Takeover Rumour

[DB]

Everton won't get taken over - too much expenditure for anyone coming in, not just buying / building a stadium but trying to find somewhere to put it. If they didn't have a quality manager they could really be in the sh*t - unlike us...

[shipscat]

How different it may all have played out if Randy's son had taken his term place at Rugby school.

Circumstances changed quickly,but I feel if he'd have stayed here,Randy would obviously be a lot more hands on.

Personally,I believe he is in the longhaul,football revenue streams will continue to grow pan worldwide over the next 20 years.

The glint of a formation of a worldwide league involving 80 odd clubs ,including the clubs from the middle east etc will mean we'll be a holding asset for him for now.Indeed much more than the Browns I believe.

Cut operating costs,recoup his loans,pay out dividends etc allied to just enough capital to perform.Thoroughly depressing!

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Problem is we already have a billionaire.   Having the money and having the balls for owning a Premiership club are very different.

LOL! He's already spunked 100 million $$$ on the club, what's that if it's not balls? Stupidity? He's fed up of pouring money into a black hole, and fair enough.

To use a tired old analogy.
A modern Premiership club is like a shark, it has to keep moving forward and it has to keep on eating.

It's a costly business running a premiership club, he should have realised that from the get go, although most of the wasted £££ has been through his poor decisions and leadership.

If he wants us to go round in circles and cut off the food supply then he should find a new buyer as soon as possible.

After all, he is only the 'custodian.'

McLeish has been a nightmare, but I can't believe how lightly Lerner has got away with the criticism.

[ROBBO]

I'm with you Fletch, it may be his money but it's the supporters who turn up week in week out who keep the club going and it's them that have to sit through the crap that's being dished up. He is the owner custodian, he fires and appoints, the responsibility is his.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

If we're bought out by a huge oligarch or oil barron then I think that I'll walk away from football.
If it's built on vulgar foundations based on one person's ego then I'm not interested.  I'd prefer to grow organically - like arsenal or spurs - rather then effectively end up supporting who'll merely throw money at it.

Arsenal, organic? Does the name of US billionaire Stan Kroenke ring any bells?
I trust you wouldn't want to be paying the same ticket prices as them.

Before throwing money at the club, what we need first and foremost is a good manager. Let him do his thing, then financially support him, building on our success to have sustained growth.

[Dante Lavelli]

If we're bought out by a huge oligarch or oil barron then I think that I'll walk away from football.
If it's built on vulgar foundations based on one person's ego then I'm not interested.  I'd prefer to grow organically - like arsenal or spurs - rather then effectively end up supporting who'll merely throw money at it.

Arsenal, organic? Does the name of US billionaire Stan Kroenke ring any bells?
I trust you wouldn't want to be paying the same ticket prices as them.

Before throwing money at the club, what we need first and foremost is a good manager. Let him do his thing, then financially support him, building on our success to have sustained growth.

i read recently that Wenger's net spend is 4m for all the time he has been manager.
I actually think they take the "organic" thing too far and should spend more on players.

[TimTheVillain]

I actually want Randy to sell, he's all but given up.

In managerial speak ' he's taken the club as far as he can'.

[Monty]

If we're bought out by a huge oligarch or oil barron then I think that I'll walk away from football.
If it's built on vulgar foundations based on one person's ego then I'm not interested.  I'd prefer to grow organically - like arsenal or spurs - rather then effectively end up supporting who'll merely throw money at it.

Arsenal, organic? Does the name of US billionaire Stan Kroenke ring any bells?
I trust you wouldn't want to be paying the same ticket prices as them.

Before throwing money at the club, what we need first and foremost is a good manager. Let him do his thing, then financially support him, building on our success to have sustained growth.

i read recently that Wenger's net spend is 4m for all the time he has been manager.
I actually think they take the "organic" thing too far and should spend more on players.

Very true. Arsenal made another £40m-odd profit on last year, but to be honest a football club should be looking to get nearly or just over zero for its profits. It shouldn't make a loss - obviously - but at the same time this is an industry where the business serves the on-field performance, which is paramount, and every club should look to maximise its resources.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

If we're bought out by a huge oligarch or oil barron then I think that I'll walk away from football.
If it's built on vulgar foundations based on one person's ego then I'm not interested.  I'd prefer to grow organically - like arsenal or spurs - rather then effectively end up supporting who'll merely throw money at it.

Arsenal, organic? Does the name of US billionaire Stan Kroenke ring any bells?
I trust you wouldn't want to be paying the same ticket prices as them.

Before throwing money at the club, what we need first and foremost is a good manager. Let him do his thing, then financially support him, building on our success to have sustained growth.

i read recently that Wenger's net spend is 4m for all the time he has been manager.
I actually think they take the "organic" thing too far and should spend more on players.

Indeed, you did read that, it was me that posted it. *blushes*.

Again, you're right about the lack of spend although there's an interesting article about them in the FT today, they have a surplus of £45.8m in player trading although a lot of that money goes on improved contracts of existing players. Their first half turnover was £113.5m, but an increased wage bill contributed to a rise in football operating costs to £98.4m. Not a lot left to play with, is there?

Despite Arsenal have qualifying for the CL for 14 consecutive years, their chairman said,  “a solid financial platform is important to secure the on-field success of any professional football club, for the short and the long term”.

I think he and Randy are in agreement there, despite the frustration of the fans.

[TheSandman]

Maybe that is why both clubs are going backwards? As others have mentioned football clubs are quite unlike other businesses. Rather than investments they are really financial black holes. It is becoming more and more difficult to get by in the league without spending money and merely getting by on shrewd management (and our management is many things but shrewd is most definitely not one of them) alone is rare. I'd much prefer it if we could get by developing youth and having shrewd management alone but that seems to become much more difficult.

Arsenal are a false comparison. They have a greater prestige than us, they have a much greater income as they can charge Tarquin from Surrey a grand a year for a season ticket and they can find 50,000 Tarquins from Surrey willing to pay that. They have more money and are able to attract better players. And even they are struggling to keep up with clubs who have more money to spend.

Anyway, it's all academic as I doubt that there are Qataris waiting around the corner.

[Dante Lavelli]

It's a sad reflection on the state of football if a teams only hope of competing is to have a guy at the top who is prepared to throw his own money at the problem.  In a weird way it's no longer the club that is important but the chairman.

has it always been like this?  In the nineties and noughties Man United dominated and they generally made a profit each year.  Was Liverpool's success in the eighties based on greater spending and was that spending generated from within the club or from a sugar daddy?

[David_Nab]

What happened is players wages went through the roof and now is crippling clubs and without a rich owner to pay these wages you can't get anywhere.With the new FFP rules even that avenue is cut off so if you are not a ''big'' club with a high turnerover you are pretty much screwed

[Dante Lavelli]

What happened is players wages went through the roof and now is crippling clubs and without a rich owner to pay these wages you can't get anywhere.With the new FFP rules even that avenue is cut off so if you are not a ''big'' club with a high turnerover you are pretty much screwed

Aren't you allowed a short fall of 50m or something over three years?  Basically that's a club's window to get near to Europe.  As I understand it (and it's not very well) the only punishment is the threat that the club will not be allowed to enter european competitions.  When it's the Europa League that is probably no bad thing.

For us (and many other clubs) that is not a problem for the forceable future so the clubs at the bottom can catch up by throwing money at it, but once they get near to european competition their books need to be in order.   

Whether or not UEFA have the guts/teeth to stop a club entering remains to be seen.

[Californian Villain]

It's a sad reflection on the state of football if a teams only hope of competing is to have a guy at the top who is prepared to throw his own money at the problem.  In a weird way it's no longer the club that is important but the chairman.

has it always been like this?  In the nineties and noughties Man United dominated and they generally made a profit each year.  Was Liverpool's success in the eighties based on greater spending and was that spending generated from within the club or from a sugar daddy?

Yes, certainly has been ever since the EPL was formed

[Dante Lavelli]

It's a sad reflection on the state of football if a teams only hope of competing is to have a guy at the top who is prepared to throw his own money at the problem.  In a weird way it's no longer the club that is important but the chairman.

has it always been like this?  In the nineties and noughties Man United dominated and they generally made a profit each year.  Was Liverpool's success in the eighties based on greater spending and was that spending generated from within the club or from a sugar daddy?

Yes, certainly has been ever since the EPL was formed

But man u won the league repeatedly whilst making a profit so were in effect self funding.