comment by CharredCanard (U4389)

Football investors have many varied reasons for their ownership of clubs. In my example are you seriously trying to tell me that as a debt free business we wouldn't get takers @ £45M????

The limit is always based on how much the fan base can support. Local or global

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I largely agree with your logic, as I have a similar view, but since when has football club ownership been all about logical business decisons?

You didn't answer my question, do you think that @ £45M debt free we'd be sold? It's a yes or no mate.

TB, it comes back to the point I made earlier, we don't know how much the club is up for, and we don't know why people aren't buying. It's all speculation.

It's more than speculation though Murdoch, it's become increasingly apparent that the price is the issue, hence my example. If it was for sale @ £1 plus the debt, there'd be takers, I can't quantify that statement, but I defy anyone on here to tell me that it wouldn't be the case.

So therefore, between £1 & the asking price lies a value at which the club remains an attractive proposition.

We all know the limitations of the ground etc, but you can sell anything at anytime if the price is right & that is a fact.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

You didn't answer my question, do you think that @ £45M debt free we'd be sold? It's a yes or no mate.

==

Even at the £45M price the need for a new ground would bump the 'investment cost' up. Woudl you want a £200M, £300M style ground?

How pays for that and what cuts are made to ensure ROI within a desire period.

Even if we offered the club for the price of the debt I dont believe we would have any takers *of the sort we need*.
----------------------------------------------------------

I accept that there'd be plenty of sharks around it that scenario ever happened, but I don't quite follow your logic that we wouldn't get one amongst them that we would want. So does a higher asking price make finding the right one, more or less likely?

PJ's - you've not answered the question either, you're just applying your own logic as to why you wouldn't throw your cash at it. In the same way I wouldn't, but as I said earlier, since when did football club ownership always boil down to sensible commercial decisions? Abramovich, Mansour, even Coates at Stoke, all have their own very different reasons for spunking their cash.

So, @ £45M debt free, would we get takers, yes or no?

I have no idea, you cant even say if the price is higher or lower than that now.

What is the high price that is being asked that restricts the sale?

Its easy to just throw it back dont you agree?

TB, we would still need someone to stump up the funds (£200m- £300m) for the new stadium, regardless of what they paid for the club itself.

That was the point I was making before as well PJ.

We just don't know, so we're all in the dark until someone who does know opens up as makes the information public.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Vhenky's, Leaner. Hardly setting the world on fire with the investment made in the club/squad.

TB

Going back to the original post, once again we have Crispy pushing back the boundaries of stupidity and ignorance.

Below are the figures taken from the published accounts since 2001. I have included turnover and the OOC as a percentage.

Year OOC Turnover %
2001 8012 32852 24.39%
2002 8623 38231 22.55%
2003 9371 46781 20.03%
2004 12120 44672 27.13%
2005 17360 59953 28.96%
2006 16416 58123 28.24%
2007 11694 51412 22.75%
2008 21078 75650 27.86%
2009 21213 79669 26.63%
2010 23797 79076 30.09%

The percentage has varied between 20 - 30% over the period.

As others have pointed out this really is a red herring. However, Crispy and mates have obviously decided that in spite of the auditors this is where BK is creaming of millions to pay for his LearJet.

Those figures I've used are MK's from Toffeeweb to quote him.

"£1,475,836
£1,521,988
£1,704,769
£1,650,186
£1,239,621
£5,552,000
£2,914,000
£12,120,000
£17,360,000
£16,416,000
£11,694,000
£21,078,000
£21,213,000
£23,797,000

Those are the "Other Operating Costs" from the last 14 sets of Annual Reports and Accounts.

The concern is that the final number represents an incredible 25% of turnover. The first numbers represent around 5% of turnover and could easily be ignored. The average growth rate over the last 10 years is something like 33% pa, which is astounding.

That increase is massive.

comment by Toblerone Boots (U4965)

posted 20 hours, 9 minutes ago

I'm with Crispy to a point, albeit I think he's shooting the wrong rabbit by focusing on the operating costs.

My view is that this smacks of debt reduction prior to a sale. The business lost circa £5M in cash according to the last accounts. We've brought in approx £25M in cash since Xmas, when you tot up the Bellefield sale, Pienaar, Vaughan etc. & we've reduced the wage bill by more than the cash shortfall in the last accounts.

I don't buy Kenwrights bleating about the nasty banks wanting their cash back, sorry but I think it's total BS. I think they're clearing debt from the balance sheet to maiximise their return when they sell (which might well be imminent for all we know) as the debt will be subtracted from the price offered for the club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you may well be onto something but surely you agree it's implausable that BK does not know what OOC's are like he claims and that was my point.Why would he claim ignorance unless he had something to hide.

As for being for sale take a look at Dave Prentice's article in the Echo

Here’s a snippet: Bill, “Of course Keith Harris is involved….Keith Harris is involved on a daily basis.

Bill went on to tell a story concerning Keith Harris; he’d put forward two guys who, in his opinion, were suitable potential owners of Everton Football Club.

Harris claimed the two guys controlled a hedge fund; one was the head of ICI in the Far East and a second an inventor.

They conducted due diligence and Everton were ready to sign an agreement when Bill smelt a rat; investigators discovered that ICI had never heard of the person concerned, he actually lived in a one bedroom flat, and the second guy, the inventor, was based in Manchester.

That brings to mind a quote I’ve used on this page before, but it bears repeating. It was uttered by Manchester United chief executive David Gill.

“Keith Harris will go anywhere that there’s a bit of publicity around. That’s his modus operandi, but his track record in football isn’t anything to write home about.”

So why is he still being used by Everton?

Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/everton-fc/everton-fc-news/2011/08/19/dave-prentice-keith-harris-a-man-whose-modus-operandi-is-nothing-to-write-home-about-100252-29264205/#ixzz1Wlb4uYaE

I actually believe BK used the Blue Union meeting to pave the way for a negative net spend and to play the victim card and further split the fanbase.

Ah, the same Keith Harris you were wanting to see have a more active role in selling the club

Cripsy - the club should provide shareholders with some detail around the OCC, if they've requested it, as I understand some have. They have no obligation legally to do so, but it would provide clarity & kill the conspiracy theories, but the mere fact that they haven't, can't be taken as an act of guilt.

I don't think there'll be anything in there that points to what you're suggesting. Don't forget the accounts are audited & what you're suggesting is illegal. I think the fixation on these numbers is detracting from the real issues & comes over a bit 'tin foil hat', thus alienating some from the real debate.

Comment deleted by Article Creator

Do you honestly think BK doesn't know what they are as he claimed in the Blue Union meeting ?

If the answer is yes then a best case scenario is that he is totally incompetent.It's unbelievable that he doesn't know what they are so why is he acting dumb ?

After his time as a management accountant, theatre king and chairman you expect him to know everything

You revel in his mediocrity.Why ?