Everton's Accounts show significant improvements

We just need them to do a good job when getting the money out.

I'm hoping for the maximum spend of what we are allowed to spend.

It reflects none of the revenue from the new stadium, except the first trickle of kit sales from the new stores that were already open.

Do you think they will back us financially with, if not all, the majority of what they are allowed to spend?

Revenues are improving and, with looming SCR, that's good news. They must go further and extended use of the Hill Dickinson Stadium will help that.

Profits, rather losses, on the face of it have again improved, but Everton FC remain loss-making despite the one-off injection of circa £50M from the sale of the women's team, so the club is not yet close to profit-making.

The debt position has been refinanced to a healthier position. I'd like to hear from TFG on the £45M Dividend payment to themselves. What was the purpose? Certainly doesn't help our cash position.

A full year of TFG and HD stadium will tell us more. And the willingness to spend (up to our SCR limit) in the Summer, or not, will also be quite telling, I think.

Perfectly put.

Kinnear's statement in December about "phase two of our rebuild next summer" would seem to imply a significant financial commitment, because the word "rebuild" carries connotations of a big batch of new players, not just a right back and a striker.

My best guess is that, particularly if we do make it into Europe, Moyes will be backed to build the necessary squad to successfully compete in both venues. Friedkin will not want to see his club crash out of the Conference League after watching Roma win it in 2022, or skid back down to 14th and lose the current vibe at HD.

But I definitely do not expect us to be splashing £60M for a 20-goal scorer or a #10.

Again, this is only complete speculation based on the sparsest of information. I have hopes rather than expectations.

Which is great.

BUT... as the article explains above, our spending ceiling will be significantly lower if we're in Europe because UEFA bans including the sale of the women's team in our revenue calculations.

Note also that the commercial revenue numbers did not include the new Pepsi, Budweiser, Heinz and Aramark sponsorships -- or, of course, the reported £50m shirt deal.

I have never understood these ambitious expectations of incremental stadium revenue. If we manage say £10M extra next year, that would be incredible (and I don't think it will happen).

Where's Beyonce when you need her...

They have told us not to do it.

But we're not going to be selling a women's team every season, so that's £49 million + £6 million in other commercial revenues to discount next year.

Meaning we have to replace that £55 million income somehow just to stay in the same position.

Eric #12, some of it will be replaced by new commercial revenues, namely the sponsorships/partnerships from Budweiser, Pepsi, Aramark, Red Bull and Heinz -- and Hill Dickinson of course. Plus the new shirt deal is supposed to be more lucrative than Stake.

I have, I wanted to get your latest thoughts.

Your early confidence in the owners seems to be waning?

Very catty Eric

BUT... we still can't compete with clubs that have four times our revenues, and I do not expect that even spending up to our SCR limits this summer will bring us squad improvements sufficient to make us Top 4 contenders or European successes. I've always felt that would be a project requiring 3-4 windows.

We are 3 points off a CL qualifying position now.

If Seamus, Keane, Patterson and maybe Gana depart, and we don't sign Grealish or George permanently, we could require as many as 10-12 new players to successfully compete in the CL next season. And we may not have the SCR space for that many signings.

It's being posted more frequently lately.

Chelsea £65,102,247
Aston Villa £38,444,289
Man City £37,358,301
Liverpool £33,881,344
Arsenal £32,149,359
Man Utd £31,777,462
Spurs £21,384,701
Bournemouth £20,883,523
Newcastle Utd £20,284,701

I won't print all but the 2 lowest are:

Everton £9,990,374
Burnley £7,357,902

Why Everton qualifying for Europe could give them a financial headache

... Getting into Europe would be a cause for celebration for a club who have not reached a UEFA tournament since the 2017-18 season. But it would also pitch the club into a rules-based gap that has opened up for English clubs as a result of different governing bodies employing different financial regulations.

...UEFA already employs SCR more strictly, but it is the European body's football earnings rule that would come into focus should Everton qualify for continental competition.

UEFA allows clubs a loss limit of €60million (£52m; $70m) over three seasons, around half the existing £105m limit in the Premier League. Clubs can increase that limit by €10m a season up to a maximum of €90m if they hit certain sustainability metrics, but English sides generally fail to meet that criterion due to debt incurred from transfers.

Everton do not explicitly disclose their own transfer debts, but from other figures in their accounts, it can be inferred they owe less in transfer fees than many other clubs. Yet, even with the maximum loss limit allowed under UEFA (around £78m today), a figure there's no guarantee Everton would meet the requirements for, compliance looks tricky at this point.

UEFA's rules discount internal asset sales, such as the movements of the women's side and their old Goodison Park home into a separate group. As a result, the pre-tax starting point for Everton in 2024-25 without those sales would be a loss of £57.8m — even higher than their 2023-24 deficit. Across those two seasons, Everton's pre-tax loss totalled £111m.

That does not constitute their football earnings result. Just as under PSR, clubs can deduct ‘good' expenditure on infrastructure, youth academies, community, and the women's team — albeit Everton's ability to do the latter has likely disappeared now that the team sits outside of the men's team entity.

But Everton spent more than £100m net on players last summer, investing substantially in the squad for the first time in years. Although there will be significant revenue benefits from the move to Hill Dickinson Stadium, another notable loss this season would be of little surprise.

Clubs competing in Europe in 2026-27 will be assessed on losses from 2023 to 2026. In other words, Everton will carry that £111m pre-tax loss into their UEFA calculation next season.

The Merseyside club are not in a unique position. Chelsea and Aston Villa breached the football earnings rule last year following their 2023-24 results. Each paid a fine and are now in settlement agreements with UEFA that limit future losses and places restrictions on squad numbers for European campaigns. If they breach those agreements, they would be banned from European football.

More recently, The Athletic projected Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest would breach the rule this season based on their expected 2024-25 figures. Neither of those clubs nor UEFA have confirmed a breach, but their recently released accounts do little to suggest an alternative. Newcastle have confirmed ongoing discussions with UEFA about rule compliance.

The above may all prove to be a moot point — but if Everton return to Europe next season, they will find themselves tackling new challenges in football's regulatory morass.

Probably my nature, but can't understand why we should be scared of any detrimental affect winning a trophy caused.

All opinions of course

But the cold dark financial fact is that only the CL pays anything decent -- the Europa League and the Conference return very little in terms of money rewards, even for winning it all -- and the facts of the article I posted at #26 are pretty stark. There could be significant financial/regulatory risk associated with European competition. And I think TFG will be fully aware of it.

It's like a boxer, fighting in a title eliminator, and thinking "I'd best be careful not to win this, the champ is a top fighter..."

Capacity up 30%, Season Tickets I think went up by a minimum of 15%. My top balcony price was £580, and I am paying £1200 if I remember rightly in Club View, so 100% up lift for that entire area. Additional corporate will push that further. Certainly the stand overlooking the water has some amazing corporate areas -- and the cost is pretty tasty as well.

I'd think the £250M turnover target looks very achievable. Increased match day revenue, Increased TV money, Increased sponsorship, new naming rights, and other events covering rugby and internationals etc. Despite the cost, food and drink sales will have sky rocketed -- although this is contracted out.

The summer will be an interesting time with the transfer window opening as well as the World Cup taking place. When there is a World Cup, it often means that some players draw attention and that's always a worry for many clubs.

Also. while those players are away, many do interviews suggesting where they would like their next moves are likely to be.

We have already seen reports (true or not) in the press suggesting that Man Utd will make a move for Ndiaye and even one paper suggested Real Madrid might make a move for James Garner... both scenarios are worry ing from an Everton perspective.

Also as Moyes suggested, we couldn't get many of our targets last season because we couldn't offer European football. So where we finish in the Premier League could determine who we can persuade to come here but it may also determine where Ndaiye and Garner are playing their football next season -- hopefully with us.

But buying players in World Cup year is very difficult, because clubs can't talk to players in the tournament and, for those that go far into the competition, they will need rest and recuperation prior to a new season starting.

I don't know how it works but it does look like Uefa have made it a lot more difficult for clubs to try and make it a more level playing field.

Although I do wonder how much they'll fine Chelsea!

And regarding the internal transfer of an asset, I read somewhere that a third party had bought at least part of the women's team, so maybe that gives us a credit.

Clubs can't talk to players in the tournament.

If true, that surprises me, Brian. Firstly, clubs talk mostly to agents, I imagine, and rarely to the players themselves.

Secondly, all it needs is a text message or three, an email with all the details, and perhaps a phone call... all of which are widely available to travellers in North America.

Are you really sure clubs can't talk to players in the tournament???

I think that rule has been in place for years, but as you say it doesn't stop clubs approaching agents during the World Cup. I think coaches of countries at the World Cup didn't want their players to be distracted by talking to various clubs over possible transfers.

But the main point I was making is that in front of the world's media someone who wasn't on certain clubs radar suddenly performs at the top of their game and, all of a sudden, the player becomes wanted by many.

I think nowadays players want Champions League and if a club who have qualified come in for a player at a club who haven't, then he will be more tempted to move.

"Our gaffer thinks you're a great player, told the lads in training he would love to sign you."

The gaffer asks them to say it.

I have no doubt the scenario you paint goes on at all International gatherings, but I still think officially clubs can't approach players during the tournament.

It probably saves the prospective buyer time if the tapped player tells them he is happy where he is. I think it's the initial approach, mate.

I think an extra £50M in turnover is very much achievable which would put us in the best of teams not playing European football.