Everton hypocrisy - the ’Mersey Millionaires’

[Damocles]

And so they own all the equity. If they walked away tomorrow and put the club up for sale for £1 there would be no takers. You're wage bill alone is 120% of your income. In the real financial world you are not a going concern. You're business model is unsustainable in its present form without constant investment from your owners. An investment that will never earn a positive return. That is why the OP's argument is bogus, and that is why your smart-arsed reply displays zero knowledge of business finance.

Whilst I appreciate the general sanity of most of your posts, I'm afraid to say that you are either talking bollocks here or have zero business sense.

Want to know more companies that had an 'unsustainable business model' that will 'never yield a positive return'?

Pretty sure that they are doing ok for themselves.

Research something called "Get Big Fast", it's how most modern consumer based businesses have worked.

For those who can't be arsed looking it up, it's an economic theory that states that making a company very big, then finding a way to make money is far easier than making money small and building it up.

It's common sense when you think about it.

EDIT: You should also look up something called "First Mover Advantage" and how City will plan to take lessons from this (the so called "Second Mover Advantage")

 

[Bluemoon115]

Why don't you go full on and suggest a fantasy scenario whereby we didn't get taken over by Arabs at all, we went into the Championship and you signed the bestest players in the world.

Obviously not gonna happen, but just as unrealistic as yours.

The Sheik is here long term. Making City is just the first stage in his plan, but certainly not the last, and definitely the most important.

Why would suggesting that premier league clubs may change ownership be unrealistic?

It isn't in general.

But as you yourself have already proven, noone would every try to by us now.

And considering that we owe our owner nothing in terms of actual payment, it would be difficult for him to claim his money back.

Anyway, never mind, just watch Match of the Day and enjoy the fact that you're not as shit as your neighbours.

 

[lloydie]

Why don't you go full on and suggest a fantasy scenario whereby we didn't get taken over by Arabs at all, we went into the Championship and you signed the bestest players in the world.

Obviously not gonna happen, but just as unrealistic as yours.

The Sheik is here long term. Making City is just the first stage in his plan, but certainly not the last, and definitely the most important.

Why would suggesting that premier league clubs may change ownership be unrealistic?

In your case the length of time kenwright has been touting your club for, would suggest its highly improbable. What is very amusing is that whilst you're telling us that our business model is unsustainable, you're desperately praying for a bite of that very same business model. That's not moral superiority, it's jealousy.

 

[FriendlyBlue]

Where did I argue that the owners will walk away? I suggested a scenario that if they did you would no longer be a going concern in your present form. That is why I suggested you are hostage to fortune. There are many reasons why they could walk away, and these would fall into categories of economic, cultural or political. They did not lock the door behind them.

All fans are hostages to the whims of their clubs owners

You're hostages to a hard up theatreland luvvy

Fortune is better methinks

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Owners, generally, run their clubs in a manner that at least attempts to break even. City's owners, bucking this trend, run the club as if money is no object, which apparently it is. This was the whole point of my first reply to to the OP, where he is comparing today's City with the Everton under John Moores. I was then pilloried by other posters such as yourself, who totally misunderstood the point I was making, and then, bizarrely, were calling me stupid while displaying their own stupidity.

-- Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:04 pm --

And so they own all the equity. If they walked away tomorrow and put the club up for sale for £1 there would be no takers. You're wage bill alone is 120% of your income. In the real financial world you are not a going concern. You're business model is unsustainable in its present form without constant investment from your owners. An investment that will never earn a positive return. That is why the OP's argument is bogus, and that is why your smart-arsed reply displays zero knowledge of business finance.

Whilst I appreciate the general sanity of most of your posts, I'm afraid to say that you are either talking bollocks here or have zero business sense.

Want to know more companies that had an 'unsustainable business model' that will 'never yield a positive return'?

Pretty sure that they are doing ok for themselves.

Research something called "Get Big Fast", it's how most modern consumer based businesses have worked.

For those who can't be arsed looking it up, it's an economic theory that states that making a company very big, then finding a way to make money is far easier than making money small and building it up.

It's common sense when you think about it.

EDIT: You should also look up something called "First Mover Advantage" and how City will plan to take lessons from this (the so called "Second Mover Advantage")

Oh, so are you arguing that City are going to capture the majority of the 'football market', i.e. winning the Premier League, Champions League, FA Cup, and becoming a leading player in the commercial side of global football merchandising, in order to become profitable? Sheesh, that's ambitious.<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:18 pm --<br /><br />

Why would suggesting that premier league clubs may change ownership be unrealistic?

In your case the length of time kenwright has been touting your club for, would suggest its highly improbable. What is very amusing is that whilst you're telling us that our business model is unsustainable, you're desperately praying for a bite of that very same business model. That's not moral superiority, it's jealousy.

Unfortuneately, it is difficult to tie down what Kenwright's plans are. On the one hand he is looking for investment 24/7, but his definition of investment is rather ambiguous. He is, as he claims, and I have no reason to doubt him, Everton through and through, and the investment he seeks is someone to come in and 'invest' but it seems he still wants to be in control of the club.

Personally I believe that I would be uncomfortable with the sort of investment City have, but that I suppose that discomfort could be eased somewhat once its fruits began to bear. But I genuinely don't if that is the way I want Everton to go. I am certainly not jealous of your invest though, honestly I am not. I do know some City fans who are also ill at ease with gift horses.

 

[m27]

All fans are hostages to the whims of their clubs owners

You're hostages to a hard up theatreland luvvy

Fortune is better methinks

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Owners, generally, run their clubs in a manner that at least attempts to break even. City's owners, bucking this trend, run the club as if money is no object, which apparently it is. This was the whole point of my first reply to to the OP, where he is comparing today's City with the Everton under John Moores. I was then pilloried by other posters such as yourself, who totally misunderstood the point I was making, and then, bizarrely, were calling me stupid while displaying their own stupidity.

-- Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:04 pm --

Whilst I appreciate the general sanity of most of your posts, I'm afraid to say that you are either talking bollocks here or have zero business sense.

Want to know more companies that had an 'unsustainable business model' that will 'never yield a positive return'?

Pretty sure that they are doing ok for themselves.

Research something called "Get Big Fast", it's how most modern consumer based businesses have worked.

For those who can't be arsed looking it up, it's an economic theory that states that making a company very big, then finding a way to make money is far easier than making money small and building it up.

It's common sense when you think about it.

EDIT: You should also look up something called "First Mover Advantage" and how City will plan to take lessons from this (the so called "Second Mover Advantage")

Oh, so are you arguing that City are going to capture the majority of the 'football market', i.e. winning the Premier League, Champions League, FA Cup, and becoming a leading player in the commercial side of global football merchandising, in order to become profitable? Sheesh, that's ambitious.

Has the penny dropped yet? It sounds like it might be starting to.

 

[Matty]

Before Moores even took control we'd already had 5 league title to our name and two FA cups making us one of the best clubs in the land. He didn't just hand pick a club who were failing and say I'm going to try make them win stuff. Plus he was an evertonian as I've said. Really what love does the shiek have toward you? Do you think it bothers him all week (like it does true fans) when you lose?

The implication here is that Everton had previous success whereas City are devoid of success, simply not true. Prior to our takeover we'd won 2 League Titles, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and a European Trophy (ECWC). Selective reasoning there, ignoring the facts.

The comparison between City's current situation and Everton's historic one is sound, your argument is not.

 

[mrbelfry]

I'd buy us for a quid.


I'd then take out a loan based on future season ticket sales. It would be like the old days

 

[FriendlyBlue]

[

Anyway, never mind, just watch Match of the Day and enjoy the fact that you're not as shit as your neighbours.

Karma blue, Karma!

-- Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:38 pm --

Has the penny dropped yet? It sounds like it might be starting to.[/quote]


Not comparing like with like M27, those companies you quoted are public limited companies with a an exchangeable share ownership. Their market is perfectly global while yours is related only to a tiny proportion of the worlds population that are City fans. No, your position is not sustainable.<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:42 pm --<br /><br />

I'd buy us for a quid.


I'd then take out a loan based on future season ticket sales. It would be like the old days

And then within a few years you'd be Liverpool.

 

[Balti]

All fans are hostages to the whims of their clubs owners

You're hostages to a hard up theatreland luvvy

Fortune is better methinks

You haven't been paying attention have you?

Owners, generally, run their clubs in a manner that at least attempts to break even. City's owners, bucking this trend, run the club as if money is no object, which apparently it is. This was the whole point of my first reply to to the OP, where he is comparing today's City with the Everton under John Moores. I was then pilloried by other posters such as yourself, who totally misunderstood the point I was making, and then, bizarrely, were calling me stupid while displaying their own stupidity.

-- Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:04 pm --

Whilst I appreciate the general sanity of most of your posts, I'm afraid to say that you are either talking bollocks here or have zero business sense.

Want to know more companies that had an 'unsustainable business model' that will 'never yield a positive return'?

Pretty sure that they are doing ok for themselves.

Research something called "Get Big Fast", it's how most modern consumer based businesses have worked.

For those who can't be arsed looking it up, it's an economic theory that states that making a company very big, then finding a way to make money is far easier than making money small and building it up.

It's common sense when you think about it.

EDIT: You should also look up something called "First Mover Advantage" and how City will plan to take lessons from this (the so called "Second Mover Advantage")

Oh, so are you arguing that City are going to capture the majority of the 'football market', i.e. winning the Premier League, Champions League, FA Cup, and becoming a leading player in the commercial side of global football merchandising, in order to become profitable? Sheesh, that's ambitious.

-- Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:18 pm --

In your case the length of time kenwright has been touting your club for, would suggest its highly improbable. What is very amusing is that whilst you're telling us that our business model is unsustainable, you're desperately praying for a bite of that very same business model. That's not moral superiority, it's jealousy.

Unfortuneately, it is difficult to tie down what Kenwright's plans are. On the one hand he is looking for investment 24/7, but his definition of investment is rather ambiguous. He is, as he claims, and I have no reason to doubt him, Everton through and through, and the investment he seeks is someone to come in and 'invest' but it seems he still wants to be in control of the club.

Personally I believe that I would be uncomfortable with the sort of investment City have, but that I suppose that discomfort could be eased somewhat once its fruits began to bear. But I genuinely don't if that is the way I want Everton to go. I am certainly not jealous of your invest though, honestly I am not. I do know some City fans who are also ill at ease with gift horses.

You're not displaying much knowledge about business. Pumping money into a business in order to increase revenues and profits is standard practice. Just google venture Capitalists for example. Such investors do not expect an immediate return on that investment (see this years loss). They normally work on a 3 - 5 year plan before they expect to make a return. Clearly qualification for the Champions League is uppermost in their thoughts in the meantime along with other initiatives off the pitch. So lets revisit the numbers towards the end of that timeframe and I think you'll find that profitability is not an issue.

Look at it another way. Moores did not make an instant profit from Everton either. He had to boost the value of the club before he could sell his shareholding for a profit (tenfold I think you said). Prior to that he was doubtless losing money (but gaining equity) while he broke transfer records and tried to buy silverware.

Again.... no difference.

 

[FriendlyBlue]

You're not displaying much knowledge about business. Pumping money into a business in order to increase revenues and profits is standard practice. Just google venture Capitalists for example. Such investors do not expect an immediate return on that investment (see this years loss). They normally work on a 3 - 5 year plan before they expect to make a return. Clearly qualification for the Champions League is uppermost in their thoughts in the meantime along with other initiatives off the pitch. So lets revisit the numbers towards the end of that timeframe and I think you'll find that profitability is not an issue.

Look at it another way. Moores did not make an instant profit from Everton either. He had to boost the value of the club before he could sell his shareholding for a profit (tenfold I think you said). Prior to that he was doubtless losing money (but gaining equity) while he broke transfer records and tried to buy silverware.

Again.... no difference.[/quote]

No, no, no Balti. There is a world of difference. Not only did Mr Moores make revenue side income in the form of trading profit (share dividend income), as football clubs were highly profitable in those days due to players wages being low in comparison to turnover: he also made a huge capital return on the sale of his shares when he exited the club.

Now his bastard nephew, bless him............but that's another story!