I have been hesitating to post this; however, I feel this might help Everton FC and surely can cause no harm.

As Evertonians, I am asking you to make a push and call to the Local Council/Government for funding a new stadium. I am not saying that the council should throw public money on building a stadium for us; I will argue that it will be money well spent that will bring long-term benefits to the local area.

Councils or local governments funding stadiums are not uncommon at all. It happens in many places including England (and very often). Think about the Olympic Stadium that will be rented out to West Ham Utd FC. One question to ask here is why the West Ham fans can have such privileges while we Evertonians cant? Did London really need the Olympics? How about regenerating the North for once? To me, thats a case of favouritism given that the people in the City of Liverpool (or anywhere else) work as hard as Londoners. Olympics are also held in places like Sochi, which is no London. However, thats a debate for another day. Back to my proposal below:

I am proposing that the local government of the City of Liverpool underwrites a loan to EFC to build a new stadium/renovate the existing one; ie, the government guarantees the loan on behalf of EFC. That will ensure that EFC obtains funding at the most accessible interest rate and the longest term possible. As it is, the British government rating is top notch and therefore, by underwriting the stadium loan, EFC will benefit financially. All the council needs to do is to enlist the services of an Investment Bank (Barclays, for example) to work out the finer details.

It is well known in Economics that money spent in an area has a multiplier effect and generates economic activity many times the original investment (100+ times more if the savings rate among households is low, which I believe is the case in the city of Liverpool we are all struggling to save anyways). Thus, money that comes in gets spent; that becomes income for somebody else who spends it again and the cycle goes on.

If the local council/government underwrites the loan to EFC, that will be akin to an investment in the area that can lead to the multiplier effect I described above (by all means, the City of Liverpool can do with that kind of help coming from the government). Thats what the American government has been doing of late by pumping free money in the country to promote activity and growth.

To be on the safe side, the local government can insert a clause that 70% or so of the funds be spent on local suppliers, contractors and workers to build the stadium. It will guarantee that a large chunk of the money is spent on the local community in a first round.

So how do we get the government to underwrite that loan? Well, we all need to sign a petition, I guess, and put the formal request to officials. After all, the government exists for us and its no good governance if the government ignores our plea. If the government of Qatar can care about Man City fans, then why cant the Liverpool council care about Evertonians? Just providing free land wont work; EFC needs funding to build the stadium that brings so much cheerfulness to the community every weekend every year. Save the land for something else, let us just focus on renovating Goodison Park instead.

I dont know how to go about the mechanics of a petition but I know we did one for the badge change earlier this season and it worked. Can we replicate same for government funding to build a new EFC stadium? I would imagine 10,000 online signatures should do it. We can use the signatures as political leverage for future elections. Any ideas? I am just throwing ideas around the place but the Old Lady needs uplifting let us do something about it.

Share this article

Reader Comments (65)

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 Mackie
1 Posted 26/01/2014 at 18:02:53
It won't happen for two reasons:

1) The government has cut funding to local councils massively over the last couple of years and there's more on the way.

2) If the council did it for Everton, they'd also have to do something for LFC.

Patrick Murphy
2 Posted 26/01/2014 at 18:09:09
I think you'll find that this council will give as much support to Everton FC as they possibly can but until the club can find enablers for this project as was the case for Kirkby we will be stuck with what we have for a pretty long time.

"Money, Money, Money It's a rich man's world" sounds familiar, that... I wonder who wrote it?

Brin Williams
3 Posted 26/01/2014 at 18:09:49
But haven't I read somewhere that they are already committed to doing something for the shite?
Kieran Fitzgerald
4 Posted 26/01/2014 at 18:11:19
How would we repay the loan, Sur? We were running at an annual loss until the TV money was increased last August. We still have other debts to manage and a new stadium won't pay for itself until it's fully up and running.

If we divert what extra cash we have away from the current plan of trying to improve the squad, how do we manage to keep that up?

Also, there is no guarantee that we would fill any extra capacity that a new stadium would build. What about the outsourced catering contract? Would that still be in place and would extra capacity benefit us with extra people buying beer and food?

A good idea but I don't think it's the right time at the moment.

Kevin Tully
5 Posted 26/01/2014 at 18:14:59
The City of Liverpool has had it's funding cut by 50% in the last couple of years. We now have fortnightly bin collections and the council cannot afford the 300m required just to repair all the potholes.

Additionally, our directors are worth approx 400m between them, so I don't think your idea would go down too well Sur. Don't forget, the council has already had to bail these goons out when they bought the lease on Finch Farm!

Mark Taylor
6 Posted 26/01/2014 at 18:21:57
Re the supposed multiplier effect, this is a very moot point in economics. For example, the government borrowed massively in the last decade but I didn't notice it led to a permanent increase in economic activity, just a mini boom followed by a big bust.

Nor do I think the taxpayer should be taking on underwirting high risk loans to a sector that at the end of the day, is swimming in money and paying its staff more in a week than many earn in a year.

Jim Lloyd
7 Posted 26/01/2014 at 19:10:53
Hello Sur,

You've asked a fair question but, as has been raised in previous posts, the City Council has had it's funding cut massively and there'd quite rightly be an uproar if they were to purchase/fund the cost of a stadium for us; and I'd have to agree. There are many other priorities that our Council has to find money for and being in a financial straight jacket also.

I think we've had our golden chance but Monsewer Kenwright blew it.

We were offered a State-of-the-Art Stadium in the Liverpool waterfront, right alongside the Albert Dock. Our contribution to the project was set at 30 million (which a little birdie told us was "Ring-Fenced"). It's a long and bitter story but, in effect, we blew the best opportunity we are ever likely to have, to build a Stadium in a World Heritage site.

So, unless money can be found to renovate Goodison Park, one stand at a time, I would say we're fucked, unless a Fairy Godmother comes along.

Patrick Murphy
8 Posted 26/01/2014 at 19:22:34
Minimum wage circa 7 per hour x 40 hours = 280 per week x 52 = circa 14,560 per year x 20 years = 291k... or what Rooney will earn in a week if he gets his new deal makes you think, doesn't it?

In order to earn what Rooney might earn in a single month, you would have to be fully employed albeit on minimum wage for EIGHTY years.

Bill Gall
9 Posted 26/01/2014 at 19:20:41
Jim Loyd, I think your idea of renovating Goodison Park one stand at a time may be the only option but, as we are constantly being told, the club have no money it seems doubtful it will ever happen.

Glad to see people are still reminding us what a mess the Chairman and his inept Board made over the Albert Dock plus other poor management decisions since.

Phil Walling
10 Posted 26/01/2014 at 19:32:45
I understand that the City Council in association with Your Housing Association and Liverpool FC are committed to 'regenerating the Anfield area' including the stadium.

I further understand that the Council has also worked with Everton FC to locate a suitable site for our new Ground. Robert Elstone reported this fact to the recent Shareholders Association meeting, adding that work on the project often occupied up to 1.5 days a week of his time.

How much capital the Authority has/will commit to either project is a well kept secret and is likely to remain so for some time yet.

Kieran Fitzgerald
11 Posted 26/01/2014 at 20:00:57
Agree with Jim and Bill, rejuvenating Goodison one stand at a time may be the only option. The thing is, at face value, and I'm open to correction, this may not be so hard to achieve.

1. You can ask the fixtures committee give you away fixtures for May and August. This would give you three months plus to physically get the work done. It also means that you are not playing home games at a reduced capacity. Home game receipts don't suffer as a result.

2. You set a side some money from the extra t.v money and a little from transfers so that every two or three seasons you have the money to fully complete a stand. This may take you eight seasons to complete the job but you're not breaking the bank to do so.

3. With an end to reduced view seats, your home game receipts over the eight seasons you are completing the task may also increase.

Steve Ferns
12 Posted 26/01/2014 at 20:48:00
I don't think we should bother with a new stadium.

It's a white elephant. A black hole to suck up a load of cash.

Every year the amount of revenue from TV goes up, and goes up in comparison to the money from matchday revenue. The amount to be made from matchday is rapidly decreasing.

What's the point in jeopardising everything, by chasing a new stadium dream. Let's invest in the first team, try to do what we can to redevelop Goodison and for once, why can't we use our weakness, the shitness of Goodison, to our advantage by advertising it to foreign fans as a throw back stadium to days of old. Don't the americans love that shit in baseball etc? Who else in world football has a stadium like ours, nevermind a stadium with history like ours.

Let's not rip it down and chase a dream that might ruin us. Not that I think for one second that the council or any 3rd party will come forward with the resources and location to make it happen.

Dennis Stevens
13 Posted 26/01/2014 at 21:48:10
The idea that any local authority, whilst having to cut services & shed jobs, should subsidise a multi-million pound business to compensate for the incompetence of those running the company in question is utter nonsense.

Kings Dock was our chance to get access to multiple channels of public funding, the Board fucked it up & now seem incapable of thinking beyond the model we saw so badly exposed with DK.

There will be no petition & there will be no public funding for our stadium. Even if Liverpool were to host the Commonwealth Games, as Manchester did, I'm sure we wouldn't be offered the new stadium unless our neighbours had already turned it down.

Gavin Ramejkis
14 Posted 26/01/2014 at 23:17:19
The Olympics and every other UK event ONLY happen in London because that cesspit controls the country; everything is London-centric.

Remember the Millenium? All major builds there at taxpayers' expense... Olympics? snap. Even building a new cycling velodrome despite the fact we had one in Manchester and the majority of medal-winning cyclists were northern.

West Ham are getting the stadium because Karren Brady is a Tory party contributor, Boris is a Tory and the government help their own. HS2 is another example of lets pour money into the shithole so it can drain more money from further than the M25. I still believe it was quicker to travel by train across from Liverpool to the East coast in the late days of steam than it is today.

Don't believe for one second London want our taxes for anything other than their own gain. LCC won't cough any cash into a private company to build a private stadium, as much as we want it, as it's not the way to spend taxpayers' money which should of course go on services to the masses, not the few.

The board and its tax allergic "friends" could pay cash to build a stadium but it's never going to happen.

Keith Young
15 Posted 26/01/2014 at 23:49:02
Steve (#152) you remind me that Lord Grantchester once told me that his granddad Sir John always had the same view as you expressed about the white elephant. Any ideas for modernising Goodison Park would have his support but not a new ground.
David Hallwood
16 Posted 26/01/2014 at 23:59:38
The problem with redeveloping GP is that the footprint would have to be extended for cantilever stands etc. Ideally Everton would purchase all the roads around the ground, bit you would only need one family to dig their heels in and we would all be in our graves before it was resolved.

We missed the boat big time with Kings Dock (no pun intended) and it's hard to see where we can build; possibly in Stanley Park now our red comrades have walked away from it, but the cost is almost certainly prohibited.

Mick Davies
18 Posted 27/01/2014 at 01:08:08
Our only hope would be Peel Holdings. If the council linked Liverpool Waters with regeneration of the North End, and we sold the ground in exchange for a site, and a free build, named the "Peel Stadium" for instance, no blue would disagree, as long as we were within reasonable distance from our spiritual home.

The trouble is, with the time it's taken for the Waters project to even get permission, I couldn't see it built in our lifetimes (that is, anyone born before 2045).

Dennis Stevens
19 Posted 27/01/2014 at 01:27:49
I'm not clear as to the relevance of your query, Derek. I don't recall Trust Everton ever being put forward as a way of developing or replacing the stadium. I thought their interest lay in securing the freeholds of the stadium & training ground, respectively.
Steavey Buckley
20 Posted 27/01/2014 at 01:24:35
The buying of a new ground or even the major the development of Goodison Park is out of the question at the present.

Buying a new ground is very expensive and would 'bleed' Everton 'dry' without a 'sugar daddy' who could hand over to Everton the large amount of money to build one.

There could be 'tinkering' with GP but nothing too major as this would involve planning permission and challenges would sure to follow from local residents.

The most important aspect of Everton Football Club is the present playing staff, they are the ones who will give fans a 'lift' when they win games and that will continue to happen in the present condition of Goodison Park for some time to come in the foreseeable future.

Even with the growth of merchandising and sponsorship, that should be ploughed back into the playing staff and further acquisitions because they are the ones who will give most fans the desire to return to GP week after week by winning matches with a strong squad of players.

Derek Thomas
21 Posted 27/01/2014 at 02:16:29
Dennis and Steavey #227&228; I think we have to progress on, if not all fronts at least on 2.

There are ( estimates vary ) somewhere between 40K to 900K of blues around the world ( if we get to Wembley watch that 40K grow ).

It could be that for a ' well marketed, well run and regulated good cause' say 25K both home and abroad may be prepared to bung GBP10 per week=12.5M /year in 3 yrs ( the time since Trust Everton has been in the planning stage ) =37.5M + compound interest =a fair wedge.

Now some might want to put in more depending how well heeled they are and some less

But unless Mao's single step is taken then the journey, however long. will never finish due to lack of starting.

I see no way that this supposed cash goes anywhere near BK or Earl or Green et al.

We secure FF. saves rent.

We secure the GP freehold ( buy the debts of the creditors? ).... simplistically sorted I know, but sometimes simple is efficiently enough.

I don't see the stadium as a major none matchday cash generator.

We just need a decent home to call our own.

The big money is via Sky and the CL. which means players and results

Roberto isn't going to stay here for 11yrs flogging BK's deadhorse for him... unless we and I mean US, or some other outside agency can give him a reason to stay.

That's why I think something like Trust Everton need doing and needs doing now... compound interest - it's magic.

Steavey Buckley
22 Posted 27/01/2014 at 03:01:18
Derek Thomas: Nothing can happen with GP unless sanctioned by BK and the major shareholders of Everton football club. Who will only relinquish ownership of the club if someone buys the club for about 150 million pounds. Until then, nothing is really going to happen, but BK and the rest of the board are happy to see most of the money available from usual income streams ploughed back into improving the squad. That's about it at the moment. And will continue in the same way until there are new owners.
Derek Thomas
23 Posted 27/01/2014 at 03:53:13
Steavey; BK owns the Club, the Club at the moment do not quite 'own' the ground (or much else) the banks do, which is why they couldn't build down at the Park End. The banks are the piper, they call the tune to which BK dances.

If WE were the piper, what tunes we could play? (Cue BK dancing to gunshots in the saloon la Back to the Future III... yeehaw!)

Steavey Buckley
24 Posted 27/01/2014 at 04:23:36
Derek Thomas: Re: Colin Fitzpatrick
734 Posted 30/03/2013 at 00:53:45

Everton own Goodison Park. It's used as security for the Prudential securitization loan, hence the name. It's placed in a separate vehicle so that, if the club went bust, the Prudential could lay claim to it without a fight with the other creditors. It's the way all securitization loans are structured.

The claims that we have no assets concern the net assets on the balance sheet. Essentially what assets we have, tangible and intangible (players) are outweighed by our liabilities, what we owe. When Kenwright took it over, we had a 20M net asset value on the balance sheet; today, because of selling assets and borrowing, we have net liabilities of 44M but he's doing a great job cos he's a blue.

In those debts, you won't find a penny owed to Kenwright or any other director. Bill may have mortgaged his house but it wasn't for anything to do with the club's finances.

Another piece of brilliant business was the proposed Park End development which couldn't proceed because of the aforementioned charge on the ground the Prudential has. They weren't too happy that Everton attempted to sell the land to Williams Tarr for them to build and lease back the building.

Steavey Buckley
25 Posted 27/01/2014 at 05:15:17
"Everton. Its one of the worst kept secrets in English football that Everton are one of the most financially stable clubs. With debt levels of around the 45m mark, chairman Bill Kenwright has invested .."


Tony I'Anson
26 Posted 27/01/2014 at 07:55:30
Derek,(205) around 50 meetings in 36 months with external organisations in London, Liverpool, Glasgow and Stirling.

This blog is worth a good read Link and @rchrdtknsn is worth following on Twitter too. However, Trust Everton is only about asset ownership and development rather than share ownership.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a Supporters Direct Scotland strategy day with excellent presentations from the Foundation of Hearts and Pars Trust volunteers.

Dennis Stevens
27 Posted 27/01/2014 at 08:08:14
Broadly agree, Derek. But the thread is about a new stadium & I can't see anything in there about that. I'm not sure Trust Everton could or should be a vehicle for stadium redevelopment or replacement.
Kieran Fitzgerald
28 Posted 27/01/2014 at 08:29:58
As a vehicle for change, be it debt reduction, stadium development, or anything else, who would you rather work with, something like a supporters' trust or the current Board?

For me, if I thought it was going to be transparent, I would happily as a fan work with the Board. Say for example the Board announced that it as going to start working with the fans to help set up a trust.around raising cash to do something positive for the club. You could register as a fan with the trust and be included in correspondence and updates. The club would set up a bank account that you could lodge as much or as little as you wanted to on a monthly basis. The account could be set up like a joint account so that withdrawals could only be made by both parties together and statements could be posted monthly on a secure website. At the end of every season or calender year, an AGM could be held and fans could be balloted in the run up to it to decide what would be done with the money in the account. It could be decided to clear a particular debt or pay for ground development.

This is a very simplistic idea I know, and I am sure there is a lot more to it than just a quick chat and a registration form. However, it looks to me like a simple idea that could be easily set up and monitored.

Dennis Stevens
29 Posted 27/01/2014 at 09:19:37
I suppose, Kieran, that for many supporters there's a big difference between a supporters trust seeking to acquire the freeholds of the training ground & stadium, thereby securing those physical assets for the future, & setting up a trust which really amounts to paying supporters donating to a business owned by people who have invested not one penny themselves but expect to walk away with a tidy profit. I'm not too sure you would get so many takers for the latter proposal.
Dennis Stevens
30 Posted 27/01/2014 at 09:26:39
oops! bit swift with the submit button there!

I meant to add that the Board could easily draw funds into the club by simply having a share issue, as Johnson did. That would enable supporters to put money into the club into return for a share but would result in a percentage reduction in the main shareholders holdings, unless they also stump up the cash to maintain their position. However, that would entail the Board doing the one thing they have shown no inclination to do so far : invest directly into the club themselves.

Kieran Fitzgerald
31 Posted 27/01/2014 at 09:32:36
I see what you mean Dennis. I suppose the trade off for me, and I only speak for myself, is that at least the club would be in a much healthier position, even if the Board did walk away with a profit. We would also at least be having a direct and positive influence in running the club through helping with it's debt reduction.

The thing is, we are already putting cash into the club through gate receipts, merchandise and in a roundabout way through t.v subscriptions anyway.

In terms of shares, how much of a say would we have in where the money raised went?

Tom R Owen
32 Posted 27/01/2014 at 09:40:43
Nothing will happen whilst BK has a pulse.
Harold Matthews
33 Posted 27/01/2014 at 10:25:12
Derek. According to Gabriel Marcotti (Twitter.). "Nobody ever owns a football club. They merely look after it for the next generation."
Derek Thomas
34 Posted 27/01/2014 at 10:13:05
Tony #272: short version; when can I and hopefully many many others read the prospectus and start bunging in my tenner a week or what ever?

My dream is that enough come to the party and that the money mounts up to millions in jig time (as it can given the right conditions).

Once a substantial amount (in property and cash) is arrived at, it will exert a force of it's own just by being there. This will be a Blue fan tinted elephant in the room, like an undiscovered planet that effects the orbits of others.

The Board will not be able to ignore the pull of a 40Mill fan fund and the clout it carries... it will give us a voice, it will allow us to do a Teddy Roosevelt; speak softly and carry a big stick.

Mark Taylor
35 Posted 27/01/2014 at 10:49:22

I think your statement that we have net liabilities of 45m paints a rather misleading picture. It suggests that we are insolvent and that the shareholders have lost their money.

In fact, the way player valuations are set means that these assets should (albeit with some risk) be worth far more than their book value. Barkley, for example, because he is a home grown product has minimal book value but his sale alone would clear those net liabilities, if we got 45m for him, as some have suggested.

What confuses me a little is that you say the board/shareholders are holding out for a 150m bid because that rather contradicts your implication that we are insolvent. Obviously we don't actually know what they are holding out for, even though it would be nice to know, but your figure is far from implausible, and would represent a very tidy return indeed for BK and his chums.

But there would need to be a basis for that valuation, and there is none if the business is insolvent! I suggest the reason why someone might bid that sum would be that the accounts significantly undervalue the assets, especially on the playing side. The other rather more intangible asset is goodwill, in our case membership of the world's most successful sporting league franchise. Harder to set a value on that, but there unquestionably is some.

PS If BK did mortage his house, it may have been to raise funds for his initial share investment.

Eric Myles
36 Posted 27/01/2014 at 12:34:07
"Olympics are also held in places like Sochi, which is no London."

On the other hand, would you want to try holding a winter Olympics in London? It's no Sochi.

Eric Myles
37 Posted 27/01/2014 at 12:36:36
Mark "PS If BK did mortage his house, it may have been to raise funds for his initial share investment."

Just how much do you think Kenwright's house is worth???

It is well known that BK got the money for his shares from Paul Gregg's wife Anita.

Dennis Stevens
38 Posted 27/01/2014 at 12:39:41
Either way, the money didn't benefit the club - other than the benefit of having Kenwright as Chairman, of course!
Eric Myles
39 Posted 27/01/2014 at 12:40:49
Mark "I think your statement that we have net liabilities of 45m paints a rather misleading picture"

That's what the accounts say Mark.

"Barkley, for example, because he is a home grown product has minimal book value but his sale alone would clear those net liabilities, if we got 45m for him, as some have suggested." You're still making the same mistake as on the other thread, thinking that what a fan thinks a player is worth means anything.

Eugene Kearney
40 Posted 27/01/2014 at 13:20:08
I've read about half of the posts here. Surely there must actually be a solution and surely renovating Goodison has to be the best/cheaper-in-the-long-run option?

The GAA renovated Croke Park in Dublin over a period of 4 or 5 years in the 90s. There must be some way to copy that plan... renovate slowly, bit by bit???

Tom R Owen
41 Posted 27/01/2014 at 13:42:49

Our leaders say the close proximity of houses makes it not viable.

Please supply your own pinch of salt.

Brin Williams
42 Posted 27/01/2014 at 13:58:55
Derek, Your suggestion is admirable but probably unworkable.

To my mind and in the absence of 'investors' the board should let go of some of their control by putting in motion a share issue - that way the 'well heeled' as you put it and the not so 'well heeled' fans can get a share of the action and the club.

I can see most 'well heeled' fans dipping into say 1000 to buy a wad, if not a single share in our Club.

I would.

Thomas Lennon
43 Posted 27/01/2014 at 14:11:35
Croke Park - renovation work took 14 years to complete

The ground that Croke Park currently occupies would accommodate 2 Goodison Parks, side by side. Take a look on Google Maps using the SAME elevation figures.

We don't have the room so why build? We have to compete with teams that have twice the room for matchday that we do. Why build in mediocrity?

Richard Reeves
44 Posted 27/01/2014 at 14:28:55
The club should focus on redeveloping Goodison Park in stages, starting with the Park End and a triple-decker stand, gradually purchasing land and working around to the Bullens Road and eventually Gwladys Street in what would end up as a wrap around of the Main Stand. It's not going to happen because there is a bigger pay day for the board in building a new stadium but, for me, I only want to move if it's on the docks on the Mersey; my first choice would be Goodison.

When everyone else is going for the dome look, we could retain an imposing, close to the pitch intimidating stadium focussing more on height than width. We could be showing off our history by leaving the Main Stand untouched (apart from removing the pillars if possible) and relocating the screen so the church could be seen through a huge glass structure that connects the main stand to the Gwladys Street Stand so that sound is trapped inside the ground.

Old and new, it could be really impressive but we'll no doubt end up with a cow shed design not far from where Goodison is located or a dome-like structure that after closer inspection is very basic and made with cheap materials.

Steavey Buckley
45 Posted 27/01/2014 at 17:13:52
Mark Taylor .

Owning Everton football club is like owning a type of business. The owners BK and the rest of the shareholders have put a price on the club excluding the debts of around 44 million.

Finch farm was never owned by the club, it was built for Everton to rent.

The Everton debts are small compared to the likes of Manchester United, because the Glazers borrowed money to buy the club and put the debts + interest repayments on the books.

There are no plans (as far as I know) to redevelop GP while BK and the shareholders will not sanction further borrowings to pay for more debts, as more debts could not be offset against some tangible asset, there is none; while no shareholder wants to donate money or allow themselves to go into debt on behalf of Everton football club as a personal liability.

If fans want to have a whip round and donate the club money there is nothing stopping them, but at the same time, can't decide how the money is spent.

The only solution for the fans is to buy the club and I have nothing about any fans having the 150 million to do so. So at present, what money the club receives in terms of revenue is spent on players and others employed by the club. And what is left is, goes towards paying outstanding debts such as off paying the mortgage on the ground.

So, in the short term, nothing is really going to change at Everton football club. If other clubs such as Cardiff and Hull City are buying more players, it is because they have owners who get their cheque books out and pay for them out of their own pockets. That situation does not happen at Everton football because no one will do so, it is run purely on business terms. Excessive spending is accumulated as further debts.

Tony I'Anson
46 Posted 27/01/2014 at 20:29:15
Derek (325) the reality is Trust Everton needs a definite capital project in order to start collecting funds off fans. Almost 8,000 Hearts fans are paying 10 or more by direct debit (via GoCardless.com) based on a home match attendance of 14,000. By comparison, Everton's is 37,000 with a much larger diaspora as well.

If there is a challenging, but achievable, target amount to raise over a period of time, it will be in the hands of all Evertonians to enable the plan to be successful or not.

Mark Taylor
47 Posted 28/01/2014 at 00:27:15
Eric, a player, like a house, is worth what someone will pay for him but, like a house, there are some proxies that will give you a reasonable idea of what he may fetch. The point is, Barkley would fetch tens of millions if sold, far more than his book value. Do you seriously estimate his value to be only book value in the accounts? I don't think that is a very credible position.
Mark Taylor
48 Posted 28/01/2014 at 00:36:21

I don't disagree with your prognosis on our current shareholders investing in the club. They have no appetite for risk; however, as I have said previously, there is also risk in a policy of inaction so I don't think their current approach is fail-safe.

I'm not sure I follow you on the club's valuation. I stand to be corrected on these figures because it's a while since I've been closely through the accounts, but I think our actual borrowing is around 45m with interest on that of roughly 4m. We have liabilities over and above that, but this isn't debt as I understand it that we are having to service. I seem to recall around 55m of liabilities in the accounts and I suspect they may be related to staff contracts, which provided we are a going concern, are paid out of cash inflows.

I thought the shares were bought originally from Johnson for around 30m. I'm not aware of any additional funding other than some of the borrowings are to a shareholder if I recall correctly (or maybe to Green).

So a 150m valuation would give the shareholders a return of around 300-350%. Not bad at all, albeit over roughly 14 years and I'm sure BK would argue he hasn't been paid a salary either. Obviously there is a lot of risk involved in realising that money though not least because there seem to be no buyers at that price, if that is indeed what BK is asking for.

In a nutshell, I don't think 150m is unreasonable if you are looking for a decent return. It is perhaps a little greedy if all you care about is the club and its long term future, yet you find you have no credible buyers at that price, and that you admit, as BK does, that he does not have the necessary financial strength to be a satisfactory owner of the club.

Personally, I think BK is businessman first, fan second. Fine by me, but I wish he'd spare us the tears.

Bobby Thomas
49 Posted 28/01/2014 at 01:08:42
Isnt it that players that come through the system don't have a value on the accounts, so the value of the squad is more than the amortisation , or whatever its called?

So, Barkley has a nominal valuation on the books?

Sur Jo
50 Posted 28/01/2014 at 01:34:27
Thank you for all the comments.

It seems that the partial renovation of GP piece by piece over several years is the way forward. The question is how to finance either way, i.e., either a new stadium or renovating GP?

I was not advocating that the council gives EFC the money to invest in a new stadium. What I was asking for is that the council guarantees the loan to EFC for a stadium project. You may not believe it but these days most infrastructure projects (which include building stadiums) are publicly funded! Revenue municipal bonds is a prime example in the US.

I understand the apprehension to ask the city to use hard-earned taxpayers' money toward a stadium project. But this is not a sin/financial crime these days. Governments are bailing out banks and big corporations all around the world. In other places, corruption/excesses are siphoning away public funds. The point is that public funds always end up in rich private pockets no matter how you cut it.

It is better to commit a part of those funds to a stadium that will be a white elephant visible for eternity and providing cheers to 40,000 fans every week. That's a better use of public funds than seeing those funds either ending in...

Steavey Buckley
51 Posted 28/01/2014 at 03:00:28
The University of Leeds in a 2002 report on football players:

"Despite the sound basis for Dr Gerrard's valuations of players and the squad as a whole, these can't be included within a club's standard balance sheet. Players are counted in the same way as other physical assets: their transfer or 'purchase' value goes on the balance sheet, and the longer they are with the club the more their value 'depreciates'. In reality, a good player, performing well, will actually appreciate in value."
Derek Thomas
52 Posted 28/01/2014 at 07:19:14
Thanks for that Tony; So my next question to you and others ITK, what constitutes a viable capital project.

Sorry to keep on with the Pollyanna-esque simplistic stuff, but isn't waiting for the 'right capital project ' putting the cart before the horse...

Tomorrow, the perfect capital project ( what ever that is ) may rear it's head, Trust Everton put their hand up, yeah that's us, we're in, we want some of this... just wait 5 yrs while we get the cash together.

What we seem to have is a catch 22 / reverse build it and they will come.

Just what DOES and more importantly WHAT DOES NOT constitute a viable capital project... btw what are Hearts saving for?.

Alan Williams
53 Posted 28/01/2014 at 08:11:16
I sort of have a solution that could aid the re-development of EFC, mainly GP.

If 30,000 people offered 10 extra for say 20 games in a year, this would yield a return of 6 million and then the EFC board matched the 10 only if we had 30,000 investors then we could fence off 12 million pounds which could go towards stadium improvements.

If this was repeated every 3 three years, then I don't think it would have a negative effect on the playing staff as, after phase 2/3/4, the bottom line would see vast improvements less restriction in capacity for phase 1 (assuming each phase is a section of the ground 4 in total). In theory, this would take 12 years but the improvements would be constructive on everybody meaning the owners don't lose value of their shares, the club's earning potential will increase, and the re-development would be funded by cleared funds thus meaning the club will not have additional debt for the re-build.

200 to pay every third year isn't a lot; it cost 200 to buy BT sports channel if you're on the Sky platform and that's every year!! Finally, the fans and the board would have a common consensus; yes, they still own the club but that will always be the case and has been since we were formed. If the club was sold in those years, then the fans would be classed as a creditor on a 5-year write-off period per each phase completed.
Kieran Fitzgerald
54 Posted 28/01/2014 at 09:23:44
Alan, very good idea. Even if you only started off with season ticket holders, you would already have the potential list of names that may be prepared to register for the initiative. You would start to notify people in April or May for the following season. You could start with the first home game in August and end with last one in May. Even if you only raised 100,000 per home game starting off, that's just under 2m for league games alone in the first season.

Tony I'Anson, do you know if anything like this been looked at by Trust Everton?

Eric Myles
55 Posted 28/01/2014 at 09:17:45
Mark #631, the vagaries of valuing footballers are in no way comparable to valuing houses. Most houses on a street are identical except for interiior decoration to suit the owners taste and can, as you say, be compared.

But look how many excellent footballers have been sold for lower prices than lesser players, I mean 85 million for Bale!!! cf Ronaldo??

Mark #634 " I stand to be corrected on these figures " I've corrected you already on a previous thread but you don't seem to have taken it in.

"We have liabilities over and above that, but this isn't debt as I understand it that we are having to service. I seem to recall around 55m of liabilities in the accounts" As I already told you our last accounts showed 84 million in liabilities, and although it includes debt we don't have to service it is worse than that, it actually needs to be paid!! Debt that is serviced is debt you don't pay off right away, you only pay the interest on, the rest of the liabilities are to creditors who want paying in the short term.

Jim Lloyd
56 Posted 28/01/2014 at 09:50:33
I think, Sur Jo, that the Council just don't have that kind of spare cash.

Besides the political uproar that it would cause, the fgact is, Liverpool City Council are having to make cuts in funding in every aspect of Public Services.

There are some good ideas coming out of this thread and, hopefu;lly we will hear something from the Board that will give us some optimism about Renovating Goodison Park, or even plans for a new ground.

But don't hold your breath mate!

Kieran Fitzgerald
57 Posted 28/01/2014 at 09:59:26
Jim, I think the Board reaching out to the fans, be it through Trust Everton, the season ticket holders, or any other group, could be the thing that would make this work.

I wonder if Trust Everton were to broach the subject (possibly again, I don't know) with the Board, the timing may be right considering the feel good factor currently around the club. This idea of having a fixed idea, as Tony I'Anson mentioned above, could be something that could set the initial sense in trust in place that could get things started.

Dennis Stevens
58 Posted 28/01/2014 at 10:45:12
Sur Jo, why should the local authority guarantee a loan to EFC? It's the responsibility of the Board find the necessary funding & it is they who should be expected to underwrite any loans for redevelopment as they will take the profits when they sell the club.
Mark Taylor
59 Posted 28/01/2014 at 12:01:10

Re player value, so what would you value Barkley and the rest of the squad? You still haven't answered my question- do you think the value in the accounts is accurate? If not what is? My point still holds good; under any reasonable measure, player values are significantly underestimated in the accounts. I don't doubt we could debate by how much they are undervalued, but not that they are.

Re the accounts, with due respect I don't think you have explained anything.I haven't time to go back to the accounts, but you say our liabilities included debt that we don't have to service, but that is a contradiction in terms, unless we have an interest free loan and I don't think we do.

I'm not sure what comprises these liabilities, but I have suggested that the majority of them, 55m, are probably contractual liabilities (i.e staff contracts). We will meet these as a going concern out of cash inflows. Do you know what the total liabilities comprise, if so, can you tell me and others what the breakdown is?

Actually, I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. Are you claiming Everton is insolvent?

Tony I'Anson
60 Posted 28/01/2014 at 12:17:18
Kieran, if you think back to the survey Trust Everton ran, the results showed that only 1/3 of respondents were season ticket holders or went to most games. The untapped revenue stream is the occasional match-goer, non-match goer, TV fan who make up the Diaspora; as well as the current match going fans.

See Chapter 3.3.10 - 3.3.11 recommendations from The RT Hon the Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy. report, REBALANCING BRITAIN: POLICY OR SLOGAN? Liverpool City Region - Building on its Strengths: An independent report.

"Diaspora can become commercially very important if they are organised in some way meaning they need a structure, an organisation, and some kind of hook upon which to hang their willingness to help."

RECOMMENDATION: The so-called "Liverpolitan Diaspora" should be provided with a formal structure and opportunity to help their home city region with investment leads, expertise, advice and intelligence.

Kieran Fitzgerald
61 Posted 28/01/2014 at 13:11:39
Tony, I see your point about the season ticket holders and revenue streams. If I had forked out the cost of a full season ticket, I wouldn't be happy with the idea of shelling out an extra fiver or tenner per game. I would feel that I am already paying my share.

I suppose that a joint venture on the Everton FC and Trust Everton websites may help to reach out to fans, both local to the city and further afield. Bring in the likes of ToffeeWeb and Bluekipper, who may also be able to inform large numbers of supporters of any fund raising plans and fixed benefits thereof, and something may come of it.

For many fans like me, who don't get to go to games, or who aren't really the merchandise wearing type, the idea of spending say a tenner a month by direct debit on a clearly agreed upon venture by all sides, would be attractive.

Jim Lloyd
62 Posted 28/01/2014 at 13:36:49
Kieran, I hope so mate, as I can't see any other way of us getting a renovated / new ground,

Funnily enough, I replied to a survey EFC have recently sent out and at the tale end of my reply, when they asked for suggestions, I asked about a shares issue (not had, or expecting a reply... hope I'm wrong).

I think, if it's ever going to happen we need a Vision and we need leadership. I don't know the ins and outs of it but a shares issue, a call to arms to all fans that we will rebuild Goodison Park and the fans are going to be part of that rebuilding.

I'm a season ticket holder and if this Board came out with plans to develop the ground a stand at a time then, I'd be willing to give another fiver or tenner a match to see it happen.

Before anything though, we need to see this Board show us all some ACTION and VISION!

Jim Lloyd
63 Posted 28/01/2014 at 13:49:51
PS, my fingers appear to drunk! apologies
Mick MacManus
64 Posted 28/01/2014 at 14:07:09
The most obvious fund raising mechanism for incremental stadium development or buying back Finch Farm hasn't been mentioned: ring fence a percentage of player sales. A chunk of the Fellaini money or the like alone could be used in this way. Yes it means selling a high value player every year or so, placing more trust in our youth development or buying sensibly. I can see the many downsides of this strategy but it is the most obvious to me.
Eric Myles
65 Posted 29/01/2014 at 01:54:20
Mark #768, I have already explained to you what the other non interest bearing debt is.

My point is that you are claiming everything in the garden is rosy and I am pointing out the weeds and diseases.
Our players may be undervalued in the accounts but nobody can say by how much until they are sold (remember our 50mn Rooney?). And when all the players are sold to pay off the debt then who will take to the field? and I do mean field as we will have no stadium.

As for cash inflows, the accounts show we have a cash outflow of 20mn a year unless we sell players. We shall soon see when the overdue accounts are published whether our losses or debt are reduced. My instinct tells me not, what about you?

Joe Bibb
66 Posted 29/01/2014 at 10:41:43
Everton Football Club is a private business it has huge amounts of income from varying sources TV Advertising etc. If we all say 40,000 is a realistic following then Everton could take a portion of the Sky money every season and redevelop the Bullens Road in less than 6 months, the following Season the Street End and finally the next season Goodison Road Main Stand.

There would not be any more seats but there would be many new unobstructed views which would give finances a boost.

In addition, the Bullens Road which as of now has no earning capacity outside of match days could have banqueting facilitates etc that would bring in extra income.

We have the ground, we don't rent so all we need is a bit of vision from the Board and the Fans. A redesigned Goodison Park and a team that might qualify for Europe is what we should all want.

Once in the Champions League the extra money would compensate for a 40,000 regular gate.

The answer to all our problems is right in front of our eyes but most can't see it.

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

© ToffeeWeb