Prentice's in-depth cash probe of the missing Everton millions.

COYB

Honestly...... Seriously, surely not ??????

If so, this shows exactly what pressure Prentice has been working under!!!!

This is absolutely unacceptable, we need a free press to report exactly what is going on, if Prentice and the Echo get banned from Goodison then 'We' as Evertonians need to follow, without us there is no club, and it's about time those on the board realized this and accepted it.

We are Everton FC, my son, me, my Dad, my Grandad (God rest his soul) and all those to follow us, not Kenwright, not Earl, Not Grantchester, not Green, us, Evertonians!!!!!!

Demonstrations and hassle to the board the only way this club will go forward.

Strange how the luvvie is actually disliked by a good few who know him best.

t's all 'coulda, woulda, shoulda'... Do I want Everton to do a City, or Chelski? I probably did a few years back!!!

If it's gifts then I don't blame them.

If it's loans, well, we've already got a few of them.

Journalism at its finest.

I think Michael was being a tad mischevious with the title there!

The personal wealth or otherwise of directors (and Lord Grantchester is not a director) is, largely, immaterial unless they are providing personal guarantees. In the murky world of Everton finance who knows? Except that's probably why Earl bought in after BK fell out with his "good friend" Gregg over King's Waterfront, and needed to maintain the power base.

The fact is that Boys Pen Billy wants to make a profit on his investment. A huge profit. Despite Everton's inability to capitalise on it (through signing front-loaded deals with Kitbag etc), the Premier League is awash with cash, largely driven by the increased media value from the overseas TV deal - which is why Liverpool desperately want this changed to reflect global brand value of the club, rather than equal share (of course there's no way 14 clubs will vote for that when only 5-6 will benefit at the expense of others).

If he'd delivered King's Waterfront, I wouldn't have begrudged him making a mint as the club would've been in great nick off the pitch. He didn't. The desperation that was Kirkby was an attempt to get a planning assent and then sell and make a more moderate profit, he couldn't even deliver that.

As a Director he's supposed to improve the position of the business. He hasn't, time to go. Except no-one's paying the fantasy money, so we're stuck with him till he croaks or falls out with more "friends" and they sell from under him.

Our current owners appear to have invested for property/retail potential that fell through.

By mistake, they tripped and fell into a position to rake in the cash falling from the sky generated by the TV contracts, contracts not nearly valued as they will be for the foreseeable future.

The Club has debt? So? They only have to make the monthly nut on the mortgage, no different than me with my house. And they're better positioned financially.

They're not selling and have no incentive to invest.

Keep going on about who manages their property.

Now that it has come back, both the title and the content has been changed and is much more toned down!

Some strange editing is going on at the Echo.

I guess the version I read then was the second, so I'm wondering what was in the first?

James #057, the overseas deal has heaped sponsorship opportunities onto the EPL. Everton's problem is financially we are not performing as well as we could. A new stadium would increase matchday and commercial revenue streams, and that has been the "plan" for many years. After Kings Waterfront fell through, they put their eggs in the retail-led development basket (with developer contributions replacing the EU and public funding "subsidy"), meaning that could only ever happen outside of the city. All of this is to increase the asset value, so they can make a mint - which was the objective from day 1.

For me the real problem is the ground we are losing off the pitch. Typical Everton we'll eventually arrive at the party when everyone is hooked up and we're left in the corner.

To effectively deduce no-one in the world will touch us with a barge pole if our own Knights in shining armour won't smacks of Bill's "no-one is buying football clubs".

Investigative journalism or sleight of hand propaganda?

People always ask "why doesn't Lord Grantchester invest?" Well, the matriarch still rules the roost in that family, and I'm sure the bulk of his wealth is already tied up in investments, rather than sitting earning sod all interest in his current account. Lord Grantchester isn't on the board, he's just chosen to retain his shareholding (which isn't earning him anything).

BK and JW are the two remaining of the original 3 investors. BK never had the money at the time, and had to borrow it (the crap about remortgaging his home - it wouldn't have covered the value of the loan). Of course, he didn't borrow from a recognised financial institution, but no problem, use the club you're buying a control of as security.

The obstacles to a sale of the club to the right kind of buyers lies in the boardroom. The problem when you tangle up the finances and business transactions of a football club is, it becomes such a costly mess to untangle it puts buyers off. We have to accept that whoever comes in to buy Everton is doing so as they think they can turn a profit in the medium-longer term. As long as it's financed properly there shouldn't be an issue. But these people have other opportunities in sport/wherever to put their money, and an over-valued mess of a business is going to see them scoot on by.

I think it was your good self who once listed many conditions of sale, which included funds for a new stadium?

I firmly believe at least two of the three main shareholders have no intention of selling, unless they are made a ridiculous offer. They know the value is only rising, and Sky pay for the upkeep.

The loan would be off balance sheet and the costs merged in to a section of the accounts that can only be viewed by a very select few.

Colin, any thoughts?

"Who owns Goodison Park?"

For me, Everton is grossly under-performing revenue-wise, and the answer isn't wholly due to the restrictions posed by Goodison Park. This in part is due to front-loaded deals signed, which would cost seven figures to get out of (putting off potential buyers) but which Everton were happy to sign due to getting cash up front.

The problem is the Premier League is a moving beast (upwards). Man Utd just settled with DHL to cancel a £4m per year sponsorship of their training kit, and move AON into that position (including sponsoring the training ground) when General Motors move in as shirt sponsor. They have third and even fourth tier sponsors - fair enough they are one of the top two or three global sports brands, but this has all come about due to the overseas TV deal. The domestic deal does nothing more for reach, and the price only remains high as long as the likes of ESPN, Al Jazeera and BT Vision (!) are willing to bid big bucks for rights. ESPN are probably out of the picture now for the UK market, preferring the lower cost overseas TV deals. But if these other broadcasters drop out, you can bet Sky's offer will plummet, and the finances of clubs like Everton who are far too dependent on broadcast as a proportion of turnover would suffer.

Ian - I've always been led to believe there are off-balance sheet loans. I've no proof, but always suspected that OOC in part services those loans.

Of course Football Finance is one of those industries that has spawned off the back of the EPL! Bizarre though it may seem, there are football agents out there who work with marketing agencies and financiers to "broaden their client-base". In layman's speak, these are the agents that don't have a Ronaldo, Rooney or Messi on their books.

I've always suspected this also and it would explain why the asking price is so high.