Martinez calls for unity amid glow of Saints win

16/08/2015  143 Comments  [Jump to last]
Roberto Martinez says that Evertonians need to stick together after a protest banner calling for boardroom change at Everton was flown above St Mary's Stadium yesterday garnered national media attention.

A coalition of supporters groups critical of chairman Bill Kenwright and the Board of Directors funded the fly-past of a message calling for them to relinquish control of the club while flags and banners intended for display in the stands at Southampton's ground were apparently confiscated before kick-off by stewards.

Speaking after his team's impressive dismantling of the Saints, Martinez called for unity at Goodison Park.

"I just heard about [the plane banner]," Martinez told the BBC. "I never saw it.

"We need to be together, help each other and push in the same direction because that makes a difference."

The Blues beat Ronald Koeman's Southampton 3-0, reversing what ranked among their worst performances last season and earning their first win of the season.

It was a result achieved thanks to outstanding work by Martinez's back line, John Stones and Brendan Galloway in particular, but the manager reserved special praise for three of his attacking players who engineered the outstanding win.

All in all, it was a very good day at the office," Martinez said. "Thats a good way to put it. From the first second, we were outstanding in every department. And I dont think that you will see many teams keep a clean sheet here.

"Sometimes, away scorelines dont show the real truth, but this was the truth today. We took all our goals really well.

[Barkley and Lukaku] were unplayable. When we play to their strengths they are very, very special. But to see the best qualities of an individual you need a good team performance, so it would be wrong to highlight individual players too much. When Ross is running with the ball, when hes in that mode, theres not many better than him.

Arouna Kones contribution helped Ross and Rom to have the space they need and overall the team was perfect.

"It was a very exciting day because of that but it was a day when Bill Kenwright couldn't be here and this victory is for him.  

Reader Comments (143)

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

Mark Tanton
1 Posted 16/08/2015 at 08:25:48
"This victory is for him."

A. I really think that suggests the man is unwell.

B. Surely that win is for us long suffering fans?

Clive Mitchell
2 Posted 16/08/2015 at 08:30:49
A plane, for god's sake. Did they remember to take their picnic? "We've got a diamond called Ross Barkley..."
John Otway
3 Posted 16/08/2015 at 08:32:17
A fabulous performance yesterday and it's right and proper that Roberto Martinez and the team should get the, rightly deserved, plaudits for that.

However, the way that the club is run is a completely different issue. The lack of investment, the wholesale selling of assets and the pathetic marketing of the club should be highlighted and the board held to account. The lack of transparency regarding "other operating costs", BVI loan interest and the involvement of the potty-mouthed Green should be a cause of concern for every true Blue.

Martin Mason
4 Posted 16/08/2015 at 08:44:54

There is no lack of transparency regarding other operating costs, only a lack of understanding of what constitutes other operating costs by our fans. BK has only one real weakness and that is not his fault; he isn't a billionaire and can't waste his money throwing it into the black hole of a football club. For me, this is exceptional because this way our operation has to be sustainable.

The reality is that, while BK is a a bit of an oddball, he is doing a great job of running a club whose operating model is respected by all commentators in the game. The sad thing is that it is a tiny minority of our own fans that don't appreciate or perhaps even understand what's happening at the club.

Eric Myles
5 Posted 16/08/2015 at 08:50:14
Unfortunately with a win and a good team display, many fans will forget about the endemic problems in the commercial management of our Club and remain blinkered happy clappers.
Brian Hill
6 Posted 16/08/2015 at 09:01:21
Martin, your patronising claim that the "other operating costs" debate is down to the fans' lack of understanding of same implies that you do understand them.

Please supply this particular ignoramus with a detailed breakdown of exactly what Everton's other operating costs are.

Thank you.

Steven Jones
7 Posted 16/08/2015 at 09:27:36
As Martinez builds a Golden Generation, there will be ups and downs.

We need to keep supporting RM, the players and the board as they go on this journey to greatness. Even when things don't go well, as they will this season, over the next one or two seasons we will build one hell of a squad and a team spirit. Martinez and the board are on this journey; we as supporters need to play our part -- just as the travelling supports did today!!!

I am still excited to have Mirallas and Deulofeu to come back and add variety and cutting edge in the games to come. COYBB's!!!!

Richard Reeves
8 Posted 16/08/2015 at 09:31:17
Personally, and this is just my opinion, I don't think we have any debt, we have a stadium that is fine, even if a little old, and as far as I'm aware, we own everything outright and the board have always been honest with us (never told any non-truths as one psychopath once said).

The operating costs of around twenty million are also normal for most clubs and most chairman wouldn't be able to identify where all that money goes, everything is fine... and who flew that bloody plane, the idiots.

[Now... when I click my fingers....]

John Audsley
9 Posted 16/08/2015 at 09:36:48

I know you like to take a pro-BK stance and probably still would if he sold John Stones for 㿊 rather than 㿊 million but your comments are patronising and insulting at best.

However, if you can explain the "other operating costs" situation, then I'm sure that would help fans like myself who you refer to.

Unless you suspect I'm too dumb, uneducated, or just too much of a fuckwit to understand...

Steve Carse
10 Posted 16/08/2015 at 09:37:44
Martin, your post is a joke, right?

Transparency in other operating costs!?

'Tiny minority of fans'!? You probably haven't seen the poll on another fans site showing some 90% of supporters want the Board out.

Of course Bill has no money. That's one reason why he has to go.

And if our business model is so admired by others, how come they're not adopting it?

John Otway
11 Posted 16/08/2015 at 09:39:53
Thank you, Brian. While you're about it, Martin, would you like to justify the performance of the club's commercial department and explain what Green's involvement in Everton is all about.
John Audsley
12 Posted 16/08/2015 at 09:45:18
John, Steve and Brian,

Don't ask, you're too stupid to understand.

[Chuckles and gurns to himself as he puts on his village idiot outfit...]

Christopher Kelly
13 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:02:41
If anyone thinks ONE win erases 16 years of going backwards, they're not ambitious fans...

They're the fans that are happy getting a few hours away from the missus. They forgot what sport is actually all about.

Saccharine group that. Shame to forget NSNO!

Nick Armitage
14 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:04:12
Martin Mason -- the points that fans object to are not as simple as a lack of transparency. It's 16 years of bullshit, smoke & mirrors, and commercial naivety.

The club does some great things and they are a benchmark in many respects but ultimately the fourth most successful club in English football haven't been near to winning a trophy in 20 years.

This is why many fans are pissed off.

John Keating
15 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:12:09

Even your mate Bill doesn't know what the "other operating costs" are... I would be grateful if you could enlighten me on exactly what they are as you seem to be a font of knowledge.

Tom R Owen
16 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:16:33

After 16 years in charge, one would expect a Chairman to be able to change "the model". The club has had millions arrive from TV deals; however, that money appears to be used to cover costs of previous commercial decisions. Who rubber-stamped those decisions? The board and ultimately the Chairman.

It is you, my friend, who is in the deluded tiny minority.

Richard Reeves
17 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:23:19
I voted on a few websites yesterday (about five) and every one was either in the late eighties or early ninety percent in favour of Kenwright moving on. There's no argument that the people who want him to stay are in the minority.
Tommy Webber
18 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:31:42
If the board manages to keep hold of Stones, buy a classy CB and winger in the shape of Aaron Lennon then they have exceeded my expectations in the tranny window "this time". Extending the contracts of McC, super Kev and also acquiring Cleverley, Deulofeu and Holgate was also a step in the right direction.

Overall, though, I think the only way Everton will attract any potential buyers is by doing well in the Champions League. For this to happen, we need at least one more striker who has at least 20 goals in him. Austin could make the difference. I really hope we get him.

Steve Guy
19 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:33:40
Martin (and any other acolyte of The Dear Leader) please answer any or all of the above challenges. If selling all your assets and mortgaging the Club to the hilt is your idea of a well run business, I'm glad you aren't running the one I work for.

I understand RM coming out with these statements but frankly he hasn't had to live with the crap coming from this Board as long as the rest of us and when the next job comes along he'll be off without looking back. Meanwhile we will still have BB and the clapping adoration of his blind followers.

I'm delighted we won yesterday but astonished that some see this victory as answering those who have deep and troubling concerns about our Clubs future. Like me.

Jimmy Salt
20 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:35:24
I can see this tread getting feisty, and the last sentence of the article lends creedence to the rumours of BK being unwell.

I wonder if change is coming, protest or not.

Ian Cowhig
21 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:39:01
Not wishing to quote the obvious.... But for BK and others to sell requires someone who is interested in buying the club. I will be very suspicious of anyone who comes in without a detailed, transparent plan. Not that it will happen. But it would be great if this was presented almost like a manifesto that Evertonians could view and buy in to.

The buyout price requested should also furnish the debt, and be subtracted from what the shareholders receive. They should not get back what they did not invest.

The biggest concern is the fear factor: Man City and Liverpool were lucky. Both had problem owners, and we're lucky to get what they have now. I believe recent history saved Liverpool. And the new stadium saved Man City.

Other than us Evertonians, What would save us from the egotistical owner, who doesn't actually use his money to buy, or invest? But likes to have the kudos of owning a PL team (eg, Gaydamark and Risdale)?

Peter Barry
22 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:48:59
I see Martin Mason is back at his patronising best, insinuating that he is 'in the know' about the 'other operating costs' but that us peasants don't have the intellect to understand them as he does and, if he explained them, we would not be intelligent enough to understand what he told us.
Richard Lyon
23 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:49:38
I understand and sometimes share the frustration with the limited investment but feel the anger towards BK is misplaced. Things could always be better but they could also be a hell of a sight worse.

BK is a good man and an Evertonian. Previous posts rightly name some owners who have torn clubs apart. We have a good squad of excellent young players and a Manager who is respected in football, even if not by some Everton fans.

One other thing: do me a favour and lay off his use of the English language. It's his second language and I for one could not express myself as well as he does in any other language.

Patrick Murphy
24 Posted 16/08/2015 at 10:58:12
The fear factor that you mention, Ian, has been the friend of the current owners for far too long. Whether it happens this week or this decade or even this century, Everton FC will at some point find themselves in the hands of new owners and we can only hope that they have deeper pockets than our current board, but with Bill's 'love for the club'.

It doesn't matter as fans what we wish for because, in the end, we don't really have a say, but that doesn't mean that the owners should escape scrutiny -- be they hard-headed businessmen with no love of Everton or romantic fools like Bill, who expresses his love for all things Everton as regularly as he is able to.

Ian Smitham
25 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:03:53
Guys, if it helps, there is a piece about the Operating costs that I posted last night and is copied here

AGMs reinstated at shareholders meeting
by Lyndon Lloyd | 26/06/2013

If the link does not work, it will on the other thread about Bill's pockets.

It relates to a shareholder meeting, at which explanation of this subject was given by RE to a less than friendly set of Shareholders, who seemed to accept what was being said. Lyndon's article is excellent and reflects my memory of the evening.

Joe Foster
26 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:04:15
I think Martin's train of thought is along the lines of "Well, at least Mussolini made the trains run on time." So it's okay then.
John Pickles
27 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:10:03

You have summed up in two points the only things people ever support Kenwright and the board with. Firstly, he is an Evertonian and secondly, it's better the devil you know.

Surely, balanced against, no investment, failed plan after failed plan, and no silverware for 20 years, that is a little sparse.

David Morgan
28 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:11:23
I may be the only one who thinks the board overpricing the club is a good thing; this means that only someone with money to burn will take us over (if ever). This rules out all the possible takeovers who will strip us down, like Randy Lerner or Mike Ashley. I am happy for someone with no money to run our club who loves Everton until the Chinese Billionaires come.

I also agree with Richard Lyon above; you can't be having a go at Martinez and his English use, that's ridiculous. However, its fair game to complain or even boo if the tempo or tactics are as bad as the first half v Watford.

But I am happy with Martinez who looks like he has a plan of developing a young team. And, if we hang onto Stones and add one or two, this will have been a decent window.

Paul Andrews
29 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:25:22
Ian Cowhig,

Hopefully the new owner will make a statement of intent when he buys Everton FC:

"I want to make Everton number one again. I've seen how Arsenal run their club, with honesty and intelligence and burning ambition. I've always seen us as the Arsenal of the north." (Andrew Longmore -- The Independent, 6 December 1998)

Ernie Baywood
30 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:30:12
We keep on coming back to other operating costs.

On one hand, the accounts are audited and they must be above board. The criticism seems to be based on nothing more than "Oh that's a big number and I don't know what it is."

On the other hand, why don't they just come out and explain what they are if there's nothing to hide? They could shut this criticism up very quickly. That they don't makes me think there's something there that they don't want in the public domain.

Jimmy Salt
31 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:33:15
David@24, what is left to strip down exactly?
Denis Richardson
32 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:36:02
Victory or no victory, the pressure on the board needs to be kept up. I wish BK good health, like any other person, but the ownership structure needs to be changed. Besides, if he is seriously ill, should this not be made public so as to remove the current uncertainty/rumours that are spreading around?

The only reason we have not gone down the pan financially is the sky money. For anyone doubting this and feelling the board has done a job 'as best they could' over the last decade and more, is welcome to look through the annual financial statements. They are readily available on the OS going back about 12 years. The Sky money is basically our life support - if the tap were to be turned off we would be fooked.

Any normal and sane managment would have a plan to ensure that the financial survival of the club was not so dependent on 3rd party TV money. If you took out the TV money from our earning, the result would not be a pretty picture. Just a few things off the top of my head that I'd like the like sof Martin Mason to consider and opine on;

- We are no where near to solving the stadium issue
- Everton as a 'brand' has fallen far behind a host of other premiership clubs
- Our commerical revenue is almost irrelevant compared to the TV money

Answers on a post card please.

Another thing - I wish people would stop excusing what Martinez says by suggesting that because he is spanish he somehow lacks the vocabulary to express himself properly. This is rubbish. He moved to the UK 22 years ago and for all that time lived and worked here, in an English speaking environment. He also got a post graduate diploma from Manchester Metropolitan Uni. His Enlish is probably better than most of the people on TW so can we please stop excusing his hypebole as being due to some laguage barrier. I'm sure he speaks exactly the same way in spanish.

BTW the Spanish for 'Phenomenal' is 'Fenomenal'......pretty sure he knows the meaning.

David Morgan
33 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:41:37
Jimmy, the squad lad!!! you want Madar, Xavier, Holmes and Watson back.

I would love a new ground, my season ticket view is obstructed even though its a full price ticket in the upper bullens. I would love to see us spend 100m like spurs or liverpool, but we would probabably waste most of it on Lallanas and Soldados. I can live without it as long we have some exciteing players and they give everything.

I understand some want a fresh board right now, but I am just not as desperate...I can wait a little longer.

David Morgan
34 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:43:00
The 35 year old Watson, just wanted to make the Sherlock connection.
Ian Smitham
35 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:49:07
Ernie#25, have a look at my post at 21 and also the link to Lyndons previous. There is a proper link in the other thread running along regards Bill and money. If anyone can make the above link work, then cheers.

Jimmy#26, my understanding of asset stripping is when Assets are sold and the proceeds are moved away from the Company. Without reigniting the BVI loan interest rate issue, there seems to be no Evidence, that is Evidence that practice is happening. Therefore, it has crossed my mind why here assets that have been sold, e.g. belle field have been sold so as to be able to finance the development of the playing staff, and that is where the assets are.

Linking this to Football, which, I guess is why we are here, looking at the assets yesterday, not just as a one off, but we seems to have some pretty valuable assets there. Of course, Eric Myles will be able to give a detailed explanation of what they are listed at in the Accounts and why.

That, I surmise may be why any value attached to the club does not relate to the amount that this supposedly being sought. I say supposedly, on the basis that a sale is being aimed for as I have no evidence that is the case.

Brilliant thread, let's keep it going

Richard Lyon
36 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:51:35
John #23 - I don't disagree on the disappointment of not winning anything for so long but can you explain what the alternatives are? If someone had wanted to buy us and invest, then they would have. I am sure BK would not have blocked a credible purchaser, but have they been out there?
In October I will have been an Evertonian for sixty years. I have seen some very good days and seen some horrors. Where we are now is somewhere in between. A great crop of young players and some solid seasoned professionals and a good Manager. Time to support them all and allow them to do their job.
Matt Traynor
37 Posted 16/08/2015 at 11:54:58
David #24, given Randy Lerner is looking to sell Villa, and with the money he invested into the running of the club, will see him taking a £100m loss net of selling price, how exactly did he asset strip it?
David Morgan
38 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:03:41
Lerner may have lost hundred of millions, who cares. I am talking about Aston Villa and Newcastle. They sold all their best players, Villa were challenging with us and Newcastle where over us. Quick examples...obviously I am not going as deep as others on here.

But If someone ends up losing 100-300m (aka Lerner) on us of their own money yet leaves us with a team fighting relegation like Villa, what good is that going to do. So clubs make more money getting a shirt sponsor but then spend it on Paulinho's and Balotelli's. There is more to it than just business, although I accept more money is usually better.

We support teams not chairman. We have a good squad right now. come on lets just get behind the team v City.

Denis Richardson
40 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:09:37
David 24 - you're assuming there is actually a price.

It's been documented that BK isn't looking to sell up but is looking for 'investment'. Realistically no one is going to put any money of significance into the club if they're not going to have some say in the running, so the search for 'investment' has, surprise surprise, come up with nada (despite the 24/7/16 years etc).

If the owner doesn't want to sell's not for sale. BK is living his dream (tbh if any of us were in his position we'd probably be hard pressed to let go.)

Teddy Bertin
41 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:10:41
I don't think Kenwright is ill. He's still been hands on signing off things with his actual full time job in theatre. Apparently someone in his family is very ill. Adam Kenwright has recently taken a bit of leave from work too and him and Bill don't even speak, so it won't be because Bill is ill.
Kevin Tully
42 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:10:52
Completely agree we should be 'careful what we wish for.'

Imagine some dodgy foreign bastards coming into EFC and;

Selling the training ground we own
Not investing a penny
Selling our best players to raise transfer funds
Mortgagingfuture season ticket sales
Taking out off-shore loans costing millions to service
Fucking up three proposed ground moves
Not touching Goodison Park and lettingit rot
Sticking with the same shirt sponsor for 13 years
Signing up to a kit deal for 10 years.
Consistently spinning bare faced lies to the fans.

I'm sorry, and I'll say it again. You're a fucking hypocrite if you back this board. If they were foreign owners, every one of the above would be up on arms. So don't scaremonger about new owners messing things up at the club. It's a full field of straw men.

Colin Grierson
43 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:15:43
Martinez's opinion of Kenwright is irrelevant. He's only been here 5 minutes. I suppose he was asked a question and he isn't savvy enough to avoid the subject.

Rumours of ill health concerning Kenwright mean that any protest aimed at getting sympathy and support from those outside of the club, who know nothing of the failed projects and asset stripping, will come across as insensitive.

There is never a good time to make these kinds of noises but I reckon that it would be wise to wait until the transfer window closes.

Over the next year, with the influx of new TV revenue from North America, the club's value is likely to double. If you were a business would you sell now? Kenwright is the name people hang their despair on. What about Elstone, Earl, Green? Who really knows what goes on in the boardroom? Where does the balance of power lie? My guess is that BK is party to the mismanagement of our club but not solely responsible. The banner referred to and co. I 're Lon that's letting the co-offenders off the hook.

What we all want is transparency and answers regarding the future of the club and then we will know who to blame and what action to take.

Going after BK right now may well be playing into their hands.

Jimmy Salt
44 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:21:36
I cant mate. Its already at least 5 years too late.
You might be happy to sit in your overpriced obstructed view and wait 20 mins for the toilet but Im not. I would also like to get a drink and a bite to eat without having to leave 10 mins before half time.

But the thing that baffles me is when people of your pro board stance continue to use examples like liverpool and spurs wasting money as if all people want is for us to buy two 50 million players.

What we want is a plan to move the club forward, a plan to improve or relocate the stadium, a plan to improve our finances aside from the tv money, in short a plan for growth.
We do not expect a sugar daddy to win us the league in 2 years just professional people with a clear and achievable vision.

Jimmy Salt
45 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:26:38
And Dave@33. "We support teams not chairman. We have a good squad right now. come on lets just get behind the team v City"

So shortsighted Hubble telescope wouldnt even help you.

Martin Mason
46 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:30:16
Peter@18, I'm not trying to be patronising and I apologise if it comes across as that but I scream at the repeated use of "other costs" as a stick to beat the board with as though they indicate some kind of financial skulduggery. Other costs is a normal balance sheet entry to cover valid costs that aren't accounted for under other major headings. These other costs are available, are audited and they don't show any money siphoned out by the board; in the last accounts I looked at they took no money from the club. Valid criticism of the board is really healthy but unfair if it's based on a potential misunderstanding of terms such as other costs, net debt and asset stripping and I think it's important for fairness that we do understand these things.

The people who constantly berate the board often like to pose as the only group with real knowledge of what is going on as opposed to us happy clappers who don't have this knowledge but they don't always demonstrate this. It sometimes needs to be pointed out to maintain balance which is also healthy but I'll try to be more careful over how I phrase it to ensure that it's constructive rather than patronising :-0

David Morgan
47 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:36:42
You and others make good points, I am not pro board. The biggest failure of the board was definitely the collapse of the stadium at the docks and I am always envious of other teams financial power to buy players and improve their clubs. Denis #34 made me re-think, I assumed we were actively trying to sell (just not very good at it). But if its just investment we are after, ok thats ridiculous. What I said was, I am happy to wait for a billionaire or stick.

I am pro Everton, I agree that a new owner is needed I just don't see it around the next corner. So whats the point in flying planes over on matchday. How about we fly a plane saying Barkley we love you on it? give him confidence. The Team and the business should be kept apart as much as possible and the division in the support is not going to help.

James Marshall
49 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:45:27
The bottom line with this issue of the board everyone loves to hate, is that regardless of anything else all the people who want them out really, truly want is more money being put into the club.

The question I'd like them to answer is this, if you want the board changed, the club owner changed, who do you suggest takes over? Who do you suggest starts throwing millions at it?

I don't see a queue of millionaires down the Goodison Road...

Answers on an Everton postcard.

Erik Dols
50 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:54:18
Martin, you still do not explain what these costs are. There is no note to give more detail of what these costs contain. Depreciation is only around 1 mil and there is a note for that, but other operating costs, being 26 mil and therefore over 20% of total costs, do not have a note. I find that remarkable. And yes, I do have experience in working with statement of accounts. I know that our auditors would ask questions if we tried to mark 20% of our costs "other operating costs" without explaining it in a note.

May be I'm totally missing it and there is an explanation of these costs somewhere but you say "these costs are available" and I just don't see where they are.

Martin Mason
51 Posted 16/08/2015 at 12:56:08

Rather than being "fucking hypocrites" for backing the board for all of these real or imagined misdemeanors, perhaps we "back" them because we have our own valid views on the background to them and why some of them have happened and they don't match yours. Even us happy clappers don't unconditionally back the board btw but we're prepared to defend them.

Perhaps we back them because they are hard headed, experienced and successful businessmen who have their own money tied up in the club, understand fully what is going on at the club and have an absolute driving interest to do everything for its benefit even if that is to benefit themselves (the best driver). Against this, the people making the loudest criticisms are? That doesn't mean that they can't have valid criticism but it needs to be better framed than your diatribe.

I completely agree with Martinez, Everton needs unity in what is a critical period for the club with regards to future direction and how we resolve issues like replacing the existing ground at the same time as we maintain our playing status in the EPL. Being a happy clapper I see positive things happening at the club and the side that I saw playing yesterday was not a side from a club as badly run as some would claim that we are. All of the players represent investment by the club and for me they show a club being run well and within its means. Of course it would be great if somebody came along and gave us hundreds of millions to buy top class players so that we didn't have to develop these lads but there's none in the queue at the moment.

Kevin Tully
52 Posted 16/08/2015 at 13:05:18
One phrase comes to mind after that post, Martin; "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Paul Tran
53 Posted 16/08/2015 at 13:19:12
Regarding Martinez's English, I know plenty of non native English speakers who have lived in the UK for years. They're all fluent in the language, but tend to think in their own language first and tend to directly translate words in their language to English. Hence Martinez's 'phenomenal', 'magnificent' and the host of German players saying 'for sure'.

This is exaggerated by his effusive style of speaking (I'm being polite there!) and his determination to sound clever and profound. Which rarely works.

For me, his effusive verbal overdrive sounds fine after a 3-0 win!

Patrick Murphy
54 Posted 16/08/2015 at 13:24:42
James (42) I'm pretty certain that the supporters job is not to be looking for potential buyers, in fact even those of us who try to fact find with regards the financial aspects of the club, would much prefer to be talking about the team and how it performs.

But some and it may only be a few misguided souls believe that Everton FC is not in the state, we expected it to be in, after nearly 16 years, we're not saying we are a complete basket case, but we are saying we haven't moved far enough forward to be complacent about the future of the club.

People scoff when clubs like Swansea, Southampton, Stoke, West Ham et al are cited as a threat to Everton FC on and off the pitch, but for every year that passes with no new investment, the more difficult it will be for Everton to compete in the Premier League and to keep its best players.

Whether it is Bill Kenwright's fault alone is open to debate, however, he is the only part-owner who comments on Everton FC, the only one who meets and greets the new arrivals at the club and we are led to believe the only person who negotiates on behalf of the club for possible incoming transfers. So to all intents and purposes it is his club, how many other Premier League clubs are so reliant upon one person? I know that Elstone has a lot of responsibility as does the manager, but at board level there can't be another club that operates in such a way.

As for who would be prepared to throw millions at the club, well certainly not the current owners that's for sure, not a single penny taken out of the club by them and not a single penny put into the club by them. Everton FC is a club that is almost entirely reliant upon the TV money and pays off some of its debts by using the season ticket money, which is all fine and dandy for most but not for me and a few others, who would have liked to have seen even a small proportion of that income used to re-furbish Goodison or set aside to help pay for a new stadium. Sixteen years they have had to implement plans and schemes and as fans we could be waiting another sixteen years before anything other than a cosmetic makeover of the stadium is completed if the current methods continue to be employed.

Colin Glassar
55 Posted 16/08/2015 at 13:25:23
You're right Paul. As someone who is bi-lingual sometimes you can just go on and on in your adopted language and lose track of what you were going to say in the first place. If he kept his answers short and sweet he'd avoid a lot of unnecessary analysis by the CIA trained Martinezologists on here.
Kunal Desai
57 Posted 16/08/2015 at 13:33:52
A net transfer spend of approximately 㿔 million just over 15 years. That just over ٠.5 to spend per season.

To all those pro-Kenwright fans and the Board's supporters: Where the fuck is the money going?

John Raftery
58 Posted 16/08/2015 at 13:34:41
I would prefer to have the club in the hands of someone like BK who understands the club and its traditions. Someone from outside the club with no sympathy with or understanding of the game never mind the club would probably leave us in tatters.

Look at Sunderland where Ellis Short has left them rooted to the lower reaches of the league and too many relegation battles and managers to remember. He may negotiate better commercial deals (arguable) but what use is that if the playing side is dysfunctional.

To those who say our club would collapse without the TV money, well that applies to virtually the whole league.

Michael Ward
59 Posted 16/08/2015 at 13:46:34
I have just looked at the accounts from last year (I am a qualified accountant), finances are improving with the new TV deal and more money is being spent on both the purchase of players and player wages. There was also Directors' remuneration for the first time which I assume is for the likes of Elstone. Other operating costs is high, some of this can be garnered from the other notes to the accounts (such as lease costs, audit related fees, depreciation etc...) but the article that Ian #21 mentions adds a bit more flavour to this without having hard numbers.

Overall the financial position is improving and we are investing in the team. I don't understand the issue financially in this respect, things could be better but are not at crisis point. One worrying thing for me was the high levels of interest (8-9%) we are paying on some of the loans, surely we can get better terms than that?!

I also think people need to lay off Martin a bit, he is just trying to express an opinion. Finally I don't really agree with the timing of these protests, the transfer window is still open and the chairman is ill. It does not paint the supporters of the club in a great light. Is there not a shareholders meeting this month where points could be aired and brought to the club in a more passive manner?

Christy Ring
60 Posted 16/08/2015 at 13:51:41
Kevin (#36)

Everything you said is spot on. If I'm not mistaken, BK got a loan of 㾻M from Paul Gregg who was involved in the takeover, and who had great plans for EFC, but Bill did a U-turn and got rid of him.

Bill and his leeches have spent an average of ١M a year on players over the last 16 years, which is absolutely shocking, considering the amount of money we receive from Sky.

Enough is enough, BK, Elstone, Earl and Green have bled us dry.

Tom R Owen
61 Posted 16/08/2015 at 13:55:52
Martin (#40),

FFS... You must be a politician. Arguing as if the rest of us are complete morons and not answering the points that 99.9% of the comments on here raise.

Tom R Owen
62 Posted 16/08/2015 at 14:17:46
Michael (#51)

The fact that BK is ill is unfortunate and as with everybody else wish him well: however, as Michael famously said in the Godfather "This is not personal; it's business." It is now 20 years since we lifted any silverware, time for change.

The shareholders meeting will be like all previous meetings in the last 10 years. Remember who the major shareholders are?

As for Martin he appears to be arrogant and dismissive enough to fight his own battles.

John Pickles
63 Posted 16/08/2015 at 14:17:53

The alternatives are exactly what have happened to Chelsea and Man City. There is massive investment into the Premier League by TV companies because it is regarded as a great product, so why would NO ONE be interested in a club with our heritage? But you can't buy something that isn't for sale. Unlike you, I don't believe this 24/7 nonsense from Bill, I believe credible investors are out there.

In the first 50 of your 60 years (10 more than me), you have supported a team that, if it got it's act together, could win the league. That is no longer possible in a league where money talks. Nowadays you need financially savvy business men and a large war chest. This board have proved to be incapable of providing either.

As exciting as some of our players are, the reality is, that they will not be provided with the strength in depth a squad needs to be successful, under this ownership.

Michael Ward
66 Posted 16/08/2015 at 14:33:15
Ok Tom, so what the protests are trying to achieve is silverware. What would be your preferred method of doing this? Man City / Chelsea style of throwing obscene amounts of money about? I can't see that happening if I'm honest.

Everton's game plan seems to be to buy young players with high potential and to develop their youth team. The main change under Martinez is that they want to keep hold of these players rather than sell and reinvest.

I don't think anyone can argue that the club has not gone forward under Kenwright, I remember when we were battling relegation, year-in & year-out.

Jay Harris
67 Posted 16/08/2015 at 14:47:52
I hope Matt Traynor doesnt mind me posting this but this was his account of Elstone's explanation of "Other Operating Costs" at the meeting.
"Dan, a partial breakdown was given. When someone asked a question during the session at the end, Elstone refused to go into further details. Also, when someone asked about the kit supply deal, and quoted figures supposedly earned by other clubs, Elstone disputed the figures quoted for other clubs -- offering no further insight into our situation.

The reaction from some who were there was the presentations shown were largely fluff -- fair enough, that is their call. The main result from tonight was the re-instatement of AGMs."

Ian Cowhig
68 Posted 16/08/2015 at 14:51:57
Patrick (#20).

I agree that the fear factor has been used by the board to their advantage. But, nevertheless, for every Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour, there is a Carson Yeung & Shinawatra out there.

I agree that the club needs a change in ownership. But would like some fans with business acumen to be independently involved with the search for them. And, if they are found, vetting of their credentials going forward. As opposed to the Fit and Proper person that the PL uses ineffectively.

Interestingly I spoke to Wigan fan today about Martinez, and what he thought about his time at Wigan. He told me that Martinez requested a lot of money from Whelan to develop the youth structure, rather than mega bucks for first team staff. Whelan did not agree with the route RM wanted to go. So he asked to speak to Everton.

He also said Kone looked back to his best and, if kept fit, will destroy teams this year.

Dave Abrahams
69 Posted 16/08/2015 at 14:54:34
David Morgan (#42) good point about the banner being flown over St Mary's yesterday. I didn't mind it, in fact Iapplaud. I would have no complaints if you and like-minded Everton supporters got together and flew one praising Barkley or whoever, it's up to you.
Eric Myles
70 Posted 16/08/2015 at 15:05:33
Ian #31, asset stripping does not necessarily involve moving money out of the company.

Definition of Asset Stripping.  Asset stripping refers to people selling off parts of a company to raise money. Link

Our tangible assets are Goodison Park (mortgaged and apparently declining in value) and the infamous lawnmowers at Finch Farm. Our other assets are players who are constantly sold off without the money being invested.

Steve Jenkins
72 Posted 16/08/2015 at 15:10:42
Those advocating for the status quo might not be able to see it now -- but will be smacked between the eyes with it in 4/5 years time if nothing changes.

If you think there's a gap between us & our neighbours now then wait until their new revenue streams kick in RS -- new stand big increase in capacity & the commercial revenue that comes with it, likewise Spurs (new ground on the horizon) & West Ham just moved to a new ground.

Commercially we know all the club's United, Chelsea, As, RS etc will continue to grow.

Increased revenue for all these teams (on top of the TV money) means transfer fees will rise, likewise wages.

How will we be able hold onto our best players or attract players when that happens. Stones gone, Barkley gone, Rom gone....

How will we be able to build a team or a squad?

It's simple economics.

We're struggling to attract players now.

Is anybody really stupid enough to believe Roberto wants to pass up on some off the quality players that have gone to Stoke, West Ham, Swansea etc and wants to wait right until late August possibly deadline day to do his business.

Does anybody really believe that he thinks the squad is strong enough and only wants 2 players, if he had the money he'd strengthen in 5 positions easy.

He's bargain basement hunting with limited funds.

The disparity here will only get worse as RS, United etc income revenue streams increase, likewise the club's around us, Spurs, West Ham, Swansea etc, as our revenue streams stand still & we on tinge to rely on TV money to keep the debt under control.

It's not that were just standing still anymore - it's that tiny clubs by comparison are fast coming up in our rear view mirror &if nothing is done, in 5 years time they will have surpassed us.

Now is a pivotal time - as it will be hugely difficult to try to catch the likes of the C L teams as the disparity between us will just be too big if we continue to ignore this and let it slide.

This isn't a snap decision, the board has had 16 years to move us forward & what, we've treaded water at best, many would argue gone backwards.

Our rivals aren't United, Liverpool etc anymore, they're Palace, Swansea, Stoke who've come from divisions lower to catch us up.

This constitutes good enough for some, for EFC.

I'm lost for words at the acceptance for mediocrity.

Our motto is "nothing but the best is good enough"

We are Everton FC for god's sake, a massive club, we've been a sleeping giant since the late 80s and it's about time we let somebody come to wake us up.

Tom R Owen
73 Posted 16/08/2015 at 15:16:01
Michael, How many of the 1st team have come through the youth team?

My point is, due to the gross mismanagement of this board for the past 16 odd years, we are not capable of competing with the European Champions league teams. We appear to be out bid by Stoke these days!

And please let's cut the "Oh, I'm glad we haven't bought success " bollocks -- if the Arabs had bought us and not City, would you really be sitting there saying "I'm not happy with our team"?!

Jamie Crowley
75 Posted 16/08/2015 at 15:23:42
Any other person who says we are "reinvesting" in players or we're not "asset-stripped" I've a question for you.

What is the better business decision in your humble opinion?

1. Reinvest in players and their wages, increasing your "asset value" through the team and it's players, or

2. Having "hard" assets like owing your own stadium and practice facility?

It's a legitimate question because those claiming BK hasn't stripped the club of assets are stating it's down to investing in players and not infrastructure.

So... what happens if we ever get relegated and the value of the players plummet because they're off for greener pastures?

It's a very idiotic and a poor business plan. In fact, it's criminal. It might pass the accountant's test for a ledger - assets v liabilities - but it's fraught with peril and not prudent in the least.

Again, citing Kevin Tully's excellent post:

Selling the training ground we own
Not investing a penny
Selling our best players to raise transfer funds
Mortgaging future season ticket sales
Taking out off-shore loans costing millions to service
Fucking up three proposed ground moves
Not touching Goodison Park and letting it rot
Sticking with the same shirt sponsor for 13 years
Signing up to a kit deal for 10 years.
Consistently spinning bare faced lies to the fans.

SIXTEEN years of this abysmal record. Abysmal.

BK has never, ever intended to sell. You literally have to try to NOT sell for sixteen years. He's fleeced Everton and it's fans - 20 million or so buy in and now easily a 120 million sale.

Not a bad investment, and TYVM "Blue" Bill but it's time to move on.

If only I could understand the nebulous concept of "other operating costs"!!

Eric Myles
76 Posted 16/08/2015 at 15:31:57
Jamie (#66), the other question to ask is 'How are we reinvesting in players when every year the accounts show we made an excess in player trading?' To the tune of 㿈M last accounts while our board announce "record profits" of.... 㿈M.

So, if we had not sold players, we would have had no profits despite the 㿊M increase in telly revenues?

Jamie Crowley
78 Posted 16/08/2015 at 15:40:36
That too Eric!

It's infuriating.

Frankly if anyone wants to play the part of "nice Blue" or "level headed I'm Everton first everything else second Blue" go right ahead.

But even taking that stance I fail to see how anyone, at a bare minimum, can't come to the conclusion that they need to say, "Thank you, Bill, for your contributions to EFC. But it's time to turn the page."

Gavin Johnson
79 Posted 16/08/2015 at 16:05:23
John (#50) -- While you ascribe to the 'be careful of what you wish for' argument, using Sunderland as an example of a club having an owner that doesn't know the traditions of the club. And while I don't know how much Ellis Short has put into the club, I would imagine it would be a fair bit. He's sanctioned new managers to buy 7-8 players each summer.

Personally I think we've already got outsiders running our club (Earl, Green and Elstone) who don't understand our traditions and what a big club we were and still could be. BK is the face of the club, but how much he has a say in the running of the club is open to conjecture.

Wouldn't someone who could help the manager build the team from investment rather than player sales and have the vision to deliver a stadium, be the least we deserve?! IMO, a club the size of Everton deserves more than finishing in the top half of the table and winning nothing for the next 16 years.

Danny Mills put it perfectly on MotD extra earlier on, when he said Everton should be happy finishing 9th and then lumping us in with Stoke, adding we need to be realistic. Well, yes, you have to be realistic when you are seen as paupers who haven't got a pot to piss in. The longer BK is chairman the more our profile diminishes.

BK and Co OUT!!

Jay Wood
80 Posted 16/08/2015 at 16:24:39
Michael Ward #58

You say you are a qualified accountant, but don't say if you are a practicing accountant or in what area of accountancy you work in, if so.

I state that not to be facetious, but as a preface to the following which, depending in what area of accountancy you work, maybe you can confirm as correct, or not, as the case may be.

Is it correct to say that BK and the board, as chairman and directors of EFC, their primary responsibilities include:

* To try and make the company a success, using their skills, experience and judgement

* Make decisions for the benefit of the company, not themselves

Would you also accept that at the formation of the PL in 1992 - very much led by Everton's own Phil Carter - we were numbered amongst the 'Big Six' which, in addition to ourselves, included Man United, Arsenal, Spurs, Villa and our lovable neighbours.

Is it also fair to say that at that time, there was no huge financial discrepancy between those clubs and that their respective stadium were of a similar size and standard, by and large? And furthermore, ahead of the digital media age, the global fan base for any of those clubs was not at all developed to the degree it is now?

Now fast forward 6-7 years after the formation of the PL to 1999 when, on buying out Peter Johnson, BK was quoted as saying: "Acquiring PJ's shares is only the first step to restoring a great club to where it belongs, to where it should be. If you are going to run a successful football club you need two qualities: you need to be realistic and you need a plan. I'm realistic and I have a plan."

Taken the above all together, since the formation of the PL and the 16 years BK has been the principal figurehead of EFC, is it fair to conclude that all of the original Big Six (and other clubs besides) have:

* relocated/refurbished their stadiums
* attracted new owners (in some cases, they have been sold more than once)
* a greater global brand
* many more rich streams of income (other than TV money and player sales) than Everton, in some cases astronomically so
* and that in the 16 years of BK's stewardship he has failed to deliver on his stated aim, or that there is any evidence of a plan, transparent, obvious, realistic or otherwise, that could have kept Everton on an equal footing with the other 'elite clubs' as we had at the launch of the PL?

Now one poster on here - Martin Mason, who you tell us to 'lay off a bit' - propagates the belief that Everton's decline began as long ago as 1965, that the club's most successful period in its history - the mid 1980s - was merely a 'blip' in that constant downward trend, and that (and I quote verbatim) "It is totally unrealistic to expect a club like EFC to develop a business model to achieve the income enjoyed by the top clubs."

Do you subscribe to that same belief? That there is apparenty something inherently, genetically wrong at EFC that we are eternally condemned to be an also-ran?

Personally, I found such a supposition absurd.

Your analysis of the club's accounts is a fair one. You acknowledge our main income revenue is from TV money. That we pay high levels of interest. But ... you are not adding anything new to the debate that is not widely known.

What is apparent is ... yes, we may be currently 'relatively stable' financially, but ... that's not enough David. Stagnation is not an option. We have already been outstripped by our traditional peers in the PL era and there are hungrier clubs with clear development plans and the vitality and intent to implement them coming up fast in our rear view mirror.

You ask what other models are possible, offering only the examples of Man City and Chelsea. Putting aside documentary evidence has emerged that the Shieks considered buying Everton before City - BK himself has spoken of it - there are other clubs who had seriously more disadvantaged starting points than Everton in the time BK and his board have governed the club, such as Swansea and Southampton.

So, forgive me David, but a case CAN be made that the club has not gone forward under Kenwright.

It is regrettable, as believed, BK is ill. I only wish him good health. I am sure he is a very likable, personable man. That said, there shouldn't be a 'truce' called on a questioning of BK and the board just because he may be ill. Indeed, it could be argued that given his supposed ill health, the question of ownership and possible transition of power becomes an even more urgent one.

In conclusion, I personally have doubts about the efficacy and effectiveness of The Blue Union and the latest movement that has recently emerged. That said, I perfectly understand the growing disquiet about the short and long term future of a club that so many of us hold so dear.

Andy Walker
81 Posted 16/08/2015 at 16:37:12
It would be naivity in the extreme to believe there is no risk associated with a new owner taking over the club. It's a perfectly reasonable position to take to express caution over any take over of the club. Football clubs and other businesses have fallen as a consequence of a take over, others have flourished, but ultimately there is an 'unknown' with any new owner.

A laissez faire attitude of sell at any cost to a new owner could be suicidal for our club.

There are lots of reasonable questions being asked about our Board and I would like answers too. I would also highlight that as a fan base I remember a survey a couple of years ago that put our fans as second bottom of the spend (on their club) per head league. This is reflective of the working class roots of our fans and is no way a criticism. This is though the total opposite to a club like Spurs with a similar size fan base to ours but a very different demographic which allows that club to charge their fans twice as much for tickets at the gate. Not good for their fans but great for the club's finances and putting significant extra capital value to that club. This will be a factor which new owners will look at.

The harsh reality though is that the world is a different place from 5 years ago. The geo-political upheavals relating to Russia/Ukraine, China's economy drastically slowing, the price of oil falling 2/3rds, along with massive falls in other commodities, means that their simply aren't lots of new billionaires being created who want to spend their dosh on a football club. Those that made their money have already done it and that boat has sailed.

Michael Ward
83 Posted 16/08/2015 at 16:46:00
Tom (#64),

In the current first team squad we have Barkley, Browning, Osman, Hibbert and McAleny. That doesn't include the likes of Galloway and Stones who were bought young and blooded in the youth teams first.

What I am saying is we weren't competing with these Champions League teams when the current board came in, though, were we? We were battling to stay in the Premier League. It shows that the board has had some success by the fact we are expecting to be competing with them from where we were when they came in.

I didn't say I wouldn't enjoy winning the Premier League if we had a billionaire funding the club; I said I can't see that happening. Although, having said that, I have a good friend who supports Man City and he has admitted the fact they have bought it does take away from the feeling of accomplishment.

The main failing of this board is the Kings Dock fiasco and the fact we have not won a trophy, but they don't just give them away.

On your "outbid by Stoke" point, I reiterate: the window is still open and, with regards to Shaqiri we offered a loan, not a full transfer as far as I can tell: I think this is more to do with priority in terms of positions to be filled and reservations about the player in question than about money available personally.

Helen Mallon
84 Posted 16/08/2015 at 16:51:41
Martin Mason... REALLY, then what are the other operating costs? (And if you say 'lawnmowers', I will put a curse on you.)

Our club is run very badly and there needs to be an investigation. END OF!!!

Jamie Crowley
85 Posted 16/08/2015 at 16:54:44
A laissez faire attitude of sell at any cost

Andy -

How many years do you give someone with a horrific history / track record? Sixteen? Twenty? Twenty-Five?

It's not "sell at any cost".

It's please God, remove this man who's going to walk away making millions before he completely runs us into obscurity.

Preach prudent approaches all you like while the clock ticks and we fall further, and further behind.

Ten years from now in the Championship with a Kitbag deal and Chang on our jerseys you'll be saying, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, .... whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, ... not so fast people let's think about this. The Boogeyman might buy us."

Everything before the 'Lois this is not my Batman glass':

Brent Stephens
86 Posted 16/08/2015 at 17:07:06
Posted this on another thread but it might be seen there...

Eric (etc), this is a genuine question as I'm not a financial specialist. Based on the Swiss Ramble comparison of 2014 and 2013, if I owned the club outright and was thinking of closing it down completely at the end of 2013, and then thinking the same at the end of 2014, after paying off all debts would I have more dosh at the end of 2013 or at the end of 2014?

Michael Ward
87 Posted 16/08/2015 at 17:23:18
Jay Wood (#72),

In answer to your first question, I am a practicing accountant and as it turns out; I am also a director of a number of companies as part of my job, the role of a director is indeed to act in the best interests of the company as you propose.

I would firstly like to thank you for letting me know that I am adding nothing to the debate when I give my reasons for why the timing of this protest is wrong.

On to your own argument: you talk of the situation in 1992 but then yourself say BK took over in 1999. What about the seven years in-between? We finished in the following positions: 12, 13, 17, 15, 6, 15 and 17. Not exactly pushing to finish in the Champions League positions, apart from one great season under Joe Royle. You also ignore that it was this period which really impacted as the money started to flow in from the beginning of the Premier League era, so the teams that were above us had a real head start in this respect, look at Man Utd now compared to '92! Look at them in '99 compared to '92 for that matter. It's a completely different ballgame now.

I believe we were seriously impacted by the European ban, at a time when the competition was dominated by English clubs, and that in turn we suffered one of the worst periods of our history at the worst possible time. BK has done a decent to good job in his time in charge, a fantastic one in pushing us up the table into a 7th-ish position from where we were, but a not-so-good job in pushing past that or building a new stadium. I don't think he deserves the level of opposition he has on here and elsewhere.

Now I know that offers nothing to the debate but that's what I think; take it or leave it.

Dave Ganley
89 Posted 16/08/2015 at 17:33:44
Lots of interesting points on this thread. I side on the board out point of view. People are quite correct when they say that we are in a much healthier position now than when BK first took control. However, that seems to be in spite of BK not because of him.

BK was very lucky when he appointed Moyes after the years of relegation battles. Moyes not only stemmed the awful tide but he also made us competitive with some very good bargain basement buys. Yes he spent money but for most part, he actually proved that he had a great scouting network and also brought through players like Rooney, Barkley, Osman, Hibbert etc from the academy. This bought BK lots of breathing space seeing as though most fans were craving mid table mediocrity for the club after the disasterous 90s.

Fast forward to present day and after a promising first season from Martinez, we fell alarmingly last season with some of the worst football seen for a decade or more. When we were crying out for a good transfer window (Yes I know its not finished) and for the board to finally show some intention, we have spent less than 5M. Not really acceptable by a club of the stature of Everton.

The problem BK and the board have now is expectation. We, as fans, finally have some expectation again (its been a long time coming) and imo we shouldn't be accepting that we punch above our weight, we actually don't achieve what we should season after season. I hail from an era when we actually used to win things and have been going to GP for 40 years. I actually feel sorry for the younger generation that they have never seen us win the league or regularly challenge for trophies. Its time Evertonians start saying enough is enough and demand a change that will see us progress and start to challenge again. We shouldn't be accepting mediocrity and we certainly shouldn't be trotting out that tired old line of be careful what you wish for. We have little or no assets left, no trophies for 20 years, a tired old stadium and a team that has underachieved for over 20 years, I'd say that's ample call for a change wouldn't you?

It was a great win yesterday but that doesn't make everything all okay again. Whether you agree with the fly by or not, that was a group of concerned fans who want what is best for the club and want us to compete and win things again. For people to deride them, then they are showing a complete lack of ambition themselves. That wasn't a knee jerk reaction to last Saturday's result and lack of transfer activity, that fly by was 20 years worth of frustration in the making. We want to be winners again and all other avenues seem to be falling on deaf ears. Desperate times calls for desperate measures to finally get the message across.

Tom R Owen
90 Posted 16/08/2015 at 17:33:56
Michael, I do find it hard to believe you support BK after 16 years of lies

You mention Kings Dock, what about all the other bullshit? NTL, Fortress Sport, "I'm searching 24/7 for investment?"

If all the companies you are associated with were run like Everton would you be quite so glowing in praise of the respective Chairpersons?
Nick Entwistle
91 Posted 16/08/2015 at 17:46:26
Calling for unity is just another word for ignoring. Ignoring the way the club is run. The longer this goes on for the less victories will be won, the less goals will be scored, and less opportunities for Bill's face on the big screen to cue the lackies' applause.

James Marshall
92 Posted 16/08/2015 at 18:17:19
Patrick (52). Tell me something I don't know! You've just told me everything we all already know, so I say again, where's the option? Who comes in? It's all well and good saying 'Kenwright Out' and all that, but seriously what's the next step?

I fail to see what these protests actually achieve and nobody is ever able to answer the question because nobody has the answer.

What's the point of the protest exactly? What are they trying to achieve? It'll do absolutely nothing as far as I can tell. Look at clubs like Newcastle and Villa who've gone down the protest route. They're a joke and make themselves look ridiculous.

I'm all for more money at Everton and changed to things like marketing and a new stadium, but fly-by protests are a bit embarrassing if you ask me.

Patrick Murphy
93 Posted 16/08/2015 at 18:32:06
So what are we supposed to do then, James? I actually respect what you are saying about the pointlessness of protests in changing or altering things in the boardroom; the only option a supporter of any club has got is to abstain from visiting the stadium, but that's also counter-productive, possibly more-so than flying banners from aeroplanes or any other form of protest.

If those that feel strongly about the situation at Goodison choose to air their views in public via the media, then they are free to do so. I don't get this 'shamed' by association view; I personally have not joined any of the groups who are involved with the protests but I do share their view that change of some kind is required and the sooner the better.

Jay Wood
94 Posted 16/08/2015 at 18:39:26
Michael #80

With respect, I think you took a single comment by me out of context and presumed to apply it to your whole post. My "adding nothing to the debate" comment is clearly contained in a single paragraph related to the accounts re: TV monies and the high interest rates which as I said, is common knowledge amongst many Blues.

No way was I denigrating your overall opinion or your right to post.

To answer your specific points. I could point to very recent posts here on TW where I have acknowledged BK and this particular board alone are not solely responsible for Everton falling outside the elite clubs in the PL era.

Equally, it is erroneous of you to imply that BK's association with the EFC board only commenced in 1999 when he bought out PJ and therefore absolve him of any blame in the previous years.

Are you aware BK had in fact been on the Everton board a full 10 years before the buy out and has been a board member since 1989? A full 3 years before the formation of the PL?

In addition to that, 5 years into his tenure as an EFC director, in 1994, he headed an alternative consortium to PJ in an ownership battle which of course he lost, before finally successfully buying out PJ in 1999.

So I'm sorry to inform you that BK was a director changed with good governance of the club at the time you consider was the "period which really impacted as the money started to flow in from the beginning of the premier league era."

Furthermore, you reinforce the point I made when you say (in this period) "the teams that were above us had a real head start in this respect, look at Utd now compared to '92! Look at them in '99 compared to '92 for that matter. It's a completely different ballgame now."

Ehrm ... exactly, Michael! Do you remember our very first game in the PL, Michael? The opening day of the Brave New World? We went to Old Trafford and twatted them 3-0...

We were on an equal, and in many cases, a superior footing to the elite clubs. Sadly, since that very first game in the PL, United and other clubs have left us in the dust. Why? Primarily because of better governance at the board level and maximizing the opportunities the lucrative TV deals opened up BEYOND merely cashing the Sky cheque every year.

You, as an accountant who sits as a director on multiple boards, must recognize this more than most here on TW and the wider Everton community. A company will stand or fall, grow, stagnate or die, depending on the vision, the vitality and the intent of its board and management to recognize and seize the opportunities to grow their brand and market share. And since the death of Phil Carter and 1989, there has only been and only remains one ever present on our board:

Mr Bill Kenwright.

Your reference to the European ban, IMO, is a redundant one, often used by 'bitter blues,' I know. It's a redundant one because the ban was universal. Did it prevent Man Utd, Arsenal, the neighbours bouncing back once the ban was lifted? No... only Everton.

Michael, you will never read gratuitous abuse of BK, the manager or players from me. But equally, I will not be repressed from posting well-researched, well-presented and legitimate concerns on matters related to the club to which I pledge my total allegiance to over and above any transient individual representing Everton at any level.

Tom R Owen
95 Posted 16/08/2015 at 18:47:01
Great post Jay 86
Neil Thomas
96 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:15:46
Look, I'm not a BK fan, but I think the protests were badly timed. At least give him a chance in regards that the transfer window is still open. If after that no major signings are brought in, then yes, I would be as a paying fan first to protest and ask where all the money is going. But until then we are overreacting.

I also think there as been an overreaction to yesterday's result. It amazes me what a change of option the football fan as in a period of only seven days. This time last week it was all about sack the manager, and get the board out, and sell Kone and Stones. Now I'm surprised you lot don't want to suggest carrying them all through Liverpool Centre on your shoulders.

Michael Ward
97 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:17:05

I accept now that the way in which I read your post was not as it was intended. It is easily done.

In terms of BK's association with he board you are putting words in my mouth. I referenced your own point of his 16 years and his takeover. Again to refer to your post BK was a member of the board, he was also clearly not in agreement with how the club was being run as evidenced by both his attempted and successful takeovers. I do think it a little unfair to lay the blame on his doorstep when he clearly was opposed to the way the club was being run.

I also think the use of the result in a single fixture to justify Everton's standing is pushing it a little. As I mentioned earlier we finished 12th that season, (we finished 9th in '91) not exactly a show of dominance.

I reiterate my stance that Everton's decline started with the European ban, look at the timing of the ban and look at the league finishes of the team immediately afterwards, the most successful manager in our history left the club and your telling me that didn't matter because it was the same for the rest of them. Well I'm sorry but I don't agree. Either way come BK's takeover in '99 we were awful, we are no longer awful. That's progress.

To get to the core of my point.

1. I don't think Everton will get a billionaire owner.

2. That means we need an alternative way of improvement to the teams that are currently successful. Namely concentrate on youth and develop them into a winning team.

3. I agree things can improve in a lot of areas (commercially mainly) -- not to the point of public protest though.

I don't see what BK can do other than find a billionaire. Can you please tell me what you want him/ his replacement to do?

Richard Reeves
98 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:21:53
The BBC are useless, they do seem to have an agenda to protect the chairman. They know what the real issues are with supporters as they have been highlighted around the net and in the media yet choose to ignore them on various shows, whether it's radio or television. The people who they hand-pick from social media to highlight the issue are the ones who are pro-Kenwright and the same applies to the people who get through on the phone-ins.

Marc Chapman who presented MotD2 Extra used a comment from a supposed Everton fan on social media who claimed that the people who are protesting aren't real fans and that they are in the minority. Considering it was the only quote he used, that the panel were in nothing but praise of the chairman and didn't comment on the real issues that concern most of us, is it fair or balanced?

No... and judging by the recent polls everywhere, the majority of fans by a ridiculous amount want Kenwright out so it's not only biased but manipulative.

Andy Walker
99 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:24:05
Jamie 78, if you are going to quote me at least put the full sentence as the quote, otherwise you'll look like a tabloid editor:

'A laissez faire attitude of sell at any cost to a new owner could be suicidal for our club.'

Do you disagree with this sentence?

There's lots of vitriol aimed at BK with no recognition that if he's out, someone else is in, so the debate also needs to consider, a) is there anyone out there that would be interested in buying us? And b) if there is would we want that person in charge of our club?

Too many folk just stating Kenwright should go without considering the implications. I think it would be good if he went as long as we had a new owner with unlimited resources and decent motives.

Let's just imagine so much pressure is put on BK he does decide to get out at all cost. Would that really be good for us? That's my fear.

Steve Guy
100 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:25:54
Have to say the clapping of the Dear Leaders image on the screens at that Villa game was a turning point for me. Blue Union trying to energise support for change and then that stage managed crap; with his missus clearly re-assuring BK that he was still loved by the hordes. Gobsmacked. Charlatan. I could have contributed more than he has and I have no money either, but I would have had a better plan. Well, when I say better plan, Iran I would have at least had a plan. Btw it would have included much better comma.

Martin Mason....I suspect you are a RS wind up merchant

Brent Stephens
101 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:30:22
Michael #88 perhaps you can help, as an accountant, re my earlier post as follows (sorry, I'm getting impatient!):

This is a genuine question as I'm not a financial specialist. Based on the Swissramble comparison of 2014 and 2013, if I owned the club outright and was thinking of closing it down completely at the end of 2013, and then thinking the same at the end of 2014, after paying off all debts would I have more dosh at the end of 2013 or at the end of 2014?

John Keating
102 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:30:31
Martinez has been here for 5 minutes and knows sod all of the history of the Board and the disunity they have caused. He'll be like the rest of them. Stay here for another 5 minutes and piss off somewhere else with no allegiance whatsoever to Everton Football Club.

Martinez should concentrate on playing decent football and not the shit he, and he alone, caused disunity with last season.

Michael Ward
103 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:39:05
Brent #91 the club is in a net liability situation (in theory, as players registrations are not the real value of the players) so you would receive nothing in both cases.

Ignoring that though the club is in a better position in 2014 than 2013, so for instance if there was positive net assets in both years the change in the accounts would mean you are better off.

In simple terms the answer to your question is yes, but it can get quite complicated.

Pete Edwards
104 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:39:46
We played quite well yesterday, didn't we?
Ian Gulliford
105 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:42:51
Steve Guy #90- it was magnificent stage management, I was there and if I remember rightly we had just scored so were still celebrating that moment when they flashed him up on the big screen. It was extremely well timed, I wasn't happy about it personally.
Brent Stephens
106 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:44:34
Cheers Michael.
Dave Harper
107 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:51:57
Jay (#86), Michael (#80). Both eloquent and passionate posts from differing stand-points.

The following is a bit dry, but I would be interested to hear fellow ToffeeWebbers opinions on the desirability of EFC as an investment opportunity in light of points 1 to 3:

1. If only Messrs Kenwright, Earl and Woods sold their shares, this amounts to less than the 75% + 1 share required to pass any special resolution, therefore other shareholders' support would be required.

2. Using the 70% acquisition mentioned, any investor would surely only pump in investment by way of interest bearing bonds or loans the interest rate being determined by the % of the club owned. The greater the % owned, the lower the interest rate as the opportunity for capital growth and return on investment is greater. If The Estate of Sir Philip Carter, Grantchester and Mr Abercromby sold to the new owner, this would rise to 85-86% giving effective control to the incoming investor.

3. In fact, to silence the dissenting shareholders and frustrate them from calling EGMs (at their own expense), a shareholding in excess of 90% would be required as holders of 10% can call an EGM.

My understanding on the high interest rates charged, the BVI based lender, VIBRAC Corp is in effect a secured lender charging 8% for a 12 month loan and are known as a "pay-day" loan company to mainly Premier League football clubs, thus short-term loan equals high interest rate similar to a bridging loan but cheaper than an overdraft (if the bank were to grant one for an additional £20+ million).

The interest on the mortgaging of season ticket income was fixed at a time when 8.99% would not have been seen to be unreasonable.

It will be interesting (no pun intended) to see if Vibrac deal is renewed this year. I also wonder what the penalty charges would be to repay the "mortgage".

I too would love to see the figures for other operating expenses, but unless a leaked trial balance came from a member of the audit team it isn't going to happen. Pure conjecture here but I would be shocked of a fair proportion in the 2014 accounts didn't relate to repairs to the Grand Old Lady.

I know the above is a digression from the main debate, but I do believe that the size of minority shareholders holdings may be an obstacle in someone purchasing the club.

Steve Guy
108 Posted 16/08/2015 at 19:57:30
Ian #95 and that's why I have referred to him as The Dear Leader ever since......the North Korean Dictatorship could learn lessons from BK and his cohort study. At least he doesn't shoot the opposition.......yet !
Jamie Crowley
109 Posted 16/08/2015 at 20:01:41
Andy -

'A laissez faire attitude of sell at any cost to a new owner could be suicidal for our club.'

My answer is yes to your question in its entirety.

BUT... I don't think anyone has a laissez faire attitude when it comes to selling EFC.(!)

You say:

'Let's just imagine so much pressure is put on BK he does decide to get out at all cost. Would that really be good for us? That's my fear.'

My only response to that mindset is this rhetorical statement:

Let's just imagine Bill has no intention of selling and decides NOT to get out. Would that really be good for us? That's my fear.

If Bill does not sell, Everton Football Club will spiral into the abyss. His track record, in my opinion, shows that he'll continue to lie, fail at any ground move or redevelopment, and make poor business decisions.

So do I fear a new owner?

Hell no.

Michael Ward
110 Posted 16/08/2015 at 20:08:20
Dave #97

Having recently purchased a single share (as a present for myself) I can say that there are definitely some shares available in circulation (as the broker asked how many I would like); how many I am not sure.

On the Vibrac loan, from memory the accounts at least mentions a similar facility being planned for renewal. It does seem like a lender of the last resort though, don't you think? Surely we can get finance from somewhere else.

I also think that your point re penalty fees on the mortgage is a good one and is something that could be raised at the AGM. 9% in the current market is astronomical and we may be better off suffering the penalty.

In terms of the main parts of your post I would say they could potentially be major hurdles, in a way the best way for Bill to sell the club would be to buy more of it!

Mark Riding
111 Posted 16/08/2015 at 20:11:03
Word on the street is of Elstone being sacked off and replaced by the EITC chief.
Keith Harrison
112 Posted 16/08/2015 at 20:14:28
I have had news from that street too Mark. MK, LL, get yer sleuth caps on!
Colin Glassar
113 Posted 16/08/2015 at 20:16:37
Wtf is the EITC chief? Anyone would be better than Sideshow Bob IMO.
Martin Mason
114 Posted 16/08/2015 at 20:34:58
A couple of points. First, as fans we have no right whatsoever to demand the overthrow of a legally constituted board. We have the right to buy the product or not, and that is all, whatever we may think. You can ask via established channels and they will quite correctly as owners tell you to piss off if they disagree; they are the owners. We have no expertise and not a clue of what is happening at the club; they do, and these are facts. You will also never bully BK into doing anything he doesn't want to and protests like this stupid plane trick only strengthens him.

Secondly, and an easy question considering how bad the board are and how we must change everything immediately and that is, we get rid of the board and then what? Everything magically becomes great and we start winning the EPL every year? No hand waving now, what does a new board do that the existing board can't given that there isn't an idiot born who will plough millions of his own dosh into EFC.

Further, I'll answer any specific question put to me but not pages of opinion.

Lastly, anybody who uses the words "end of" in an intelligent discussion needs to get a grip.

Many thanks.

Trevor Lynes
115 Posted 16/08/2015 at 20:36:41
The problem with acceptance is the fact that ambitious players do not want to stay at our club.The best players will not want to join our club.

An ambitious club shows positivity and our board room do not. Every young player has goals and Everton are becoming seen as a stepping stone club. We are virtually a feeder club if we continue to sell our players and just concentrate on development.

As a fan I want to see progress and in the past decade or so we have sold first and bought cheaper. As soon as we have a young player who is doing well the big clubs come knocking. We are almost being seen as a Crewe or Barnsley who sell to survive.

If Stones wants away let him put in a transfer request so that the fans will see the situation clearly. Otherwise show integrity to the fans and the club motto and hang on to the lad. Martinez has said that he wants to build a team around his young guns, so back him and stop this slide.

We need to keep what we have and sign the 3 or 4 players Martinez needs to make a fist of this season.

Jay Wood
119 Posted 16/08/2015 at 20:50:06
Michael #88.

Thank you for acknowledging that you had misread and taken out of context my earlier comment. Appreciated.

I don't consider I put words in your mouth. I simply referenced BK's full history as an EFC board member. I don't agree with your view that his 2 takeover bids is proof positive that, in your words, "he was also clearly not in agreement with how the club was being run." I would guess you've been in enough boardroom situations where plays for controlling interest is more to do with just that - control, power, status, self-profit - not necessarily a dissatisfacton at how things are run.

The reference to the result of a single fixture was nothing more than to show you, even in a modest season, at the birth of the PL we believed, and we did, go to places like Old Trafford and win. Such belief and such victories is now as rare as hen's teeth, so far have we fallen.

You have your opinion about the impact of the European ban on Everton - the populist one - I have mine, which I consider equally valid. I don't dispute a great team was broken up too early and the most successful manager in our history left the club. The custodians of other clubs were better prepared than ours when the ban was lifted and the PL era launched. I prefer professionalism and hard nosed business pragmitism to wallowing in self-pity and casting yourself in the role of the victim.

As to your 3 points, 1 is not an impossibility and effectively developing points 2 and 3 could potentially attract a billionaire owner, although I acknowledge because of the many wasted years, wasted opportunities and lack of a clear development plan (which BK said he had when he assumed power 16 years ago) with each passing year the challenge becomes more difficult. We fall further behind those who have already stolen a march on us and risk being overhauled by more efficient and more professionally run clubs still below us.

On the question of protests, I am not convinced by the efficacy or the effectiveness of the so-called pressure groups such as Blue Union. That merits a more detailed reply, but in brief, as well-intended and sincere as they no doubt are, IMO their stated aims are unachievable, and the tone of their campaign tends to alienate supporters when they would be better served to have a recruitment drive to educate and convince others of what they view as the cause of Everton's malaise so there is a positive groundswell for positive change.

Because one way or another, very soon now, given BK's age and alleged poor health, there will be a transfer of power to other hands. The two key issues that need to be addressed I believe are to expand and improve multiple income streams and to have a modern 'fit for purpose' stadium.

Unless and until that is properly addressed, we will continue to stagnate and die a slow death. And that is barely credible given the rich history and many innovations of EFC.

To misquote T.S.Eliot, "that we die not with a bang, but ... a whimper."

Dave Harper
120 Posted 16/08/2015 at 21:05:31
Michael (100), thanks for your response. As you rightly say, the facility with Vibrac was renewed last August and is noted in the accounts, what would be good to know is if this facility has been/is about to be renewed this month.

The "mortgage" should indeed be up for discussion by the members in General Meeting.

I believe personally that one of the major shareholders have missed a trick by not taking over the funding provided by Vibrac and "mortgage" at a lesser rate with a similar lien over the broadcasting rights and . This would have shown belief in the club, increased the profit, but I do admit the down side could be negative comments from supporters along the lines of. "should be loaning it for nothing"

Alternative to an interest bearing instrument for investiment could be a rights issue underwritten by the new investor's advisor/merchant bank which would enable him to "hoover up" any unexercised shares, increasing their % holding. Think that only an ordinary resolution is required for this, but not certain.

May not sound like it but I am a passionate supporter, would love to see investment, am totally fed up with a seemingly moribund board, but I also believe in balanced arguement.

If you ever get the non-statutory accounts with detailed P&L, please feel free to enlighten one and all!!!

Michael Ward
121 Posted 16/08/2015 at 21:08:11
Jay, in terms of the points you want, I agree completely. In which case, I don't know what we are debating here.

Do you not think that the commercial side cold be achieved by hiring the right people, rather than replacing the board?

The ground move is less certain, but the club are at least giving the pretence that they are looking into this. Elstone has not been very positive regarding it happening though.

In terms of the boardroom experience, it is fairly new to me and so I can't say I have witnessed any power plays. I am more of an employee and director than an owner director so that train of thought is a bit alien to me.

I don't really want to continue arguing this point as we seem to agree. But I am by no means wallowing in self-pity; I am just pointing out the reasons I think we're the cause of our initial decline. I, as much as any Evertonian, want to see success and I have bought into RM's method for achieving this and am happy to see how it bears out.

Jay, you also take a lot of time and care with your posts. If you don't mind I am interested to know what you do yourself? Understand if you would rather not say.

Tony Abrahams
122 Posted 16/08/2015 at 21:17:04
Martin, AKA, " THE DUKE", that is why I never felt the need to answer your question yesterday, when you said I was being rude!!!!

Ian Smitham
124 Posted 16/08/2015 at 21:28:14
Eric#66, and/or anyone else, I am wondering if the tangible assets, like, say Goodison, are being remortgaged to provide finance for a playing squad? I appreciate there are arguments that some players are sold and not replaced by similar valued players, but, still, the costs of players including wages and all those pesky agents fees are not going down.

So, with that in mind, and maybe someone could give a realistic value of the players (then compare it to the value in the accounts) and we may be a bit closer to understanding what is going on?

For example, and maybe just for a laugh, anyone care to estimate what is the value of Howard, Stones and Barkley in the accounts? I have selected those three for reasons that Eric will be able to explain and which will I hope shed some light on what I think is a bit of an anomaly that I would like to be more informed about. Also, and I know it is in the Accounts, but what are the players worth overall and does anyone want a guess at what they would regard them as. Bit fantasy football, but again, I think there is an anomaly.

Michael Ward
125 Posted 16/08/2015 at 21:43:25
Ian #112

I would guess the collective (net) value of those 3 in the accounts to be around £1m

Howard - £0
Barkley - £0
Stones - £1m

I understand the basis of how they are valued but I don't know if there are any further intricacies involved in the valuations beyond that basis.

Ian Smitham
126 Posted 16/08/2015 at 21:51:30
Michael, cheers. Somebody elaborate on these what seem reasonable figures to me please.

Eric, honest, I mean this, I have no gripe with you, and sorry for keep asking you to respond, but, you seem to be an Accountant and close to the complexities of football valuations which seem to be quite unique. Please, please do not think I am having a go at you. It tIs was Facebook I would "PM" you to say this but am not sure it can be done on here.

Anyway, the players values in the books, their real values and the amount apparently being sought for the club. Come on...

Michael Ward
127 Posted 16/08/2015 at 21:58:35
Ian, my understanding is that the cost of the player and related agent's fees is recognised as the cost of the player's registration in the accounts. This cost is then amortised (reduced) proportionately over the length of the player's contract.

So, for example, Stones cost ١M let's say he was given a 3 year contract and he was 2 years in his "value" is now 1/3rd of the initial cost of ١M.

What I don't know is what effect contract renewals have on the amortisation period.

Using the same example, if Stones signs a new 5-year contract at the end of the 2nd year, I can see an argument for the remaining ٟM to be amortised at 𧶀k per year for the next 5 years, rather than just for the remaining 1 year that was left in his initial contract.

Like you say someone might know more but that is the basis of the valuations I have given you above.

Patrick Murphy
128 Posted 16/08/2015 at 22:03:13
The intangible fixed assets relate entirely to the cost of players' registrations. The Directors review the carrying value of the players' registrations for impairment. Where events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the asset may not be recoverable, to the extent that the carrying value exceeds the recoverable amount, the asset is impaired and the impairment loss is recognised in the profit and loss the net book value as of 31st May was £34.173m

As an aside Ian, this site holds plenty of interesting information, if you use either the search bar at the top of the page or just have a ferret about in the headings at the top of the page their is a wealth of historical information just a couple of clicks away. To start you off here is a link to accounts held on this site for the past decade or more
Published Accounts

Patrick Murphy
129 Posted 16/08/2015 at 22:05:24
See if this link works Ian.
Dave Harper
130 Posted 16/08/2015 at 22:21:25
Michael (115).

I believe that, in the Stones example, the unamortised amount at the time of the new contract, plus agents' and legal costs etc, are treated as the new cost of the registration, capitalised as intangibles, then amortised over the period of the new contract. Not sure about signing-on fees, but logic would dictate that these are capitalised and amortised in the same way.

Ian Smitham
131 Posted 16/08/2015 at 22:28:15
Patrick, like Eric, we seem to be exchanging a fair bit recently. Please trust me, I respect you and your views and appreciate the points and advice you offer up. From my view, there are no issues and I hope you feel the same. Again, if this were on FB, I would PM you.

As I understand it, in the accounts, the players are worth 㿎.173M.

At 114 I asked if anyone had any of their own valuations, Patrick and Michael have come back, but what is the squad worth really??

No wonder any asking price is not reflected in the accounts!!! FFS I would not sell on that basis. And if I had to borrow money at a bit over the odds to finance the above, I would.

I would also point out that I used to work for a big Bank, so what you may say, they owned virtually none of the buildings, they leased them at agreed affordable rents as they did not have or want their money tied up in assets.

If you work for a big company, when you go into work tomorrow, ask the Bods, "Who owns the building where you work?" Suggest it will not be the organisation you work for.

Anyway, thanks for reading.

Graham Mockford
132 Posted 16/08/2015 at 22:47:55
Ian #121

Normally when I go to work I normally try to avoid the accountants.

Eddie Dunn
133 Posted 16/08/2015 at 23:38:41
On the subject of the relative poverty of our once great club, and the alternatives to the current status quo, would it not be better for us to have a fan-based ownership?

As stated above, we have the current board, but if we want change, who would go on a new board? Would they be any better equipped to take us forward?

The reality is that football has changed, for the worse,(in my opinion). The incredible amounts of TV revenue should facilitate, comfortable stadia, cheaper seats and a better match-day experience, with even improved transport links etc.

Unfortunately, market forces, in the capitalist world in which we (Everton) operate demand that most of this revenue be spent on inflated wages for the so-called stars (I doubt that the back-room staff get such riches), and huge transfer fees.

Kenwright is stuck really, like any one of us, if we were in his shoes. His main failing is a lack of personal wealth to boost our ambition. He may well be sitting there waiting to cash-in his investment, most people would take what was on offer.
The game I love has been ruined by money, and it is no longer the working man's ( or woman's) entertainment.

The financial disparity between the clubs means it is increasingly hard to break into the top 4. This will lead to a boring competition, and once the TV people realise it, they may well sanction some kind of level playing field, in terms of spending per club.

Germany seems to be much more affordable for the fans, and ownership schemes include the fan-base. They still have top teams, with great players, so it is possible to do things differently.

Don Alexander
134 Posted 16/08/2015 at 00:06:59
To me Kevin Tully poses serious questions which the board have for years failed to address by their actions.

I understand that for business reasons they may well choose not to go public in explaining their actions, but it concerns me that those potential buyers who have been invited under BK to scrutinise the club's accounts under "due diligence" have all, repeat all, sped off immediately afterwards, never to be seen again.

Ciaran Duff
135 Posted 17/08/2015 at 01:28:18
IMHO, BK and board have done a reasonable job (excluding the Stadium issue). He stabilised the club at a time when we could have ended up like Leeds or Forest. He has brought in two good young managers and allowed them to get on with their jobs even when there was a dip in team performance.

Selling and leasing assets to build a world class training facility would be viewed by most business people as sensible. Also, establishing a great youth policy to provide talent for the future is a good long-term strategy. We are just starting to see the fruits of that now with more to come.

Off the field, there is no doubt that EitC has been a great achievement for club and community. On the commercial side, there have been some hiccups but people need to compare apples with apples. We are not in the same league (fan base wise) as Manure, RS etc. A more like-for-like comparison to me would be Villa. Our last Chang sponsorship was for (up to) 㾼m over 3 years. Let's assume ٣m per year. By comparison, Villa recently signed a 2-year with Intuit QuickBooks worth in excess of ٣m (ie, ٠.5m pa). WBA were sponsored by the company last season in a deal that saw them net ٟ.5m. Finance wise, it seems that we have tried to reduce debt and live within our means which makes it hard to compete with the top 5/6 teams. Unfortunately as increasing TV money comes in the door, it seems to go back out in players wages.

The one area where BK & Board have not done well is addressing the ground -- either a move or redevelopment. This is obviously a difficult issue for a club with an aging stadium yet trying to live within its means. However, we need to have an open and transparent long term PLAN to deal with this. If there are to be any protests then I think that this is the area that should be targeted rather than a scatter-gun approach which divides opinion anyway.

Nicholas Ryan
136 Posted 17/08/2015 at 01:59:44
Anyone who went to Lille will have seen a brand-new, state-of-the-art, 50,000-seater stadium. How did they fund it? I don't think they have a 'sugar-daddy' owner.

Why can't we do what they did... whatever it was!

Michael Polley
137 Posted 17/08/2015 at 02:04:45
Unless we find a Billionaire buyer we are always going to struggle with finances, and improved investment. I can understand the frustration of some fans, but we've got a good wee team with great potential. Support the team and hope one day that we find the gold at the bottem of the rainbow.
Eric Myles
138 Posted 17/08/2015 at 03:43:26
Brent #80, leaving aside the incorrect gross debt figures it is not possible to tell based on that report as it doesn't include the value of the assets.

There is also an anomaly in that the 2014 figure includes money from the sale of an asset which would have been realised if your total sale scenario happened in 2013. And of course there is the 㿊M increase in income from telly rights that massage the 2014 figures.

Eric Myles
139 Posted 17/08/2015 at 03:48:00
Good post, Dave (#82).

Those commentators and reporters that are stating the protest is about the lack of money spent in this transfer window are completely missing the point.

Gavin Johnson
140 Posted 17/08/2015 at 03:53:46
There's been a few rumours of a Billionaire family buying/bought the club being banded around. If this happened, with the influx of silly money being offered by the television companies, it doesn't seem as unrealistic as it seems. Now is the time to buy a club and I think we could actually be an attractive proposition for a perspective buyer.

We've got a very good team, an academy envied by many, and training facilities amongst the best in the league. True, we don't own it, but wouldn't the council sell Finch Farm for a reasonable figure?!

The stumbling block is obviously the ground. If we had a sugar daddy owner, success on the pitch would lead to extra revenue streams through vastly improved sponsorship deals. Wouldn't a new ground not seems so unrealistic then?! In terms of site, we can take up Stanley Park now the neighbours are staying put and redeveloping.

Of course the investment on the pitch would have to reap dividends with Champions League qualification and maybe winning a trophy. That said, Spurs have the Billionaire Joe Lewis as their owner, and they have a good profile in terms of sponsorship and their standing because they invest on the pitch which keeps them in and around the top 4-6. So I'm essentially saying that money will attract more money.

While it all might sound like a pipe dream, if we were to get a rich owner, I think we'd only need a little success on the pitch for the other parts of the jigsaw to fall into place.

It might seem a big 'if', but I think we have the nucleus of a trophy-winning side with the likes of Stones, Lukaku, Barkley and McCarthy and have the best group of young players coming through I can remember. If we didn't have to sell and could invest more than the teams outside the established top 6 on consistent basis, IMO the sky's the limit.

This is all in very simplistic terms and I've not taken into account and I won't even pretend to know where we are with debt right now. I'm not an accountant. But is it really that much for a new rich owner with the crazy money that's coming into the game?

Eric Myles
141 Posted 17/08/2015 at 04:04:20
Ian #114 & 116, sorry if I'm not getting around to answer all your posts, I'm on holiday in a time zone GMT+6 and trying to type on a 'phone.

The mortgage is not being used to finance player purchases, I don't know when it was taken out (10 years ago??) but we would have received it in a lump sum and have spent it then presumably.

As for the player values they are probably understated in the account by around 𧴜M.

Eric Myles
142 Posted 17/08/2015 at 04:18:08
'Who will replace the board?' and 'be careful what you wish for' are cries often heard during these debates.

Well on the one hand we have the BU who want the appointment of independent experts to attract buyers, perform due diligence and sell to the person that will provide for the best interests of the Club.

On the other hand we have the self proclaimed "best salesman if EFC" who has consistently failed in his approach and was entertaining selling to a bloke in a bedsit.

Who do you trust as the most capable party to find the correct buyer??

Eric Myles
143 Posted 17/08/2015 at 04:49:29
Nicholas #124 Link -- it's their version of Kings Dock; the city and regional government are paying the majority of the money.
Eric Myles
144 Posted 17/08/2015 at 05:07:27
It seems that our £28 mn mortgage was taken out in 2002 and the 2003 accounts record that of £34 mn debt, £27 mn is due to this mortgage.

So considering that it is a significant increase in borrowing, the debt being only £7 million prior, can anyone shed any light on what we spent the money on in one fell swoop??

Brent Stephens
145 Posted 17/08/2015 at 06:24:31
Eric #125 - thanks.
Ian Cowhig
146 Posted 17/08/2015 at 09:24:08
It's mentioned, earlier in the thread, that Everton fans involved in the selection of new owners is the right move. Unfortunately I think there is too much history for the club to accept the Blue Union as the Everton fans' representative body. I also believe that this would be too fractious.

We should also not have a profit making group involved, as ulterior motives for a quick sale would arise.

How about the Everton Supporter's Club financial representatives?

Eric Myles
147 Posted 17/08/2015 at 10:12:16
Which Supporters Club though Ian? there's loads of them Link

If you mean the Shareholders Association I think they may be BU members anyway.

Kevin Tully
148 Posted 17/08/2015 at 10:42:40
Wow, this thread has certainly turned up some interesting views alright. It also seems we've enough fan expertise on this thread alone to help us laymen understand what me be going on with our accounting processes. (I'm just a painter & decorator, so thanks to the high flyers for the explanations)

One aspect of the business that troubles some is the OOCs. Now, someone once told me that Robert Earl could quite legitimately invoice the club for 'management fees' through his BCR vehicle, and any auditors wouldn't find this as unusual? I'm not saying this is happening, of course. As Keith Harrison asks, above, what is the plan going forward? Even if we forget about past misdemeanors, do we have one?

On the actual running of the club and BK's role, didn't industry expert, Joe Beardwood, say something along the lines of: "The truth is he doesn't want to sell. He's a wonderful Evertonian. His heart is completely in the right place but it's like having my dad, who was a docker, in control... deep down he doesn't want [to sell]."

I also believe he said: "Everton do not have a business plan in place."

Now, after Robert Elstone stated re WHP: "By late summer-early Autumn 2015 there will be a planning application for whole site" (which is clearly not happening) in November last year, and the fact we have just removed another sponsor because of fraudulent activity, I really don't know if that constitutes a well run business?

But, if the chaps above tell me everything is fine, I guess I'll have to take their word as experts. To us ordinary fans looking in though, I am very concerned for the future of this club.

Ian Cowhig
149 Posted 17/08/2015 at 10:48:37
Thanks, Eric.

Sorry, I was not trying to be too specific on which group. Just thinking of a group that we as fans would trust to be independent.

There are lots of people on here saying that BK and the main shareholders should walk away with just the 㿀 million they put in. Which isn't going to happen. No-one in their right mind would do this, and so things will not move forward.

In the same way, the shareholders asking for an unreasonable price, with our only assets being the players that have no worth once their contracts run out.

Somewhere in the middle is the way forward. The takeover needs to include paying off any debt, and this should include the mortgage on stadium and the training ground. The shareholders then get what is left.

Jay Wood
150 Posted 17/08/2015 at 11:33:46
Michael #108

Apologies for not replying earlier, but... I do have a life outside TW and I like to sleep!

Debate is healthy, Michael, when, as I hope it has been between you and I, it is respectful of the others point of view, even if you may not entirely agree with it.

Too often on internet forums it degenerates into a screeching playground of name-calling, with neither side conceding any point to the other and the original point of discussion is secondary, or completely lost.

In our own case, an early misunderstanding was cleared up, we were made to consider an alternative view point and a reasonable consensus was arrived at, although not necessarily total accord as to how we view the situation.

That's healthy.

What was possible between us two, I appreciate, is maybe not easy to achieve between the many diverse thousands in the Everton family, but this is what I briefly touched on in reference to the lobby groups that now and again flare up.

I have seen on these very pages and via other media the spokespeople for those groups ridicule, abuse and treat with utter disdain any (presumed!) dissenting voice to their cause, however mild.

To me, that is counter-productive to their cause. Rather than alienating the fanbase, they should be engaging with them, educating them if you will, to what they consider are the big issues, so as to grow their support and be a more effective and representative lobby group.

Too often IMO these groups make a single grand gesture, or posturing, presuming that alone will tip the balance, galvanize the fanbase and topple the board, or force the change they seek. In truth, a slow and steady metronome approach would possibly garner a growing support and maintain pressure on their intended targets.

An example of that is the flying of the plane on Saturday by a new lobby group (who incidentally, it is very difficult to learn anything about beyond a Twitter page).

Then there was the Blue Union's 'clown march' at Goodison a few years ago. Great photos and page filler for the tabloids, but then... nothing.

Just a few months later, the BU declared they were stopping protests as the team was doing well and they did not want to be seen as a distraction to that.

How wishy-washy is that? Either you believe in your cause or not. The underlying problems that motivated them to form their groups remain. They lost a great deal of credibility with me and others that day.

But back to your post. I do indeed think that the commercial side could be achieved by hiring the right people. But that responsibility falls to... the board. And they have patently failed to do so.

Take the case of Trevor Birch, who brought Abramovich to Chelsea and did the salvage job on Leeds after Peter Risdale's disastrous reign.

Good appointment as CEO in 2004. Just what we needed. He lasted six weeks, resigning after the board rejected his development plan for the club.

I've suggested before, a great appointment for Everton would be Southampton's former chairman, Nicola Cortese. Read up on him, if you don't know much about him. This is a shaker and mover who would have a real vision on how to move the club forward.

Yesterday, I mentioned how one of the responsibilities a director has within a company is "To try and make the company a success, using their skills, experience and judgement."

We have on our board an actor and theatre impresario in BK; Robert Earl, the founder of the global Planet Hollywood restaurants and (I believe) still chairman of the PH resorts and casinos in the US; and Jon Woods, a self-made millionaire in the computer games industry.

BK's net worth is estimated to be 㿍M, Robert Earl $240M, but finding Jon Woods' net worth is proving more difficult! What I have found is that as long ago as 1996 he sold his gaming company for a cool $100M, so he's doing all right!

The point is, all three are successful and wealthy business men in their own industries. Part of their success must be down to good recruitment, promoting their brand and seizing the opportunities that came their way to grab a market share in their very competitive industries.

All three have a particular expertise. All three have considerable wealth. What evidence is there that they have advanced the cause of EFC and improved our income streams or profile, using their expertise or investing any of their own monies into the club, Michael?

For this alone, it is my and others opinion that the current board of directors have not fulfilled their corporate responsibility to EFC, be that improving multiple income streams beyond TV monies or players' sales, providing a modern day 'fit for purpose' stadium for the 21st Century, or growing our brand and market share beyond the L4 postcode.

Any way, I've waffled enough. It's been really nice exchanging views with you Michael. I've enjoyed it. Cheers!

Jim Lloyd
151 Posted 17/08/2015 at 13:15:54
Martin (104) "As fans, we have no right whatsoever, to demand the overthrow of a legally constituted board. We have a right to buy the product, or not, That's all."
Of course we have a right! Although I don't see many posts calling for and "overthrow" as though we were a bunch of Russian Revolutionaries.

We have a right to call the board into account based on the pronouncements over the years, of the Chairman of that board since his True Blue Holdings took over the club.

The fans of Manchester City had the right to call for Peter Swales to go. Kenwright can tell the fans to get stuffed. Yep, he's the Chairman and his cronies are the directors but if the opposition to his continued running of the club gets louder and louder, then that's Everton fans, not customers, concerned for their club.

Kenwright has been unsuccessful in his "24/7" search for investment (well he did find Samuelson and some feller in a bedsit); he's been the man on the bridge during two failed ground moves, while Goodison Park is slowly corroding away; the dealings with the shareholders etc.

The people who are challenging, questioning, calling for him to go, are Evertonians who believe that he has presided over a decline in our Club.

My own opinion, is that he has not wanted to lose control of EFC and all his actions are secondary to that overwhelming desire. And I think that has been at the detriment to our club.

As for "who else would you like to see come in spending loads of money" (that wasn't you, it was another poster). Sooner or later, that question may well arise. And that brings into question whether there is any succession planning. I suppose Robert Earl and Jon Woods will take us to a bright new future... with the help of our friend Green.

Ernie Baywood
152 Posted 17/08/2015 at 13:20:12
Football isn't a normal business. It relies on brand loyalty in a way that others don't. I don't think we need the right to question the owners... it's our duty!
Jim Lloyd
153 Posted 17/08/2015 at 13:37:42
Absolutely right, Ernie.
Denis Richardson
154 Posted 17/08/2015 at 14:11:05
Whether you're for or against BK and the board, or in the middle, I think we can all agree that we want the club to progress. I define progress by not just the results on the pitch but sorting out the stadium issue, growing the fan base, having a successful academy and relying less on the TV money by increasing/maximising other revenue streams.

For the above to happen there needs to be a clear, focused and achievable business plan in place that covers at least the next 5-10 years. The frustration that has arisen with a lot of fans I feel, myself included, is the sheer lack of transparency and clear communication from those in charge to explain exactly what their 'plan' is. All we have to go on are the results achieved over the last decade and more. And in relation to most of those targets listed above, there has been relatively little progress made over a very long time frame.

The stadium issue is not an easy one to solve and will obviously involve a hefty amount of money. However, if we don't have the funds today what IS the plan to get the funds at some point in the future? This issue is not new and has been around like the proverbial elephant in the room since at least 2003. If the management said something along the lines of "Our plan is to sort out the stadium within 7 years and these are the steps we are currently taking," and then updated us every 6-12 months with tangible progress, we'd all be patient, knowing that we were at least moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. Or at least gave us an idea of the options currently being looked at/considered.

However, there seems to be nothing happening. WHP was a non-starter in the first place; what have they been doing since DK died? Why can't they tell us why GP cannot be redeveloped, rather than saying it's 'not feasible'? Is is planning permission, space issues or what? What exactly are they currently doing here?

Even if they said we're selling Stones for 㿔m and 㿊m of this is being ring fenced to help sort out the stadium – at least this would be a plan of some sort.

We simply cannot see much tangible progress that BK and Co have made other than keeping our heads above water (thanks mainly to Sky) over the last decade or so. That may be okay for some fans, especially the newer ones. For me that's nowhere near enough, I remember the '80s and even in the '90s there was hope we'd turn it around soon. Moyes brought us relative stability on the pitch but that's been it. Off the pitch there has been very little to shout about. If there has been tangible progress made, we certainly haven't been told about it – and the club is normally quick to blow it's own trumpet.

If BK & Co brought in new people with fresh ideas and improved the communication with the fans, this would go a long way to keeping the frustration down. However, my personal feeling is that he's not able to solve the main issues. Add this to the fact that he doesn't even want to give up any power, it makes for for us moving nowhere and continuing to rely on Sky and/or a miracle.

He reminds of Charlton Heston and his 'from my cold, dead hands' speech.

No one realistically expects us to do anything in the league
No one realistically expects us to do anything in the cups
No one expects any progress anytime soon on the stadium issue
In short it's boring coupled with little hope and/or enthusiasm - not a great recipe for a football club. This has been the situation for a while with the odd blip of 5th in 2013 and the cup final in 2009 - that is it!

I do believe BK wants and needs the support of a sizeable number of fans and if protests continue, it may – just may – get him to do something, if not sell then at least provide greater transparency, bring in new people etc.

At the end of the day, if you don't try, then fuck-all will happen. For this reason alone, I support the banner, although they maybe should have waited until the transfer window was over so that it didn't just look like people moaning because a lack of transfer activity – which is what the press has made it out to be unfortunately. The issues are bigger than that.

William Cartwright
155 Posted 17/08/2015 at 17:05:38
Gentlemen, the long-term business plan is not available in the public domain, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Lack of transparency to whatever degree may even be a part of the plan in some way, but this breeds negative suspicion. There is a a lack of management skill in dealing with this issue alone. It seems Evertonians know more about Swansea's future planning than we do.

What I find really surprising is how, in spite of all the indecision, natural suspicion, the collective voice of Evertonians is not as aggressive or self-destructive as it could be. All ToffeeWebbers seem to agree on the main pillars of a probable business plan in the following suggested priority order:-

1st: success on the field,
2nd: a new stadium,
3rd: a cared for and expanding fan base,
4th: commercial brand expansion, etc.

Interwoven amidst each of these core values are tertiary values such as young player development, community participation, target goals (eg; target Europe or Cups...) player renewal policy, sponsorship and so on. This incredibly diverse and rich strategy should be a relatively open forum to take benefit from the imagination of Evertonians at all levels.

Not being open and approachable is seriously undermining the spirit of the Club by simply breeding suspicion. I like most if not all Evertonians wish Bill the best, especially in the current circumstances. But if he wants to get Everyone onside there must be more openness, more debate, more imagination, more commercial reality, more constructive marketing and so on.

All of this is widely understood. The longer the lack of openness the more negative the suspicion will grow with disasterous slide into regression.

Sorry to ramble on but I wanted to get that off my tits.....

Brin Williams
156 Posted 17/08/2015 at 18:44:13
This has to be the thread with some of the longest posts ever - and.......
we never found out who killed JR or whether Kim Jong Bill is ill or not?

Oh yes I have sent my answer for 'EITC' to Mr Elstone who some would say managed to get 'EITS'.

Gary Carter
158 Posted 18/08/2015 at 12:10:55
Even a lot of the national press is now starting to open their eyes to the goings on at Goodson. We've been in the premier league since it started, have earns millions and millions year upon year through this as well as making some big player sales and selling off our training ground !!!! Weve averaged a net spend of 2.5 million !!! So, where is all the money ?

I have said it time and time again, there is no excuses at all for them to hide behind. The people running the club are either total crooks or they are completely and utterly inept ! Either way they don't deserve and shouldn't be the custodians of this club !

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