, at least they understand how a business is run, now actors...
123 Posted 07/01/2013 at 20:34:21
That senior official was Ian Ross the former Head of Communication, did you not read the leaked emails? He is I believe an eye-liner and lipstick man. Even the echo covered the leaked emails! As usual bullshit and semantics.
If you want to believe that everything's fine, go ahead.
126 Posted 07/01/2013 at 20:57:53
171 Posted 07/01/2013 at 22:30:29
That is why I wanted to see what is known rather than speculated. Not sure that the second paragraph of your most recent comment actually helps but thanks anyway.
193 Posted 07/01/2013 at 23:34:36
195 Posted 07/01/2013 at 23:42:54
196 Posted 07/01/2013 at 23:45:14
209 Posted 08/01/2013 at 00:41:42
If the club is doing so well you'd think they'd jump at the opportunity to host AGM's to receive the plaudits from the shareholders..... but they don't. I wonder why? This board have done the least to build the club up for the future of almost any other club board that I can think of. Their job is to provide the investment and infrastructure to allow the club to be the best that it can be. They've had well over a decade and have delivered nothing. Moyes has managed to achieve minor miracles despite their impotence. Several lesser clubs have shown far greater ambition and some now achieve the highest average attendances in their history. They do it in smart new stands and whole new stadia, and still manage to outspend us year after year. Only Moyes keeps our team ahead of some of them in the league table...... but for how much longer? Will you come back and tell us how great this board are then?
387 Posted 08/01/2013 at 19:09:59
464 Posted 09/01/2013 at 00:21:31
Niall — don't waste any more effort in looking to buy Everton gear in Ireland, it doesn't exist mate. We have the bumper Kitbag deal to thank for that. I'm a lifelong Evertonian; I will always be... but I vowed last year to never again set foot inside Goodison Park as long as we continue being lied to by the regime. If I sound bitter, it's because I am.
I'm delighted we are doing well this year but I know we are punching above our weight. Fellaini will be sold in summer and more than likely Baines will follow, the media darlings circle every transfer window linking every good player we have with other clubs.Why? Because they know we are gagging for the cash, piss poor and needing help.
Lewis Holtby signs with Spurs, boyhood Evertonian we couldn't even dream of getting him — that would be to easy, we are no longer regarded as one of the big boys face it folks.... Blue Bill he is an Evertonian after all... working 24/7 — he is going to make it all better,
647 Posted 09/01/2013 at 19:53:49
339 Posted 17/01/2013 at 12:46:47
Kenwright has steadied the ship after the Johnson era. Like all Blues, I would like a fairy godmother but it's not Bill Kenwright's fault we haven't got one. Remember the shites previous owner that nearly sank them.
Finding a new owner is not easy. We are in a difficult position and are doing reasonably from that position. The ground issue needs to be sorted but the collapse of International capitalism has not helped us.
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 MailBag submissions across the site.