Everton Status: It's Complicated

A four-page brochure produced by the Blue Union has been posted at Scribd for today's Emergency General Meeting of Everton FC Co Ltd, forced by the Everton Shareholders Association, underlines the role played by fan activism in seeking to establish greater transparency and honesty at the Club, highlighting mistakes over last 13 years.
Everton's fan activists are suspicious, and rightly so.Their names may have changed over time, from The GFE to KEIOC to The Blue Union, but their pedigree remains the same; they're kindred spirits who have all been misled, misled over an iconic waterfront stadium,the aforementioned relocation to a Tesco car park and a proposed development at Goodison Park; projects that have collectively wasted millions of pounds that Everton could ill afford. It's not these fans who have wasted the money, yet they have been treated with a level of contempt and disdain that is hard to believe, certainly hard to believe for the fans who naively call for them to enter into dialog with their antagonists,challenging them to support the club, to support the board; naive because, unlike the activists, they are unaware of the depths Everton will go to in order to discredit them; using people masquerading as freelance journalists to photograph them, compiling a blacklist that the fans have clear evidence of being in operation and having a board actively directing the club's employees to act against them. Outrageous? Yes, but not as outrageous as what many of these fans believe has been perpetrated at Goodison Park over the past thirteen years.

Quotes or other material sourced from The Blue Union



Reader Comments (59)

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


Paul Andrews
1 Posted 26/06/2013 at 07:31:39
Precise report.
Factually correct.
Peter Foy
2 Posted 26/06/2013 at 08:04:45
It's not complicated. It's simple.

Philip Green can we have our Club back please? You are not getting your retail enabled development because we're onto you and the game is over for this little scam you had going.

Tom Dodds
3 Posted 26/06/2013 at 07:53:15
I totally agree, we are indeed seriously in trouble. Once Fellaini, Baines, Jagielka and Mirallas have gone, our only football allegiances left (In Liverpool), with the obvious exception of LFC, will be Tranmere Rovers.

Kenwright the 'True Blue' ? ... Give me Richard Nixon, Venkey or De Lorean.

I've said on ToffeeWeb so many times, the Reds would never've taken 1 year of this villain without SCREAMIN at the club's front gates, Granada reports et al. We have to do the same now, guys.

Adam Luszniak
4 Posted 26/06/2013 at 08:38:57
There is a typo in that report. Midway through first column on first page.

"it wou'ld be easier his record score sixty goals in a season!"

Geoff Freeman
8 Posted 26/06/2013 at 09:07:07
The only part of the report I would nit-pick with is the way it starts off by saying that since the end of last season we have lost the manager the captain and several players, as if this was the board's fault.

The feeling I get from most Everton fans is that a change of management was needed and our captain was past his sell-by date as a player – and could anybody inform who the several players are?

Kevin Tully
9 Posted 26/06/2013 at 09:14:40
As Liverpool announce a £260m regeneration deal, and their fourth signing - we have to force our 'Board' to publicly address the fanbase for the first time in 5 years, incredible if you actually think about it.

If you want to own a football club, you take on a duty to have an honest relationship with it's support - whether you like it or not. Closing your door because you don't like to answer valid questions from shareholders should not have been a consideration.

Another poor decision.

Dean Barton
14 Posted 26/06/2013 at 10:27:22
My question to the board would be this:

You bought the club for £22mil over 15 years ago, at which time the balance sheet read £20mil+. Today you want £120mil for the same stake with a balance sheet nearly £50mil in the red. Where is the possible justification in that?

I understand the point that it will discourage time wasters. What I do not understand is how the board can justify pocketing that amount of money. That money won't go into the club!

For me, the £120mil quoted would be a fair price if the settlement of club debt were included in that amount. Then any potential buyer would get a PL club with zero debt. Surely that must be an attractive proposition!

What is everyone's thoughts. Do you agree with me or am I talking from my derrière.....COYB

Paul Jamieson
16 Posted 26/06/2013 at 10:41:07
A great read, if all you're concerned about is a couple of typos in what must be 3-4,000 words then you've never worked at a publishers or the media and it says more about you than the authors imho.

I think TW has homed in on the real problem that's been highlighted – blacklists, people posing as photographers, good god, what's going on at our club? What are the board so worried about that they do this and stop people from attending the EGM?

The Board can't come back from telling everyone that we were getting £50m from Tesco when the government said we weren't, can they? Or are we just interested in arguing between ourselves whilst these con-artists continue?

Andrew Ellams
17 Posted 26/06/2013 at 10:49:56
Seems fair to me Dean but as I am neither an expert in these matters nor a bullshitting charlatan I am probably not the best person to ask.
Paul Jamieson
18 Posted 26/06/2013 at 10:52:54
Good question, Dean, well framed and deserves to be asked. I'm going and if I get the chance, I'll ask it.

I was at the Blue Union meeting the other week when they put something up that was the actual method used to calculate the amount paid by Kenwright and his consortium in 1999. Colin explained it and it was clear all debt was included.

I used the figures from today's accounts and, before you get to the Goodwill section, the amount is so negative that the club needs to be given away! No sensible person would pay anything like what they're asking and nobody has.

There's an old saying about following the money...

Why is there a belief by the board that there's value in this business? Is it because of the media money? That's another question worth asking, imo.

Kenn Crawford
19 Posted 26/06/2013 at 10:58:33
It's all done with smoke and mirrors.... by the board, I mean.
Barry Rathbone
20 Posted 26/06/2013 at 10:45:11
Trust has gone down the pan most of us don't understand why one of the mightiest clubs has not been sold despite others in far worse situations getting the job done.

Despite the ground, the debt etc "IF" the price is right and it isn't just greed there is a deal to be had.

The Prem is the greatest advertising billboard on the globe (I had no clue who ETIHAD were till Man City) so why not appoint a fans rep when evaluating suitable buyers. No details have to be broadcast just a trusted fan group saying "yep, Bill is telling the truth, can't do anymore it's a fair price they're all just shifty so and so's messing us about"......

.....or otherwise.

Patrick Murphy
21 Posted 26/06/2013 at 10:57:06
That much maligned chariman of Newcastle has reportedly a debt owed to him by the club standing at £267m, I imagine that our chairman has struggled to put in £267 to EFC, a million times less than Mike Ashley has put into his club.

Oh I forgot we're a well run club and every other club should be run the Everton way.

Chris Morris
22 Posted 26/06/2013 at 11:05:07
People are right to nitpick. It should be a watertight presentation. Companies around the world have legal teams to nitpick through their documents and dealings. If we didn't nitpick then loopholes would never be found etc.

Good piece though and well thought out.

Fingers crossed for an answer.

Dan Brierley
23 Posted 26/06/2013 at 10:57:11
Dean 430, so would you sell your house for the price you bought it, plus what you have spent on it over the years? Or do you sell it for market value? If you sell it for only what you have spent on it plus initial investment, then I take my hat off to your moral compass. But I somehow doubt anybody that advocates this type of sale, actually does it themselves.

Now if the question was: Who valued the club? (Was it internal or an external independent?), and using what mechanism? — then it would become less emotive, and gain a lot more insight.

£40 million debt in the Premier League is nothing. Sunderland have double ours. If we are going to ask questions, it's imperative that they are the right questions and are not just questions that are easily rebuked.

Newcastle changed hands for £130 million six years ago, so £125 million given the earnings potential of an EPL club in the Champions League doesn't sound a million miles away. But of course, I would prefer if we were sold for £1 and the the other £124,999,999 was put into the club coffers. But of course, this is never going to happen.

Kev Johnson
24 Posted 26/06/2013 at 11:15:31
What is being called nitpicking is otherwise known as editing! Or, to be precise, sub-editing. Poor spelling and grammar (and factual inaccuracies) undermine the credibility of any publication. Paul (432) is half-right: this sort of thing is endemic in publishing, but the difference is that someone is always employed to sort it out before it goes to press. It's part of the publication process and is an essential job. If a magazine hits the high street with mistakes then there is all hell to pay. Just saying...
Andrew Ellams
25 Posted 26/06/2013 at 11:23:30
Dan @ 442. you are right in theory, but can you back that up by explaining how you get what was spent on the club, what has been spent/invested since by the board and then get to the asking price of £120 million and incorporate the £70 million decline in the club's financials.
Dean Barton
26 Posted 26/06/2013 at 11:23:24
Dan 442

Good and valid points raised. But would you pay market value for a house if you had to take on an extra debt worth 40%. I know I certainly wouldn't. I think it is fair to expect the price of the club to include the payment of debt. If you are comparing it to a house purchase then you maybe should review your comment. If you buy a house you buy it at market value. That then pays off either the previous mortgage or if there is no debt to any mortgage then the previous owner pockets the value the full value.

Selling it at market value makes sence yes, but that should include any debt oweing, as does the purchase of a house

You cannot compare the sale of a multi national business and the sale of a house. 2 Completely different worlds. As I say, maybe you should review your previous comment.

David O'Keefe
27 Posted 26/06/2013 at 11:41:40
When valuing the club let's look not only at the debt as Mr Brierley has done, but take into account the poor commercial deals that have hampered revenue growth. Also, let's factor in the investment required for a new stadium. £125 million for a club in such poor condition.

£20 million of assets in 1999 and now its £44 million of liabilities. They have destroyed value by pursuing an asset utilisation and disposal policy and invested nothing and they still want to make a profit!

Any wonder that the only man that claims he can sell the club can't! Let's stop making excuses for these parasites and fantasists. Tonight should be a dose of reality for them and I look forward to it.

Phil Johnson
28 Posted 26/06/2013 at 12:04:13
Market Value. If your house is not selling then it's too expensive.
The club won't sell as they are asking too much. There is plenty of room for them to drop the price and still get back more than they originally put in.
Matt Traynor
29 Posted 26/06/2013 at 11:56:36
Dan #442, size of debt is irrelevant in one respect, in that it is your ability to service that debt that is important. Clubs have gone under with smaller debt than we carry, as others are continually able to borrow with much larger debt.

I and others have identified for years that Everton are far too dependent on TV revenue in terms of overall income (the one revenue stream they can do little about, and the only one to show growth under the tenure of this board).

The double whammy effect is much of the debt is borrowed against season ticket income, TV income etc. so the club has no chance to trade profitably when other costs (wages, and the mysterious OOC) are increasing. A triple whammy is the piss poor commercial deals that were entered into due to the guaranteed income component (which could then be borrowed against) despite the fact they are so poor as to put us way down the income league in this area. Evertonians don't buy merchandise? Whatever you choose to believe, but it's hard to buy something you can't find.

I didn't get involved in the other thread from Richard Tolman about these potential buyers, as if they're willing to pay the asking price then I'm worried about their motives and plans.

But you believe that our debt position is the oft-quoted £45m. I would venture that there's substantial off-balance sheet debt - the club is paying out at least £10m / year in debt servicing (for £45m?) - and frankly we are, for the third time under this board, creeping towards administration.

Steve Nico
30 Posted 26/06/2013 at 12:24:45
The best, most concise and facts-based report on how we stand I've ever read. Wouldn't it be wonderful(!) if a delegate tonight was allowed to stand at a microphone, read out a number of selected paragraphs and then turn to the board and say "discuss and explain... please".

Wishful thinking of course and I'll be following developments on this site and several other feeds throughout the evening yet I have a rather nagging feeling, that nothing new will be learned tonight... I hope I'm wrong.

Steve Sweeney
31 Posted 26/06/2013 at 09:41:36
If the Red Shite had our problems, every one of Green's outlets would be blockaded.

We should really stand up; Green is the puppetmaster.

Paul Andrews
32 Posted 26/06/2013 at 13:10:19
I would hazard a guess that the asking price for a sale would have come from the sellers, not from an independent valuation. Not rocket science that.

We can not use the 'house for sale' analogy for obvious reasons, as so eloquently pointed out in several of the above posts.

Bottom line in my opinion: The asking price is stopping the sale. And this from a chairman and board who have not contributed 1p over and above the price they paid for their shares.

Paul Jamieson
33 Posted 26/06/2013 at 13:03:42
Steve, it is full of facts — that is why the club have placed those who speak them on a blacklist, photographed them with people dressed as freelance press photographers and banned them from attending Everton events. Darren Griffiths is saying precisely that in the Shareholders minutes, they can't even see why this is wrong.

Apparently we're going to have the pleasure of one of Elstone's presentations tonight, let's hope they have more substance than the last two, the one about Kirkby showing us how wonderful Tesco were providing £50m and the one about the Park End development — nobody in their right mind believes a word he says.

Let's be honest, we're no better off than the last time people's concerns forced the last EGM five years ago: no stadium, no new owners and still no trophies. We'll be saved by the £20 or £25m from the new TV deal; problem is, everyone else gets it... so expect this existence to continue.

Paul Andrews
34 Posted 26/06/2013 at 13:37:12
Paul,

The disappointing thing is that we still have fans who will believe the lies that will be spewed out by Mr Chairman and his cronies, despite the valid points you make above. How people are so gullible is beyond belief.

Chad Schofield
35 Posted 26/06/2013 at 13:33:30
I understand the need to grab attention and the need to have a call to action at the end, but I'm worried that the opening paragraph undermines all of the other facts. It sounds sensationalized and it doesn't need to be... not to mention the confusing ending "it would be easier his record score sixty goals in a season!"

The other facts speak volumes, and if you're publishing something as important as this then at least have it proof-read - it just makes it easy to discredit the whole thing.

Paul Andrews
38 Posted 26/06/2013 at 13:56:35
The people in charge at Godison may take the same path Patrick.
Every little helps.
Paul Andrews
39 Posted 26/06/2013 at 13:59:23
For sale,

One detached property.

* Currently has 14 mortgages on it.
* Dilapidated condition (owner informs us it may not pass a Health and Safety Certificate)
* No intention to upgrade property in the near future.
* Bought in 2002.
* Owner seeks a modest profit on his initial out lay due to lack of investment in keeping property up to scratch.

OIRO £125 million.
Please form an orderly queue to express an interest in the bargain price.

Paul Columb
40 Posted 26/06/2013 at 14:26:21
Agree with Geoff (414) in that the opening remarks on the departure of the manager and captain do not set the piece up well in credibility terms. Granted, the circumstances under which Moyes left with no compensation for the club was poor club management (this is not the point made) but Neville had passed his shelf life as player and captain.

The remainder of the article however is spot on for me and well done BU for getting this out. Each and every word and statement is up for scrutiny and critique and therefore padding with subjectivities, as in the opening is unneccessary and potentially damning to the article.

Best of luck to all in attendance tonight. As Dave Kelly has highlighted, dignity and respect should be the order of the evening but answers must be forthcoming and of substance. If not, the board and CEO have to be pressed and the media encouraged (for the umpteenth time) to pick up this story exposing our so called club custodians for their deconstruction of our once great institution.

Kevin Tully
41 Posted 26/06/2013 at 14:55:16
Paul #484,

Unfortunately, they will wheel out the stock answers they have been using for years - 'They are in discussions' or 'We are actively seeking' or 'Looking to improve this side of the business' or 'I am speaking to people weekly'

They will be hoping someone calls them bullshitters or liars so they can publish a reason not to have any more meetings.

I doubt they will commit to anything deliverable, or put any timescales on any promises.

The best outcome for supporters is that they are exposed as a group who couldn't deliver a Sunday newspaper, never mind an innovative financial strategy, or a new stadium.

John Gee
43 Posted 26/06/2013 at 15:39:21
Will toffeeWeb have a live forum running?
Eric Myles
44 Posted 26/06/2013 at 15:36:21
Dan #442, what if the market value of your house is now less than what you paid for it?

Would you still expect someone to pay over the odds to buy it when they can get a better deal elsewhere?

And would you wonder why, despite searching 24/7 for a buyer, you couldn't sell it but still consider yourself the best person to sell the property?

Or would you call in a professional to value it and market it for the recommended valuation?

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
45 Posted 26/06/2013 at 16:09:19
Yea, I was thinking about turning that on, John (#491).

It would provide an opportunity for those at the meeting to text updates, as well as obviously live discussion fro those who can't make it.

Although I recall Lyndon having some strange rationale for not allowing access to the Live Forum for people using our mobile site... not sure if that still applies.
Mark Knight
46 Posted 26/06/2013 at 16:32:33
I for one would love a live forum..
Dan Brierley
47 Posted 26/06/2013 at 16:15:15
Dean 446, of course you are correct. You do not factor debts when buying or selling a property. But are we certain that the £125 million does not include the debt? Is it just for BK's shares only? 40, 50, 60%? Is part of the £125 million allocated for transfers? Without the context and conditions of the sale, its just a number that can be argued in many ways I guess.

Is 125 million even real? The irony is that people treat it as gospel, but it came from Stan fucking Collymore who was apparently told it by Paul Tyrrell! I don't expect there will ever be public domain figures on the club valuation. Is this because the club is wrong and trying to hide things? Or is it standard practise for every Ltd operating in the world? As always, I prefer to have some facts before passing judgement.

Patrick Murphy
48 Posted 26/06/2013 at 17:00:19
Dan would you buy a business that was losing money hand over fist and was tied in to strange deals that will be there for at least another few years, A business that had no tangible assets and has its future income compromised by the outstanding loans - I know I wouldn't , I wouldn't even get as far as finding out what price they were selling it for.
Dan Brierley
49 Posted 26/06/2013 at 17:09:30
Patrick, if I was a billionaire I would buy Everton in a heartbeat, regardless of the state of the finances.
Dan Brierley
50 Posted 26/06/2013 at 17:25:28
But of course, I know the point you were trying to make. If I was a neutral billionaire, I wouldn't go near a football club if I was looking to make money. The PL has 2.5 billion of debt which is scary. It's not a conventional business as it's not designed to self fund. The only people that get rich out of the PL are SKY..
Gavin Ramejkis
53 Posted 26/06/2013 at 17:47:21
Dan #442 a little bit naive a statement on the value of the club as mentioned above the whole picture is gained from due diligence whereby the value of the business including assets and its business plan projections including P&L with its in situ strategies and income streams would value the club way way below the mythical £125m and I'd go further to say it would be less than the original purchase price of £22m as it make annual losses year on year, has poor commercial activity and no strategy to remedy that, poor non match day and other revenue streams and again no apparently strategy to remedy that, its credit history would scream alarms louder than the siren on a diving Junkers Ju 87 Stuka of cash only purchases and its only credit line being high interest offshore facilities. Completely ignoring it's peer group with the blinkers of the due diligence being solely on Everton FC still wouldn't help - you simply can't polish a turd.
Michael Kenrick
55 Posted 26/06/2013 at 18:26:11
Dan, I think it's a bit of an over-reaction to say people are taking the £125M number as 'gospel'. I hope everyone recognizes what it is — a number thrown out there with very little explanation, so please, let's not descend into stupid arguments about it.

(That last bit is meant for you really, Paul Andrews. Try to focus on meaningful discussion and ditch your attempts at point-scoring, please.)

Gavin Ramejkis
56 Posted 26/06/2013 at 18:05:55
Lots of typos but I've just cycled from Edinburgh to Livingston in the sun so eyes still bleary
Paul Andrews
57 Posted 26/06/2013 at 18:34:35
Michael,

Every time I point one of Dan's incorrect posts out,do you consider that as point scoring?
Just so I know.And so I can post accordingly if Dan is offended by my posts.
Tbh he comes across a bit more ebullient than that, "shithouse...show some balls etc"
If it affects his delicate nature of course I will not reply to his posts.

Paul Landon
58 Posted 26/06/2013 at 18:18:15
I cant believe that for the first time I am agreeing with Mr Kelly.

He is totally right no proxies should be allowed full stop, unfortunately a lot of shareholders are at an age that creates an apathy and no replacement is going to add any real value, save for the fact that they should not be there at all.

The cynical side of me would suggest Mr Kelly does not want proxies there as it will in my opinion create a situation at the meeting where there is more support for the board than the anti brigade albeit I am sure who will shout the loudest.

The document produced today by the union is to a degree conjecture and will achieve nothing at the meeting tomorrow as its old news and known by all, to keep regurgitating it is without question just a frustration for both sides, as I have ssid before on this site if they put together with the same effort and passion something that was unique and helpful to the club they would receive considerably more support and respect from a wider audience and tomorrow would be that opportunity, but we all know that wont happen.

It will be the same old same as one party is expecting the worst and the other party wants to deliver it, not a recipe for any future cooperation, I would ask the union to give a little and try to engage rather than attack if they are not receiving answers to the same old questions.

Time will tell but the opportunity is there if they take the blinkers off, same for the board, for the good of our club lets hope.

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
59 Posted 26/06/2013 at 18:48:26
Paul, I'm talking about picking up on throwaway text like "As always, I prefer to have some facts before passing judgement" and trying to make something of it.

Generally, if you feel the urge to say something, but it doesn't actually have any bearing on the main topic, then maybe you could just let it pass?

Jus sayin...

Paul Andrews
60 Posted 26/06/2013 at 18:56:05
Fair enough Michael,we can drop it.
One question before we do.
Do you consider Dan has the facts to hand before he passes judgement?
Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
61 Posted 26/06/2013 at 19:00:34
FFS. Paul.... Who gives a flying fuck? Just drop it.
Dan Brierley
62 Posted 26/06/2013 at 19:05:32
Of course I have facts, I am the oracle of footballing truth.

Joking aside, I am no different to you Paul. I am more than happy to debate my views, although to be fair you have only been popping up lately to criticise, rather than offer your own view as an alternative so that we can at least discuss. Admittedly, this has resulting in me deliberately baiting some posts to see which usual suspect will bite. But for the sake of the other people using the website, this needs to be knocked on the head as I am even getting bored of my own point view so god knows what others think!

Paul Andrews
63 Posted 26/06/2013 at 19:24:21
Sanctimonious to the end but go 'ed then.
You had me kidded there,I fell for your bait.Ahem.
Mick Doherty
64 Posted 26/06/2013 at 19:19:39
Eh, Dan "The only people that get rich out of the PL are SKY".... I think the many players driving around in Camouflage Bentley's would disagree :)
Ross Edwards
65 Posted 26/06/2013 at 19:34:28
"The only people that get rich out of the PL are SKY."

Really Dan, so where did the top players get the Rolex watches, the flash Ferraris and the ridiculous designer clothes from? Maybe they've been begging...

Ross Edwards
66 Posted 26/06/2013 at 19:37:38
Or, a lot of Big Issues being sold...
Dan Brierley
67 Posted 26/06/2013 at 19:37:02
It's a very good point Mick, and something that I did admittedly overlook. But now you mention it, it is something I can highlight in response to Gav, who's business analysis is always pretty accurate. The only problem being, all football clubs profit/loss sheet make for similar head scratching. I think Gav would agree, in that if Everton were a geunie business, the right way to go would be to accept we cannot compete in the PL anymore, and basically trim the club down to a Championship side. Any CEO worth his salt would tell you your previous victories mean nothing, you are only as good as your last financial quarter. A real business leader would never have let the players have increased wages, or the manager for that matter. The business would have been operating in the black, paying healthy dividends to the shareholders, and funding the salaries that the directors and Chairman would take for operating a decent business model.

Of course, that kind of business model would offer nothing in terms of footballing achievement, but the books would be bloody good.

Of course guys, there is a middle ground. I am giving the opposite extreme example to try and stimulate debate that ends up with at least some level of balance. I don't recall Kenwright saying he was going to spend his own money when he took over, but nobody seemed to protest then? It was also not that long ago this board were 'odds on' to make a cheap internal appointment for a new manager, and would never listen to their fans. How many people admitted to being wrong on that one?

Ian Bennett
68 Posted 26/06/2013 at 20:35:11
When Peter Johnson looks to have run Everton better than you, then it really is impressive of how disastrous the regime has been.
Ste Traverse
69 Posted 26/06/2013 at 20:33:29
'The only people who get rich out of the PL are Sky'.... yet another pearl of wisdom from'delusional Dan'.

Priceless that lad, even for your highly deluded standards.

Dan Brierley
70 Posted 26/06/2013 at 20:52:33
Come on Ste, you are slacking. You forget to mention my eternal love for Kirkby...

Gavin Ramejkis
71 Posted 27/06/2013 at 11:16:27
I think the whole rub of the poorly ran business that is Everton, Dan, is that the revenue streams and possibilities for non-matchday activities have been atrociously missed.

A football stadium is unused for the majority of the year yet offers so much non-matchday potential as a venue for meetings and conferences for non-footballing events such as concerts and televising concerts elsewhere in the city. Why not tie in with other venues and events and broadcast on screens in the stadium itself (obviously aware of the nearby residents for evening events), with the additional standard fare revenue streams, sales, marketing, merchandising, advertising, new media, catering.

Every single penny available should be in the cross hairs of the incumbents as targets to seek out, win and earn; adding these to the football and broadcast coffers make a more suitable pot to draw growing salaries.

Kevin Tully
72 Posted 27/06/2013 at 11:32:07
Gavin, forgetting about maximising our current revenue steams, they have had 5 years since Kirkby to come up with a strategy to address the elephant in the room. 5 years to at least have some idea of what direction the club is taking.

They have no coherent, step-by-step, year-by-year projection of where we will be. They have identified a site – wow!

They are out of ideas and cash. I have a horrible feeling we will be stuck in the same Goodison in 20 years time – but with new CCTV & a refurbished bog.

Last night confirmed one thing to me – this Board have no intention of selling the club; they would have to go bust before we see the back of them.

Gavin Ramejkis
73 Posted 27/06/2013 at 12:54:51
I agree Kevin, the literal millions of pounds and years wasted on the flawed DK could have seen redevelopment at Goodison Park. The current incumbents' statement last night on having no money despite being millionaires to the last one of them also reiterates their refusal to spend any money on the club and hanging out for a pay day which is never coming.

A perfectly acceptable exit strategy for any of them would be a loan to the club on a particular burden, eg, stadium development or purchase of Finch Farm, making the balance sheet and company at the point of Due Diligence far more attractive to a buyer, and then give them the subsequent exit, claiming the monies for this on their way out of the door, solely for their loan and not to be split with the other shareholders.

It's as if they don't trust each other at times, as if anyone spending money is just lining the pockets of the other malingerers.


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.


About these ads