Fan Comment The potential winners and losers of an Everton takeover Chris Feeley 07/02/2016 82comments | Jump to last For months now, the rumours and conjecture have abounded of Everton finally securing outside investment into the club. 16 years after declaring that he ‘promised to find investment’, Mr Kenwright’s ’24/7’ search is seemingly approaching its final act. However, with official information scarce in the public domain, there is increasing demand from supporters for the club to clarify whether this comes in the form of a takeover or simply an additional interest into an already convoluted and complicated ownership structure. In the absence of clarity, fans are left to speculate what this means for Everton moving forward? Undoubtedly, the potential of a takeover brings with it both optimism and scepticism in equal measure. What appears clear though is that, in the advent of Mr Kenwright’s name no longer being associated with the Board of Everton Football Club for the first time since 1989, a seismic shift in the landscape will occur for everyone invested in the club. This is a look at how all parties involved could be affected by the change. The Investors It is widely acknowledged that John Jay Moores and Charles Noell, apparently under the umbrella of JMI Services, have been conducting due diligence during a 6-week period of exclusivity. This was reported by The Times on 22 December 2015; without evidence of an extension, it can be assumed that the exclusivity has now ended. Whilst other rumours have persisted regarding additional investment groups waiting in the wings, from places including China and the Middle East, these have remained unnamed and out of the press. JMI Services appear to be the most serious of perspective new owners, despite fluctuating rumours circulating that there are still issues preventing them and/or Mr Kenwright from signing off on the deal. Whilst (from the outset) Messrs Moores and Noell appear to have the potential to allow Everton to compete again both domestically and on the European stage, their investment is viewed by many with a huge deal of scepticism and trepidation. Moores is acknowledged as a hugely successful tech entrepreneur and financier, as well as the previous owner of the San Diego Padres. Noell has an MBA from Harvard Business School, is the co-founder of JMI, and has spent the last few years investing heavily into Irish horse racing through his Merriebelle Farms stables. ADVERTISEMENT About these ads Unlike many of the current US investors in the Premier League, there is evidence of the pair holding a longer term interest in ‘soccer’. On 28 December 2015 The San Diego Union-Tribune reported on the interest in Everton by adding that Moores and Noell are currently also looking into the possibility of adding an MLS expansion team in the San Diego area, and had discussed the idea as far back as 1996. So why is there growing discontent about a pair of wealthy and successful investors, who have a long standing interest in the game, taking over at Goodison Park? The alarm bells started with their failed investment in Swansea City. The Welsh club did not reach an agreement with the Americans over an offer to purchase an initial 30% of the club, with the potential for JMI to double their share holding. A club that has an unconventional ownership structure, the supporters trust became increasingly wary of the proposals for all existing major shareholders to dilute their portfolio and influence to accommodate the new ‘investment’. When Phil Slumber, Chairman of their Supporters Trust, met with Mr Noell, he was left ‘unsure’ as to why Messrs Noell and Moores wanted to invest. As the ‘investment plans’ were rumoured to involve solely paying for the purchase of the shares, with the potential to saddle the club with future debt to pay for its running and development costs, the board appeared less keen on the deal and declared it ‘not the right time’ for investment. The proposals also appeared to value Swansea at just £100M, which in the current economic climate approaching the new bumper TV deal was seemingly below its true market rate. The history of Mr Moores as San Diego Padres owner also has raised some cause for concern. Although he was at the helm when they moved to their new home at Petco Park in 2004, the financing of that deal involved the Padres only contributing approximately 30% of the $456.8M total cost. Whilst this appears a good deal for Padres fans, $225M of the funding came from public money. This essentially meant that the fans part-funded their own stadium, and in the current economic climate is not going to be replicated by Liverpool City Council. Allegations of Mr Moores having a relationship with San Diego City councilwoman Valerie Stallings, who left her position in January 2001 rather than face criminal charges that she had voted on Padres stadium issues while taking gifts from Moores, also will not sit well with many Evertonians. Whilst the Padres had a modicum of success under Moores, reaching the World Series in 1998 before being beaten by the New York Yankees, it could be said that they are still widely regarded as the same small market team that they were when he took over. There has also been criticism that his enthusiasm and interest in the team waned as a result of the breakdown of his marriage, a split that would ultimately push him to sell the team for an eventual $800M in 2012. When it was revealed that $200M of this was taken directly from the Padres' television deal, money that is arguably intended for the running and improvement of the club, it left many fans with a very sour taste. It is also worth noting that Mr Moores is older than Mr Kenwright. With Mr Kenwright previously stating that his doctor wouldn’t allow him to run the club into his 70s, and Mr Noell well into his 60s, it raises questions over the long-term intentions of the pair's decision to invest in the club. Unsubstantiated rumours have surfaced recently on social media suggesting that the purchase is being viewed as a short-term opportunity to ‘flip’ the club for a sizeable profit with minimal investment. With suggestions of other interested parties waiting in the wings, the reported projections of Messrs Moores and Noell looking to make upwards of £60M when selling to the highest bidder in a matter of 18 months by simply performing remedial renovations at Goodison Park should not sit well with fans. It also raises notions of the pair potentially looking to asset- strip the playing squad in an effort to maximise profits. In summary, Messrs Moores and Noell will ultimately view Everton as a decent short-term investment. The notion that they will run the club as anything other than a profit-making venture is unlikely, as their experience in venture capitalism will surely guard against seeing personal losses similar to those suffered by fellow American Randy Lerner at Aston Villa. This is especially likely when considering the new TV deal will come into effect in the summer, seeing the Premier League awash with further riches. Whilst Moores is unlikely to see the spectacular returns he achieved when selling the Padres, reported to be around $720M, the pair could well see potential within a squad that has extremely saleable assets. It remains to be seen whether they will more resemble FSG, providing funds for the desperately needed improvement in stadium facilities, or the unthinkable prospect of another Hicks and Gillett. The Manager Roberto Martinez has arguably now become the most polarising figure involved with Everton Football Club, filling the void left by Mr Kenwright in light of his seemingly enforced seclusion. Despite recent results, his ‘style’ is viewed as cavalier or kamikaze in equal measures and his dogmatic refusal to waiver from his principles on how the game should be played is now widely considered as less admirable and more arrogantly infuriating. What surely isn’t in doubt is that, if he was employed at anywhere other than Everton, he would likely not have been afforded the same support in the face of recently perceived underachievement. The manager’s repetitive insistence otherwise smacks of an interest in self-preservation rather than a basis in reality. The club is seemingly no nearer his reported promise of achieving Champions League qualification. This indicates that if the change of ownership were to happen, his tenure would be in the most perilous position of his managerial career to date. However, if ownership of the Padres by Moores is anything to go by, this may not be the case. From the time he purchased the Padres in 1994 to when he relinquished control in 2012 he had only 3 managers, with both departures coming as a result of offers to manage bigger market teams: Jim Riggleman to the Chicago Cubs in 1995 and Bruce Bochy to the San Fransisco Giants in 2007. Discounting Riggleman’s tenure, due to his relatively short time working with Moores, both Bochy and Bud Black won less than half of their games in a win-loss league. This does not suggest a ‘trigger-happy’ owner, but arguably one who is happy to let the club ‘tick along’ regardless of results. Whilst this approach is unquestionably easier to adopt in a league free from the threat of relegation, it would surely give Martinez hope that his head would not be on the chopping block as quickly as many expect. The prospect of a change in ownership could actually be secretly welcomed by Seà±or Martinez. Regardless of his public affability when discussing club matters in the media, very much appearing to toe and promote the company line, the frustration must surely be palpable when he regularly watches teams like Liverpool and Tottenham being able to spend £20M on a new player at the drop of a hat? Even more so when the likes of Stoke City and West Ham United are able to attract his ‘targets’ ahead of the historically more successful Everton? Although it must be said that Martinez has been afforded significantly more funds (when required) compared to his predecessor, his budget seems to only be available to him during the final hours of a transfer window. Whilst this could be argued as being a ‘negotiating strategy’, the perception is of a club scraping the barrel. By adopting a ‘one in, one out’ policy, seemingly to part finance any incoming deals and penny-pinching at a time when the rest of the league is cash rich, comes at the expense of embedding often much needed reinforcements to take the club forward. Without the reliance on private financing from murky sources (Vibrac, JG Funding, Rights and Media Funding etc), the manager may be able to secure targets in a timely manner and enable them to integrate quicker. This would surely benefit the team and consequently his standing amongst the footballing public. The CEO Unlike Messrs Kenwright and Martinez, Robert Elstone does not polarise opinions. It is fair to say that he is widely disliked by the majority of Evertonians with an interest in the running of the club. Social media is awash with ridicule for his rumoured love of a halogen-induced tan. His promotion of Everton’s commercial partner Power 8, an apparent Ponzi scheme, brought shame on the club. His dismissive refusal to answer shareholders’ questions during and since the recent AGM is contemptible. Supporters and shareholders have every right to question his insistence on retaining commercial deals with Chang and Kitbag, especially when they appear to be significantly lower than those acquired by the club’s rivals. For many supporters, it has come to the point of asking ‘what does he actually do?' If a takeover was to happen, it is suggested that Mr Elstone would stand to lose the most, especially as the redevelopment of Goodison Park has always been something Elstone has declared as ‘not viable’. However, taking a look across Stanley Park will give Mr Elstone hope. Were the club’s prospective new owners to adopt an operations model similar to that of FSG at Liverpool, Elstone could take on a role similar to that of Ian Ayre. It allows the new owners to run the club from afar, ultimately having final say on matters of importance, whilst retaining someone to manage the day-to-day issues ‘on site’. However unpopular that may be, this scenario offers them some continuity and guidance in their initial forays into what would be a new business market. This is surely the outcome that Mr Elstone is hoping for, as a successful working relationship with JMI could also open up opportunities for him in future to ply his ‘trade’ in the US. Kenwright, the Board, and the ‘Friend of Everton’ From a financial perspective, selling the club for a reported £200M is good business. Dependent upon whether the price is based on the valuation of the whole club or just the Board’s shares, Mr Kenwright stands to receive between £50-65m for his shareholding. After the True Blue Holdings takeover valued Everton at approximately £30M, and it is reported that the current board members have invested nothing other than the cost of purchasing their shares, this is a healthy return on a club that has neither won a trophy nor significantly developed Goodison Park during the 16 years since. Indeed, Robert Earl stands to make well in excess of £40M on a club that he reportedly visited just once since acquiring Paul Gregg’s shares 10 years ago. However, for Kenwright, it is the legacy of this takeover that will either enhance or severely tarnish his reputation amongst Evertonians. Although the fervour for his removal has quietened somewhat since the widespread rumours of his ill health were leaked into the public domain, he is still an exceedingly divisive figure amongst supporters. The labels ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Kenwright are bandied around social media on a daily basis, and have been ever since the failed move to the Kings Dock. History lessons are not needed when discussing the contentious issues of NTL, FSF, and Destination Kirkby amongst others. What does create suspicion amongst factions of Evertonians is the timing of these apparent takeover rumours. For a club that has supposedly adopted a ’24/7’ investment search since the turn of the century, to finally garner interest when the principal owner is apparently gravely ill appears disingenuous at best. The missed opportunities that subsequently were realised by Manchester City and PSG will ultimately be the yard stick that any new owners will be judged against, largely due to Mr Kenwright’s insistence that he will only relinquish control to the ‘right’ parties. Also, the speculation that there is intent to redevelop Park by the prospective new owners will raise questions as to why the current incumbents haven’t shown any intent to do so despite at least two failed ground moves and feasible plans available for some time showing the potential to do so? Goodison Park, however much adored by the Everton faithful, has become a tattered old relic that is seemingly a metaphor for the club itself: a once proud front-runner on the global stage that is now an irrelevant mark resigned to the history books. Any plans to revamp and modernise the Old Lady will leave questioning fingers pointed squarely at the current board as to why this approach was not adopted sooner? Finally, all the while lurking in the shadows, is the man Mr Kenwright gushed about being a ‘Friend of Everton’ — Sir Phillip Green. To some, he is the puppet master, pulling the strings behind every deal at Everton. To others, his involvement is a myth, a conspiracy theory, a fantasy created to drive the notion of Kenwright seeking council from an arch-villain in the vein of a Cardinal Richelieu. Whilst no-one from within the corridors of Finch Farm is likely to acknowledge the involvement of Green in the day-to-day running of the football club, the lapsing of the exclusivity period would provide the ideal opportunity for his influence to instigate the potential for a ‘bidding war’ from a rival consortium. Conspiracists will point to the potential for a ‘perfect storm’. The sale of the highly maligned Kitbag recently saw Green withdraw his interest in the company at a time where Everton are having their books examined. Coincidental? With the money from China becoming more evident than ever in the European game, with the likes of AC Milan being recently linked with a buyout and numerous relatively high profile players being attracted by the exorbitant salaries, how long before a British club is acquired? These factors would point to the potential for the highest bidder to takeover, which would only serve to further line the pockets of those at boardroom level and possibly a few of their very good ‘friends’. The Fans The lifeblood of Everton will undoubtedly be affected most on a personal level by any takeover. It is fair to say that, bar the FA Cup success in 1995, being an Evertonian has not been easy since the creation of the Premier League. The club has gone from being a member of the ‘Big 5’ to being an irrelevant non-entity, largely due to brief flirtations with relegation and an incapability to recapture their form of the mid-to-late ’80s. Having teams like Chelsea and Manchester City rise to prominence, winning titles, and surpassing Everton so that they are now considered as ‘Global Giants’ was hard to watch but not hard to understand. The catalyst was a billionaire taking an interest. Simple. The notion that these clubs should be considered soulless sell-outs is one born out of bitter envy, and scant consolation considering that the Goodison trophy cabinet hasn’t been opened for 20 years. The potential of new investment should give fans hope that Everton will no longer be shackled with the financial handcuffs of yesteryear and will be able to once again compete with their rightful peers at the top of the English game. Unfortunately, a cautionary note must be considered. Any new owner is unlikely to be able to profess the same love for the club as Bill Kenwright. The club is going to be run as a business, and one that is going to be expected to make profit. The recent vote against capping away ticket prices by owners in the era of bumper TV deals supports this. Even closer to home, the recent protests across Stanley Park at rises in ticket prices should indicate that fans are indeed now considered as customers that are expendable and easily replaced. With the slate of AGM questions posed by the club’s historical watchdog (the Shareholders Association) being disregarded and dismissed recently by the CEO, it does not bode well for future concerns. The thought of arbitrary rises in ticket prices (justified by nothing other than greed) should fill supporters with an element of dread, especially if the on-pitch product doesn’t represent value. The one over-riding positive of this impending takeover is that it should serve as a vehicle to reunite the fan base. Go on any form of social media and you will see Blues arguing, some with valid arguments on either side and some just for the sake of it. The issues are plentiful; Kenwright, Martinez, relocation, planes, planned demonstrations to name but a few. All this has served to do is to stagnate any forms of progression. A takeover, good or bad, should be viewed as a point in history which enabled all supporters to draw a line in the sand and unite for the betterment of the club. Whatever that may be. Note: At the request of a representative of JMI Equity, references to that firm have been changed to JMI Services, an independently managed firm. While John Moores was one of the principal, early investors in JMI Equity he no longer has operational involvement in that concern. Share this article Reader Comments (82) 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 Gary Russell 1 Posted 08/02/2016 at 15:17:03 Brilliant Chris.... quite brilliant piece. James Flynn 2 Posted 08/02/2016 at 15:29:09 Excellent piece. Subject matter covered well, and good writing, too. Even a Cardinal Richelieu reference. Excellent. Steavey Buckley 3 Posted 08/02/2016 at 15:43:46 It's only the shareholders in EFC who gain financially from a takeover. If Everton could find someone or an organisation to build a new stadium and rent it back to Everton at an agreed favourable price, that would be more in Everton's fans favour. The income from TV should cover the cost of transfers and salaries. Income from a stadium would be a bonus. Alan Bodell 4 Posted 08/02/2016 at 15:44:02 What an insight into the projected business, so thorough and informative.Thankyou for posting this. Dave Williams 5 Posted 08/02/2016 at 15:56:34 Excellent objective writing examining the very important issues without any hysteria or abuse towards the individuals involved.Well done Chris- very thought provoking!! Winston Williamson 7 Posted 08/02/2016 at 16:15:07 A very balanced piece, thank you.I'm of the opinion that any new owner deserves a chance to be successful and thus our support. As you say, we've not won anything for 20 years so any new owners have a real challenge on their hands.I would like any new owners to improve infrastructure, marketing (in Liverpool and abroad) and commerialisation. Plus, the Old Lady.Although a Billionaire would be nice, I think if fans can see progress like that off the pitch and this translates to progress on the pitch, they'll be happy. Kevin Tully 8 Posted 08/02/2016 at 16:26:40 Nice one,Chris. It seems to me we are stuck between a rock and a hard place as regards to new ownership. Firstly, and most importantly, we don't currently know the structure of any proposed takeover – would they be paying off the debt? What their plans are for the stadium, if any? I've no problem with any new owners who can move us forward us in every area, then make a profit. If they manage to redevelop Goodison, improve revenue streams and bring success on the pitch, then what's not to like? We currently have board without a clue, who don't have the will or the means to take us into the future. To me, Bill has been been somewhat of a 'caretaker owner' who should have got out years ago. Clearly the attraction of being chairman of EFC was too strong for him to walk away. Sadly, it's only his ill-health which has at last forced his hand. We are a big club who shouldn't fear change, but we have to trust the current custodians to do the right thing for future generations, not just themselves and personal gain. It's the people in the background such as Earl & Green who worry me most on that score. John Raftery 9 Posted 08/02/2016 at 16:37:50 Everton recently proposed capping prices for away fans but failed to obtain the required majority among Premier League Clubs. That tells us much about where our club and its current owners come from and where the majority of the rest of them are at. So yes, a takeover may well reunite the fan base – against the club and its new owners. The current disarray at Anfield is something we can be amused at but it offers a salutary warning as to what might be in store for us in the future. Paul Kossoff 10 Posted 08/02/2016 at 16:47:36 John 9, I read that the only Premier League club wanting to cap ticket prices was Everton. Russell Smith 11 Posted 08/02/2016 at 16:49:50 Very good objective article.If, as would appear likely, the period of exclusivity has now ended, why has there been no announcement? If the offer of a take-over is genuine, then some form of statement should be made by the board, even if it is only to say that talks are continuing. Unfortunately, as we are only "customers", our concerns are of little consequence to the current board, as has been demonstrated repeatedly over the past 10 years. This is when BK's "true blue" utterances are shown to be a sham. If he was a "true blue", he would know how anxious and concerned the rest of us are regarding the direction of the club's future. Brent Stephens 12 Posted 08/02/2016 at 16:53:55 Russell, assuming that talks are continuing, I guess all he'd say would be "talks are continuing". Brian Harrison 13 Posted 08/02/2016 at 17:01:05 Well, I heard a report the other day saying that the due diligence has ended, but there may be ongoing negotiations regarding the purchase of the shares. I think with something like this we only find out when either a deal has been completed or it has fallen through. Whether there are any other bidders waiting in the wings if this deal falls through who knows. I can remember the anticipation when Hicks and Gillette took over the other lot. Their fans were told that a spade in the ground of their new stadium would happen in weeks of the takeover. That has subsequently been scrapped by their present American owners, so they are onto their second American Owners and things don't seem to be improving on or off the field. Now it would be wrong to suggest that having American owners often comes with a price, but FSG have the highest charges for their baseball club back home so it seems the kopites probably shouldn't be surprised with the proposed charges for their new stand.Seeing they approached Swansea first probably indicates that they don't have any allegiance to anyone in particular. Denis Richardson 14 Posted 08/02/2016 at 17:19:55 We can only judge the current board/owners on the last 16 years performance and based on that they need to go - almost any change would be for the better imo rather than sticking.Other than avoiding relegation, the club has not moved forward an inch and the only reason we did not go into administration a few years back is down to the TV money from Sky. Make no mistake, Rupert Murdoch (not the board) is the only reason Everton football club is still financially afloat.Some asute signings from RM and OFM have also helped to beef up the assets on the pitch (i.e. Stones and Lukaku, although the latter wasn't cheap at 28m) and with the departues of Stones and probably Lukaku in the summer, around 100m will flow into the club's bank account (hopefully the majority will be invested in 3-4 quality signings.)We need new ownership and management to finally bring this club into the 21st century - its 2016 ffs! Pete Cross 15 Posted 08/02/2016 at 17:44:34 Russell, I can understand we fans being kept in the dark.But it would appear the small shareholders are also being kept in the dark. Christine Foster 16 Posted 08/02/2016 at 17:48:59 Chris, a good and fair synopsis of the situation although I would not agree to the full extent of your comments. You have written each with a degree of, on one hand and then on the other. Clarification of some points is worth noting but one has to remember who ever comes in is buying shares and controlling interest, not an investment for the board to do with as they see fit. Although a value of 200m has been placed on the worth of the club, its actually the worth of the total share value. Not one red cent will go to the running of the club as part of any purchase of shares.Also not stated is that the current liabilities would most likely be offset against the value of the shares, so 200m less overall debt would most likely eat into the numbers that Messers Kenrwright & Co would receive. But to gain overall control of the club the 51% number (or higher depending on the constitution) is likely to cost any new owner approx. 75m with the probability that each director dilutes their share holding, we could easily see the new owners having control of the board but the existing board staying in place. In fact I would go on to say that unless they all wanted to jump ship, the current board may well be asked to step down, a possible sticking point in negotiations as any new owner would surely want to sweep through with a new broom. Indeed, if may require the new owners to buy considerably more shares(or all) from one or two of the main shareholders to make the deal happen. No doubt any such requirement will come as a significant bargaining tool to be used by the three current significant shareholders.In principal the due diligence and the agreement in principle may be done, but the individual negotiations by each major shareholder may be a significant sticking point.Wit respect to the CEO's position, much will depend on if the new consortium gains controlling interest. If they do, then Elstone will be gone. When you buy a company from afar, you put your own man in to run it. Full stop. God knows what they found in the running of the club but I am 99% sure that if they are successful then the management will change.For the fans? I agree that the current board has failed to heal any rifts of the fan base and a clean slate is required. However I am not comfortable in expecting this to happen should the current board stay in place with an additional player. I think it would be the worst possible outcome for the fan base. (but possibly the best possible outcome for the current board, why? because they have demonstrated that with no investment they have hit a gravy train that's getting bigger and more profitable by the day. Staying in the game as a director / major shareholder means that if the new consortium are successful then the value of the club will rise further and as such their shares will be worth even more, they will have in fact, a vehicle for increasing their own potential profit without spending another red cent.. )There is a lot of negotiation to be done, but to remove this board is going to take a great deal of money. Jon Withey 17 Posted 08/02/2016 at 18:40:58 Although its true that the Kenwright era hasnt brought much outright success, we don't have to look too far from our goldfish bowl to see what genuinely bad management is. Leeds, Aston Villa, QPR, Portsmouth, Newcastle, Bolton, Birmingham City, Reading, Charlton, Man city, Fulham, Middlesborough - they've all been relegated in Kenwrights time even though we were competing with them for a while.A caretaker chairman maybe, but he has taken care - unlike some.Im certainly nervous about 'investors' who are basically bankers who see a chance to squeeze profit short term rather than care for and build the club as a business.Ideally we get somebody who matches ambition with investment like City or Chelsea. Derek Wadeson 18 Posted 08/02/2016 at 18:49:25 Echo reporting tonight exclusive, deal nearly done Phil Walling 19 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:21:43 If this lot weren't good enough for Swansea, they are hardly likely to be good enough for Everton. The deal is obviously money driven with BK anxious to cash in on the arrival of a money tree from the Prem tv deal.For all the talk of any new owner being an improvement on the present Board, I would ask that people take a glance at Jon Withey's list of failed takeovers above. 'All that glisters etc'. This excites me not at all. I smell carpetbaggers. Kunal Desai 20 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:23:19 Hopefully this comes to a swift conclusion. Martinez better be weary. I think he literally got 15+ games to show the propective new owners hes worth another season at the helm. If not hes out the door in the summer. Andy Crooks 21 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:25:11 I have wanted Bill Kenwright gone for some time but after reading this excellent article I now feel nervous and apprehensive. Colin Glassar 22 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:27:56 Before any deal is done I'd like to know what these Chinese and Arab consortiums are offering. We do have history of accepting poor deals e.g. Chang when better deals are allegedly on offer.Whatever happens, I just hope they get rid of sideshow bob and tell us just how many lawn mowers he's actually bought over the years. Brent Stephens 23 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:32:55 Colin, I wonder if any parallel offers would come from any other parties if they hadn't been able to engage in a due diligence process. Ian Brandes 24 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:35:02 Phil W,Just one thing about Swansea. The main man, Huw Jenkins is/was a very capable, if not, ruthless investment banker. That all could be down to irresistible force meets immovable object. If the deal is almost done, as is suspected, Martinez may be allowed to continue until the end of the season with a gun at his head.But the bullets will be fired sooner if he cannot turn our current small run of victories into something a whole lot better.As for the Chinese and Jordanian interests, they could be a smoke-screen to raise the price. David Chait 25 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:37:26 Fantastic article Chris! Great effort and thought behind it!It does seem that it's running ahead and we might be in for the historical moment we have been waiting for so long! Now they appear to be queuing up!The Americans: looking to run a business and drive profits but might be more careful in their spend. Might also look after the club history and culture a little more carefully. The Chinese (apparently) who might throw huge cash at it as a PR exercise but mitt give very very little for our history and culture. Could buy success but at what cost?That's my take on it... For myself I don't want to lose what makes me proud to be a supporter of the greatest club In the country, I.e. Relevant and accessible to the local fan base, caring in the community and all around upstanding club.I don't buy City or Chelsea lost their souls either. Has always smacked of small club thinking. I doubt we have remained the same club for over 100 years. I'm very excited to see what comes of it... All I pray for is for owners that will build us a stadium we can be proud of that keeps us in the city (still dream of kings dock resurrected), keep our best players from jumping ship for at least 2 more years as we improve, keep investing in our youth and buy back finch farm and bring a brilliant manager to the club that will get the best out of our extraordinary young players. Buying Thomas Muller wouldn't be bad either! Kunal Desai 26 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:42:01 One thing i'm certain off is that for all Kenwrights failings, he's a blue as we all know. I can't honestly see him selling to just anyone without knowing full well that these potential owners are the right ones to take the club forward. Afterall he's supposedly turned down interest from other wealthy parties in the past. David Chait 27 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:42:38 The Swansea bid could just be down to value of the 2 parties. For the Americans £100m is all they felt it was worth. For us £200m gives great value. It isn't always about what's cheapest but about which is best value for what you are buying. Jay Harris 28 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:46:27 As far as I understand it the Swansea supporters trust which owns a sizable shareholding refused to sell any of their shares or dilute their holding which meant JMI would not have the degree of control of the club they wanted so they pulled out.I have mixed views. I am sure they will manage the club in a much more professional way and improve commercial deals.However I am concerned they may leverage the share purchase cost onto the club as the Glaizers and allegedly True Blue holdings did.I believe that the sale of Naisy and statement that the squad is too big has also been brought about by this interest. Jack Mason 29 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:46:36 Yes it's true Mr Kenwright and the board, steadied the ship. While we remained dormant however, our competitors now reach around the globe, whilst teams we once considered our inferiors sail on by. But it won't be the snail's pace progress the club has achieved that will be the boards legacy, it will be who they eventually decide to sell to. Finn Taylor 30 Posted 08/02/2016 at 19:56:50 If the takeover goes ahead... we assume BK will step aside... but will he? Maybe a deal will be brokered where he remains in charge, to carry on the good work... James Stewart 31 Posted 08/02/2016 at 20:04:25 Excellent piece. Very uneasy about these lot. Highly suspicious they are looking to invest now just before the TV bumper payday. As touched on in this article it looks to be to be very much a short term investment. Tony Doran 32 Posted 08/02/2016 at 20:18:49 Now when it seems we are able to build a good team using the TV money, I don't like the idea of selling to these Yanks. These are skint when it comes to running a Premier League club and will be looking to make a quick buck. Hang on and wait for a billionaire. If one doesn't appear just carry on. Raymond Fox 33 Posted 08/02/2016 at 20:29:20 I'm with Phil 19 and others in the thread, in that if the interested Americans do buy the club I doubt we will see any improvement in our status as a Premier League side.In fact I feel they may have a detrimental effect, I've no sound basis for saying that, just like everyone else all we can do is hope for the best! Colin Fitzpatrick 34 Posted 08/02/2016 at 20:36:40 First of all congratulations Chris, excellent work, and thank-you for setting out what little is known of this alleged takeover, a takeover which The Times reported, from their city source, as a £200m bid by a consortium headed by John Jay Moores and Charles Noell. The Sunday Times, presumably from the same source, later reported that if this bid failed a Chinese company were ready to step in. Following the recent communication to TW, would it be safe to say that this reported consortium is in fact the venture capitalists JMI Services?To date, Everton has unsurprisingly declined to comment. they have yet to confirm or deny anything, which is about par for the course if a takeover is being worked on. Amongst a host of rumours, the Echo site have tonight claimed that a deal is edging ever closer; one of only three genuine comments I heard from a senior member of staff was that they were hopeful and the second was that the DD was completed weeks ago.As Chris points out most people are aware of the failed bid at Swansea from Moores & Noell. Some may even have read articles such as these:http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/john-jay-moores-charles-noell-8023874http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2002-10-13/just-how-much-did-john-moores-knowNow neither of those two articles would fill you with confidence but, for the moment, give them the benefit of doubt, these things happen in business and whilst they eventually took a large financial chunk out of the Padres, they ducked and dived to deliver a stadium and some on field excitement.Do we need another seat of the pants merchant? No, and as Chris points out, the strokes pulled to get the Padres their stadium wouldn't work here, we need people with the necessary resources to take Everton forward, not a pair of cowboys cut from the same cloth the reds where saddled with. My major concern, and that of many Evertonians, is leaving the choice of successor completely in the hands of the directors. Yes they own the majority of the shares and they can of course dispose of these shares as they see fit, but as directors they have a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of the company, ahead of any self interest. Two things spring to mind of course, they've never taken those responsibilities that seriously, they've clearly had an unregistered shadow director dictating and financing matters for most of their tenure and in the wake of their sixteen year reign they leave a multi-million pound debris field littered with a host of failed opportunities and abortive crackpot schemes which they alone must take responsibility for. With this in mind, do you really trust them to finally get something right? No, me neither. So what's the alternative. Well, they could at least allow the shareholders the opportunity to question them and advise if these prospective owners are suitable beyond simply meeting the current directors £200m asking price.Conveniently, a little too conveniently, the club won't speak to the Shareholders Association on any matter at the moment. Is it any wonder? The Association, and their acquaintances, have the ability to take the board, and the management team, to task as they did over Samuelson and Kirkby to name just two occasions.You have to wonder, given the two aforementioned occasions, what is it they have to hide this time? I said I'd heard three pieces of information, the final one came from 'my friend and therefore your friend' himself, he reckoned from the start that this was a smoke and mirrors bid, so let's see if they come up with the necessary.A venture capitalist owning Everton? No not for me I'm afraid, unfortunately though we're just along for the ride. Dick Fearon 35 Posted 08/02/2016 at 20:47:14 Should the takeover go tits up a la Hicks and Gillett or a ticket fiasco a la FSG would Evertonians have the guts to fight as did the Kopites? Peter Mills 36 Posted 08/02/2016 at 21:17:06 A large amount of tv money to pour in, a couple of players worth £100m, a stadium that can last another 2-3 years with a lick of paint and some sellotape. Sounds like an excellent quick dive in and out. Tom Kennedy 37 Posted 08/02/2016 at 21:21:28 A lot of paranoia going on here, of course they are in it to make a profit, which isn't a bad thing in my eyes. If the going rate for Everton is £200M and these guys end up selling for say... £600M, surely that's progression??Bring it on!! The future is looking good, it's been a long time coming.... Matt Woods 38 Posted 08/02/2016 at 21:49:40 If we are suddenly viable please Everton, pause...there is so much dough about all these slimy capitalists can wait. Speak to everyone and then get the RIGHT PEOPLE in. James Flynn 39 Posted 09/02/2016 at 02:28:45 So, someone made up, "They're into it for a profit" and so many have leaped in to agree for no apparent reason, that it's now the truth.It must be true!All of us have no idea why they buy the team, assuming they do. IF they do buy the Club, well find out why they did soon enough. James Lauwervine 40 Posted 09/02/2016 at 13:02:14 Like many on here I am very uneasy about this. Put it this way, if these lot were in charge would Stones have been sold last summer? The fact that we have not had to sell anyone we don't want to since Martinez took over has been a big positive for me.Tony at #32 sums my feelings up. Gary Drain 41 Posted 09/02/2016 at 14:16:06 Apart from the last paragraph of the article, is there anything positive you can say about the take over?Bar a couple of posts on another thread, from Padres fans no less, no one else has anything positive to say. I'm confused? Everyone on here seems to want more investment and Kenwright out so we get an offer of a takeover and people start moaning that the bloke isn't a Billionaire? A billionaire!! Keep dreaming and stop moving the goalposts. Alex Bonnar 42 Posted 09/02/2016 at 14:49:31 The time is due for a change of ownership and direction. BK, incentivized by ill-health, must now sell a club he loves for the best option as he sees fit. His ownership time has been a mix of good, some bad and also in-between. Yes, he has not additionally invested much personally because he did not have it; on the other hand, he has not taken anything out either. On balance, he can go out with his head held high – he has done the best he could, with little credit, leaving us with a stronger club, better squad and an ethos of helping in the community that makes me proud. Welcome to any new owners; I wish you success and accept that you will be trying to make a profit for yourselves while taking the club forward at the same time – a difficult but achievable challenge for the future. Gary Drain 43 Posted 09/02/2016 at 15:00:27 Well said Alex #42. Nail on the head. Gordon Crawford 44 Posted 09/02/2016 at 15:09:54 So much negativity on this takeover, it's crazy. Bring it on, that's what I say. :) Oliver Molloy 45 Posted 09/02/2016 at 15:25:57 James @ 40Maybe Stones was not sold for this exact reason.Maybe these guys said in their best American movie accents "Sell the kid Stones and we walk away."We shall see shortly what the future holds. Martin Mason 46 Posted 09/02/2016 at 17:07:31 Very well said Alex Alan Williams 47 Posted 09/02/2016 at 17:38:18 Well done Chris, a very well balanced and articulate piece. Let's hope the fan base can unite, hopefully under a positive banner not a banner of anger against any new custodian of our great club. NSNO Alan Williams 48 Posted 09/02/2016 at 18:14:47 Hi Colin (34), you said “they have a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of the company" that is true of every Director on many boards. EFC Directors according to the law of the land have acted in the company’s interest by it being continually run as an ongoing concern, what you state after that is more a moral objective than a legal requirement. This is the problem when you mix football with business sometimes you have a different perspective on how things should be done. I too agree with you these pair aren’t what we need they don’t invest they speculate and we need something different. I’m told the other two parties have increased their interest in EFC and once DD has been done with one party it tends to speed up with others.EFC don’t have to sell to the USA bidders regardless of the process coming to an end, my money is on the Chinese. EFC representatives have been meeting the other two interested parties for over 4 months now they know exactly what is required to buy EFC. Steve Woods 49 Posted 09/02/2016 at 18:42:41 Alan #48 do you know who or what this Chinese consortium is/are, are they looking to get an EPL team? Gary Drain 50 Posted 09/02/2016 at 18:59:06 For a change on here, let's try to be optimistic. It's easy to be sceptical and it's understandable but we need investment. We need a new stadium, which may not necessarily come from the new owners but it will make us a more attractive proposition to get the go ahead from the council.Have a bit of faith, Kenwright hasn't covered himself in glory in the past but all in all I think his heart is in the right place. From the looking into these new people, they seem like decent people and fit in with the work done in the local community.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moores_(baseball)Of course they're going to want to make a profit, they're businessmen. But isn't better to have someone who is wanting the club to be a success in the future rather than being afraid to move on from the past? Colin Fitzpatrick 51 Posted 09/02/2016 at 21:12:40 Hello Alan, long time no speak, I think that beer we were going to have will be well and truly flat by now!I see you haven't lost your sense of humour Alan, we're both fully aware that the director's responsibilities extend far beyond the essential requirement that the company is run as an ongoing concern. It is most definitely their legal responsibility, under Part10 of the Companies Act 2006, which states, unequivocally, that they must promote the success of the company having regard to the likely consequences of any decision, furthermore, directors must consider whether a deal is the best deal for the company as opposed to the directors personally.Now, back in the real world, we also both know that such transgressions are notoriously difficult to prove, so yes, I wrote what I did hoping to ignite the passion that hides in many Evertonians only to read we still have many, too many, willing to sit back, see what happens and offer. without thought or knowledge, the benefit of doubt to anyone. I think that these pair, under the guise of JMI Services, are a couple of chancers operating a venture capital company and from what I've seen of them and what I learnt over the years about Everton, I can't see them being a good fit.Like you I've heard of several parties being interested in Everton, four in fact, two American, one Chinese and another who is yet to show their hand but are keeping a watching brief. I agree that a Chinese takeover is the one I'd most like to put my money on. Probably like yourself, Everton isn't the most important thing in my life, but I think I'm pretty passionate about it, as are the members of the Shareholders Association and whoever eventually becomes owner I would be far more comfortable if the Association, given the past sixteen years of club history, were afforded the opportunity to ensure that the directors responsibilities were indeed being upheld. Instead we have the Shareholders Association being treated appallingly, not even afforded an answer by the chairman, and now we have the quite preposterous suggestion that Keith Harris has been despatched to the USA to continue the negotiations. For those of you unfamiliar with Harris' work, he is the individual who introduced the two chancers who Bill Kenwright admitted nearly selling the club to, one lived in a bedsit in Manchester the other pretended to be the chairman of ICI in the Far East. Here's an article on Harris, and people are wondering why some of us are concerned?http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2271544/Keith-Harris-firm-Seymour-Pierce-brink-collapse.html Alan Williams 52 Posted 10/02/2016 at 09:05:05 You're correct, Colin, far too long... That's more my fault: I have not posted a lot in recent years due to work commitments and the fact I travel far more than I have before so sadly my brothers use my season tickets more than me these days. I'm very well aware of Mr Harris; I have met him, even had a couple of drinks with him over the years! Don't be too concerned about him spending time in the USA, mainly NYC, because he has an office based there and spends a lot of his time in America anyway. When he tried to buy Manchester United several years ago, a lot of his backers were USA-based. He is a mad Man Utd fan and on the face of it fond of EFC. We spoke about our hatred of LFC over a beer or two, it was quite amusing really. I can see your anger about the Shareholders Association but, the hard truth be known, they don't have to tell you anything. I have it on very good authority that certain key members of EFC and its advisors have collected a lot of Air Miles recently and not all heading to the USA. This is a defining moment for EFC in our recent history, and if I'm honest I'm very nervous about it. I know some on here are saying we should give them a chance and I understand that but their business history is very, very clear – these are short-term investors looking to make a buck. EFC as a business doesn't have the revenue strengths to sustain any sort of leverage passed back to it and that's my concern with these two. I don't know who the Chinese are and who is backing them but my hope is they would use EFC as a platform to advance their own league and the game in China, meaning much higher sponsorship revenues for little old EFC. We need a step up to the upper table and we don't have the global fan base or on-pitch success to organically achieve it. Man City owners have been extremely clever by creating a franchise in the USA and Australia which in time will add to the brand and get them higher but by a different route than what United did, very clever indeed. Having a state/business sponsored EPL team owned by the Chinese opens up a massive domestic market to us and would raise our profile much quicker than any other route available to us, but, as I said before, they need to have pedigree and that's why we need to be very careful who we choose. The RS let Dubai investments go for Gillette and Hicks, that was mistake that still today Mr Moores struggles with. When I'm next at GP, Colin, I will drop you a text and we can have a beer or a cup of tea @ St Luke's. Jim Potter 53 Posted 10/02/2016 at 10:41:41 Fine piece.Ultimately we know nothing of these guys' plans for the club and how they plan to finance anything.What I dread is a Glazier type deal where the club are left with tremendous debt. Everything might be kosher and they may be great news – but we know nothing. It scares me to be jumping into the darkness on a promise and with crossed fingers.We need new money, professionalism and direction, but it must be the right decision for our long term future – not a short-term fix that turns out to be a nightmare. Brent Stephens 54 Posted 10/02/2016 at 10:56:07 Are we almost there yet? Daniel A Johnson 55 Posted 10/02/2016 at 12:21:21 It does concern me that the moment Kenwright got ill a buyer after years of searching was suddenly found.To be honest I think Kenwright never wanted to sell EFC but now realises he has to. Jonathan Fletcher 56 Posted 10/02/2016 at 12:27:00 Excellent article and very well written (are you a journo?)Interesting times ahead - sounds like make or break George White 57 Posted 10/02/2016 at 12:47:49 Excellent and informative, thanks for that. Except you need to change "perspective" to "prospective" in para three I think, sorry to be a bit anal in my first contribution. Matthew Ulm 58 Posted 10/02/2016 at 16:25:46 "Although he was at the helm when they moved to their new home at Petco Park in 2004, the financing of that deal involved the Padres only contributing approximately 30% of the $456.8M total cost. Whilst this appears a good deal for Padres fans, $225M of the funding came from public money."This is par for the course for American sporting arenas, not something unique in any way to these particular investors. I cannot imagine anything like this would fly for the city of Liverpool but American cities are all too happy to foot the bill of a sports team if they agree to move to their city. Jim Potter 59 Posted 10/02/2016 at 17:23:00 Welcome to Grammarweb George. Mike Fisher 60 Posted 10/02/2016 at 19:05:43 The article is as many have indicated an interesting assessment of possibility. Until the full facts are known and the true intent of the investors experienced it will be a white knuckle ride for us all. My belief is that there are essentially three types of owners. The billionaire who can afford to do what they want until such time as they choose not to, the investors who see short, medium, or longer term investment return, or like our current board have been waiting out time in the hope that they could cash in one day.I am not entirely sure there is such a thing as a right option or a preferred option as the Premier league has probably only the Chelsea or Man City model that appear to have proved successful. Though Arsenal and United could probably argue that they have sustainable models that have delivered success.Interestingly I have always dreamed of a model that can defy the norm with a more modest investment model delivering a winning team capable of breaking the stereotyped model. We have perhaps been in the past the most likely, but it looks like Leicester City may beat us to it. Then their big question what next. The reality is probably the impossible task of trying to replicate the same success.In reality all football clubs are businesses run for the betterment of those who own them. The supporters are just customers of a product who if born to be a blue like myself are uniquely captive for a lifetime of having as my wife says their weekends or lives defined by what happens with Everton. We are as ever the likely losers or winners in any take over and that will never change! It's the time old question of wait and see. Christine Foster 61 Posted 11/02/2016 at 06:28:24 Alan Williams, I have to agree with your comments and overall view that short term venture capitalists general are in it for the money on a 3 to 5 year basis. If this is the game plan then it's not conducive to a longer term investment which would make you ask serious questions about their intent. We need a minimum 10 year plan, new stadium and team funding to make it happen. Now, given the operational cash flow will increase significantly next year I do not see a red cent funding players from the new team, a long term loan for a stadium is an option but I think it's more likely if they are short term investors that they will renovate and move on. Not sounding great but an improvement in getting stuff done. The Chinese link is actually more interesting a the would see EFC as their flagship, natural Chinese business models look long term and seek to firmly establish themselves in a market with prime real estate, so a prime location, high profile stadium would be on their agenda as opposed to an immediate return on investment.of course I am general is in, right now it's about options and I am hoping that BK does what he said he would do and do what's best for the long term future of the club. But I confess I don't get a good feeling about VC having worked with them on several occasions. John Crawley 62 Posted 11/02/2016 at 08:22:42 Well written piece Chris. I have to say given the way Kenwright has run the club that anyone who expects him to do the right thing is deluded!The club needs long term capital investment, we're not going to get that with a leveraged buy out from a bunch of venture capitalists. If the problems that other clubs and in particular Liverpool don't give cause for concern then I don't know what will. With regard to Colin's point about the shareholders association would it not be appropriate for them to release a press statement calling for the things that Colin is advocating? Ian Smitham 63 Posted 11/02/2016 at 09:19:51 May I agree with Winston #7, a really enjoyable, thought provoking contribution. If there are any spare seats I would love to join Colin and Alan for that drink. David Midgley 64 Posted 11/02/2016 at 23:16:00 If there is a Chinese consortium,are they allowed due diligence at the same time as the Americans ? The Chinese venerate longevity and tradition,they will have checked us out well before enquiering about us.Liverpool has had an association with China going back many years. Jackie Barry 65 Posted 11/02/2016 at 23:38:36 People keep going on about liverpool as an example of why we should be concerned about the possibility of American ownership. However, its not as if there has been a lack of money is it? the issue has been in regards to their managers not spending wisely and not getting things right on the pitch. Colin Glassar 66 Posted 11/02/2016 at 23:44:56 What happened to the other thread? Did it just disappear? Anthony Hawkins 67 Posted 12/02/2016 at 12:01:59 The truth of the matter is that in the very near future the club is very likely to be sold, notwithstanding a seismic event.The main winners will be the board, both current and future variations. As the fans, we may find ourselves supporting a team pushing forward in a new stadium. We may also end up with team struggling on with only added debt to our beloved clubs name. Hopefully it's the former.Managerially, I doubt there will be an immediate change.The middle ground in all of this is that the owners change but nothing else does. We continue to mill around 7th position in the league and looking to find a new ground.I'm one of the optimistic fans who thinks the world will be a better place with new owners! There may be some pain to go through with some changes in approach but it will all work out for the best. Mark Boulle 68 Posted 12/02/2016 at 16:09:22 A slight aside from the main topic, but I hope if we do get new owners that they think to look to exploit our growing South American market...Why do I say that? I've just come off a work conference call with a client in Argentina who is a massive River Plate fan. Apparently, loads of Everton shirts with Funes Mori's name are now a regular sight at River matches - they're all delighted he's doing so well over here and are keeping a keen eye on his progress. Which means there's potentially a market to tap up... David Israel 69 Posted 12/02/2016 at 19:30:55 Thank you, Chris, for a long-winded effort, although I agree with Gary Drain that you had very little to say on the plus side.For those bringing up the failed attempt by these Americans to invest in Swansea City, may I just remind them that rumour has it that Sheikh Mansour tried to buy Everton before buying Manchester City, but was apparently turned away? So what?I don't care what other Americans, Indians, Thais, Malaysians, Russians or Arabs (or English, for that matter) have done at other clubs. What I want is to see what their plan is before I start deriding the deal. It seems that too many people around here have suddenly developed wedding-day cold feet. David Israel 70 Posted 12/02/2016 at 19:38:14 David Midgley #64, While the Americans were carrying out due dilligence, no other interested party could be doing the same, as the former were given exclusivity for 6 weeks or whatever. Phil Walling 71 Posted 12/02/2016 at 19:43:43 Colin, I suspect it went a bit off message and got 'disappeared' !We do tend to drift a bit - even I'm not fixated on Roberto's shortcomings anymore although I read on NewsNow that he's begging the new owners to keep BK 'on the team'. I bet he is ! Colin Glassar 72 Posted 12/02/2016 at 20:06:06 I don't think it did Phil. Only two of our American cousins having a bit of a barny over the merits, or not, of the "new owner". It was a great, and knowledgable, thread. Martin Mason 73 Posted 12/02/2016 at 20:13:41 David @69, they weren't turned away. They saw City as a much better prospect as they have a new stadium and an airport which is a massive Asian Brit feeder to Abu Dhabi which a Liverpool club could never be. They would never have bought Everton in a million years but had to look at all options. Tony Hill 74 Posted 12/02/2016 at 20:22:19 That's a very interesting point, Mark (68). There's a bit of a tendency to patronise Funes Mori as though he's finding his way in the Premier League and that his performances are a surprise. Tim Vickery's idiotic intervention didn't help. This boy's a fine player and I think he's going to be a mainstay. He plays with Messi and Aguero so he's not going to be overawed. If he brings us support in South America, along with our existing Chile links, then that will be a serious consideration for our owners whoever they may be. David Israel 75 Posted 12/02/2016 at 20:28:43 Thanks, Martin # 73. That may, indeed, have been the case. But it doesn't invalidate my point, which is that the fact that these people were rejected by Swansea is neither here nor there. Ian Riley 77 Posted 13/02/2016 at 17:26:03 Great article! Let's face it new owners were coming sooner rather than later. The club will be a business first. It's a great investment. The players alone could raise £200 million. Sky money coming in, happy days. The future is unknown. What are the ambitions of the new board coming in? I actually think the manager will be under greater pressure than under Kenwright. If the potential new owners have listened to the manager harp on about Champions League. They may well expect it next season! The will be no loyalty to him, no excuses. Remember the debt must be paid back, loans and investors will want a return. Everton FC, management, players and fans are entering new ground if owners are coming. For certain people, their dreams have been answered. Time will tell!! Brian Hill 80 Posted 18/02/2016 at 12:00:08 An acquaintance of mine is a director of a sports management company which represents one of our players. He has other contacts within Everton. I asked him if he thinks the current takeover talks will bear fruit. He said, "No, Kenwright will fuck it up, like he always does." Chris Jones [Burton] 81 Posted 18/02/2016 at 18:28:09 Scenario: Yanks buy us and a major part of their business plan involves setting up a new MLS Franchise, perhaps in San Diego. With all the experience EFC have, its history, facilities, identity etc., being a big brother to a new side in the USA will be a big help to get San Diego Toffees off the ground - sending surplus players there on-loan, and becoming a place for exiting, ageing players to go to?They could do a lot in the US siphoning-off some (loads?) of the UK parent club's TV money. Not necessarily good for EFC and its fans but the new owners end up with two clubs, not one.Discuss!P.S. I'd formulated this notion before reading (today) that Rayo Vallecano of La Liga are majority owners of a new MLS franchise in Oklahoma. Steve Smith 82 Posted 26/02/2016 at 02:11:10 This is a description of any major investor that would be inclined to buy a football club these days, we can't kid ourselves that they're in it because they love the club, that only happens... or doesn't, once they have their feet under the desk. The notion of the asset-stripping venture capitalist is a contradiction in terms when talking about a football club... it's not a business that you can break down in component parts in order to make a gain, it's nonsensical and would never add value. Of course you can sell the best players for short term gain, but that by definition, devalues the sell-on price.These people, even if it is for the short term, need to add value to both the infrastructure and the team; otherwise, it's not an investment... is it? I'm not that bothered how long they're here for, as long as it moves us forward. To pretend that we're going to find the straight-as-a-dye multi-billionaire who's never upset anyone, anywhere, ever, is a fantasy: nice people don't become billionaires. Phil Walling 83 Posted 26/02/2016 at 08:43:48 Two months of due diligence and not a smidgeon of news on the takeover. This lot seem as indecisive as the people they aspire to replace.Either they don't like what they are finding... or – more likely – they can't raise the cash. Where's Chris Sanderson when Bill needs him? Tony Abrahams 84 Posted 26/02/2016 at 09:03:40 Samuelson, Phil. it's a name I could never forget! Phil Walling 85 Posted 26/02/2016 at 09:43:40 Can't believe I forgot it either, Tony! Tony Abrahams 86 Posted 26/02/2016 at 09:46:25 Thought you was turning into a "choose to ignore" type for a minute there, Phil! 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 Find out how to browse ad-free and support ToffeeWeb © ToffeeWeb