The Swiss Ramble on Everton FC

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm sort of wondering if this is a 'look what you could have won' moment' in that the business model as described by SR is sort of what we were doing pre-Ashley. There are of course big differences, we have the bigger potential, our matchday income in the premiership dwarfes theirs and we dont need a new stadium. However, when i was reading it, i couldnt help but think of the 2006 to 2007 state of the club.

That wasnt the point of posting it though, its sobering reading and just goes to show the importance of maximising every possible income stream and reducing the interest payments on loans. That 7.79% looks prohibitive in today's debt market. If you want to bring up the SD signage in this thread, feel free, its a mystery to me why he isnt using every legitimate means to raise revenue as that revenue table tells you exactly what drives success, as if there was any doubt about that.

 

Everton need a buyer, going to be interesting seeing what they do next as something has to give.

 

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was.

 

But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really.

 

I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time.

 

 

I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

 

so you said at the time if we don't replace the Halls and Shepherd we will go bust in a few years time, but nobody else with "unsustainable debts" will go bust in a few years time ?

 

Just illustrates your lack of comprehension . If the debt at the time had been stable it would have been sustainable, the ONLY way to service the debt, because it was growing, was by more debt, that model (in the real world) is NOT sustainable. Who else had a model like that, with no owner to bail it out ??? Maybe Portsmouth, and that's all (and perhaps Everton it appears).

 

That's what you fail to grasp every fucking time, our debt was like no-one else's, there wasn't an owner to support it or underwrite it, it was 100% financial institution debt to the max.

 

Please show me where you, or anybody else, said 5-6 years ago that we had to get rid of the Halls and Shepherd because sugar daddies were about to take over Man City [only Chelsea at the time were being bankrolled] and [for some reason] needed this takeover to act bigger than clubs such as West Ham, Wigan, Stoke, Blackburn etc and we would have to become a selling club again, sell our best players, keep the cash and settle for premiership survival as success ?

 

Nobody said this, not one of you, and you know it. You just thought anybody would tap the resources and be more successful, automatically show the ambition, and not "embarrass you" by making PR gaffes and renting warehouses.

 

NUFC do not need a rich benefactor to act big and be a bigger club than clubs like this, but you have allowed yourself to be conned, hook line and sinker, by the arsehole who now owns the football club.

 

This is what YOU fail to grasp every time. If NUFC were ever going to go bust, they would have gone bust in 1991. As it is, they are now heading down the same road of long term apathy that led eventually to the situation that existed in 1991. You fail to grasp that football business is not like a high street business.

 

Fucking absurd, tbh. The odds were totally stacked against it, and only a complete and utter lunatic would still cling to it and not be able to admit it.

 

You have been brainwashed by that book by Dennis Cassidy....who had a huge agenda with the old board.....what else would he do but print anti-Hall/Shepherd comments ? As soon as he was appointed to the board in the first place, I cringed tbh, because as soon as "businessmen" start making comments about football clubs like "run them as a business", you just KNOW that the actual football is not going to come first. See Alan Sugar too.

Edited September 15, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9988]

I'm sort of wondering if this is a 'look what you could have won' moment' in that the business model as described by SR is sort of what we were doing pre-Ashley. There are of course big differences, we have the bigger potential, our matchday income in the premiership dwarfes theirs and we dont need a new stadium. However, when i was reading it, i couldnt help but think of the 2006 to 2007 state of the club.

That wasnt the point of posting it though, its sobering reading and just goes to show the importance of maximising every possible income stream and reducing the interest payments on loans. That 7.79% looks prohibitive in today's debt market. If you want to bring up the SD signage in this thread, feel free, its a mystery to me why he isnt using every legitimate means to raise revenue as that revenue table tells you exactly what drives success, as if there was any doubt about that.

 

Everton need a buyer, going to be interesting seeing what they do next as something has to give.

 

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was.

 

But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really.

 

I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time.

 

 

I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

 

so you said at the time if we don't replace the Halls and Shepherd we will go bust in a few years time, but nobody else with "unsustainable debts" will go bust in a few years time ?

 

Just illustrates your lack of comprehension . If the debt at the time had been stable it would have been sustainable, the ONLY way to service the debt, because it was growing, was by more debt, that model (in the real world) is NOT sustainable. Who else had a model like that, with no owner to bail it out ??? Maybe Portsmouth, and that's all (and perhaps Everton it appears).

 

That's what you fail to grasp every fucking time, our debt was like no-one else's, there wasn't an owner to support it or underwrite it, it was 100% financial institution debt to the max.

 

Please show me where you, or anybody else, said 5-6 years ago that we had to get rid of the Halls and Shepherd because sugar daddies were about to take over Man City [only Chelsea at the time were being bankrolled] and [for some reason] needed this takeover to act bigger than clubs such as West Ham, Wigan, Stoke, Blackburn etc and we would have to become a selling club again, sell our best players, keep the cash and settle for premiership survival as success ?

 

Nobody said this, not one of you, and you know it. You just thought anybody would tap the resources and be more successful, automatically show the ambition, and not "embarrass you" by making PR gaffes and renting warehouses.

 

NUFC do not need a rich benefactor to act big and be a bigger club than clubs like this, but you have allowed yourself to be conned, hook line and sinker, by the arsehole who now owns the football club.

 

This is what YOU fail to grasp every time. If NUFC were ever going to go bust, they would have gone bust in 1991. As it is, they are now heading down the same road of long term apathy that led eventually to the situation that existed in 1991. You fail to grasp that football business is not like a high street business.

 

Fucking absurd, tbh. The odds were totally stacked against it, and only a complete and utter lunatic would still cling to it and not be able to admit it.

 

You have been brainwashed by that book by Dennis Cassidy....who had a huge agenda with the old board.....what else would he do but print anti-Hall/Shepherd comments ? As soon as he was appointed to the board in the first place, I cringed tbh, because as soon as "businessmen" start making comments about football clubs like "run them as a business", you just KNOW that the actual football is not going to come first. See Alan Sugar too.

 

No-one least of all me has ever said that, what I have said is that our plight was unsustainable, and thus our ability to compete with any fucker was severely limited.

 

A book I've never read

Edited September 15, 2011 by Toonpack

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm sort of wondering if this is a 'look what you could have won' moment' in that the business model as described by SR is sort of what we were doing pre-Ashley. There are of course big differences, we have the bigger potential, our matchday income in the premiership dwarfes theirs and we dont need a new stadium. However, when i was reading it, i couldnt help but think of the 2006 to 2007 state of the club.

That wasnt the point of posting it though, its sobering reading and just goes to show the importance of maximising every possible income stream and reducing the interest payments on loans. That 7.79% looks prohibitive in today's debt market. If you want to bring up the SD signage in this thread, feel free, its a mystery to me why he isnt using every legitimate means to raise revenue as that revenue table tells you exactly what drives success, as if there was any doubt about that.

 

Everton need a buyer, going to be interesting seeing what they do next as something has to give.

 

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was.

 

But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really.

 

I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time.

 

 

I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

 

so you said at the time if we don't replace the Halls and Shepherd we will go bust in a few years time, but nobody else with "unsustainable debts" will go bust in a few years time ?

 

Just illustrates your lack of comprehension . If the debt at the time had been stable it would have been sustainable, the ONLY way to service the debt, because it was growing, was by more debt, that model (in the real world) is NOT sustainable. Who else had a model like that, with no owner to bail it out ??? Maybe Portsmouth, and that's all (and perhaps Everton it appears).

 

That's what you fail to grasp every fucking time, our debt was like no-one else's, there wasn't an owner to support it or underwrite it, it was 100% financial institution debt to the max.

 

Please show me where you, or anybody else, said 5-6 years ago that we had to get rid of the Halls and Shepherd because sugar daddies were about to take over Man City [only Chelsea at the time were being bankrolled] and [for some reason] needed this takeover to act bigger than clubs such as West Ham, Wigan, Stoke, Blackburn etc and we would have to become a selling club again, sell our best players, keep the cash and settle for premiership survival as success ?

 

Nobody said this, not one of you, and you know it. You just thought anybody would tap the resources and be more successful, automatically show the ambition, and not "embarrass you" by making PR gaffes and renting warehouses.

 

NUFC do not need a rich benefactor to act big and be a bigger club than clubs like this, but you have allowed yourself to be conned, hook line and sinker, by the arsehole who now owns the football club.

 

This is what YOU fail to grasp every time. If NUFC were ever going to go bust, they would have gone bust in 1991. As it is, they are now heading down the same road of long term apathy that led eventually to the situation that existed in 1991. You fail to grasp that football business is not like a high street business.

 

Fucking absurd, tbh. The odds were totally stacked against it, and only a complete and utter lunatic would still cling to it and not be able to admit it.

 

You have been brainwashed by that book by Dennis Cassidy....who had a huge agenda with the old board.....what else would he do but print anti-Hall/Shepherd comments ? As soon as he was appointed to the board in the first place, I cringed tbh, because as soon as "businessmen" start making comments about football clubs like "run them as a business", you just KNOW that the actual football is not going to come first. See Alan Sugar too.

 

No-one least of all me has ever said that, what I have said is that our plight was unsustainable, and thus our ability to compete with any fucker was severely limited.

 

A book I've never read

 

 

in that case, why did you recommend it to me ? and why is a quote from it in your sig ?

 

Edit. and has been asked, when are Everton - and 90% of the clubs in the country and/or the premiership, also going to go bust ?

Edited September 15, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9988]

I'm sort of wondering if this is a 'look what you could have won' moment' in that the business model as described by SR is sort of what we were doing pre-Ashley. There are of course big differences, we have the bigger potential, our matchday income in the premiership dwarfes theirs and we dont need a new stadium. However, when i was reading it, i couldnt help but think of the 2006 to 2007 state of the club.

That wasnt the point of posting it though, its sobering reading and just goes to show the importance of maximising every possible income stream and reducing the interest payments on loans. That 7.79% looks prohibitive in today's debt market. If you want to bring up the SD signage in this thread, feel free, its a mystery to me why he isnt using every legitimate means to raise revenue as that revenue table tells you exactly what drives success, as if there was any doubt about that.

 

Everton need a buyer, going to be interesting seeing what they do next as something has to give.

 

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was.

 

But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really.

 

I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time.

 

 

I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

 

so you said at the time if we don't replace the Halls and Shepherd we will go bust in a few years time, but nobody else with "unsustainable debts" will go bust in a few years time ?

 

Just illustrates your lack of comprehension . If the debt at the time had been stable it would have been sustainable, the ONLY way to service the debt, because it was growing, was by more debt, that model (in the real world) is NOT sustainable. Who else had a model like that, with no owner to bail it out ??? Maybe Portsmouth, and that's all (and perhaps Everton it appears).

 

That's what you fail to grasp every fucking time, our debt was like no-one else's, there wasn't an owner to support it or underwrite it, it was 100% financial institution debt to the max.

 

Please show me where you, or anybody else, said 5-6 years ago that we had to get rid of the Halls and Shepherd because sugar daddies were about to take over Man City [only Chelsea at the time were being bankrolled] and [for some reason] needed this takeover to act bigger than clubs such as West Ham, Wigan, Stoke, Blackburn etc and we would have to become a selling club again, sell our best players, keep the cash and settle for premiership survival as success ?

 

Nobody said this, not one of you, and you know it. You just thought anybody would tap the resources and be more successful, automatically show the ambition, and not "embarrass you" by making PR gaffes and renting warehouses.

 

NUFC do not need a rich benefactor to act big and be a bigger club than clubs like this, but you have allowed yourself to be conned, hook line and sinker, by the arsehole who now owns the football club.

 

This is what YOU fail to grasp every time. If NUFC were ever going to go bust, they would have gone bust in 1991. As it is, they are now heading down the same road of long term apathy that led eventually to the situation that existed in 1991. You fail to grasp that football business is not like a high street business.

 

Fucking absurd, tbh. The odds were totally stacked against it, and only a complete and utter lunatic would still cling to it and not be able to admit it.

 

You have been brainwashed by that book by Dennis Cassidy....who had a huge agenda with the old board.....what else would he do but print anti-Hall/Shepherd comments ? As soon as he was appointed to the board in the first place, I cringed tbh, because as soon as "businessmen" start making comments about football clubs like "run them as a business", you just KNOW that the actual football is not going to come first. See Alan Sugar too.

 

No-one least of all me has ever said that, what I have said is that our plight was unsustainable, and thus our ability to compete with any fucker was severely limited.

 

A book I've never read

 

 

in that case, why did you recommend it to me ? and why is a quote from it in your sig ?

 

Edit. and has been asked, when are Everton - and 90% of the clubs in the country and/or the premiership, also going to go bust ?

 

It's a quote in my sig becasue I found it (as a quote) and liked it.

 

When will you explain/describe how all other premier debt is like ours was, then your question will make sense.

[Guest Your Name Here]

I'm sort of wondering if this is a 'look what you could have won' moment' in that the business model as described by SR is sort of what we were doing pre-Ashley. There are of course big differences, we have the bigger potential, our matchday income in the premiership dwarfes theirs and we dont need a new stadium. However, when i was reading it, i couldnt help but think of the 2006 to 2007 state of the club.

That wasnt the point of posting it though, its sobering reading and just goes to show the importance of maximising every possible income stream and reducing the interest payments on loans. That 7.79% looks prohibitive in today's debt market. If you want to bring up the SD signage in this thread, feel free, its a mystery to me why he isnt using every legitimate means to raise revenue as that revenue table tells you exactly what drives success, as if there was any doubt about that.

 

Everton need a buyer, going to be interesting seeing what they do next as something has to give.

 

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was.

 

But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really.

 

I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time.

 

 

I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

So when will Everton cease to exist then?

 

When did I ever say they would (or we would for that matter).

Howay TP. The line about NUFC ceasing to existing if FMA hadn’t bought the club has been wheeled out almost as many times as Joey Barton tweets. All the stuff about the recession and the banks not lending any money, about how we were doomed to go bust and never return.

 

Now you and Chez are giving it the look at Everton, there but for the grace of god, that could have been us. It follows that Everton will cease to exist unless they get bought by a fat billionaire, unless of course the theory that any club in debt and losing money will be liquidated by hard up bankers isn’t as watertight as many have stated. If you’ve never said that I apologise, but it has been used endlessly to defend FMA’s running of NUFC.

 

If anything Everton are in worse position than us. They’ve only got about two executive boxes in an old stadium that needs to be replaced if they are to increase their revenue streams. Nor do they have the brand image NUFC still retained on the back of the entertainers era. They need serious investment in their infrastructure, and without it they are (and will stay) miles behind where NUFC were when FMA took over in terms of potential turnover.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm sort of wondering if this is a 'look what you could have won' moment' in that the business model as described by SR is sort of what we were doing pre-Ashley. There are of course big differences, we have the bigger potential, our matchday income in the premiership dwarfes theirs and we dont need a new stadium. However, when i was reading it, i couldnt help but think of the 2006 to 2007 state of the club.

That wasnt the point of posting it though, its sobering reading and just goes to show the importance of maximising every possible income stream and reducing the interest payments on loans. That 7.79% looks prohibitive in today's debt market. If you want to bring up the SD signage in this thread, feel free, its a mystery to me why he isnt using every legitimate means to raise revenue as that revenue table tells you exactly what drives success, as if there was any doubt about that.

 

Everton need a buyer, going to be interesting seeing what they do next as something has to give.

 

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was.

 

But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really.

 

I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time.

 

 

I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

 

so you said at the time if we don't replace the Halls and Shepherd we will go bust in a few years time, but nobody else with "unsustainable debts" will go bust in a few years time ?

 

Just illustrates your lack of comprehension . If the debt at the time had been stable it would have been sustainable, the ONLY way to service the debt, because it was growing, was by more debt, that model (in the real world) is NOT sustainable. Who else had a model like that, with no owner to bail it out ??? Maybe Portsmouth, and that's all (and perhaps Everton it appears).

 

That's what you fail to grasp every fucking time, our debt was like no-one else's, there wasn't an owner to support it or underwrite it, it was 100% financial institution debt to the max.

 

Please show me where you, or anybody else, said 5-6 years ago that we had to get rid of the Halls and Shepherd because sugar daddies were about to take over Man City [only Chelsea at the time were being bankrolled] and [for some reason] needed this takeover to act bigger than clubs such as West Ham, Wigan, Stoke, Blackburn etc and we would have to become a selling club again, sell our best players, keep the cash and settle for premiership survival as success ?

 

Nobody said this, not one of you, and you know it. You just thought anybody would tap the resources and be more successful, automatically show the ambition, and not "embarrass you" by making PR gaffes and renting warehouses.

 

NUFC do not need a rich benefactor to act big and be a bigger club than clubs like this, but you have allowed yourself to be conned, hook line and sinker, by the arsehole who now owns the football club.

 

This is what YOU fail to grasp every time. If NUFC were ever going to go bust, they would have gone bust in 1991. As it is, they are now heading down the same road of long term apathy that led eventually to the situation that existed in 1991. You fail to grasp that football business is not like a high street business.

 

Fucking absurd, tbh. The odds were totally stacked against it, and only a complete and utter lunatic would still cling to it and not be able to admit it.

 

You have been brainwashed by that book by Dennis Cassidy....who had a huge agenda with the old board.....what else would he do but print anti-Hall/Shepherd comments ? As soon as he was appointed to the board in the first place, I cringed tbh, because as soon as "businessmen" start making comments about football clubs like "run them as a business", you just KNOW that the actual football is not going to come first. See Alan Sugar too.

 

No-one least of all me has ever said that, what I have said is that our plight was unsustainable, and thus our ability to compete with any fucker was severely limited.

 

A book I've never read

 

 

in that case, why did you recommend it to me ? and why is a quote from it in your sig ?

 

Edit. and has been asked, when are Everton - and 90% of the clubs in the country and/or the premiership, also going to go bust ?

 

It's a quote in my sig becasue I found it (as a quote) and liked it.

 

When will you explain/describe how all other premier debt is like ours was, then your question will make sense.

 

why don't you explain why it has increased, despite Mike Ashleys financial wizardy ie better than the hopeless Halls and Shepherd, and why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash ? From a playing perspective, do you realise we are relegation candidates again, through selling our best players, like Blackburn, Bolton etc do ?

 

You have said many times, that the club would have folded if not for Mike Ashley [despite not saying it at the time he took over, as I keep reminding you].

 

What is Dennis Cassidy's view on the years between 1990 and 2007 [as in your sig], if he is to be believed, despite his agenda and bitterness towards the old owners ? Does it not count ?

Edited September 15, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm sort of wondering if this is a 'look what you could have won' moment' in that the business model as described by SR is sort of what we were doing pre-Ashley. There are of course big differences, we have the bigger potential, our matchday income in the premiership dwarfes theirs and we dont need a new stadium. However, when i was reading it, i couldnt help but think of the 2006 to 2007 state of the club.

That wasnt the point of posting it though, its sobering reading and just goes to show the importance of maximising every possible income stream and reducing the interest payments on loans. That 7.79% looks prohibitive in today's debt market. If you want to bring up the SD signage in this thread, feel free, its a mystery to me why he isnt using every legitimate means to raise revenue as that revenue table tells you exactly what drives success, as if there was any doubt about that.

 

Everton need a buyer, going to be interesting seeing what they do next as something has to give.

 

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was.

 

But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really.

 

I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time.

 

 

I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

So when will Everton cease to exist then?

 

When did I ever say they would (or we would for that matter).

Howay TP. The line about NUFC ceasing to existing if FMA hadn’t bought the club has been wheeled out almost as many times as Joey Barton tweets. All the stuff about the recession and the banks not lending any money, about how we were doomed to go bust and never return.

 

Now you and Chez are giving it the look at Everton, there but for the grace of god, that could have been us. It follows that Everton will cease to exist unless they get bought by a fat billionaire, unless of course the theory that any club in debt and losing money will be liquidated by hard up bankers isn’t as watertight as many have stated. If you’ve never said that I apologise, but it has been used endlessly to defend FMA’s running of NUFC.

 

If anything Everton are in worse position than us. They’ve only got about two executive boxes in an old stadium that needs to be replaced if they are to increase their revenue streams. Nor do they have the brand image NUFC still retained on the back of the entertainers era. They need serious investment in their infrastructure, and without it they are (and will stay) miles behind where NUFC were when FMA took over in terms of potential turnover.

 

NUFC, in 2007, were miles and miles ahead of what Everton have now. You are right. No club in the premiership has a huge stadium like we have right in the middle of a big city with only one club and captive support like we do. Again, we had the 14th biggest revenues in world football [built up by the hopeless Halls and Shepherd] when Mike Ashley bought this club. And Everton - with a wooden, decrepit ground, and not even the biggest club in their own city.

 

As the Halls and Shepherd were so useless, according to some, how could anybody , especially someone so astute as soopa Mike, not do better than that

Edited September 15, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Guest Your Name Here]

I'm sort of wondering if this is a 'look what you could have won' moment' in that the business model as described by SR is sort of what we were doing pre-Ashley. There are of course big differences, we have the bigger potential, our matchday income in the premiership dwarfes theirs and we dont need a new stadium. However, when i was reading it, i couldnt help but think of the 2006 to 2007 state of the club.

That wasnt the point of posting it though, its sobering reading and just goes to show the importance of maximising every possible income stream and reducing the interest payments on loans. That 7.79% looks prohibitive in today's debt market. If you want to bring up the SD signage in this thread, feel free, its a mystery to me why he isnt using every legitimate means to raise revenue as that revenue table tells you exactly what drives success, as if there was any doubt about that.

 

Everton need a buyer, going to be interesting seeing what they do next as something has to give.

 

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was.

 

But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really.

 

I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time.

 

 

I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

So when will Everton cease to exist then?

 

When did I ever say they would (or we would for that matter).

Howay TP. The line about NUFC ceasing to existing if FMA hadn’t bought the club has been wheeled out almost as many times as Joey Barton tweets. All the stuff about the recession and the banks not lending any money, about how we were doomed to go bust and never return.

 

Now you and Chez are giving it the look at Everton, there but for the grace of god, that could have been us. It follows that Everton will cease to exist unless they get bought by a fat billionaire, unless of course the theory that any club in debt and losing money will be liquidated by hard up bankers isn’t as watertight as many have stated. If you’ve never said that I apologise, but it has been used endlessly to defend FMA’s running of NUFC.

 

If anything Everton are in worse position than us. They’ve only got about two executive boxes in an old stadium that needs to be replaced if they are to increase their revenue streams. Nor do they have the brand image NUFC still retained on the back of the entertainers era. They need serious investment in their infrastructure, and without it they are (and will stay) miles behind where NUFC were when FMA took over in terms of potential turnover.

 

NUFC, in 2007, were miles and miles ahead of what Everton have now. You are right. No club in the premiership has a huge stadium like we have right in the middle of a big city with only one club and captive support like we do. Again, we had the 14th biggest revenues in world football [built up by the hopeless Halls and Shepherd] when Mike Ashley bought this club. And Everton - with a wooden, decrepit ground, and not even the biggest club in their own city.

 

As the Halls and Shepherd were so useless, according to some, how could anybody , especially someone so astute as soopa Mike, not do better than that

The value of the stadium redevelopment tends to be ignored, like it built itself and didn’t require any investment. The truth is it was the result of a board that had faith in the Geordie public to fill 52k seats if they gave them a team worth supporting. The outstanding payments can be called a debt, but they can also be called a prudent investment in the club’s long term future.

 

Under SJH we invested in excess of £70m over a ten year period on redevelopment. If FMA had bought the club off McKeag does anyone seriously think he would have come anywhere near that level of investment?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Your Name Here

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm sort of wondering if this is a 'look what you could have won' moment' in that the business model as described by SR is sort of what we were doing pre-Ashley. There are of course big differences, we have the bigger potential, our matchday income in the premiership dwarfes theirs and we dont need a new stadium. However, when i was reading it, i couldnt help but think of the 2006 to 2007 state of the club.

That wasnt the point of posting it though, its sobering reading and just goes to show the importance of maximising every possible income stream and reducing the interest payments on loans. That 7.79% looks prohibitive in today's debt market. If you want to bring up the SD signage in this thread, feel free, its a mystery to me why he isnt using every legitimate means to raise revenue as that revenue table tells you exactly what drives success, as if there was any doubt about that.

 

Everton need a buyer, going to be interesting seeing what they do next as something has to give.

 

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was.

 

But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really.

 

I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time.

 

 

I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

So when will Everton cease to exist then?

 

When did I ever say they would (or we would for that matter).

Howay TP. The line about NUFC ceasing to existing if FMA hadn’t bought the club has been wheeled out almost as many times as Joey Barton tweets. All the stuff about the recession and the banks not lending any money, about how we were doomed to go bust and never return.

 

Now you and Chez are giving it the look at Everton, there but for the grace of god, that could have been us. It follows that Everton will cease to exist unless they get bought by a fat billionaire, unless of course the theory that any club in debt and losing money will be liquidated by hard up bankers isn’t as watertight as many have stated. If you’ve never said that I apologise, but it has been used endlessly to defend FMA’s running of NUFC.

 

If anything Everton are in worse position than us. They’ve only got about two executive boxes in an old stadium that needs to be replaced if they are to increase their revenue streams. Nor do they have the brand image NUFC still retained on the back of the entertainers era. They need serious investment in their infrastructure, and without it they are (and will stay) miles behind where NUFC were when FMA took over in terms of potential turnover.

 

NUFC, in 2007, were miles and miles ahead of what Everton have now. You are right. No club in the premiership has a huge stadium like we have right in the middle of a big city with only one club and captive support like we do. Again, we had the 14th biggest revenues in world football [built up by the hopeless Halls and Shepherd] when Mike Ashley bought this club. And Everton - with a wooden, decrepit ground, and not even the biggest club in their own city.

 

As the Halls and Shepherd were so useless, according to some, how could anybody , especially someone so astute as soopa Mike, not do better than that

The value of the stadium redevelopment tends to be ignored, like it built itself and didn’t require any investment. The truth is it was the result of a board that had faith in the Geordie public to fill £52k seats if they gave them a team worth supporting. The outstanding payments can be called a debt, but they can also be called a prudent investment in the club’s long term future.

 

Under SJH we invested in excess of £70m over a ten year period on redevelopment. If FMA had bought the club off McKeag does anyone seriously think he would have come anywhere near that level of investment?

 

which is precisely what it was.

 

Quite amazing how some people paint such a thing as a negative, such is their obsessed and irrational hatred

[OTF 7496]

What it shows is that with our superior revenue streams we could at least comfortably be able to sustain at the very least the Everton system where they have kept their best players by increasing their wages to realistic levels in the market. That's changed in the last couple of windows of course, as this system is not working for them. By contrast if our owner had showed the same support to the team it's likely that it would result in increased matchday revenue considering the attendances are dropping.

[Kitman 2207]

Leaving aside the tedious and never ending Halls/Shepherd vs Ashley debate, I think what this simply shows is that players are paid far too much. Whilst there's a succession of sugar daddies willing to bankroll players' demands and find transfer fees and wages, then this will go on. But I wonder how long the new owners like Short will keep tipping cash in for no return.

 

Everton are in the clarts because they don't have a sugar daddy and can't get one. We've got one but there's no sugar coming way our way anymore. FMA is more like a guarantor these days than an investor.

 

I think the time's coming when the worm will turn on the players' wage demands. We're I can't see the likes of Stoke, Wigan etc keeping up their levels of investment. The question is how long this realignment will take place, since financial prudence is boring and people will drift away. We're probably in the vanguard of financial prudence (yay for us) but it won't put bums on seats or generate any enjoyment.

[Toonpack 9988]

Leaving aside the tedious and never ending Halls/Shepherd vs Ashley debate, I think what this simply shows is that players are paid far too much. Whilst there's a succession of sugar daddies willing to bankroll players' demands and find transfer fees and wages, then this will go on. But I wonder how long the new owners like Short will keep tipping cash in for no return.

 

Everton are in the clarts because they don't have a sugar daddy and can't get one. We've got one but there's no sugar coming way our way anymore. FMA is more like a guarantor these days than an investor.

 

I think the time's coming when the worm will turn on the players' wage demands. We're I can't see the likes of Stoke, Wigan etc keeping up their levels of investment. The question is how long this realignment will take place, since financial prudence is boring and people will drift away. We're probably in the vanguard of financial prudence (yay for us) but it won't put bums on seats or generate any enjoyment.

 

Good post, the bold bit is the point I have been making for what seems like ever, we needed one and got one, but as you say in the rest of that sentence it's not quite like we'd hoped.

[Matt 0]

I disagree we need a sugar daddy. We are not helped by the economic malaise coupled with our comparative attractiveness on the pitch driving down sales of corporate boxes and seats, which in the early 2000s represented nearly half of all matchday receipts- but I'm still confident that if an owner (the current bridges are burned beyond recovery) established an understanding with the supporter base then NUFC are more than capable of competing in the top half of the Premier League.

[Toonpack 9988]

I disagree we need a sugar daddy. We are not helped by the economic malaise coupled with our comparative attractiveness on the pitch driving down sales of corporate boxes and seats, which in the early 2000s represented nearly half of all matchday receipts- but I'm still confident that if an owner (the current bridges are burned beyond recovery) established an understanding with the supporter base then NUFC are more than capable of competing in the top half of the Premier League.

 

We don't now, but we did then.

 

As for the rest, aye probably, although outside the top 3-4 there's really not a lot to beat, even Mr Bridges-Burned should be able to pull that off. That's the problem though, just say we finished 7th or 8th even with Satan incarnate in charge, what realistically, extra, would a "supporter friendly" gaffer bring to the table. Other than being supporter friendly. The gap is false and is just too big.

 

I can't believe the penny isn't going to drop pretty soon with the Shorts and Lerners (and even John Henry's if the scousers miss CL again) that ploughing their own money in is futile as the game stands today. Although Lerner particularly is onto a nice little earner.

 

The next TV deal will be interesting, is the PL still the golden chalice it was, if the deal money drops, football is fucked. For the better.