For me it?s the only place to have a serious discussion with other Everton fans that share the same passion, affinity and (dare I say it) love for our team. A common denominator that provokes heartfelt disagreement, often anger, frequently humour but most worthy of all honesty ? indeed perhaps ToffeeWeb is the only form of catharsis that keeps us Evertonians sane ? especially after the last few weeks?!
After surviving the recent transfer window it now appears I?m falling into a ?new season comment? syndrome/pattern. I feel slightly uncomfortable too when I catch myself unable to resist the urge to repeat myself. However this time last year I wrote this article: http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/07-08/comment/mailbag/mailbagitem.asp?submissionID=1860 A quick synopsis - it highlighted the usual glass half-full/half-empty syndrome we all experience as Evertonians?. blah blah blah? the anachronism being it looked at the consequences of our attachment to either side of the proverbial coin.
This season, after the recent months of uncertainty, I thought I?d share my thoughts again. The slightly surprising (to myself) truth is, however, I feel sorry for BK! Don't get me wrong; I know he must be a pretty shrewd operator ? after all, he's successful right? So he must be able to play his hand well? However, tonight's EGM perhaps showed a side of him that I would suggest most of us Evertonians actually are aware of, though choose to selectively ignore?
Maybe many of us, in a strange way, wish we were in Billy's boots? If I succumb to fantasy, I know I'd just love to be in control of Everton, though the reality, in truth, is harshly different. I?m not a billionaire, though I desperately love the team I support. I have managed large teams of people, but been cosseted miles safer in a corporate ringfence, where the sands are far, far less shifting than the Premier League.
So I lack experience and would ultimately probably fail the club I?ve always endorsed. Sadly I don?t have the connections to be able to call on powerful International contacts to put together a viable finance package to take over at Goodison, though I know real and virtual fans by the thousands who profess undying passion for the team and back this up with vitriolic rhetoric that sometimes borders on vile and mephitic to further endorse their affection.
The thing is, I think there?s a bit of BK in all of us Evertonians? I know that?s going to put loads of people?s backs up but think about it for a moment... Imagine any of us were successful enough to invest in Everton FC ? what would we do? I?d love to read some posts that actually offered constructive alternatives to how to move Everton FC forward. Instead I mostly wade through a quagmire of accusations, hypothesis and an almost insatiable need to hold somebody culpable.
Before anybody starts quoting ?the buck stops at the top with BK? etc. I just wonder what anybody would do instead? If half of the energy of our (ToffeeWeb?s readers) combined intellect were invested in more proactive methods of developing EFC, then I would be a far happier person. As it is, I feel it is still we the fans, who can choose where and what the standards of our great club?s destiny lies.
I know there?s some really smart people who comment on this site, folks with different learnings and understandings, people from various backgrounds carrying diverse opinions, from across the globe ? unified by one Blue harmony. That is what I believe is the real ?Everton Way?. The ability to look discord in the eye and ascend above the distress it brings. To evolve protocols that transcends the conventional and laterally illuminates ways ahead.
If it?s true that Evertonians are chosen, then perhaps this is a time where our accountability should be called into question? We?ve all had a completely crap summer (as far as Everton are concerned) from Kirby to Cashless-Crisis. I?m not pardoning BK ? far from it. This is not a pro or neg comment about BK or DM post though. All I?m saying is if for one minute any of us thinks that what we do individually makes no difference anymore, then we really are in trouble.
In a strange way, we are all Chairman of EFC. So if I could make one request to some of my fellow Toffees then I?d ask you not to just wrap your disappointment and anger in negativity, but to genuinely try to suggest positives and options to improve us too. It?s been a tough few months, expectation levels disappointedly let down, so now really is the time to syncretise and get behind our team.
Remember, what the caterpillar calls the end of the world??? the master calls a butterfly. Best wishes to my fellow Blues.
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 04/09/2008 at 04:59:23
I think all Evertonians know what they wouldnt do with EFC and that’s run it how it is now.
But you’re right to ask if we were chairman what would we do.
I would start by looking at the weaknesses.
Poorly managed corporate and commercial operations.
And I would look to immediately improve these and take back the control.
For example Spurs get 40 million from commercial activities we get 1 million.
Is it any wonder than that Spurs can afford better players.
The next area to look at is development of our own players though this is a long term solution and doesnt offer any instant fixes.
Once all this is set down into a plan I would engage a consultant to go and find a rich investor which is exactly what City did and SELL them the opportunity.
Does any Evertonian actually believe that Kenwright has even thought about this over the last 8 years while he has sold off or mortgaged all our assets and run up record debts without putting a penny of his own money into EFC.
There are still plenty of rich investors who are not out to make a quick killing and if we’re quick enough we might even get Somebody before the RS do.
As for the stadium debate can anybody name any LARGE capacity new premiership stadium, besides the Emirates, which has been successful?
Answers on a postcard or should that be postage stamp!
2 Posted 04/09/2008 at 07:52:38
3 Posted 04/09/2008 at 08:39:31
4 Posted 04/09/2008 at 08:54:13
5 Posted 04/09/2008 at 08:56:41
And I thought I could do waffle and obscure.
Salaam’s away backwards, repeating ’ I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy ’.
There’s a bit of BK in all of us?? speak for your self mate, the only way there’ll be a bit of BK in me is if I was daft enough to drop em and play grab ankle, you know what these ’luvvies’ are like, hence the name.
Ennui (on wee) yep, got that,...mephitic...nah, well not since Robert Robinson, Frank Muir and Ppppatrick Ccccampbell etal.
BLUFF, no such word.
I hesitate to ask for your views on playing Jags, Yobo and Lescott as 3 at the back with 2 wingbacks, Baines on the L and Jacobsen on the R.
Tongue firmly in cheek,
6 Posted 04/09/2008 at 09:16:02
7 Posted 04/09/2008 at 09:38:04
How do WE, as Evertonians, become more constructive with our comments or energy when we don’t have any clue about what the hell is going on inside our club?
Are we skint or are Earl and Green putting money into our club? Can they recall this money at any time plunging us into crisis? Should Kenwright be held accountable for the fact that we are in such a mess? If so, how?
Has Kenwright had offers for the club? Is he truly willing to listen to offers?
It’s these last 2 questions that would give answers as to whether it’s worth being "constructive". What’s the point if Kenwright has no intention to sell?
8 Posted 04/09/2008 at 10:00:54
The off-the-field performance needs to match the ’punching above its weight’ that has characterised the development of the team under David Moyes.
It is defeatism to say that the future of the People’s Club is dependant on finding a Sheikh or an Oligarch to act as a sugar-daddy. Be very careful what you wish for!
Appropriate civic/public sector and commercial partners [not shopping] for a city centre or inner-city development would provide an ongoing revenue-based and community-based relationship rather than a one-off quick-fix to attempt exploit planning loopholes with respect to initial capital development.
The apparent determination to pursue the unrealistic [in Planning terms] and unattractive option of Destination Kirkby through a lengthy public enquiry and its aftermath will see the club pouring good money after bad for at least another couple of years.
9 Posted 04/09/2008 at 10:28:13
10 Posted 04/09/2008 at 10:33:36
Jay, I’ve told you this before: that is totally incorrect.
To state that once can be seen as a mistake. To state it again, after somebody explains why it is wrong, could be seen as a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
Given this, why should anybody believe anything you say? You clearly have a complete disregard for facts as long as your story fits your anti-Kenwright position.
I would warn people against believing anything someone says (on either side of any argument) on this website unless it can be backed up. So much stuff just gets stated as fact here that is just patently untrue.
And be especially suspicious of anyone who continues to post things that have been shown to be 100% untrue.
11 Posted 04/09/2008 at 10:21:15
Last night’s presentation didn’t take any account of the potential for non-retail enabling development as part of an expansion of the Park End.
Redeveloping Goodison would not be quick or simple, but it is possible step-by-step, with ingenuity, without any need for the club to move out or lose income in the process.
Alternatively, Commercial and Public-Sector partnerships could be put together for sites such as Scotland Road, Clarence Dock or the remaining land at the Kings Dock [in conjunction with the Arena].
These last three sites would also suit a shared stadium, which a smart developer should be able to provide free of capital cost to either club. Tenders could be sought, in the same way that they were for the privately-funded Liverpool One development.
Even Wembley would make money if it had two premier-league franchises! And Cardiff [75,000 seats on a land-locked city-centre site] survives on a dozen major events in a year!
12 Posted 04/09/2008 at 10:53:17
I didn’t catch your previous explanation as to why Jay’s figures are incorrect. Would you mind to clarify again?
Do you know the real figures?
13 Posted 04/09/2008 at 11:38:30
14 Posted 04/09/2008 at 11:32:03
Jay’s figure of £40m for Spurs is made up of sponsorship, corporate hospitality, merchandising and "other". I’m not sure what "other" is in Spurs accounts.
For Everton, Jay picks the figure of "other commercial activities", but specificly excludes :
sponsorship, advertising, merchandising, catering, programme sales and corporate hospitality.
The figures are further misleading by the fact that Jay is talking about INCOME, and not profit. Everton outsource merchandising and catering - as such, our income is £6.6m lower that it would otherwise have been, but our costs are reduced by an even bigger amount. Spurs don’t outsource, and hence suffer the costs as well as the obtain the income. To report one without reference to the other is just misleading. Indeed, Spurs’ costs are £15m higher than Everton, plus whatever the extra staffing costs (they is no seperation of players wages and support staff wages).
Finally, we are using figures for the 06/07 season (the most recent available). Spurs had eleven home cup ties that year, which caused a huge increase in corporate hospitality, as you would expect. Spurs made an extra £10m large on the back of this. You can’t expect that many cup games every year - it was an exceptionally good year for Spurs.
Yes, of course Spurs make more money than we do. They are a London club, charge £60 for a ticket, and have really expensive corporate facilities 3 miles from what, the third largest business district in the world?
Yet Jay for some reason needs to massage the figures to make Kenwright look worse. The gap isn’t 40:1, nor is it anything close to 40:1
It’s always Spurs he references too. He never compares them, for example, to Aston Villa, a club which has been run incredibly tighly under Doug Ellis and now Randy Lerner for years. You would think that it would be a more natural comparison, as they are both have similar crowds, are both non-London clubs.
You would also think that Jay would want to make that comparison - Villa have a slight advantage over Everton, in that they are in a larger, slightly economically richer city, and don’t have the most successful club in English football to compete with.
Given Villa have those advantages, and given how well Ellis and Lerner run the club, it may come as a bit of surprise to find out that Everton make more money than Villa from commercial operations.
Which is probably why Jay feels the need to resort to misstating Spurs figures.
15 Posted 04/09/2008 at 11:56:33
Essentially the same team that made 5th place plus quality signings (including a player that would have accepted no wages until fit, vs a player that would have preferred to go to Chelski but followed the money). And look around: would you rather be a West Ham supporter (manager left because of interference), Newcastle (ditto), Blackburn (good young manager seduced by obscene amounts of money). No, we’re not going to win the league this year. But we have an essentially stable squad, a good working relationship between manager and owners...and did I mention that we finished 5th? I am not blind to the problems of ongoing funding/investment/stadium move etc, but right now, there are a lot of fans of other teams who would like to be in our position.
16 Posted 04/09/2008 at 11:45:17
I cannot remember any correction to my figure but here are the Spurs figures:-
Match day income 30.9 m
Broadcast income 33.7m
Commercial income 38.5m
TOTAL income 103.1m
Source Deloitte 2008.
Matchday + advertising 21.7m
Other income 2.2m
TOTAL income 51.4m
Source EFC report and accounts 2007
That is the latest accounts I have access to and these figures are from the sources I have mentioned.
They are not fictitious nor mischievous.
17 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:07:45
OK, those figures are certainly true. They aren’t really comparable though, because the catogories don’t match, as I said in my last post. They also ignore costs, which are obviously just as important as gross income.
Spurs made around twice as much as us from commerical operation than us, not 40:1, in that specific year (which was exceptional for Spurs). The difference is mostly corporate hospitality, plus higher sponsorship (Spurs have the best sponsorship deal outside the big 4).
Neither of which, due to the differences in clubs locations, prove anything.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt when obtaining your figures that you accidently misstated 2.2m as 1m and you didn’t know advertising was commercial.
18 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:05:53
I dont have access to Villa’s figures as they are not reported on the Deloitte table but if you can provide them then all the better for comparison.
My point has nothing to do with costs.It was Kenwright’s man who decided to farm out the catering and merchandising and allegedly though I cant say categorically we got all the franchise fees paid up front which would have inflated the figures artificially for 1 year can you confirm this?
My point is there is a tremendous opportunity to increase our commercial income.
For example Arsenal get 43m amd even Newcastle get 28 million (same source Deloitte 2008).
It is well known how badly our merchandising,marketing,catering and ticketing operations are run never mind our infamous PR department.
We cannot continue to run at operating losses of 10 million a year which we have done for the past 2 years accounts because even despite the fact that BK has no money we NEED more income to cover our costs and giving control of our merchandising to third parties IMO is the wrong way to go about that.
If you have a lossmaking operation you dont give it to some third party with competitor’s interests to manage you put better management in to turn it around.
That was my point the figures are academic.
19 Posted 04/09/2008 at 11:42:51
20 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:15:50
Do Spurs buy better players than us or more expensive players than us ?
21 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:35:48
that wasnt my point but at least they can "afford" more expensive players and god knows where we would be if we didnt have Moyes who has operated on a transfer kitty that must rank with the bottom 10 not the top 10.
However even with the low wage bill and small comparable spend we still make operating losses of 10 million a year so unless we improve our income our squad will get even more decimated in the future..
22 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:43:49
I appreciate it wasn’t your point but you have to admit it was Freudian.
Levy and/or Sugar would have sacked DM by now.
23 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:27:09
A few suspect comments though!
Jay - marketing, merchandising, organisation, profile, PR and operations cost a lot of money. As all Evertonians know we haven’t got a pot to piss in! So how, as Peter suggested, can we make this better! For me I don’t know because I’m not a businessman of international repute! But I would hazard a guess at how BK sees it and how he plans to solve our current predicament!
If we want an Everton to be world-beaters on and off the pitch we need answers. Bill Ks answer is simple - move ground and make an attractive proposition to investors or sell the club!
I think it needs to be pointed out too that City’s new super rich owner has spotted a team that has a brand new stadium with a large fan base (similar to our own) and plenty of potential in terms of business growth. There are 20 clubs in the league and he could have chosen any of them. But even though he is incredibly rich I doubt his criteria for selection was based on ?who is the best team outside of the top four with the best history and fan base’ or ?I know lets stick 20 names in a hat and do a lucky dip’. Give the man a break - he would have had teams of lawyers and suits doing extensive research. And if they’d gone to him and said the most attractive business to take over is Chelsea he probably would have bought them, such is his riches that make Abramovich look like a bum! So, why pick a club that would need millions of £s of investment before any sort of return. It would make no sense. I know what Bill K thinks though - if I move to a new ground, package the club nicely we’ll get a similar type of investor.
Now I’m not a BK fan but not because I don’t think he love Everton every bit as much as the rest of us. If anything I think our current problems stem from the fact that he loves the club too much and can’t let it go. Personally, I just think he isn’t a very good businessman and has made some very bad decisions especially when it comes to his bloody mouth. He continually gets it wrong - quiet when he needs to speak and can’t shut up when he needs to be silent. From his point of view, which he has been at pains to tell us all over the last few weeks, he can’t compete in the market and Everton are suffering because we have no cash. I strongly suspect that most of the sure thing transfers we had lined up this summer collapsed because of the financial packages we offered. Ie Buy now pay later! This might have worked when we bought players over the last couple of years but now we have a global economic slow down and clubs need cash in the same we all do! They just aren’t going to go for instalment payments over 6 years. Why do you think so many players we buy are for undisclosed fees ? it is because they are on crazy payment plans. And why because Everton have NO money! So how does BK solve it - move ground, sell the club! I wouldn’t be surprised if EFC is bankrupting BK personally by the way because I am sure be bleeds blue like the rest of us. Like I said he?s just not capable of running the club at the level it needs to be at!
It has been a frustrating few months as an Evertonian. But if you are an anti-Destination Kirkby Evertonian (like me) then prepare for it to get worse because I think the writing is on the wall! I don’t want to see Everton leave Liverpool and the ’mid-scale’ Stadium plans make me weep - from one of the best grounds in the world to that! Truly saddening! But BK has ONE answer - MOVE GROUND, SELL UP and it is coming, regardless of the poor design, poor transport infrastructure and other obvious drawbacks. But if it does bring the investment we need then maybe we?ll just have to resign ourselves to it! But as far as BK is concerned it is his only way out ? the only affordable, deliverable option. Plan Bs and Cs are years and millions of pounds away. The comment about public sector partnerships mooted by Trevor are not viable ? at least as far as BK is concerned (apologies Trevor as I?m not disagreeing with you ? I just think from BK point of view it won?t happen).
So that?s my rant. A frustrated anti-Kirkby blue who worries about the club as much as anyone but has no real answers. This response to Peter?s great article is not a pro-BK statement or an apologist?s point of view but just a reflection on how I think he sees his own predicament and how he is going to get out of it ? with the help of Messrs Earl and Green.
But if you pushed me and I had to give an answer on what is the best way forward for Everton. What can we do to ensure a bright future of investment in the club and (most importantly) the playing staff and do it in the city of Liverpool? I?d have to respond with two words: GROUND SHARE!
24 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:46:47
25 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:52:21
26 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:52:21
My point had nothing to do with performances on the pitch where I feel Moyes has punched above his weight for years.
My point was we have an abysmal level of commercial income and the way we manage them is poor.
It is the off field activites at EFC that are poorly managed.
27 Posted 04/09/2008 at 12:21:16
Yes, because from an accountancy point of view, you spread the income over the life of the contract, no matter when it was received. If you get an amount in advance, you hold it on the balance sheet and release it to the P&L in future years.
That’s yet another statement (to add to the one about the "creative accounting" on Kirkby) where you strongly suggest that Kenwright is attempting dishonest accounting (without making a full accusation), without any proof or indeed without any plausible suggestion on how it possibly could be achieved.
"My point has nothing to do with costs."
That’s a ridiculous statement. You are argueing Spurs, Arsenal and Newcastle are superior solely because they have higher incomes. You don’t judge a business on turnover, you judge them on profit.
Costs are every bit as important as income.
"If you have a lossmaking operation you dont give it to some third party with competitor?s interests to manage you put better management in to turn it around."
Again, this is just midguided. So all outsourcing is bad? Sorry, that’s just wrong. Very often, outsourcing is the best thing to do. For example, catering: what does a football club know about catering? Very little, relative to a catering company.Now, we could hire catering experts, or we could get a catering company to do that for us. Because they have the advantage of economies of scale, they can afford to have far superior management staff than our tiny operation could afford. In such cases, outsourcing is beneficial to both parties.
Likewise, we don’t hire tax experts, because they are really expensive. Instead, we outsource to Deloitte. We don’t manufacture the kit ourselves, we get umbro to do it. It those cases, in Everton ran them themselves they would be loss making, but by outsourcing it is profitable for both parties.
Outsourcing isn’t always right either, but to make a judgement one way or the other you look at the figures. You can’t possibly make that statement without those facts.
"For example Arsenal get 43m amd even Newcastle get 28 million (same source Deloitte 2008)."
Everton get £6m in INCOME, so Newcastle get about £22m more than us.
That’s before costs though. Newcastle’s costs are £21m higher than ours. Again, as for Spurs, that excludes staff wages, because there’s no split between players and support staff.
But basically, Newcastle are no better than us. THAT’S why costs are important.
(by the way, the above does NOT include player wages - Newcastle’s player wages are another £24m higher than ours, which is why Newcastle are screwed at the moment).
Arsenal’s accounts are really hard to examine, because they are now into property development as well, plus the expenses of their stadium. But you’ve given me a figure very similar to Spurs, so the same arguments are likely to apply.
My point is that you are making blanket statements lie "it is well known that everything is run badly". The facts actually don’t indicate that. It’s true that Everton do some things badly, but it’s a common misconception that fixing these things would make millions. Most of the things mentioned at things that the club could do to make us happier (like better PR and stuff), but wouldn’t actually make any money at all.
Customer’s always underestimate the cost and overestimate the benefits of anything that they want. Fact of life.
28 Posted 04/09/2008 at 13:12:38
& don’t get me started about wing backs either!
29 Posted 04/09/2008 at 13:25:56
"Yes, because from an accountancy point of view, you spread the income over the life of the contract, no matter when it was received. If you get an amount in advance, you hold it on the balance sheet and release it to the P&L in future years."
which might be unclear.
I’m saying that there is no way Kenwright could possibly have received a larger amount in advance and used it to fiddle the accounts. i.e. Jay’s statement is impossible, not just unfounded.
30 Posted 04/09/2008 at 13:56:40
31 Posted 04/09/2008 at 14:46:17
32 Posted 04/09/2008 at 14:44:21
You can’t divorce off-field activities from on-field ones. They go together and your comment was Freudian in the sense that you’re saying Spurs have more to spend and,ergo,are better off on the pitch. Are they?
I note you ignore the comment that DM would already have been sacked at Spurs.
The fact is you are very selective so that everything points to BK being the problem. Maybe he’s like Duff Beer- ie " the cause of and the solution to, all ( our ) problems !
33 Posted 04/09/2008 at 15:06:26
I did not once say Spurs are better on the pitch although it is not hard to argue they have finished 5th and won a cup final in the last 2 years.
You are right you cant divorce Off field activities from on the pitch activities and if you dont believe that the shambolic way EFC is being run is hindering us on the pitch then I believe you’re severley misguided.
I guess we are totally divided as a fanbase those that are Pro Kenwright and those like myself that are anti.
As regards Moyes employment by Spurs the question is purely academic it could not be proven either way. Who is to say he would not have been a roaring success at Spurs with backing he can only dream about under Kenwright.
34 Posted 04/09/2008 at 15:18:39
I did not once say Kenwright or anybody else fiddled the books I said it had been inferred (by a poster on this site I seem to remember)that the franchise fees had all been paid up front and were included in that years accounts and I asked you the question if that was true or not , but anyway according to my outdated accountancy knowledge there would be nothing to prevent Wyness from presenting that as a one off payment depending how it was dressed up.
35 Posted 04/09/2008 at 15:25:36
I agree Spurs and Newcastles costs are higher but to me without a specific breakdown those higher costs are mainly to do with higher players wages and higher amotisation of the costs of purchasing players.
Without proof I dont think either of us could prove whether they are loss making or not but my point was their commercial income is SIGNIFICANTLY more than ours even if you "unfranchise" ours and therefore it is an area of the business that presents us with the opportunity to increase income.
36 Posted 04/09/2008 at 15:26:38
I actually specifically said that you didn’t make a full accusation. However, on both counts you have suggested that creative accounting as a possible motive.
"I did not once say Kenwright or anybody else fiddled the books I said it had been inferred (by a poster on this site I seem to remember)that the franchise fees had all been paid up front and were included in that years accounts and I asked you the question if that was true or not ,"
Fair enough. It is not true. You can see the turnover figure for catering, so you can see for youself that there is no bulk payment in there.
"but anyway according to my outdated accountancy knowledge there would be nothing to prevent Wyness from presenting that as a one off payment depending how it was dressed up."
You cannot. A bulk payment is deferred income, in exactly the same way as the season ticket money paid in advance is. There is no way you can dress a multiple year income stream in a single year, and no way Deloitte would have signed off on that.
37 Posted 04/09/2008 at 15:22:05
You implied it by saying they can afford better players.One therefore assumes they have a better team. Do they ? For what they have spent, 5th place and a ( lucky ) CC is a poor return.
Are we " hindered on the pitch ". How so ? We’re on the coat-tails of the Sky four.
You like to factionalise. You assume everyone is either for something or aginst something- hence you assume I am " pro- Kenwright " Life and more particularly football, is not that simple.
Of course the
38 Posted 04/09/2008 at 15:32:40
"I agree Spurs and Newcastles costs are higher but to me without a specific breakdown those higher costs are mainly to do with higher players wages and higher amotisation of the costs of purchasing players."
No, that’s not it. I said I was specifically excluding player wages.
I didn’t state I was excluding amortisation of purchases; however, I was. I was looking at just the operating costs.
I was in fact being generous by not including staff costs on the corporate side at all. Newcastle’s accounts say they have 1400 staff members outside of the football team - that’s 1300 more than Everton. So once you add their wages into the equation, Everton make more profit from corporate activities than Newcastle.
Now, you can argue that you haven’t seen specific figures etc (you can get the Spurs ones off their website, and Newcastle for a quid off companies house if you want to look). But that’s the point. You have decided that Everton’s business is run poorly. You throw figures around to back this story up, but the truth is these numbers don’t prove anything. If you haven’t looked at the figures, you weren’t in a position to make those statements.
If you dig deeper, the numbers actually say Everton is doing quite well, for a Premier League football club outside London. Certainly better than Newcastle and Villa.
If your argument is solely that there is room for a little improvement, then fair enough. But if you think there is an extra £10m profit to be made...well, no other club outside the top four and Spurs has managed that, so why is it automatic that Everton would be able to? And given that Everton’s commercial PROFITS (not income) is comparable to that of all these clubs, on what do we base the idea that Everton are really poorly run?
39 Posted 04/09/2008 at 15:49:11
I understand the point you are making but the way it was put by a previous poster was that there was a one off up front fee paid for the franchise which eliminated future revenue streams from that source.
On the point of what is commonly known as "creative accounting" are you saying that does not go on with or without the knowledge of audtitors?
And are you saying that there has not been any "creative accounting" at EFC.
40 Posted 04/09/2008 at 16:02:54
That may well have happened.
"On the point of what is commonly known as "creative accounting" are you saying that does not go on with or without the knowledge of audtitors?"
What goes on is in more complex situations, where the accounting treatment of something is unclear. In that case, someone might take what is politely called "an aggressive position".
What you are suggesting is an entirely blatent breach of accounting standards, on a major event in the year (the outsourcing) which is specifically mentioned in the director’s report and would have attracted in the auditor’s attention. There is quite literally no chance whatsoever of Deloitte letting that through. Really, none.<
41 Posted 04/09/2008 at 17:23:07
Needless profanity removed by moderator
42 Posted 05/09/2008 at 09:26:40
ALL profanity is ’needless’.
Why be selective?
(Is there a list?)