Tom Cannon: 'Everton will suffer over Kirkby stadium setback'
Story by Neil Hodgson
THE government call-in of Everton's Kirkby project could see the club lose its talented manager, according to professor Tom Cannon.
The former head of Manchester Business School, chief executive of Liverpool-based Ideaopolis International and Everton fan said the loss of revenues from a proposed 55,000-seat stadium in Kirkby will seriously hamper David Moyes' efforts to take his side forward.
Kirkby-born Prof Cannon said: "Everton's revenue stream will be down by £10m a year just in gate revenues by staying at Goodison.
"Then there are all the other bits of income from a new stadium like conferences to pop concerts which is probably another £5m and means that transfer income until we get a new stadium, wherever that is, is down by up to £15m a year."
He said over the past couple of years Moyes has had up to £15m to spend on summer transfers.
"I think in a new stadium you could expect that to be £30m to £35m," he added.
"But the club has to go back to square one for finances in the next few years and if we are in Goodison for another three to five years how patient is David Moyes going to be?
"There has been an upward trajectory at the club over the past five years - for example, the Finch Farm training ground and academy.
"If the manager was to get disheartened because he doesn't see that upward trajectory continuing, will he stay, particularly if he doesn't see the kind of freedom in the transfer market when he looks at clubs like Liverpool or Manchester City?"
Older/Newer
« Stephane M'bia heart is set on move to Everton | Finance so key to delivering alternative stadium site for Everton »
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Tom Cannon: 'Everton will suffer over Kirkby stadium setback'.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.evertonbanter.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt421/mt-tb.cgi/18808
That has absolutely no factual substance to it. The revenue streams are hypothetical and as for Moyes transfer kitty, he should look at Moyes net spend over 6 years.
tom cannon's losing the plot in his old age. i'm sure he just makes these figures up.
concerts "probably 5 million" we arent allowed to hold any concerts in kirkby
and just cos the gate recipts might be up 10 million a year (an optimistic figure to say the least) this doesnt mean profits will be up 10 million. tom has obviously forgotten to subtract the flexible costs there from that figure
is he an economist or a home economist? i think your cakes are burning there tom
100 free uses by knowsley council of the stadium and pop concerts not allowed , .. try doing a bit of research mr cannon before trying your unfounded and ludicrous scaremongering tactics
In my opinion this "Professor"is a joke figure.whenever a story breaks about football finance he gets wheeled out in front of the tv cameras and talks a lot of gobbledegook.I think he got his "PROFESSORSHIP"on a correspondence course at one of those hick universities in the southern USA!
Just when you thought Cannon couldn't possibly be taken any less seriously...........thankfully, these unsubstantiated, non-factual, hypothetical ramblings will surely be the last we hear from the nutty prof.'
Unless of course if Neil Hodgson, (if you're reading this) could possibly ask Cannon to retract his statement regarding lost revunue streams from 'pop concerts' at Kirkby. It would also be advisable in future for the likes of the Echo/Post and Radio Merseyside, who frequently wheel out Tom Cannon to give his 'expert' view on Kirkby, to make sure the "professor" has done his research in advance.
Perhaps if people took the time to look up what the Nutty Professors business Ideaopolis do, then they might get an idea of why Tom is so keen on Destination Kirkby.
Hey don't be so unfair on old Tom. He has statistical evidence that if we don't move to Kirkby the likelihood is that we will be hist by a meteorite. This will entail us having to ground-share with either Tranmere or Marine. Or, come to think of it, Southport isn't much further...
I'm stopping before I give the f**kwits some ideas
Just a few of the inaccuracies in this article...
"55,000 seater stadium"
KMBC's approval of the plans imposed a limit of 50,401 on the stadium capacity
"Everton's revenue stream will be down by £10m a year just in gate revenues by staying at Goodison."
The last available accounts are from 2006/07. Gate receipts and programme sales that year were £17m, with an average attendence of 35,476 over 21 home games giving an average income per ticket (plus programme sales) of just under £23. Even if we sell out every game at Kirkby (an extra 15,000 per game), to get an extra £10m would need an increase in average spend of nearly 40%. Yes, that means the cost of every match ticket, every season ticket and every corporate seat would have to rise by 40% on average...AND WE WOULD STILL NEED TO SELL 15,000 MORE OF THEM!
"...other bits of income from a new stadium like conferences to pop concerts which is probably another £5m..."
As others have pointed out, another of the planning consent conditions says we can't host concerts. Another one means KMBC get to use the stadium free 100 times a year, severely reducing the ability to host paying customers. I'm not saying an extra £5m is impossible, but you'd need to £50,000 per day for the other 200 or so days of the year to reach this figure.
It would be helpful if Prof. Cannon could give some background on how he came up with £5m so we could see how realistic it is.
"[this] means that transfer income [...] is down by up to £15m a year."
No it doesn't! For an "expert in football finance", Prof. Cannon seems completely ignorant of the difference between transfer income (i.e. selling players) and operating income. He's actually referring to operating income here, but uses the word "transfer" to subtly imply that all this money (which we've already shown is a fanciful figure anyway) will be spent on new players.
Even if we assume the best case scenario (15,000 extra fans paying 40% extra each per game & 200 conferences/events at £50,000 a go), this would incur extra costs elsewhere - stewarding, ticket office staff, catering/conference staff, more clean-up & waste disposal, higher lighting/heating bills, etc. This all eats into your income. I would expect a Professor to be aware of the difference between fixed costs and unit costs.
"Moyes has had up to £15m to spend on summer transfers [...] in a new stadium you could expect that to be £30m to £35m."
Firstly, the club has made an operating loss for 4 out of the last 5 years, so any net transfer spend (i.e. purchases minus sales) must have been funded by extra borrowing.
Secondly, over that same 5 year period, Moyes has had an average net transfer spend per year of just £2.3m.
Even if we had spent "upto" £15m a year, we've already seen that Prof. Cannon's £15m figure doesn't actually add up...then he adds a mysterious extra £5m from somewhere so we can now expect "£30m to £35m".
THIS IS PURE FANTASY!
""There has been an upward trajectory at the club over the past five years - for example, the Finch Farm training ground and academy."
I agree that the Finch Farm facility represents progress. I've visited both the old academy at Netherton and Finch Farm (never got to Bellefield unfortunately), and Finch Farm is a massive improvement on the porta-cabins at Netherton. However, new training facilities are not the same thing as financial progress (remember Everton have made operating losses for 4 out of the last 5 years), and Prof. Cannon is disingenuous at least in appearing to link the two.
We owned the Netherton facility and we still own Bellefield although we are trying to get planning permission for a housing development so we can sell it at a higher price.
We do not own Finch Farm. We lease it.
This means we have fewer fixed assets, and a higher ongoing operating cost, both of which represent financial regression rather than progression. From a wider perspective, I would argue that the extra cost is worth it for the improved facilities, but Prof. Cannon should not imply that the financial situation has been improved by this move.
Dear Tom,
I'd like to point out from an Evertonian whom isn't a luddite-member of KEIOC or any other lobby group over the stadia, but can talk as someone whom would be considered by the club as an "organised fan" - someone who runs a supporter group...
One thing I will point out is that something that alienates the core-fan base / the core supporter is detrimental to the club, and therefore potential revenues.
Revenues simply WILL NOT GO UP if the core supporters are turned into protestors, thereby hindering "positive feeling" in the club.
I'm coming to the conclusion that a Club-Supporter consultation needs to take place over the stadia issue, after Kenwright and Warren Bradley meet this week.
I for one as a season ticket holder would be prepared to pay "special payments" i.e. £25 a month over a year (or two as a mere illustration) in order to facilitate the conservation of Everton's history through modernisation of the stadia/or move to a suitable site (Walton Park? Or Stanley Park?) in the city of Liverpool.
I'm not sure of how many members KEIOC have but I'm sure given feeling many people would feel the same. These KEIOC and other Evertonians maybe should back their vocal opposition by sticking their hands in their pockets - enmasse. I'm not KEIOC and I am prepared to over the long term (3 years plus).
Think outside the box in order to secure finance.
Given the circumstances, and like I say not being affiliated to KEIOC - I'm coming to the conclusion Kirkby is dead due to its unpopularity.
What we need is an option the fans can really get behind, get them motivated, then you'll see just how they will move mountains for their club and will dig even deeper if required as Everton is their life.
Let the slogan not be
"We shall not be moved".
Let the stadia be in the city, and the slogan be:
"If we build it they will come..."
The fact is unlike other clubs - Everton FC is literally many people's lives. Mess about with that and you'll get the reaction we've seen.
Put something that they can get behind, and you'll see they together can build something that would be the envy of world football....
Evertonians may not be the richest fans. But many many will sacrifice in order to take the club back to top of football. It was why David Moyes termed the club: "The People's Club"
Couple of corrections...
It's been pointed out to me that 2 of my figures in the rant above were incorrectly calculated - sorry.
1. If the stadium sells out every game, the average ticket price rise would be in the region of 12%, not 40% as previously stated. My bad, I simply did the wrong calculation.
Having said that, a more realistic average of 45,000 would still require a price rise averaging nearly 30%. That would mean all existing regular match-goers, plus another 33% on top of that being willing to up their ticket/programme spend.
2. £5m from conferences/events on the 200 or so days when we aren't having a match or giving the facilities to KMBC for free would imply £25,000 per event, not the £50,000 I said before.
As well as still being a little ambitious, this figure pre-supposes that there will be a demand for the facilities on just about every day of the week, 52 weeks a year.
As a business consultant and advisor to KMBC, Prof. Cannon will be in a better position than I am to judge whether such a demand exists. But as he doesn't back up his figures anywhere, I'll remain sceptical until I see some evidence.
My apologies for the above errors. Perhaps the author of the main article (Neil Hodgson) or Prof. Cannon himself may wish to offer similar corrections/clarifications for their own mistakes?
Couple of corrections...
It's been pointed out to me that 2 of my figures in the rant above were incorrectly calculated - sorry.
1. If the stadium sells out every game, the average ticket price rise would be in the region of 12%, not 40% as previously stated. My bad, I simply did the wrong calculation.
Having said that, a more realistic average of 45,000 would still require a price rise averaging nearly 30%. That would mean all existing regular match-goers, plus another 33% on top of that being willing to up their ticket/programme spend.
2. £5m from conferences/events on the 200 or so days when we aren't having a match or giving the facilities to KMBC for free would imply £25,000 per event, not the £50,000 I said before.
As well as still being a little ambitious, this figure pre-supposes that there will be a demand for the facilities on just about every day of the week, 52 weeks a year.
As a business consultant and advisor to KMBC, Prof. Cannon will be in a better position than I am to judge whether such a demand exists. But as he doesn't back up his figures anywhere, I'll remain sceptical until I see some evidence.
My apologies for the above errors. Perhaps the author of the main article (Neil Hodgson) or Prof. Cannon himself may wish to offer similar corrections/clarifications for their own mistakes?
To those who are unaware of it, Prof. Cannon's son (Robin) has been passionately defending his dad on a Toffeeweb thread; chiefly concerning the criticism he has encountered since the interview he conducted with Alan Jackson on Radio Merseyside last Wednesday.
http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/07-08/comment/fan/article.asp?submissionID=8451
From reading the above comments it’s fairly obvious that Evertonians almost unanimously regard the ramblings of Tom Cannon as inaccurate, irrational and ultimately ridiculous. Personally I find the sight of a man trying to salvage some credibility after making a complete fool of himself as quite pitiful and rather pathetic. It would be best if Evertonians resisted the urge to comment on the many inaccuracies he churns out, this will hopefully deny him the oxygen of publicity he clearly craves for. It would be far better to email Robert Elstone and demand that Everton distance themselves from the thoughts of Prof Cannon with immediate effect.