Finch Farm under new ownership

10/06/2013

Everton's Finch Farm training complex has been sold by previous owners Finch Farm Ltd to Liverpool City Council for £12.925m.

The firm had enlisted property management company DTZ to sell the land and facility in October 2011 with an asking price of £15.3m but Finch Farm remained in their hands until last month whereupon LCC stepped in to insolvency last month.

Formerly New Blue Properties and then ROM Capital [Academy] Ltd and registered in Chigwell, Essex, the company bought the land for £2.1m and paid for the development costs for the facility which was completed in 2007.

Everton signed a 50-year tenancy agreement for Finch Farm then and the club had an option to purchase the site every 5 years, one they declined last year. According to the Land Registry filing, the terms of the club's lease of Finch Farm remain unchanged, although there appears to have been an adjustment in the deal based on comments made by Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson who said the council had used its “borrowing power” to buy the Halewood facility, in order to rent it back to the club.

The Liverpool Echo report that the terms of the deal "mean the Blues will make 'significant' savings on their regular rent payments," which were around £1.4m a year before the sale.

Mayor Anderson said: “It's a good deal for us and for them.

“We will get revenue from it, and it frees up money for the club.

“When I was approached to see if we could assist, we were happy to, and after a few months of negotiation it was done.

“This nails the lie that the council does nothing for Everton. We will do what we can when we can.”  

Reader 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 Elworthy
865 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:13:39
Finch Farm is in Knowsley why would LCC buy property in a neighbouring borough
Phil McNamara
866 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:17:41
Yes, I agree with the above. Finch Farm is in Halewood, Knowsley. I doubt they would be buying land on Knowsley MBC land. Think 'apparently' is the apt word on the first line. Not exactly confirmed, is it.
John Shaw
867 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:17:28
James - 865
Could it have something to do with paying £13 million for something that will earn it 4 times that amount over time?
Just wondering.
Paul Clews
872 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:34:05
Etihad operate out of Abu Dhabi yet they still bought Man City.

As James (865) says, it makes cash!!

Jay Prendergast
878 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:49:58
How can LCC be buying land and at the same time cutting back on services ?
Dickie Langley
883 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:03:04
Sounds like a good investment for a pension fund. Stable return, low risk.
Nick Armitage
884 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:02:49
Jay - 878

It is as John says, "Could it have something to do with paying £13 million for something that will earn it 4 times that amount over time?"

LCC will have millions sat in their pension funds earning next to nothing. Makes sound business sense, and to be honest, I would rather the money go to them and the people of LCC than a faceless corporate who salts the proceeds offshore.

James Elworthy
885 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:03:35
Last week they were looking to borrow money to fix potholes.

Maybe they are going to take Halewood from Knowsley into Liverpool and build us a stadium there, as there is plenty of land in the area.

Patrick Murphy
886 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:10:10
Once again we are over the barrel to the council - what if another sports team wants to rent the place for more than we currently do, where do we go, but I suppose the club has foreseen this possible problem?

Richard Dodd
889 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:19:08
Reduced to training on a corpy midden. How low will our club sink?
John Crook
891 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:36:12
Patrick 886 EFC have signed a 50 year lease so its safe for the next 43 years (i think FF 1st opened 2007??). Also the option for the club to buy FF comes about every 5 years I beleive.
James Stewart
892 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:42:41
What is the annual rent we are paying for Finch Farm?
Ken Finch
903 Posted 11/06/2013 at 00:30:40
Liverpool City Council does not administer the pension fund for the Merseyside local authorities. That role is undertaken by Wirral MBC.
Peter Grimes
906 Posted 11/06/2013 at 01:01:42
"what if another sports team wants to rent the place for more than we currently do"

A 50 year lease is just that - 50 years. 44 left and providing the rent is paid etc no one can make Everton move. It works both ways, though, if we wanted to leave we would have to sell the lease or keep paying the rent.

Patrick Murphy
907 Posted 11/06/2013 at 01:14:55
Thank you Peter #906 I wasn't aware of the 50-year lease – that's put my mind at ease!

Seems like a good deal for LCC they get £45 - 50 million guaranteed for an outlay of £13 Million. We get a place to train and I assume the upkeep of the property is down to the council as well.

John Shepherd
908 Posted 11/06/2013 at 02:08:54
Or it could that, if LCC decide to sell one day and say we do get first dibs at what price, you can guarantee we won't be able to afford it, especially as we all know what happened to the Kings Dock and LCC's involvement in that fiasco. Big brown envelopes and funny handshakes spring to mind...
Thomas Williams
909 Posted 11/06/2013 at 03:32:31
James 892, rent is £1.5M per year, so instead of £2.1M for the land and roughly £7.5M to build, we are paying £75M over a 50-year period, the most ridiculous business deal I have ever seen in my life.

Bearing in mind we got £8M-ish around same time from Bellefield, we could have owned this outright by now, and had an asset worth £13M.

A junior school child would have made a better deal than what BK signed off on, at best it is gross incompetency at worst it smells of misappropriation of funds to me.

Peter Foy
912 Posted 11/06/2013 at 06:53:37
Is it the case that LCC could have done Everton a favour buying it at that price? That is if Everton are in a financial position to buy it back in 4 years.
John Shepherd
913 Posted 11/06/2013 at 06:47:22
Thomas (909) when it's put like that it truly is shocking. I bet LCC didn't have too much to say when we sold Bellefield, considering any proposed building development would of needed there approval. I can just see them all sat round a table, rubbing their hands as Bill walks in with another set of keys. What's for sale next? Are we gunna sell the naming rights to Goodison Park as well?

I can picture it now: "Welcome to the LCC stadium". You might as well close the shop down, Bill, and we'll all rent our merchandise on match day; "hat cap scarf or a top" to rent.

Paul Andrews
914 Posted 11/06/2013 at 07:28:51
I can't understand what you are all worried about.

The man who oversaw the deal is a great Evertonian; he would not do anything to the detriment of the club.

Brin Williams
916 Posted 11/06/2013 at 07:29:44
Exactly my thoughts Peter - let's hope!
Peter Foy
919 Posted 11/06/2013 at 08:06:39
Brin, it's the hope that does all our head in. And the only thing that keeps us going.
Matt Traynor
920 Posted 11/06/2013 at 08:07:52
John Shepherd #908 " especially as we all know what happened to the Kings Dock and LCC's involvement in that fiasco. Big brown envelopes and funny handshakes spring to mind..."

I worked for a company that was involved in the KD fiasco as you put it. LCC's attitude at the time was, and I quote "There are 6 world class bids for this site. Everton's is 7th". The council at the time was dominated by RS season ticket holders.

Everton's bid quickly attained "Preferred Bidder" status after that, not least after the hundreds of grounds for objecting to LFC's then-proposed new stadium on Stanley Park were highlighted.

Then it quickly became apparent that BK couldn't raise the money, and wouldn't do the deal with the one person offering him the money. So the advisers stopped giving a shit (despite many being life-long blues) and just went back to doing the work they were commissioned to do.

LCC didn't cover themselves in glory with their unprofessional approach (in my opinion), but it was nothing to how EFC strung them along.

John Shepherd
926 Posted 11/06/2013 at 08:28:18
Matt 920, nothing BK does surprises me, he may have had good reason at the time I just don't know; my problem is, everytime we get involved in something, it goes pear-shaped. BK either needs advisors who are capable of doing their homework before we enter into these situations or just stay well away.

"Quote from a certain sheikh" he's never dealt with such an amateur. But I take your point on board I'm not that well educated in terms of a business plan/strategy.

There was all sorts of rumours doing the rounds at the time of KD regarding LCC and from someone in the know like yourself seems to be, then I find it even more worrying that LCC now own Finch Farm, and the fact that have proven once before to go with the best bid, what hope do have of ever buying back Finch Farm???

Callum McNab
931 Posted 11/06/2013 at 09:34:21
As jay said , if this is true I will be a unhappy chappy. They have just gave my wife notice that her job will be going in September ,after 30 years of service. Reason given,the council has no money to continue paying for child care in Liverpool.
Norman Smith
932 Posted 11/06/2013 at 09:40:57
This is correct...printed out land reg document 9.42 am 11/6/2013 which shows new ownership and price paid....council obviously want as an investment...or will they donate to EFC to compensate for all the agro they have caused us over the years
James Morgan
934 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:04:06
On a side note, I see Pereira has gone to manage in Saudi.
Tom Dodds
935 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:18:36
You wonder whether we were given first on, I mean, insolvency is insolvency after all. It would of been worth sacrificing a player or two in this instance... Tch!

I've just remembered, the board are worth £2.1 BILLION.... and Kenwright is worth £0. What other club`s fans would take all this shit like we do...???

Richard Dodd
937 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:14:46
865/6:With Finch Farm apparently outside the City,I imagine that KEIOC would have every objection to Everton building a stadium nearby but at least they don`t have to get too excited about us training `in foreign parts` now Liverpool City Council own the site.
The good news for them,however,is that if it is the Merseyside LAs Pension Fund who own the site,I can claim some part ownership as the holder of a frozen pension with that scheme!
KEIOC`s focus on these silly `false boundaries`are as nonsensical as saying only those born or living in the City LA area should be called Evertonians ,particularly as the Freshy`s in Sefton!
Danny Hughes
940 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:19:07
As mentioned on a previous thread, a young lad spoke passionately at the BU meeting about the possibility of the fans buying the club, which IMO is a little out of reach. But what I do think is in reach for the fans is the purchase of Finch Farm and thus keeping it in house.

I don't claim to be a finance expert but with the figure of around £10M being touted, divide that between just the amount of season ticket holders (around 25k?) gives you £400 each and we the fans of the club if you will own it. Now obviously that's just based on season ticket holders; divide the cost between our actual worldwide supporters figure and the initial outlay we would be asked to fork out would be reduced.

You would like to think that someone somewhere in the Everton family has looked into this and found this to be unrealistic. I can't see it being that unrealistic myself.

Big Nev struck a few cords with me: his winning mentality, secondly 2nd place is nowhere so 6th is worse and the fact Bill could be more of a popular character to us.

I'm with Nev in saying that I am not Kenwright's biggest fan... in fact, I think he's a joke, but he could start helping his and the club's cause by asking us the fans to get involved and in turn help our club out rather than just making money for outsiders, whether that be private companies or in this case LCC.

Once again, it seems the club just lacks vision — imagine you owned a part of Everton, how much more you'd feel part of the club — plus we become more attractive to investment/new owners as we would actually own an asset rather than not owning it.

Colin Fitzpatrick
941 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:40:15
Richard #937 You never fail to prove how much of a fool you are with your stupid comments and total belief in club propaganda. I challenge you to find any mention of KEIOC's objection to "false boundaries" in their actual objection which was part of the Government inquiry into Destination Kirkby and is now a historical fact as opposed to your hysterical fiction. You can read it here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11778132/KEIOC-Closing-Document-3rd-February-2009

Whilst some of us are attempting to prove football supporters have a certain level of intellect and should be listened to, others appear content to revel in their neanderthalistic existence. I suppose ignorance is bliss in your case.

Roberto Birquet
943 Posted 11/06/2013 at 11:26:21
John Shaw
Always assuming they have paid cash and not paid it with debt, which would have to be financed, so cutting into however much they would get from Everton.

Considering govt finances right now, my bet is that if they have bought it, it woulda been financed through debt.

Roberto Birquet
944 Posted 11/06/2013 at 11:30:09
Almost all the comments above about how much we pay in rent vs how much we woulda paid assume (wrongly) that we woulda bought the place without the use of debt. That debt would have to be financed, so creating its own (money rather than land) rent.

Now on the one hand, due to the financial crash, government has artificially lowered debt interest payable by banks to almost zero, allowing people and companies to take on debt for almost no cost, banks willing - good time to go into debt. (Giving the lie that this govt is seeking to tackle debt. It ain't. it's just seeking to tackle govt debt, which is the least serious part of debt in the UK, but I digress). However, banks are still not v willing to lend, so however good a time it is for taking on debt, good luck to you getting it.

Tom Hughes
946 Posted 11/06/2013 at 11:30:29
Richard,
As Colin says..... the issue was never about boundaries. (Although there could have been resultant identity and perception damage with the out of town approach). The key issues were that it went against everything in basic stadium planning philosophy, that it was supported by a series of lies and that the whole ballot process was a hard sell sham like all shit deals.I I think KEIOC made it perfectly clear that they would have similar reservations about sites in Speke (within the city boundary) due to the same basic transport and logistical issues........ all this was stated repeatedly at the time.
Richard Dodd
947 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:06:17
That`s what so endearing about you,Colin. Never short of an insult and pride in your self-importance!
Colin Fitzpatrick
948 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:16:41
Not self-importance Richard, just don't suffer fools. If you talk shite expect me to treat you accordingly. Don't make things up and you get treated with the respect you deserve; simple really.
Tom Hughes
949 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:17:53
Richard, Colin is a bit "old school" in that he doesn't wish to endear himself to anyone who attempts to misrepresent something he stands for. Especially when the assertion is so stupid it's farcical. If you feel insulted perhaps it's because you should be.
Andrew Ellams
950 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:26:02
Colin, excuse my ignorance but if the group has no objections to these boundaries then why use the name that you have?

I appreciate that you would also have objections to unworkable sites within the city boundaries but your name does suggest that you would not accept anything outside.

Phil Sammon
951 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:30:15
This is part of the reason some people have their doubts over KEIOC. Richard's post seemed pretty reasonable to me, albeit jovial, and yet he gets his throat jumped down.
Peter Lloyd
952 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:28:04
Very interesting comments. I just have one question: Do we actually own anything now?

I assume we still own Goodsion Park? Or do we...???

Well done to all and sundry, especially who "dug out" the vital land registry info. There is no way, Jose, that the club would have volunteered this info!!

Tom Hughes
953 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:37:14
I was at the meeting when they came up with the name. The question of a name was thrown out to all the people there, who then all shouted out potential names to be considered. That one seemed to fit the mood and sentiment at that point. ...... simple as that really.
Phil Sammon
954 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:45:59
What does it mean then if its not about boundaries?
Colin Fitzpatrick
955 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:38:41
Andrew, you're excused. Read the objections, what Dodd is talking about is rubbish and he's been around long enough to know.

Phil, let's not have any victim status here, for years before he crawled under his stone he was pro anything the club put out. Others may be fooled by his more conciliatory reincarnation, I'm not.

Tom Hughes
956 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:44:01
Phil.... the point is one of misrepresentation. Richard has gone out of his way to reference KEIOC with an inaccurate assertion..... perhaps this has more to do with anyone's "doubts" about KEIOC. The simple fact of the matter are that KEIOC's concerns were entirely vindicated and proven at the well publicised inquiry. There should be no doubts anymore.
Colin Fitzpatrick
957 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:48:15
Phil, it's a name like ESSO, what's more important is what they stood / stand for. It shows the state of the fanbase when all they worry about is a name.
Geoff Freeman
958 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:44:33
Joe Anderson is saying in the Echo that the purchase is good for the council and will also save Everton money
Karl Masters
961 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:34:10
Apologies if I am oversimplifying things here, but I just don't get how EFC find themselves in this sort of situation.

I fully understand that our income is mi-range for the Premier league, but its in the top 25 in the WORLD! With that in mind, with a turnover of £80m plus, soon to rise to over £100m due to another staggeringly good TV deal, quite why we haven't been able to squirrel away a couple of million a year to pay the costs of a £9.6m training ground is beyond me. Even borrowing the money, it could have been paid for by now already!

The same goes for Goodison. If we need £100m to develop it, borrowing over 20 years, might equate to £10m a season, but that would be offset by increased income anyway so not so impossible.
A Guarantor is needed for debt like that, but we have some very wealthy Board members and if they are not there for things like this, just why are they there?

What pisses me off is that we have just had eleven years of not chucking money around and yet we are no further on. In fact we have gone backwards.

I know the money goes on greedy players and agents, but you can recruit from below and develop players as well. Not every player needs to be on £80k a week. I'd put up with a worse team for the next ten years if we started using our income on infrastructure and not on lining players pockets to such ridiculous levels.

Bottom line for me is that the club had had no one term plan, just a get rich quick scheme for the Board and a couple of Spurs fans which failed, has been appallingly managed as a result and the spike in income due very soon needs to be channelled into infrastructure, primarily Goodison, and not into players pockets.

Chris Leyland
962 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:06:21
Colin "It shows the state of the fanbase when all they worry about is a name."

I've just heard that Everton are going to be renamed as Liverpool Rovers. However, Nil Satis Nisi Optimum and the laurel wreaths will be brought back to feature on the new club badge as a result. A spokesperson for the Blue Union said ' as it is only a name, we aren't bothered as it is what the club stands for that matters more to us'

Tom Hughes
963 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:56:39
Phil, it's just a name, but given the stance that prompted it, for me it means: that the proposed stadium contravened all modern stadium planning philosophy. Whereby modern thinking favours more central locations to gain maximum benefit from established public transport hubs... especially mass rapid transit. The out of town stadium has been tried and tested extensively and has in some cases failed completely and in most cases found wanting. Kirkby just happens to be out of town. You could try to abbreviate all that but I don't think it would work as well as the name chosen.
Tom Hughes
965 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:10:15
Chris are TBU or Keioc advocating changing the name of the club? Did they change the badge? What is your point?
Colin Fitzpatrick
966 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:11:11
Chris #962 - you heard wrong then.

Six years of attempting to educate people on what's been going on and all some worry about is a name? Clearly we've been wasting our time.

Ray Griffin
967 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:16:51
(Paul Andrews 914)....

Not only a great Evertonian Paul, but "there is no bigger Evertonian", a tireless worker who spends every waking minute searching for new investment (and designing club crests)

Tom Hughes
968 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:14:57
Karl....... spot on! The club have demonstrated a complete inability to deliver anything and have no long term plan and have failed time and time again ..... yet some are still only interested in questioning the meaning of the name of a group of blues who were proven right in their protest. The mind boggles. ...
Karl Masters
969 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:17:31
Tom and Colin. I think what Chrus is trying to say is that by having the name Keep Everton In Our City you appear to only have one aim. Obviously some of us know that it's more than that but, for the uninitiated, it's easy to see where the confusion comes from.

A name like Stop Exploiting Our Club For Personal Gain would actually be more relevant now Kirkby is history.

I'd like to add that I am not a member of any group but, as a frustrated fan, I can see that the Blue Union and KEIOC have made many valid points that every Everton fan should want answers to.

Phil Sammon
970 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:14:23
I don't know anything about Richard's past so I can't comment on that front.

I'm also not fully versed in the aims and objectives of KEIOC. The one thing I though I knew was that they wanted to keep Everton in Liverpool. Some of the reasons for which included transport, local business etc but I always felt that it was as much a matter of principle as anything else.

The club is badly run and that should be publicised as much as possible. Isn't that what Blue Union are trying to do? KEIOC seemed to have been set up to combat the specific threat of Kirkby.

If I'm mistaken, what's the difference between the two?

Eugene Ruane
972 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:01:22
Phil Sammon (951) - "This is part of the reason some people have their doubts over KEIOC. Richard's post seemed pretty reasonable to me, albeit jovial, and yet he gets his throat jumped down".

Phil, the baldy feller out of The Three Stooges was quite 'jovial'...but he was a fucking idiot.

Personally, I admire Colin's restraint, given he's dealing with an individual who argued long and loud for years in favour of Bill Kenwright and told us we were all fools for not agreeing with him.

(this by the way was BEFORE his complete U-turn).

He also told us what a great idea Kirkby was and how we were holding the club back etc.

Of course now, instead of having the good grace to hang his head in shame and say "I was wrong" he comes on here and STILL, with the same confidence and arrogance, wants to tell all and sundry where they are going wrong.

You say you think his post seemed 'pretty reasonable'?

I don't, I think given the circumstances, it was rude and beyond dumb.

(nb: I consider someone attempting to insult my intelligence FAR ruder than them telling me to go fuck myself)

The fact is, ALL the information is 'out there' for Evertonians interested in knowing what's what.

Those that choose not to, that is their business, but if they then start asking stupid questions, it is entirely legitimate imo for those who HAVE taken the time to find out, to tell them to fuck off.

Seriously if someone asked you 19 times 'what's the capital of France?' and each time you replied 'Paris', would it not fuck you off to have him ask you for a 20th time AND be snotty and smart-arsed about it?

It has all been explained over and over and over, yet some it seems are still looking to pick holes rather than concentrating on the real problem - BK and our useless board.

And let me be honest, whenever I see posts picking holes in Keioc and/or the BU and telling us all how they haven't done everything absolutely perfectly and how they might have made 'mistakes' I get suspicious.

Because I think 'Jesus, our club is being fucked by the clowns that 'run' it, yet all this nob wants to discuss is the fact that a voluntary supporters organization might not have done everything perfectly'.

Yes I might be paranoid, but it doesn't mean someone isn't trying....

Andrew Ellams
973 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:29:48
Phil, the difference between the two seems to be that TBU seem to be able to explain their stance and debate with anybody who may question anything they say or do without being reduced to personal insults.
Colin Fitzpatrick
974 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:36:55
Phil, thanks for clearing up that you don't know about Dodd or KEIOC. For the avoidance of any doubt about KEIOC I'd check out their name pre and post Kirkby.

Andrew #973 Classy, save that, as you may have noticed on Saturday, it was Dave Kelly and myself articulating the Blue Union argument.

Think its time to leave ToffeeWeb to those who know nothing, don't want to know nothing but will type their opinions on what they know nothing about at the drop of a hat. On another thread Dan Brierley offers a perfect example; so clueless he's lecturing people on his ignorance.

Kevin Tully
977 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:51:21
I can see why the Council have made this investment, but when our Board have a personal wealth somewhere in the region of £350m, I know what I would say, especially when our local roads are crumbling.

According to Joe Anderson, the club approached the Council for assistance ;

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-council-bosses-buy-everton-4292309

Phil Sammon
979 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:42:20
Fair enough Eugene. The best way I've found to educate myself is to ask questions. While some may have asked and answered the same questions countless times, I'm afraid I have not. So what is the capital of France?

I admitted the other day that I had doubts about BU and KEIOC up until fairly recently. But my eyes have been opened to the club's shortcomings, malicious, incompetent or otherwise and I think it's right that the fans fight back.

I guess the name is just no longer fit for purpose, which is unfortunately quite important if you're trying to market an idea.

Anyway, point taken.

Paul Jamieson
988 Posted 11/06/2013 at 14:29:30
Phil - 979 - you say youve found the best way to educate yourself is by asking questions but you started this by writing "this is part of the reason some people have their doubts over KEIOC" thats not a question thats a statement and a statement that someone like colin who has put up with loads of abuse from the club and fans who believe every one of Kenwrights lies. You seem a reasonable guy to be honest as you've been fair in your reply to Eugene but some on here are beyond belief. very entertaining but maybe we've just seen the last of colin on here as Tom says he's a bit old school, doesn't suffer fools. Apparently Elstone once said the figures he was explaining were rubbish only for him to reply youre right robert, these are your figures from kirby, here are mine and Elstone was left speechless.
Peter Mills
989 Posted 11/06/2013 at 14:33:46
Karl # 961, it seems to me that in the absence of a White Knight charging over the hill and dropping a great big pile of dosh inside Goodison, a 7-10 year strategy of reducing the wage bill and using the money saved plus additional TV money to re-build infrastructure is the only way ahead. Heaven only knows where that would leave us on the pitch, our new manager succeeded then failed over recent years to keep Wigan in the Premier League with a similar remit, but we are a bigger club than them. To a certain extent Arsene Wenger has done it to help fund the Emirates Stadium development and repayment, and reports are now suggesting they are in good heart financially. The thing is, there would need to be a clearly drawn strategy, we as supporters would have to buy into that, but strategy is something sadly lacking at our Club.

With regard to Finch Farm, Everton have committed to a classic case of get what you want now, pay dear over the length of the lease. Those who have done the deal have left a mess for others to clear up in the future. From what I have read of the lease terms it seems an excellent investment for someone who can raise the purchase price. Everton are committed to the lease, the terms are set, the club is in no better or worse a position than they were 6 months ago, they just have a different Landlord. One thing that puzzles me, given the apparent attractiveness of the investment, is why the moneyed people on or around the Board did not buy it for their own personal pension pot. Are they concerned the tenant may go bust?

Phil Sammon
991 Posted 11/06/2013 at 14:59:24
Paul

I appreciate 'he doesn't suffer fools' but what is he trying to achieve?

I assume Colin wants to gather the support of Evertonians and eventually wrestle the club out of the hands of the clowns at the helm.

He bit Richard's head off, which he has since explained - fair enough, I didn't know the history. But there are still thousands of Evertonians, match-going or otherwise, that he should be trying to engage rather than dismiss.

And I would assume he will be back on TW. It's the most informative, intelligent and humorous Everton website I've come across (there are a few exceptions) and he has plenty of support on here.

Andrew Ellams
992 Posted 11/06/2013 at 15:14:18
My issue with some of the people on here is the way they put their views across and throw insults as a way of fending off those who don't agree with them.

I personally agree with the vast majority of what is said on here re the running of the club and the fact that changes need to happen from the top right now.

Gavin Ramejkis
995 Posted 11/06/2013 at 15:17:56
Phil I'm not sure of your location or ability to attend any of the BU meetings but I would recommend you do if for nothing more than to actually meet Colin and Dave, they are very calm characters who know their stuff and I can honestly say of both of them the porpganda images of them as some firebrands or angry activists couldn't be further from the truth. Every gets hacked off as Eugene said earlier if you are having to repeat ad nauseum the same information which is available in the public domain.
Richard Dodd
001 Posted 11/06/2013 at 15:03:03
Blimey,have the leaders of KEIOC had a humour by-pass,or what?
How silly of me to think`Keep Everton in our City` stood for for `Keep Everton in our City`!
Such is the disdain of these people for anyone amongst the MAJORITY who dared to vote for Kirkby that we get branded as Neanderthals. Colin always had a way with words!
Sorry I rattled your cage,I should have known that any jocular mention of your esteemed organisation was decidedly off limits and well merited a pasting.
Oh,by the way,what does `Keep Everton in our City`stand for? Us palaeolithics would love to know.
Paul Jamieson
003 Posted 11/06/2013 at 15:51:22
Phil - 991 -maybe phil maybe not, maybe he just meant for today, who knows, I can see why he'd be pissed off. The reason TW is so good is because people like tom, colin, eugene etc have posted informative posts over the years whilst people like richard contribute nothing as he latest post proves and have been weeded out. Debate is good, personally I enjoy it but like Eugene says people who are just stupid and ignorant have no pace on here or it will become another bluekipper. can't believe people are questioning the background of the name keioc, because that's what's wrong with the club, keiocs name! Have evertonians on TW become that brain dead?
Andrew Ellams
006 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:07:40
No brain dead at all Paul. The name KEIOC suggest that the aim of that group was to keep Everton in the boundaries of the City of Liverpool. Not an unreasonable aim at all.

Richard's post earlier (could have been put better and was probably worded to wind Colin up) suggested that KEIOC would not like the idea of moving to Halewood because it was outside the City. We have since been informed that this not KEIOC's primary aim. So it's a fair suggestion that they should perhaps change their name or it could cause confusion as to what they are moving towards. Why not scrap it all together and just work under the Blue Union banner?

Nicholas Ryan
008 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:17:59
Years ago, when I was a student, London University used to play the odd game at the Queens Park Rangers training ground. Why? because the ground was owned by the University of London, and leased by Q.P.R. It didn't seem to bother anyone at the time!
Paul Jamieson
012 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:26:53
Andrew their name is keeping everton in our city, it was keep before kirby and they appear to have been very successful at what they do much to the annoyance of the real small minority at the club
Brian Waring
014 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:29:44
If the aim of KEIOC was to do just what the name suggests, then why are these lads still going and fighting for what they believe in? The Kirkby debacle has been over for yonks. KEIOC are still going, to me, that speaks volumes.
Tom Hughes
018 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:42:37
Brian, perhaps they are still going because the people who attempted to perpetrate this ridiculous plan and who have failed at every turn are still running the show....... and still failing to move the club forward. The raison d'etre remains. .... the club still insists it needs a retail led scheme..... and there will be no such scheme within the city boundaries or even close.
Paul Andrews
021 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:58:36
Brian Waring,

Can you share some of the volumes that speak

Brian Waring
028 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:08:04
Paul, it speaks volumes, because they are still going and have their views on all things to do with club, so them forming wasn't all to do with just opposing the Kirkby debacle as some seem to believe on here.
Paul Andrews
030 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:24:34
Brian,
What else,in your opinion,did they form for?
Kevin Tully
031 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:16:11
What an opportunity the people who own the club have missed here.

It would have been great PR for the board to have injected some of their own capital into the club, by purchasing outright this great facility, and saving the club a fortune in rent along the way. At last we would have owned a new asset, and gone a little way in justifying the asking price.

This only confirms their future intentions, don't invest a penny, beg and borrow off anyone who will fund their tenure (at great cost to the club) and get out with a fortune when they depart.

I cannot wait to see what answer they provide concerning long term planning at the forthcoming general meeting.

Eugene Ruane
033 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:28:35
Andrew (006) - "Richard's post earlier (could have been put better and was probably worded to wind Colin up) suggested that KEIOC would not like the idea of moving to Halewood because it was outside the City".

Exactly and when he got the appropriate response to his hilarious shit-stirring 'wind-up', as usual, he whined like a big soft tart.

He's like a thick kid who pulls a dog's tail over and over again and over again, then cries and bitches and moans when it turns around and bites him on the arse.

By the way, re the name keioc, this might be a good time to point out that apple don't grow apples, Nike don't sell Greek Gods and Dick's Sporting Goods don't sell tiny little footy kits to stick on your nob.

Seriously, if you are prepared to spend time analysing and questioning the name 'keioc', rather than the behaviour of those whose have treated YOUR club so disgracefully, you deserve Kenwright and the rest of those bums.

Dennis Stevens
035 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:31:20
Richard Dodd #001 - You are factually incorrect the MAJORITY didn't vote for DK - do you also think the UK Government is elected by a majority of the electorate?

Surely if you are genuinely interested in KEIOC you could find your way to their website - it can't be that hard to find.

You're just so 2007!

Brian Waring
042 Posted 11/06/2013 at 18:05:11
Paul, have a look here http://www.keioc.net/
Phil Sammon
045 Posted 11/06/2013 at 18:20:53
Eugene

Right, I fully understand what you are saying. The name is not indicative of the work they do, that's fine. But it seems to me that their aim as a group is to highlight all the boards past and current failings and expose them to a wider audience. You have to assume that any person not already supporting their cause has either made up their mind that they love BK or, much more likely, is not fully up to speed with events behind the scenes. That second point is particularly prevalent in the media where we are portrayed as a well run club. Consequently whenever KEIOC do make the news any person who isn't fully informed will jump to conclusions about the groups' objective.

Having an irrelevant name is fine, but you cant call yourself Eugene's Plumbers Merchants if you once sold a tap 5 years ago but now breed Koi Carp in bathtubs. Its misleading.

If BU and KEIOC are the same people then why don't they operate under the one relevant banner and gather support from Blues around the world?

I don't know why any of this is my business by the way so forgive me for sticking my oar in.

Iain Johnston
048 Posted 11/06/2013 at 18:21:10
Eugene, I think your last post says it all. I personally wouldn't have a clue if it hadn't been for the info from the likes of you and Colin also pointing me in the right direction regarding further info.

As far back as Johnson wanting to build on Kirkby golf course, our Chairmen have been attempting half-baked schemes for our Club.

The plans where there many many years ago to re generate Goodison realistically and affordably. I believe it was KEIOC who brought this to our attention when The Club said it couldn't be done. Without these groups god knows what hair-brained schemes we'd be involved in.

Carl Sanderson
050 Posted 11/06/2013 at 18:59:36
Karl:

"Apologies if I am oversimplifying things here, but I just don't get how EFC find themselves in this sort of situation."

Let me oversimplify things: we are run by fucking amateurs from top to bottom.

The Chairman is a notoriously tight-fisted twat; the CEO is an identikit cost-control bean-counter; and the directors are invisible. It's frightening.

Kenwright ACTUALLY BELIEVES he is the right man to lead the Club.

And that is the most frightening thing of all.

Ged Simpson
051 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:03:22
Quick look to see what is happening before tea. And jesus old arguments and venom are still there. I can understand both sides but one thing - not all of us have time, inclination or desire to read small print of every legal and financial document related to our club. So those who do - good for you - but don't become bitter smart arses if we are just average fans and occasionally take the piss. It is a game..
Ged Simpson
052 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:13:51
By the way - I am a grass expert and well fucked off with new pitch choice
Ged Simpson
054 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:16:59
Read a few more threads as always do close season. It's like a group of lads on a promise - but not until August. Anticipation and frustration overdose !
Eugene Ruane
067 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:02:41
Ged Simpson - "I can understand both sides but one thing - not all of us have time, inclination or desire to read small print of every legal and financial document related to our club. So those who do - good for you - but don't become bitter smart arses if we are just average fans and occasionally take the piss. It is a game"

Well I might be able to help with the time, but before I do, I'll refer you to what I said earlier.

"The fact is, ALL the information is 'out there' for Evertonians interested in knowing what's what. Those that choose not to, that is their business, but if they then start asking stupid questions, it is entirely legitimate imo for those who HAVE taken the time to find out, to tell them to fuck off".

So, to be clear, nobody is saying 'READ THIS!' - what they are saying is 'if you don't want to read this, fine, but then don't ask me about it, THEN tell me I'm full of shite when I give you my answer' - BIG difference.

One thing I might suggest though.

Instead of posting to give us your "Waaall, ahm jest a simple man and aaah don't hold wi' no fancy book laarnin' schtick (incredibly interesting though that is) why not use THAT time to visit keioc and learn something.

See now you DO have time.

(don't mention it, as the old song says - 'if I can help somebody as I pass on my way, then my living has not been in vain')

Dave Kelly
071 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:29:54
Richard Dodd: I have observed your posts, from afar, for many years... with a degree of grudging admiration. I have laughed, cried, yelled and screamed at your various posts.

I am inclined to agree with you regarding the inappropriately named KEIOC. It may come as a surprise to you given that I was a founder member of the said group and Chair for more years than I care to remember.

Therein lays the problem of trying to manage by consensus or committee: doesn't work, as you can see from the abomination that is currently portrayed as a new badge.

The initial "name" for the fledgling group was, believe it or not KEITH!!! Yes KEITH, Keep Everton in Their Home, as a play on the now long departed CEO. This was supported by many in attendance at the first Steering Committee meeting. Many of whom had played an active part in the GFE (Goodison For-Ever)

Thankfully this was rejected in favour of KEIOC (Keep Everton In Our CIity). Once again, in my opinion, not the greatest choice of name, but what the hell – we needed to hit the ground running.

We needed to respond and react to the Club's propaganda right away, they had already started their charm offensive. The plans we had to set up a membership system, adopt a constitution etc had to be abandoned. The war of attrition had already begun

The rest, as they say, is history. With regards to who or what are KEIOC and or The Blue Union, once again, I agree with you. The waters may well be muddied. After KEIOCs actions had been fully indicated at the Public Inquiry, the group met up with intentions of dissolving the group.

After much deliberation we decided to continue as a group, relaunched and rebranded. We would no longer campaign under the banner of Keep Everton in our City but under Keeping Everton In Our City. We switched focus to reflect who and what we had become, to use the wealth of experience and expertise that we now had.

Initially, when The Blue Union came together, KEIOC continued to campaign on issues outside of what the other constituent parts the Blue Union had committed to; the Football Quarter was at a crucial stage.

Personally, I am of the opinion that at some stage Evertonians 4 Change, KEIOC and The Peoples Group will effectively become one.

Richard, I think I have mellowed after years of campaigning. "Why do I waste so much time explaining to people like you?" I ask myself. I think I may have found the answer. It's because you are either a highly intelligent individual, a wind-up merchant or just plain stupid. I assume its the latter, you have had so much practice over the years you have perfected it. STUPIDITY IS YOUR FORTE ;-)

While you sit their pontificating, "our" club will be sitting back idling away the weeks, months and years waiting for a free stadium on a retailed enabling park; it ain't gonna happen.

We do and always will end up with the Club we deserve. I know the Colin Fitzpatricks and Tom Hugheses of the world deserve better... DO YOU?

Michael Hegarty
073 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:10:54
I agree with Phil; if it has nothing to do with boundaries it's a stupid name. Dare I suggest that should the EFC board make an error of judgment of that magnitude they would be hauled over the coals on here by the very people claiming the name issue is irrelevant.
Peter Mills
080 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:15:46
I'm really struggling with this thread, as I was with all the snide comments about the failure of the live broadcast from The Casa.

1. As a "neutral" attendee at The Casa, it appeared to me that decent camera equipment was being used, George McKane had all his people in place. The technology failed; we all know it can... that is a genuine shame for all those who could not view proceedings. But scorn was poured out on all involved which was quite unnecessary.

2. This discussion has turned into another slanging match. Colin and Dave, I was very impressed by the way you spoke on Saturday, but Colin in particular, your tone on this thread is harsh. I know this is a hard city, we are all supposed to be tough guys, but it can be intimidating coming onto a site like this. My opinions on many matters Blue have been influenced by all kind of posts on here, it would be a great shame if people were intimidated from saying what they want to.

For what it's worth, my mindset has changed. What I once perceived as "anti Everton" behaviour I now view as a force for much-needed change. It's taken a while for that energy-saving lightbulb in my head to come on. For others out there, the switch may not yet have flicked. Be patient, don't risk alienating people. COYB.

Dean Adams
084 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:55:40
Dave Kelly 071

That post, although directed at Richard, was the very reason why you and any other (Colin), should continue to post on this site. It was well constructed and concise, giving the reader an informed idea of the history of the group (Keioc). It was a shame that you had to add the last 3 paragraphs, which just brought you down to the very level you seem to hate from others. It is that very trait that is common place on this site and detracts from the excellent work you have all achieved.

We are not all in the position to do what you do, but that does not mean that we don't appreciate what you have done. Why ruin it by being rude and mocking those less fortunate than yourselves. I think that Richard often comes across as being the devils advocate, stimulating the debate. Throwing insults just does no good, in my opinion. Anyway, keep up the good positive work.

Peter Foy
092 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:28:41
On a positive note and to steer the discussion away from KEIOC, are there 30,000 evertonians willing to chip in £10 a month for 4 years? Sounds daft, but this would raise over £14.5m and offer to buy finch farm for cash. Council will get 4 years rent plus an extra £1.5m. So it's a "win/win/win" - club, council AND supporters.
Dan Brierley
097 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:47:06
Peter Foy, is that not similar to what Tony I'Anson is/was trying to do with the 'trust everton' initiative?
Peter Mills
100 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:54:28
Yes, it is what Tony was trying to do. For what it's worth, my income has dropped very considerably over the past 5 years, but I would be prepared to throw in a tenner a month for 4 years, and would be prepared to accept zero return, for the benefit of future Evertonians. I'm in.
Sean Byrne
101 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:51:29
It actually doesn't make sense for Everton to buy Finch Farm. I would rather them use what little cash they have to spend on players. The site is only worth £4M or £5M as residential land. If Everton were to go into administration or suffer relegation then LCC would not be able to recoup their initial investment. There are no other clubs/parties that would pay that annual rent for land in Halewood.

Basically LCC are hoping that Everton continue to stay in the Prem for at least 20 years in order to get a decent return on their investment.

Patrick Murphy
102 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:56:48
If 35,000 Evertonians bought the cushions that are on sale with the old crest on, it would make a remarkable sight at the first home game if they held them up in protest at the new badge, just to show we haven't forgotten that we don't like it. Only an idea I'm sure there are many other reputable outlets to purchase the said cushions from.

http://www.homebargains.co.uk/manufa...2-everton.aspx

Andrew Ellams
103 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:46:16
I am definitely warming to the KEITH name.

It was never my intention to undermine the work if any person or group but I genuinely believe movimg away from the KEIOC name will help to gain credibility and recognition outside of the Everton family which will surely be a huge part of winning the fight

Paul Andrews
107 Posted 11/06/2013 at 22:13:51
Keioc was formed to put a stop to the proposed stadium in Kirkby; they were successful in doing that.

Keioc wiped the floor with the legal team of Everton Football Club. I think they realised how significant the victory gained by a small group of fans against the representatives of a Premier League club was.

At that point they realised the ongoing influence they could have in any moves the club made to the detriment of the fans. They have proved very successful in doing that. Long may they continue.

Mark Boulle
111 Posted 11/06/2013 at 22:17:14
I don't live in and am not from Liverpool, so I may be misinformed, but if Joe Anderson, who I believe is a fan of our beloved neighbours, is saying this purchase by LCC will save us money, let me put this out there.

Is it not possible that LCC bought Finch Farm in order to retain it as an asset for the city of Liverpool and one of that city's icons, Everton Football Club? If the complex was for sale, a random property developer somewhere might otherwise have purchased it and put its use as a training ground for EFC at risk. Perhaps LCC stepped in to avert this?

To that end, is it not also possible that LCC might be amenable to negotiations with EFC somehow to reduce / defer the amount we pay in rent under the 50 year lease? Could that not be what Joe Anderson is referring to when he talks about this saving the club money?

Just putting it out there, would be interested to know if you all think I'm going barmy...

Peter Laing
114 Posted 11/06/2013 at 22:41:58
Mark, you couldn't be further from the truth regarding Joe Anderson, he is a match going Everton season ticket holder and has done more in his capacity as Mayor of Liverpool with this deal than the likes of the leeches that exist on Everton's board of directors. I'm just hoping that Joe can add some sway to finding Everton a new owner with the water front development proposals taking shape, the only problem is the elephant in the room - the boards ludicrous asking price.
Sur Jo
134 Posted 12/06/2013 at 01:28:48
Thank you Liverpool City Council. You saved my club from the vultures.

It's a good investment as the council will reap more than the cost of the investment over the long-run. That will generate revenue for the residents of the area.

This is a shrewd tactic of asset-liability matching and I admire the council's foresight to lock in such a deal at such a favourable price.

This is a win-win, i.e., both for the residents of the area and the fans of Everton. When it comes to financing, it's softer for Everton FC to deal with a City Council than private investors.

Once again, thank you Liverpool City Council.

Daniel Lawrence
144 Posted 12/06/2013 at 06:01:33
This really does exposé the board further for what they are.Still, I suppose the returns are lower than the Vibrac loans so not worth it to one of our three "active" members
Paul Andrews
145 Posted 12/06/2013 at 06:34:10
"The returns are lower than the Vibrac deals."
And there you have the reason why one of our directors did not buy Finch Farm.
He has already got his cake,and is very much eating it.
Peter Foy
148 Posted 12/06/2013 at 06:23:47
Mark 111, you may be right but the club won't reveal the details to a bunch of drunken knobhead Evertonians. The deal may save the club some money, probably enough to cover 1 months wages of a star player.

It's been spun as positively as 6th place in the league. End of the day, the council own it and in 45 years time, what is the land worth?

Karl Masters
151 Posted 12/06/2013 at 07:13:57
Makes sense on all sides, but also exposes Efc's weak line of credit when the money could not have been raised by them to buy it outright.

In housing terms, we aren't even buying it on a mortgage, we are just renting. That is always referred to a dead money if you are an individual, but you gain flexibility to move home easily. That's not something a football club needs so in this case it really is dead money.

£75m over 50 years for something that cost £9. 5m new and after 50 years they still don't own it! Shocking when you think of it like that.

I wonder how many other EPL teams lease their training ground? As such a key facility, you would think it would be a priority to own it.

Tom Hughes
155 Posted 12/06/2013 at 07:57:01
Bottom line is: it's a short term saving for a medium or long term loss. Which plainly illustrates how the club has operated for years, and the lack of conviction or ambition for the future of the club by the current owners.
Tony I'Anson
157 Posted 12/06/2013 at 08:18:27
There is a short statement on the Trust Everton website about the sale of Finch Farm to LCC. http://www.trusteverton.com/news/finch-farm-sold-to-liverpool-city-council-11.html
Tom Dodds
171 Posted 12/06/2013 at 09:24:03
£75 MILLION ......When we could've owned it lock stock and barrel for just a third more than the cost of Heitinga????

For fuck's sake why do we take this shit from these `owners`???
We need to demonstrate, march, actively remove them asap. Because, if Martinez fails...There`ll be no more `history` to sing about.

Brian Harrison
186 Posted 12/06/2013 at 12:28:30
I don't think this is a good deal for Everton or the Council tax payers of Liverpool, of which I am one. I can't understand why we as a club are not using the extra revenue from the television rights to buy our own training ground. This deal is a short term fix to reduce our costs but will cost us financially for decades to come.

As for our Council to spend near £13 million of taxpayers' money that will not produce a profit for the City for many decades is indefensible. This investment will not produce one job for the people of Liverpool, so I hope Joe Anderson can give us a detailed breakdown of how this is good for the City. I can well understand a council helping local businesses with financial help if it secures local people's jobs or the promise that it will create jobs for the local workforce, this as I see it does neither.

So the council are lending a business that has a turnover in excess of £80 million a year and is struggling to buy its own training ground for £12 million despite getting £10 million for their old training ground. I would suggest that Councillor Anderson looks after the people he is there to represent than bolstering a badly run business.

Steavey Buckley
188 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:09:00
I would have been more impressed if the council had secured a new stadium for the blues, instead of scuppering most of Everton's intentions to secure one. Football tourism brings a lot of money into Liverpool, that appears to have gone unnoticed in council chambers.
Kevin Tully
195 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:17:16
I don't imagine it would have taken much of a deposit to secure a mortgage on the facility, at least that would have been a step in the right direction, and showed some foresight towards the future direction of the club.

I imagine though, the Board thought 'Fuck it, we'll out of here soon enough, let the next owners worry about shit like this. As long as we can operate with the income streams we have, let's keep our exposure to an absolute minimum.'

Abstract from EFC business plan, first 8 months of 2013. Apologies, that's as far as the cashflow forecast goes!

Tom Hughes
198 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:18:33
Steavey, when have the council scuppered any of our plans? They offered the club the city's finest location with funding, all for a relative pittance. Now they have rescued us from training on the park with coats for goal posts...... what more do you want? Or do you still believe in the myth that we were refused permission to build a stadium on the park? I think you'll find that was disproved a long time ago.
Steavey Buckley
209 Posted 12/06/2013 at 14:03:08
If I remember rightly, the previous chairman of EFC, Johnson, wanted to obtain part of Stanley park, but was turned down by LCC. Instead LFC gained the permission years later.
Paul Andrews
230 Posted 12/06/2013 at 15:28:47
Different administration Steavey.
Tom Hughes
238 Posted 12/06/2013 at 17:00:35
Well you remember incorrectly Steavey. We enquired about redirecting Walton Lane into the listed end of the park.... ie the part with the key features. This wasn't a planning application even and it certainly didn't involve building a stadium on the park. Liverpool's plan was for a whole new stadium on the sports centre site with replacement park space. It was a full formal application. Meanwhile the Kings Dock offer represents a far more generous gesture.
Paul Andrews
241 Posted 12/06/2013 at 17:34:32
Very much a more generous gesture Tom.
One that will never be repeated.
Difficult to understand how this failure of a board could not get £30 million together for that stadium.
I believe we sold Rooney the year after the deal fell through for £27 million.
That puts it into perspective.
Tony Marsh
245 Posted 12/06/2013 at 17:55:11
LCC bent over backwards to accommodate EFC and Kenwright over the Kings Dock fiasco. Now LCC have bought out Finch Farm probably with persuasion from the Mayor of Liverpool who is a massive Blue. What more do you want from them? Would any of you lot engage with BK again with a business deal with his track record of slipperiness? No, you wouldn't.

As for favouritism with regards to LFC from LCC, surely you must realise the LFC are the biggest employer in this city. Every time Liverpool play at home in the PL, every hotel room in the city is booked up, pubs, bars, restaurants full. Taxis chocablock, fans shopping in town, flights into JLA etc.

Such is the effect LFC has on the local economy that the Council are trying to create 3,000 extra beds in the town centre to accommodate the masses who flood in. Isn't it then understandable that the Council would want to protect its Golden Goose? Without the LFC connection, Liverpool as a city would suffer in all aspects of its growth... It's not about favouritism — its about good business sense. Something that is severely lacking at our club.

Karl Masters
256 Posted 12/06/2013 at 18:42:32
Blame the Spurs connection. It's becoming like a financial cancer seaping into every part of how the club is run / not run.

One arm behind the back stuff. BK has to let the truth out and suffer the consequences because it will out one day, and the longer it goes the worse he will look in the pages of history.

Liam Young
301 Posted 12/06/2013 at 21:41:40
Picture this, instead of LCC owning our training ground, it's some business consortium who only care about themselves, not the area, and not everton. Would that be a better deal?, I doubt it, I loved the idea of the fans owning the training ground, a while back somebody started up that idea, and I thought it was a great one.

But the LCC will not lease the training ground to a higher offer, believe it or not LCC prides on its heritage, and Everton is a huge part of the citys heritage.

The rent payments will save the club £1.5 million a year, and that is great news, I see only the positives here.

Tom Hughes
308 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:01:39
Liam,
How much would the mortgage repayments have been? At least we would've then owned it eventually. I agree LCC is probably a better option than a company. .... but the issue is why can't we afford our own training facilities in the first place?
John Shaw
313 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:16:10
Steavey Buckley 188 & 209

You're way off beam with your assumptions, LCC gave EFC a ridiculous amount of leeway and numerous extensions to try and get Kings Dock off the ground, it failed because arsehole Kenwright couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, he was more interested in kicking the Greggs into the long grass than securing the long term future of EFC, and for that I'll always consider him a gobshite of a Chairman!!

Peter Foy
315 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:20:39
Liam 301. "But the LCC will not lease the training ground to a higher offer,". Do you not think the club (existing tenant, existing lease) would in any way allow this to be a possibility whether it was LCC or any other landlord.

And how can the club be saving £1.5m a year when the rent with previous owners were up to £1.4m?

James McCall
323 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:09:02
I don't get it how is this good business for everton, i'd rather us sell a player like fellaini and use the money to buy finch farm outright.To me it suggests that any quality player brought frew our academy might go on to be sold and that a set percetage of his sale price is club debt.We will be a feeder club paying extream costs running a facility that by the time its paid for will be as old as belafield and its aim would have served no purpose to us but more for the utds arsenal,city and chelsea.I bet that all the wasted money we have paid out in interest over the years on loans we could have had a new stadium.you carn't tell me our board carn't even muster up £13 million so it could save 30-40.
John Shaw
326 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:56:54
James 323

The problem we have is that the Board have systematically mortgaged or loaned against every asset the club has, so when trying to raise more funds through borrowing there is no longer anything to secure it against.

Now ordinarily, you would look to the owners to stand as guarantors for a new loan but this has not been an option since the Kirkby project fell through and Earl et al took their toys home!!

So essentially we are Fucked, and yes that is with a capital F !!!

Tony I'Anson
356 Posted 13/06/2013 at 07:50:15
Liam, "I loved the idea of the fans owning the training ground, a while back somebody started up that idea" It was (is) Trust Everton, a “not-for-private-profit” social enterprise. The vision has always been to re-invest any surplus revenues back into the club's infrastructure, rather than being used as profit for a 3rd party landlord.
Steavey Buckley
432 Posted 13/06/2013 at 16:35:05
John Shaw: the question has been raised before over Stanley Park:

Why Did Liverpool Council Reject Everton's Request For Stanley ...
www.toffeetalk.com › Everton › General Everton Discussion‎

John Keating
434 Posted 13/06/2013 at 16:33:35
Tony
what's the latest on the Trust ? Anything more you can let us know about ?
I seem to remember at the start of the process you asked what if anything supporters would be prepared to invest. Anything significant on that ?
Peter Foy
436 Posted 13/06/2013 at 17:01:13
Just had a depressing but sobering read of

http://efcfeelinblue.com/what-the-finch-farm-sale-really-tells-us/

Rather than a £1m rent saving off the Council as suggested, the amount is most likely to cover one month's wages of our highest paid player, which is even more worrying from an "easing of the financial pressure" point of view. I just hope the reduced rent kicks in before Fellaini's July wages are due, or he might be joining Arteta after all.

The question is, at what point does the saving become a "win-win" rather than a "mis-use of public funds" to bailout a private business by reducing the rent? And that's from the point of view of a lifelong Evertonian and UK tax payer.

Paul Andrews
450 Posted 13/06/2013 at 17:41:17
In tonight's Echo.

The deal will cost Everton double the £13 million the City Council paid for Finch Farm.

Robert Elstone goes on to say "The club is especially pleased to have delivered an innovative scheme that works for both parties".

Can someone please advise me how intelligent people are taken in by the spin from Elstone & this board.

Tony I'Anson
451 Posted 13/06/2013 at 17:48:34
John #434, see http://www.trusteverton.com/news/finch-farm-sold-to-liverpool-city-council-11.html
Gavin Ramejkis
459 Posted 13/06/2013 at 17:50:43
Steavey this has been done to death before but to reiterate for you and anyone else interested, LCCs Planning Office records every single planning application and those applications whether they are passed or rejected are all freely available as public domain information. There isn't a single instance on record of a planning application by Everton Football Club on Stanley Park; there may have been some informal chat as that's not in the public domain but that is highly unlikely.

As has already been said above, BK's performance over the Kings Dock and the way he treated LCC should go down as one of the most shameful and destructive to the future of the club of any chairman in its history. For all of Peter Johnson's RS credentials and wrongs, he didn't make half as much a mess as tag of convenience BK has.

John Keating
461 Posted 13/06/2013 at 18:31:57
Thanks Tony,
I periodically check the website for any updates.
Just interested if anything was almost at fruition and supporters' donations/money any closer to being accepted, if you thought we could manage an acceptable bid?
Gavin Ramejkis
467 Posted 13/06/2013 at 18:12:59
Deary deary me Doddy, you really do need to go back to school for your #001 comment "MAJORITY" really? The majority were those who voted against Desperation Kirkby and those who didn't vote, as convenient as your sudden switch of allegiance your ignorance or simple denial of facts is astonishing. The club didn't get a majority in terms of the total ballot sheets sent out, they discounted those who abstained whose vote was never known.

A big 0 out of 10 in bright red ink

John Shaw
468 Posted 13/06/2013 at 19:20:11
Steavey 432

The Council never had to reject Evertons application because they have never applied for it, simple really. See the comment from Tom Hughes at 238.

People keep going on about how the Council wouldn't help EFC with KD, sadly it is an oft repeated but factually inaccurate belief, it was very much down to the Board of EFC that KD failed to materialise.

Steavey Buckley
511 Posted 13/06/2013 at 22:12:28
Gavin Ramejkis & John Shaw. For the last 20 years Everton have been dreaming of a new stadium. And no doubt will be another 20 years as Goodison park becomes a relic. West Ham have been gifted the Olympic stadium, but LCC don't realise how important football tourism is to the city of Liverpool.

Because when Peter Johnson was chairman of Everton he did not get the support of LCC when he was serious about a new stadium. He being a businessman knew the importance of having arena that could bring in extra revenue to finance any future spending on more expensive transfers so Everton could compete with the big boys. That is probably one of the reasons he sold out.

BK the present chairman is not a businessman, so cannot really appreciate the need for a new stadium. But he does believe in things remaining as they are until someone gives a big fat cheque for his shares in £EFC.

Gavin Ramejkis
546 Posted 14/06/2013 at 07:39:51
Steavey whether he did or didn't get support is the crux of your argument, he didn't apply for planning permission on Stanley Park. Johnson sold the club because he had breached league rules about owning more than one club as he also owned Tranmere Rovers at the same time.
Richard Dodd
568 Posted 14/06/2013 at 10:21:16
Gavram: When I was an LG vote counter, the ballot was determined by those votes made in favour of the candidates appearing on the ballot paper. In referenda, by those votes shown in favour or against the question posed. All ballot papers which did not give a clear indication of the voter`s preference were to be regarded as spoilt papers.

In the Kirkby ballot, I believe it was made clear from the outset that the Board`s decision would be based on a simple majority of those voting. I recall that the whole process was conducted under the supervision of the relevant authority and resulted in a majority of those voting in favour of the move. You may well argue that the list of those eligible to vote was drawn up too narrowly and that anybody who ever professed to be an Evertonian should have been granted a vote (just think what a birthday the RS fans would have made of that!) but I do not believe there was any gerrymandering of the process whatsoever.

Although I voted in favour of the move, I, like a lot of Evertonians, later came to believe it would have been the wrong decision except to say the Club did go out of their way to stress they had no Plan B.

So it has proved!

Derek Thomas
570 Posted 14/06/2013 at 10:53:57
Tony 356,

When is it going to start?

Time and compound interest wait for no man...

Gavin Ramejkis
572 Posted 14/06/2013 at 11:04:02
Doddy I know the ballots were monitored by the commissioner to prove no wrong doing but there were complaints that were ignored at the time of the ballot of eligible voters that didn't receive a ballot paper and this echo abstained were of a larger margin than those who voted yes. Given those two the cumulative effect should have been alarm bells that the response from the majority — No votes and unknown votes plus those not given votes but genuinely entitled to have done so — were far greater than the Yes votes.

The concerns of those that didn't vote Yes were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt after millions of pounds was wasted. I voted No and none of the propaganda arguments ever swayed me. I had very good knowledge of the proposed location as relatives still live there... A fallacy and fools errand are mild terms I could use for such a hare-brained scheme doomed to failure.

Richard Dodd
581 Posted 14/06/2013 at 11:43:30
Gavin, you and I had this argument years ago and I see no point in re-working it. Suffice to say that, if every politician had to claim the vote of a majority of those eligible to vote, rather than that of those who choose to do so, nobody would ever be elected.

"Good thing" — some might say!

Tom Hughes
600 Posted 14/06/2013 at 13:21:24
Richard, the point to remember is that the ballot was a farce based on lies and was loaded heavily in favour of what proved to be a grossly undesirable and ultimately non-viable scheme....... in other words your supposed "majority" were conned.
Paul Andrews
618 Posted 14/06/2013 at 14:28:12
Tom,

I don't know how you can say it was based on lies. The club clearly pointed out the following:

• A world class stadium
• The best travel links in the North West
• Guaranteed extra spending for the manager

It is beyond me how anyone can doubt the truth of what they told the fans. It is obvious why they won the ballot.

Brian Waring
620 Posted 14/06/2013 at 14:51:56
Paul, you missed off 'virtually free'
Eugene Ruane
626 Posted 14/06/2013 at 14:53:58
Tom (600) - "in other words your supposed "majority" were conned"

Precisely and what was even more annoying/depressing, people were being conned by someone who had conned them before.

Like sticking your head into a beehive, being stung to fuck, then sticking your head back in thinking 'this time it'll be different'.

What was it George W Bush said - "Fool me twice...erm no...fool you once..no fool me twice, shame on you once..no me....erm I mean once..shame me once...or twice shame you...once..."

Never a truer (and more garbled) word.

Richard Dodd
628 Posted 14/06/2013 at 15:05:50
Tom;

You are probably right. But people could only vote on what they believed to be the situation at the time and the majority of those who did so voted to move. I don`t think that they deserve to be denigrated for trusting the Board`s recommendation.

In the event, it was said even BK breathed a sigh of relief when the scheme was knocked back but he certainly told the truth when he said the Board had no back-up plan whatsoever. Sadly, I think the only plan that`s ongoing is to stay in the Prem as cheaply as possible.

Eric Myles
636 Posted 14/06/2013 at 15:42:08
Richard "I don`t think that they deserve to be denigrated for trusting the Board`s recommendation" especially given the board's track record on telling the truth beforehand eh?

Why would they doubt them and believe the alternative scenario that was presented to them by KEIOC?

And which party has been shown to speak with forked tongue? Again.

Tom Hughes
643 Posted 14/06/2013 at 15:29:54
Richard, apologies for the over used analogy but that's a bit like stating that Hitler was elected by a vote as if that somehow justified everything he stood for and everything that came after. I'm not denigrating anyone but it has to be said that many people saw through the lies at the time. .... and aside from not having a plan B it was shown that they never really had a plan A worthy of the title.
Tony I'Anson
646 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:02:18
Derek (570), you sound like you understand finance. If this is correct, can you please e-mail experts@trusteverton.com

Also, here is a genuine question to all. How much would Trust Everton have had in the bank at 31 May 2013 since 9th Jan 2012, the date the website went live?

Reasonable assumptions:

1) No costs incurred at all by Trust Everton.

2) Actual compound interest rates during period.

3) 1,000 new fans signed up per month as members at £10 per month. (total 17 months). And work it out if there had been 2,000 fans per month.

Richard Dodd
649 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:11:13
So,Tom,are you saying that those of us who had the temerity to vote with the Board should be vilified for all time?
The Hitler analogy is a bit over the top,don`t you think? It seems to me that some people are determined to maintain/foster division in our (Evertonian) ranks for all time.I suspect that were they to be successful in unseating Kenwright that would be seen only as the first step in establishing an owners`co-operative as per Ebbsfleet FC.
That was an amazing success,wasn`t it?
Dennis Stevens
651 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:14:40
Sadly, it seems that same 'Plan A' is still their only plan.
Phil Johnson
659 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:31:26
Tony - Are we to assume that month 1 was 1000 fans @£10 and then an additional 1000 per month after that?

M1 = 1000 fans
M2 = 2000 fans
M3 = 3000 fans and so on?

Paul Andrews
660 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:55:41
If they "were successful in unseating Kenwright" Richard I think you would see a lot of drunk people on the streets of our city.
Eric Myles
665 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:18:03
"So,Tom,are you saying that those of us who had the temerity to vote with the Board should be vilified for all time?"

Only if you keep popping up and saying it was the right thing to do Richard.

Tony I'Anson
671 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:32:09
yes Phil.
Phil Johnson
673 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:34:35
Tony - I have mailed that address you provided above. Based on some assumptions I think its around £1.5 Million based on 1000 new fans per month and £3.1 based on 2000. Interest ain't a great deal based on 0.5% Bank On England rate over that period.

Have a look and let me know. happy to help in anyway.

Tony I'Anson
676 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:42:30
Thanks Phil, I've had confirmation from our advisor who monitors that email, that your spreadsheet has been received. Based on your figures, I hope you appreciate why the website home page says "....and other sources of finance".
Phil Johnson
677 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:51:01
Agreed but a good start. Once people see you working towards a target those other sources might come forward
Tom Hughes
678 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:40:21
Richard. ... it was a simple analogy not a literal comparison. Not vilification at all. It was you who mentioned the MAJORITY as if it proved a credible point so I'd suggest it is you who is nurturing division. You were conned which renders the vote and your point meaningless. .... get over it.
Gavin Ramejkis
680 Posted 14/06/2013 at 18:03:55
Doddy here's a scenario for you on vilification, say by some extremely bizarre set of flukes BK and his band of carpetbagging vermin had gotten their way and Desperation Kirkby got the green light and thousands of cram packed blues atempted to be shovelled onto insufficient numbers of trains and non existent buses journeyed to a town of no more than 40k souls itself to a shameful hole of a shed to gradually dwindle to smaller crowds and the manager getting none of the promised guaranteed funds with a fat white elephant millstone on the club's books whilst Black Bill and his cronies waltzed off would those that voted yes sat in blank faced astonishment of their cumulative destruction of Everton have deserved vilification?
Richard Dodd
685 Posted 14/06/2013 at 18:44:38
I declare! At least we can say there was a Plan B, after all. BK in the chair for life and Goodison until it falls down. Oh, and a club that`s unsaleable.

Let`s hope Roberto can cheer us up with some decent signings!

COYB !

Peter Foy
112 Posted 16/06/2013 at 15:42:13
Of more conern is this statement :-

London-based lawyer Alex Haffner, a senior associate at Dentons.......added: "The key issue will be the application of the 'market investor test', which looks at whether a private investor would have acted in the same way. In view of these developments, it is no exaggeration to say that all football clubs that have previously entered into commercial property transactions (with public bodies) are now under the regulatory microscope."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22037966

WOULD A PRIVATE INVESTOR HAVE REDUCED THE RENT FOR A SITTING TENANT WITH OVER 40 YEARS LEFT ON THEIR LEASE?

That's what people should be asking themselves surely.

Fans just want to know all these factors have been considered by the club and LCC, but given how the re-branding was handled, there will be concern that all is not right with this deal.

Fans want clarity and detailed answers. "Win - Win" is not good enough.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, 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 Talking Points submissions across the site.



© ToffeeWeb

About these ads

Recent News

Recent Articles

Talking Points & Miscellany

Everton in the Community

About these ads