Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

*Shakes head* Everton again.


Fugitive

Recommended Posts

The whole thing is still just so odd.  The fans just want it built obviously and to hell with the consequences.  I’d be honestly worried that it could cripple the club in the long term.  They clearly believe somebody else will be picking up the tab though.  The only reason I think this gets built is because Moshiri believes it will add more value to the club than it will cost.  Why else would he try to do it?  I can’t see that being the case though.  Surely he must look at city and see how much money they’ve ploughed into the club for them to still be small and completely unable to function by themselves.

 

As we all know they thought they were getting a free stadium but they’ve spent a lot of money since the Commonwealth games went up in smoke.  They’re completely silent over funding other than saying the odd vague snippet which the last of was over 6 months ago.  They’ve headed down to parliament to wax lyrical about how great it’s going to be for the economy so they’re not completely giving up on some public money at least.  It’s like a fucking soap opera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

They do go a bit daft at the sight of water. There was a healthy degree of scepticism over Kirkby and Walton Hall Park, but show them a shiny drawing with a river in the background and en masse they abandon all reason and critical faculties. 

They think the water is royal blue not shitty brown!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, davelfc* said:

 

They struggled to find financing for it before the covid, I don't think it's going to be any easier now. Plus they're going to have to find £20m or more a season to make the payments on the finance. This along with taking out more loans and have the premiership finished their investigation into the USA money yet?

 

The unicorn stadium wasn't happening before and it may as well get planning permission on Mars now.

I'm not sure it was going to cost them 20m a year, they were planning to spread the cost over about 40 years! And borrowing has never been cheaper. I get what you are saying and I also thought they would struggle to get the money before covid. I actually think covid won't have harmed them at all though, in fact there'll be all kinds of chances for grants or subsidised loans etc imo for large infrastructure projects and along with that it could also kick start the rest of the Liverpool waters scheme. 

14 hours ago, Vincent Vega said:

I imagine a lot of their borrowing has been based on future tv rights. The world has changed due to Covid, and those rights will almost certainly be less lucrative than before. I read last week that Sky have had a drop in revenue of £700m in the first half of this year, for various factors but chiefly due to the huge amount of customers cancelling their sports subscriptions once they had no sport to show. With mass job losses on the horizon there are going to be millions of people here and abroad who won’t have the money to pay to watch for subscriptions. 
 

I don’t see how they get to borrow more money for a new stadium. 

I am not so sure revenues will go down at all. I think this for 2 reasons -

 

1. Overseas rights are already worth more than the domestic aren't they? And everything I've read has suggested this will only continue to grow. 

 

2. Sky are literally fuck all without premier league football. Nobody is arsed about any of it. If there was no football, I think a massive part of sky's subscription base would just go to Freeview and put their money into streaming services and wherever football ends up. There was a time the PL needed a TV partner, but I feel pretty certain they could go to market and do it themselves now and I would be shocked if they did it alone they couldn't double today's money. 

 

Ultimately I don't think the PL want to run in that direction right now, but they've got it as a bargaining chip. Sky have nothing to negotiate with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Gaul said:

I'm not sure it was going to cost them 20m a year, they were planning to spread the cost over about 40 years! And borrowing has never been cheaper. I get what you are saying and I also thought they would struggle to get the money before covid. I actually think covid won't have harmed them at all though, in fact there'll be all kinds of chances for grants or subsidised loans etc imo for large infrastructure projects and along with that it could also kick start the rest of the Liverpool waters scheme. 

 

Happy days, I look forward to them getting that all important spade in the silt and their new stadium. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Gaul said:

It feels that's the way their going with their day to day running of the club. Have they said where all the loans are from? 


If they went the way of Leeds, it would take them just as long to get back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Gaul said:

Yeah, it depends who those loans are with I guess. Everything they're doing feels pretty h&g, although I firmly believe they'd still be here had we not had the financial crisis and it became so difficult to borrow. 


Yes, a rare benefit in a global recession. 
 

Hopefully The Ev won’t be so lucky in the forthcoming one coming next year (and being compounded by Brexit). 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Gaul said:

I'm not sure it was going to cost them 20m a year, they were planning to spread the cost over about 40 years! And borrowing has never been cheaper. I get what you are saying and I also thought they would struggle to get the money before covid. I actually think covid won't have harmed them at all though, in fact there'll be all kinds of chances for grants or subsidised loans etc imo for large infrastructure projects and along with that it could also kick start the rest of the Liverpool waters scheme. 

I am not so sure revenues will go down at all. I think this for 2 reasons -

 

1. Overseas rights are already worth more than the domestic aren't they? And everything I've read has suggested this will only continue to grow. 

 

2. Sky are literally fuck all without premier league football. Nobody is arsed about any of it. If there was no football, I think a massive part of sky's subscription base would just go to Freeview and put their money into streaming services and wherever football ends up. There was a time the PL needed a TV partner, but I feel pretty certain they could go to market and do it themselves now and I would be shocked if they did it alone they couldn't double today's money. 

 

Ultimately I don't think the PL want to run in that direction right now, but they've got it as a bargaining chip. Sky have nothing to negotiate with. 

I'm with this view. 

I never thought the losses from TV would be as big as some said. 

 

If say Sky or Brin started demanding the huge amounts that was initially said the Premier league would likely have just told them when your contracts up you will not get any new deals. We will distribute ourselves online or go to a rival provider. That would pretty much kill any platform that basis itself on live sports. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott_M said:


Yes, a rare benefit in a global recession. 
 

Hopefully The Ev won’t be so lucky in the forthcoming one coming next year (and being compounded by Brexit). 

As I posted on the previous page, I genuinely believe this could be a blessing for them. I think when we start coming out of this crisis, there will be a lot of support for all manner of infrastructure projects and I genuinely believe there will be a drive to getting people back to working in offices because of the support it brings to the hospitality industry. If there is ambition at Everton , Peel and LCC I reckon there's every chance it could genuinely be a kick starter for that whole Liverpool waters area. While I'd laugh my tits off if Everton went down, I honestly don't mind if they get to build this stadium and I would be positive about it if I thought it would be genuinely helpful to the city. 

 

Having said all that, I still doubt the ambition of LCC and Peel and the intentions of moshiri, so there is a long way to go on this imo and if I was gambling, my money would still be where it was before the pandemic and on them not doing it. But I do think the environment to do it is better now than before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

I'm with this view. 

I never thought the losses from TV would be as big as some said. 

 

If say Sky or Brin started demanding the huge amounts that was initially said the Premier league would likely have just told them when your contracts up you will not get any new deals. We will distribute ourselves online or go to a rival provider. That would pretty much kill any platform that basis itself on live sports. 

There's another part to the equation I should have also mentioned in my post you're replying to. And that is the success of this sky proclaimed "best league in the world" is intrinsically linked to the clubs within it being able to compete with Europe's finest for footballers. The idea sides in the bottom half of the league can take players from pretty much everywhere except the elite European teams is the very basis of the PL product. If sky attempt to short change the premier league, they actually undermine their own product. It's almost like making a TV show and having the choice to cast me or Al Pacino in the lead role. The show might be good, bad or indifferent, but not many people want to tune in to see me. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

There's another part to the equation I should have also mentioned in my post you're replying to. And that is the success of this sky proclaimed "best league in the world" is intrinsically linked to the clubs within it being able to compete with Europe's finest for footballers. The idea sides in the bottom half of the league can take players from pretty much everywhere except the elite European teams is the very basis of the PL product. 

Which underlines the eternal peril of relegation for them. Which, if The Gaul is right, they will now be petrified of for the 40 seasons they’ll be paying this off - Everton usually look better than the three teams who go down, but they’ve come close enough far too often.

Sunderland and Leeds both managed to go into meltdown without the hindrance of massively expensive white elephant stadium which they couldn’t fill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

There's another part to the equation I should have also mentioned in my post you're replying to. And that is the success of this sky proclaimed "best league in the world" is intrinsically linked to the clubs within it being able to compete with Europe's finest for footballers. The idea sides in the bottom half of the league can take players from pretty much everywhere except the elite European teams is the very basis of the PL product. If sky attempt to short change the premier league, they actually undermine their own product. It's almost like making a TV show and having the choice to cast me or Al Pacino in the lead role. The show might be good, bad or indifferent, but not many people want to tune in to see me. 

Not even if you've got plasters on your nipples? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky were paying £11m per match on their previous contract, though that’s come down a bit on the latest contract. Good luck to the PL getting that sort of money if they were to sell games directly, as that Sky contract included matches such as Newcastle v Palace and Bournemouth v West Ham. I think the days of the PL rinsing Sky for tv money are over, they’ll probably get a new deal on similar terms when the next contract comes up for tender. The growth will continue to be in the overseas rights, but even they will be impacted if we can’t get full houses in the stadiums soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...