Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In  |  Sign Up
The Mail Bag

Tales of administration wildly exaggerated?

Comments (57)

Just saw the financial results on the Official Site. Not great, but nothing that points to the club going to administration. Given my financial acumen is suspect at best, is there something I?m missing?

Operation loss of £0.6M, hardly a Lehman Bros loss sheet.
Brian Keating, Ireland     Posted 07/02/2011 at 22:58:11

back Return to the Mail Bag


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

Ian Smitham
1   Posted 07/02/2011 at 21:25:32

Report abuse

Michael ? I am sure you will get an avalanche of mail on receipt of the accounts if it is tommorrow. I will let you know when I get mine so that at least we all know they are out.

Usually you have had the benefit of someone (sorry to be rude, but cannot recall his name) who is qualified in interpretation of such documents.

Can I suggest a separate thread (how ingenious) for the accounts and also that you specify that each contributor places on record not only their view but also whether it is from a professional view or an interested shareholder.

I am not an accountant and so would like to particually hear from Twebbers in that trade.

Just an idea.
Colin Fitzpatrick
2   Posted 07/02/2011 at 23:20:36

Report abuse

Brian, I'm quite shocked tbh. That's just the operating loss. We made a £6M operating profit last year yet posted a net loss of £6M. If this press release is picking out the best bits then the accounts aren't going to make good reading.

Administration? No, but we're in difficult times. The spin is there for all to see, some of those contracts and the effect of wage increases wouldn't have any effect on those accounts representing a year end of 31 May 2010.

We're now nine months down the line, three transfer windows where are manager has been given nothing, players being shipped out left right and centre and loans being secured to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Michael Kenrick
3   Posted 08/02/2011 at 02:23:55

Report abuse

Brian, sadly, that's like saying "Well whaddaya know.... We're not really in 13th or 15th place, on the edge of a relegation battle ... Look at this table ? we're really in 8th place, just on the edge of Europe!"

That's what happens when you look at information that is 8½ months out of date and ? worse still ? try to apply it to the current situation.

If our current financial situation is a lot worse than at the end of May 2010, the accounts aren't going to tell us about it until this time next year!

We could be very close to administration or we could not. These accounts will shed very little light on our current situation. But analysis of some of the trends, which I think will be forthcoming, could be illuminating.

Errr..... "Watch this space"?!

Eric Myles
4   Posted 08/02/2011 at 02:31:49

Report abuse

You're missing the net loss after tax of £12.1M and net debt has increased to £71M.
Russell Buckley
5   Posted 08/02/2011 at 02:29:53

Report abuse

In one respect I'm happy that the board is smart enough not to do a Leeds but to say they have they have supported the manager is a joke.

"In modern football, the difference between success and failure can be wafer-thin. Yes, those clubs fortunate enough to boast a rich and generous benefactor undoubtedly have a clearly defined advantage but the outcome of crucial matches are quite often decided not by the size of the bank balance but more by skill, good fortune or the whim of a referee."

Only Bill can spout this kind of bullshit and get away with it.
Thomas Williams
6   Posted 08/02/2011 at 02:39:17

Report abuse

How can gates go up and season tickets sales increase 2,000 and yet revenue on these items go down? Gross incompetence at best, or financial shanigans at worst?

14 or 16 mortgages? What the hell were they for? And the big question is in 2007 we had 202 staff, 2008 it was 444, 2009 it was 468ish, who are these extra 240+ staff? It is certainly not players as more go out than in.

"Support the manager" indeed... what a load of flannel, maybe Kenwright could write another play on the unfolding drama of Everton FC, the facts unfolded would be scarcely believable i.e. pure fantasy. It would be labelled a comedy, except it is not bloody funny!!

Brian Keating
7   Posted 08/02/2011 at 02:58:40

Report abuse

Eric(#4), is that what I'm missing? Where is it listed?

I am not trying to argue with anyone, I'd just like someone with a bit more financial nous than me to shed a bit of light on what this all actually means. That's why the question mark after the title.

If we only made a £0.6M loss, how can the debt have increased by £12.1M? Surely we can't be paying any tax if we're making a loss?
Colin Fitzpatrick
8   Posted 08/02/2011 at 05:56:23

Report abuse

I was just looking at more of the information that's leaking out; according to the Daily Post the Bellefield money has already been used, in this set of accounts, to pay off a debt, yet we've still extended the net debt by £7m!!!

Like I posted elsewhere, there's a predictable series of spin events taking place before anyone actually gets their hands on the accounts; if these press releases are the best they could focus on, god help us.

Looks like the ship has sunk and we're in the lifeboat.
Gavin Ramejkis
9   Posted 08/02/2011 at 07:13:02

Report abuse

Brian as said above, the figures show a snapshot nearly a year ago, since then we've lost/loaned 7 players out with very few back in and certainly no significant purchases. The rumours of Bellefield having already been cashed in scream of desperation to get cash to operate. If it is true we quite literally have nothing left of value but for player contracts and these will be nowhere near the value of the overall debt - buyers will only pay what they want for a player unless a bidding war starts and its no secret that we are financially screwed hence gobshites like that tax dodging twat can take the piss over offers for our players.

Colin are we renting the lifeboat?
Derek Thomas
10   Posted 08/02/2011 at 07:24:24

Report abuse

I think it will take a special type of person on a number of levels, to unravel these accounts.

Some one with the knowledge, time and actual inclination to do it. Like Homer Simpson I just want some one to give me the jist of it.

The bee in my bonnet is these mortgages, 14?.

The old, why, ( maybe a bit iffy that one, probabley either a) coz they could, or b) coz they had to ) when, who with, how long, how much for.... and just what is our annual, total repayments.

Any takers?
Eamonn Turner
11   Posted 08/02/2011 at 08:01:58

Report abuse

Does anyone really care what our financial state of affairs is? We?ve all just been called the most loyal and knowledgeable fans in British football. FFS!!!

I certainly don?t expect an honest layman's terms summary from Bill Kenwright... but why always the luvvy patronizing wankology!

Alan Williams
12   Posted 08/02/2011 at 07:59:02

Report abuse

We haven?t seen the full listed accounts as yet, what we can see is all these reports of Administration are not founded on fact ? just rumour that some fans have conveniently used in their attack on all things official at EFC.

I have stated this on many occasions that EFC year on year will always increase their debt as we can?t sustain our expenditure against income without bridging this gap with player sales or loans which is exactly what we have been doing. The lack of transfer funds available is so obvious since all the spare capital is now being paid to the players in big contracts. We simply can't do both and we have chosen to back the manager and keep our big players.

What we have is a board that has limited scope for revenue expansion that has backed the playing field activities but not put the club in a position that it can't get out of, we have on the field at least £40/50 million pounds of assets that, given the worst scenario, could be sold to recoup the vast majority of debt. Clubs like Leeds and Portsmouth didn?t have this luxury hence them not covering their arses.

It?s not ideal our position but at least the board haven?t gambled away OUR Everton in search of success; like them or not, we as a club are better off they haven?t. COYB

Alan Clarke
13   Posted 08/02/2011 at 08:26:00

Report abuse

I don't think these accounts will give many of us the answers we crave.

I have no accountacy qualifications or any financial knowledge beyond managing my own accounts and mortgage. I am an Everton fan and I know something still doesn't add up.

Practically, what we've seen is more players leave than come in and a net spend in the minus figures during the past 3 transfer windows. Whilst the figures seem to show we've not quite hit the wall yet, I don't think anyone can claim they are a good thing. The real proof will come in the summer when as I still suspect, there will be a firesale of players.

Can someone please report back on Elstone's interview on Radio Merseyside this morning?
Dave Street
14   Posted 08/02/2011 at 08:59:03

Report abuse

Does anyone have a link for the Elstone interview on merseyside. If so please could you list it here. Many thanks.
Craig Taylor
15   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:07:38

Report abuse

I am sure any spin on the figures are aimed at these potential investors from Qatar. Nothing to do with trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

It's not as though there is unrest from the supporters at the minute, or that it's Season ticket renewal time.

And I am sure Moyes was more than happy, as the fans were, with the amount of transfer activity in January.

There is plenty to suggest that we will be just as active in the summer!!!!
Andrew Steen
16   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:22:35

Report abuse

20 Days until our bankers make a decision on whether or not they will renew our overdraft facility. Does anyone know what level of o/d our bankers give us?

Whilst it would be madness to call in our overdraft, we would be screwed if they did. With the transfer window shut, we would be unable to generate funds to repay!
Dave Roberts
17   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:09:47

Report abuse

I don't know if it was the interview being talked about but I did hear a snippet on Merseyside from Elstone this morning. Sorry, I didn't hear it all as I was getting the frost off my car at the time but what I did hear was confirmation of the operating loss and then he went on to talk about investment and said something along the lines of...'we have to make sure that any offer of investment for the club is the right one as there are many strange ones out there'.

Does this mean Everton are having (or have had) offers of investment, some of which are strange and some of which are not?

Jeez! I wish they'd give us a fucking clue.
Dave Roberts
18   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:28:10

Report abuse

Potential investors from Qatar? Where did that one come from?
KPR Williams
19   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:35:59

Report abuse

Seems to break it down a little better.
Liam Reilly
20   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:33:52

Report abuse

Dave #16
Strange probably means 'a reasonable valuation of the club' or a maybe a wealthy investor who want's to put his own team in charge of the club.

Neither of which would cut much ice with Mr Green.
Dick Fearon
21   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:07:34

Report abuse

Recently a club with at least 4 times more debt than Everton was owned by a pair of foreign and much hated shysters. It had a manager who was a figure of ridicule who oversaw a catstrophic series of results that had them heading for relegation.

Two new foreign owners were head hunted then in came a new and much loved manager. record transfer deals were done and results dramatically improved to the extent that European dreams became a reality.

No prizes as to what club that is but I want to know is: What is the difference between where that club was and where Everton is now???

Liam Reilly
22   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:55:04

Report abuse

Hate to say this, Dick, but Liverpool is a Global Brand, whilst Everton is not. Too many opportunities were missed during the introduction of the Premier League.

Truth hurts.
Ernie Baywood
23   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:47:28

Report abuse

If I understand the question Dick, there is no comparison. At practically any level except "Ooh, we're broke".

And they're not out of the woods yet either. Granted, they they might be out of the frying pan.
Howard Don
24   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:55:24

Report abuse

Dick (19) Easy - they, like it or not, have a huge worldwide brand and have much more chance of attracting investment. That said, even they couldn't attract a mega rich buyer so what chance for us? Also record transfer deals may have been done but net expenditure was minimal if anything. We don't have a tradeable asset worth £50million or anything approaching it.
Ian Robert
25   Posted 08/02/2011 at 09:57:45

Report abuse

Dick #19, let's remember Liverpool's debt is no better, they only made record deals cos some tit paid them a fortune for a misfiring forward.

I've just read through the accounts sent to me and it's depressing but we knew it would be. There are several lines we could ask questions of ? we spend a nice amount on hire cars? ?but, as previous posters have said, it's now 2011 and it is probably worse still? I guess for those of us lacking the accountants know-how... if they were false... the tax man would kinda notice.
Alan Clarke
26   Posted 08/02/2011 at 10:10:50

Report abuse

Dave Roberts, I think Craig is taking the piss
Jimmy Hacking
27   Posted 08/02/2011 at 10:22:32

Report abuse

I agree, all those who talked of administration should hang their heads in shame.

This report is crystal-clear Proof, if proof were ever needed (which it wasn't), that Blue Bill's careful financial management and business savvy has been of wonderful benefit to our club. We are tremendously lucky to have him. Clearly we are moving in the right direction.

Here's to ten more years, Bill!
Ian Robert
28   Posted 08/02/2011 at 10:32:20

Report abuse

Jimmy... that just ain't funny, mate.
Colin Fitzpatrick
29   Posted 08/02/2011 at 10:31:04

Report abuse

Jimmy [25] not sure what the prize is but that's the best impression of Richard Dodds I've ever seen.
Jimmy Hacking
30   Posted 08/02/2011 at 10:49:06

Report abuse

At the risk of sounding perverse, in a way, I'm actually disappointed that this financial report isn't a lot worse. I can actually see BK clinging to power here for another few years at least. Several more years of zero investment, asset-stripping and bollocks.
Roberto Birquet
31   Posted 08/02/2011 at 11:10:48

Report abuse

Eric Myles
You're missing the net loss after tax of £12.1M and net debt has increased to £71M.
er, can someone explain that? the Echo reports net debt is up to £44.9.; Eric says
£71m; and yes both say precisely the same description (NET DEBT).
Greg Murphy
32   Posted 08/02/2011 at 10:47:06

Report abuse

Jimmy [25] - the accounts prove that we weren't in danger of entering administration by the end of May 2010. That's all.

They don't prove (they can indicate, though) that we're either near or far from entering administration in the present year, the right here, right now.

There are no "current trading" indications (although I have to say I assumed the Bellefield cash anticipation would be factored into 2010/11 - so that's an exceptional £8m we won't be seeing again).

Broadly, though, I understand where you're coming from and I can sense the perhaps justifiable sentiment behind the tone of your post. For there has been unnecessary panic. No doubt. But that doesn't mean there's been unnecessary anxiety. Panic, no. Anxiety, deep anxiety, yes. Two different things.

Let's face it, when we hear explicit details - and specific timing notes - about the club's overdraft agreement being publicly aired then it's hardly an edifying state of affairs is it?

On the one hand, these accounts give no reason for us to fear that Everton is heading to the wall in the very short term (so some measure of relief, I guess - I feared much worse) but there's still no room for the implicit triumphalism in your post.

On the other hand, the accounts are not nearly so bad as to enable the extreme panic peddlers of the last few weeks to crow over those dozy Blues whom they believe "need to wake up".

This is a desperate 0.0 draw all round, Jim.

There's no room for satisfaction from Bill Kenwright, Robert Elstone and the board (well, what passes for one) save for the fact that, generally, the housekeeping is tidy.

In short, there's just no room for crowing or celebration or undue panic or complacency today.

None of us, not a single Evertonian - from Bill Kenwright down to those littluns who only entered Goodison for the fist time in their lives last Saturday - can take any comfort from these figures.

They are cold and hard. Brutally so. They starkly reflect the nature of the modern game and Everton's perilous position in it (and they're also a signal to David Moyes that he doesn't have any margin of error in transfer dealings and that the Bilyaletdinovs of this world need to hit the ground running...for our manager doesn't have the luxury of, say, Arsene Wenger, who can withstand a £10m flop in the shape of Francis Jeffers).

But basically, Jim, when our CEO hands the press the most glorious, on a plate soundbite, like "Everton is walking a financial tightrope" (screaming across the front of today's Echo - and why wouldn't it be, it's such a gift!?) then he's either: a) completely naive in media matters; or b) he's sending out a timely dog-whistle signal to us all.

We simply live to fight another day in Royal Blue hope - that's all. No more, no less, no better.

Greg Murphy
33   Posted 08/02/2011 at 11:16:09

Report abuse

I've now read Jimmy's second post whilst I was posting and realise he may well have been taking the proverbial. It's so hard to tell these days. Evertonianism is so difficult to penetrate right now.

Substance still stands, though.

KPR Williams
34   Posted 08/02/2011 at 11:19:35

Report abuse

And as if by magic....
Alex Doyle
35   Posted 08/02/2011 at 11:36:18

Report abuse

Releasing a statement of accounts at the end of the financial year is standard practice. Claiming that this information is out of date is only true in so much as any other business and their accounts.

There's a lot of guff and wild claims about the finances of Everton. While it's clear that we are not about to buy Messi and redevelop Goodison into a 200,000 all seater made of gold, perhaps we should just stick to the facts, such as they are.

It's also a CEO's job to make the figures look reasonably attractive, especially more so when he is trying to sell. I would be worried if they weren't talking up the figures.
Alan Clarke
36   Posted 08/02/2011 at 11:40:57

Report abuse

These accounts only go up to May 2010 and include the Kitbag and Chang sponsorship deals (? £15 million). There is also some indication that £8 million from Bellefield has already been spent.

So since May we're already £15 million + £8 million from Bellefield down. Attendances have dropped and I'm sure season ticket sales will drop too. We also know a big loan was taken out by the club before xmas. So for May 2010 to April 2011 the club does not have anywhere near the same income as the year before. You can see why Pienaar was sold and why we've had to reduce the wage bill.

Elstone said we don't have to sell the likes of Rodwell and Fellaini. He's right, we only have to sell one of them to break even but that money won't be reinvested in the team.
Dick Fearon
37   Posted 08/02/2011 at 11:29:39

Report abuse

Ian #23, You touched on something I have wondered about since what originally was Liverpool FC which morphed into Kop Holdings then into NESV and now (at time of writing) FSV.

Am I correct in thinking that the incoming yanks (NESV) paid off most but not all of the debt that was accrued by the original two yanks?

Following on from that, does it mean nothing went into the clubs coffers. Further to that, and assuming that £250 mil was spent on debt reduction was in fact an investment by NESV to be returned at a later date with interest...

Does that all mean they are in debt by at least the same amount as they ever were and still no sign of a spade in the ground?

Kevin Tully
38   Posted 08/02/2011 at 11:49:30

Report abuse

The fundamental issue is whether the board can guarantee the debt.

The current board won't guarantee any of the debt through their own personal wealth, that's why we have all these mortgages.

Man Utd are somewhere in the region of £500m in debt, and haver just paid off £200m in high-interest loans!

The banks will become twitchy when they consider us a risk they are not prepared to fund. Watch out for fire sales this summer, to keep the banks at bay. It only takes a decision from the lender to call in some of the debt, and our best players will be sold.

Whatever the club says, it is not up them what assets i.e. players we want to keep, the bank will force them to sell if they want to re-structure loans etc.

Sell the club for a reasonable price Bill, to someone who has a clue, and more than two ollies and a frog as collateral.
Gavin Ramejkis
39   Posted 08/02/2011 at 12:14:18

Report abuse

Has anyone picked up on Elstone using the word Investor not Buyer? Is Billy Bullshitter up to his old tricks?
Alan Peters
40   Posted 08/02/2011 at 12:08:08

Report abuse

Maybe someone has commented about this but....if wages are 69% of turnover ...then total wage bill per year = £55m or £1.05m per week..

I have tried to estimate how this would be broken down but I still cant see how the wages bill can be so high!

I have put in my estimates of numbers of people and average salaries and am happy to change these.

If the first team squad of 20 players average say £30k per week per player = £600k per week.

15 reserves and youth team averaging £4000 per week = £60k

David Moyes = £40k per week

20 Management team at £3000 per week = £60k

200 I would say mostly part-time staff say £200 per week. = £40k per week.

Thats a total wage bill of £800k per week.

Still leaves over £200k per week in wages not accounted for.

Can anyone else see or comment on this.

Dave Wilson
41   Posted 08/02/2011 at 12:34:01

Report abuse

I believe Moyes earns nearer £60k a week.
Sean Smythe
42   Posted 08/02/2011 at 12:48:15

Report abuse

And Bill says....

Kenwright hails 'sensible' Everton
(UKPA) ? 3 hours ago

Everton chairman Bill Kenwright claims the club's latest financial accounts demonstrate "sensible business management" at Goodison Park last season.

The Toffees released figures covering the period from June 1 2009 to May 31 2010, revealing that £79.1million of turnover was generated, offset by operating costs of £79.6million. This resulted in an operating loss before player trading of £0.5million.

Kenwright told "From a financial perspective, the year was one which was underpinned by sensible business management which enabled us to continue to do everything within our collective power to help the manager in his concerted efforts to build a squad which would challenge the top four."

He added: "Turnover for the year of £79.1million represented a decrease of £0.6million on the previous year, £79.7million, a figure which was boosted by our progress through to the FA Cup final.

"Irrespective of their standing within the various leagues, clubs will invariably be judged on two things - performance and level of support.

"Our average attendance for Premier League games at Goodison Park rose to almost 37,000 during the course of the last campaign, a statistic which delights me but does not surprise me simply because we are fortunate enough to boast the most loyal and knowledgeable crowd in British football."

Everton's average attendance increased from 35,667 to 36,729 and season ticket numbers went up from 23,717 to 25,671, a rise of 8%, generating £19.2million.

Broadcast revenue increased to £50.2million due to the club's share of the centralised revenue deal from the Europa League, although domestic broadcast revenue was down. This was due to 13 domestic games being broadcast live in contrast to 17 in the previous season.

Commercial, sponsorship and merchandising revenue increased to £7.1million.

Alan Peters
43   Posted 08/02/2011 at 12:52:32

Report abuse

If I change David Moyes to £60k

If I up the full time equivalent staff levels to 300 (which I think would be far too much) and give them an average salary of £300 per week(£15k/yr) thats only £90k.

I am still short by £140k per week.

NB I have included NI etc in the week averages.
Chris Jones
44   Posted 08/02/2011 at 12:59:37

Report abuse

#37 Alan: as well as some of your estimates being too low (e.g. Moyes being on £65k a week, not £40k) you have to remember that the club will be liable for National Insurance contributions on top of all salaries, and probably private pension fund contributions as well. These will be on the "wages bill".

On a separate note... I have been a bit dismayed at all the talk of "administration", and not just the thought of my beloved club being in the mire, so to speak. I can well understand committed fans calling for answers, its only natural, but think for a moment, are you helping the club you love by doing this?

Talk of administration - and it has spread far and wide, thanks to this website, and others, perhaps - is damaging to the club.

Imagine for the moment that its true. What can any of us us do to change anything? Nothing I'd suggest. So you only advertise the fact we're a wounded animal and the wolves and sharks are put on alert.

Now imagine its bollocks. Sadly, talk of financial trouble often has a ring of self-fullfilling prohecy about it. If you stand outside a well run, and solvent bank, and tell enough people for long enough that the bank is in trouble, sooner or later there will be a run on the bank and the rot sets in. Nice one!

Likewise with the football club. Imagine some hitherto happy creditors of EFC, listening to all the talk of administration. It only takes a few of them to panic and call in their debts and a rot would set in. And the club goes bust. Happy now?!

Get a grip everyone. Unless you have a solution to a real problem (should such exist) then please keep quiet for goodness and our club's sake. Talk of administraion does no one any good!
Gavin Ramejkis
45   Posted 08/02/2011 at 13:09:54

Report abuse

Good Kenshite quote - "From a financial perspective, the year was one which was underpinned by sensible business management which enabled us to continue to do everything within our collective power to help the manager in his concerted efforts to build a squad which would challenge the top four."

So that'd be losing 7 faces and bringing only one of whom has actually played, yeah sounds about right.
Steve Guy
46   Posted 08/02/2011 at 13:09:42

Report abuse

As with all Financial statements the Chairman paints a rosy picture, as does the CEO. Quite frankly I searched for a sick bag; BS Billy at his best (or worst depending on your perspective). Given that these accounts represent a snapshot from 9 -10 months ago, they could only be viewed as positive by the most myopic of readers.

Debt increased. It doesn't matter how you wrap it up in the accounts....debt increased. Has anything happened to suggest that it will have decreased in the intervening period ? No. Is there anecdotal evidence to suggest it has got worse ? Yes.....further reported loans, offloading of players to get the wage bill down (as can be seen from the accounts, players wages nearing 70% of total expenditure isn't sustainable for a club with the limited earning power we have) and negative transfer activity.

The situation from a straight accounting perspective is manageable, assuming a mid table or above finish each year, but the margin for error is small. On the upside, an unexpected cup run or higher than planned league position can improve the situation in the short term. However, no one in the current set up is likely, willing (or able, in BS Billy's case) to pay off an increasing debt. Only a new owner could do that as part of a re-structuring of the Club's finances.

We should be worried by the delay in publishing these figures. In my experience it's never a good sign when they are delayed so long, it means the auditors weren't happy and the Board and its accountants had a lot of explaining to do. I can imagine that getting the bank (as well as other creditors) to agree to support the debt levels took some doing.

By the time the current Financial year's accounts are published it could well be this time next year, especially if the situation has worsened. Something's got to give and best case scenario says it will be selling players rather than the Club which gets us through another year, unfortunately.
Kevin Gillen
47   Posted 08/02/2011 at 13:20:57

Report abuse

Great spoof post by Jimmy Hacking which, sadly for you Jim, having noted your earlier posts, was immediately spotted.

The truth is painful I suppose. We are no closer or further to administration than many other clubs. My point would be that we are only six points away from administration measures as there is no guarantee we are out of the relegation mire yet.

I can understand why we have a smaller squad than last year as, we are no longer in the European cups. I can also see why, and think it is only right that we should not have players on the payroll who aren't going to make a contribution on the pitch. Hence I can understand losing Yakubu and Vaughan if the manager has decided they are not up to it.

I do agree with the post above that says the Summer will see where we are. I wonder if we will get a high profile sale and recruit only loanees or novices??? One thing for me is sure: You cannot expect some of the players to perform as well when there is such talk of financial insecurity and there is obviously no investment. Liverpool is a case in point. If the Manager, CEO and Owner are at each other's throats, as they have been in recent years on the Dark side, your results will drop off. Moyes, Elstone and Blue Bill have to stick together and provide some evidence for optimism.

I can't see them doing this at the moment. There will be no European Football next year and I am not holding my breath for substantial changes in the team over the summer. Get ready for another Groundhog Day season. Sadly this is what being an Evertonian has become, that is, an exercise in nostalgia.

Travel back in time to the 60s post modern Theme Park that is Goodison Park, listen to the 60s theme music, eat a pie that has been in the freezer since that era, but pay EuroDisney prices for it. Wallow in the nostalgia of Blue Bill's teary, misty-eyed vision of a club with heritage and history.

I'd like to stop the world and get off but who do you support otherwise?

Alec Laurie
48   Posted 08/02/2011 at 14:01:40

Report abuse

"This enabled us to continue to do everything within our collective power to help the manager in his concerted efforts to build a squad which would challenge the top four."

Kenright IS ACTUALLY on another planet.... we're doomed...!
Michael Ward
49   Posted 08/02/2011 at 14:11:03

Report abuse

The accounts will have to state whether the company can continue as a going concern for 12months, I think the fact the accounts have been published indicates that we have shown that we can stay afloat until at least this time next year.

As for the financial position we will need to wait to see the actual accounts. One statement that was worrying is that we have in the accounts £19m profit on player sales.

How players purchases and sales work is that if you pay £5m for a player on a 5 year contract you put that as an asset and amortise this over 5 years. This basically means that you have an expense of £1m each year with the asset reducing in value by £1m each year.

When you sell a player the amount you receive less any residual asset is the profit(or loss) on the sale.

So basically we made a profit of £19m STILL made a loss and that wont take into account the full cash element of the money spend on bringing in replacements. So it looks like in terms of cash flows we have had a very bad year.
Sam Hoare
50   Posted 08/02/2011 at 14:31:45

Report abuse

Trouble is, as far as I can see (and when it comes to accounts and spreadsheets, that's not particularly far) that we are having to pay a huge excess to service our debt. We then have to take out more loans to pay off these charges and thus incur more debt.

Essentially we are fighting off the tide of spiralling out-of-control debts with no forseeable increase in revenue on the horizon. If things stay like this then administration is only a matter of time.

Three possible options:

a) We somehow defy the correlation between spending and success and make it into the Champions League, thus ensuring vastly boosted revenues (if we stayed in it).

b) That mystery multi-billionaire investor finally steps forward.

c) We are forced to sell, either bit by bit or in one fell swoop, the family jewels. Say goodbye to Fellaini, Howard, Rodwell, Arteta, Jags, Bainesy, Heitinga and Bily and Timmy.

As much as it pains me to say it, there is no evidence that a) or b) seem likely. In which case, is there an argument for eliminating a large chunk of these debts as soon as possible and thus steadying the ship? Selling good players is never easy but potentially the sale of Heitinga, Rodwell and Arteta (along with Yobo, Vaughan and Yak) should be enough to totally clear our debt and possibly pick up a few handy championship replacements. Could we survive without them? I think so.

Once the debts are gone, we might actually be able to run the club in profit ? making it much more likely that an investor would come in and much less likely that we would ever have to sell our best players again.

It's a bitter pill but I'm not sure what the realistic alternative is. Hopefully you can enlighten me?

Mike Green
51   Posted 08/02/2011 at 14:46:39

Report abuse

Do I get a feeling that everyone baying for the annual report didn't quite get what they were wishing for......?

Let's all go looking for a different peg to hang our coat on then - erm - I KNOW! The next set of annual reports! Where are they where are they where are they.....!
Eric Myles
52   Posted 08/02/2011 at 15:01:35

Report abuse

Michael #46, I don't think it's as simple as you explain regarding profit on player sales. Remember Robhino? Bought by Citeh for £32 mill and sold for £18 mill 2 years later. Here's the explanation I read of how the accounts would show a healthy profit on the sale:

"If we take Robinho as an example: he was bought for £32.5 million in September 2008 on a four-year contract, so annual amortisation was £8.1 million. He was sold after two years, so cumulative amortisation was £16.2 million, leaving a value of £16.3m in the books. Sale price to Milan is reported as £18 million, so City will report a profit on sale of £1.7 million in the 2010/11 accounts. Therefore, City will show an annual profit improvement of £18.1 million after this deal: £8.3 million lower wages + £8.1 million lower amortisation + £1.7 million profit on sale."

Tom Bowers
53   Posted 08/02/2011 at 16:44:54

Report abuse

It seems BK is running a tidy ship judging by his comments about the finances which may apparently attract investors better than a club who are heavily in debt (a la close to receivership). One cannot argue with sound business acumen.

On the other hand, we have a team which struggles to win games (forget about Blackpool who play a wide open game) and have been perilously close to the drop zone of late. Perish the thought but how good would finances be if they dropped into the Championship?

Most fans are annoyed that we released players in January and at the same time couldn't make one loan deal, whilst several classy players who were available moved to other clubs smaller than Everton. The excuses offered by Moyes just didn't cut the mustard.

Gavin Ramejkis
54   Posted 08/02/2011 at 17:34:45

Report abuse

Mike #49 the whole figures haven't been published only a selection, so unless you are a shareholder and have a copy yourself you too are pissing in the wind. A debt is a debt and its growing, but hey Black Bill is still here eh?

Tom #51, a lot of fans are concerned about the ridiculous size and content of the squad as we all remember what happens when we lose two or three key players through injury. What happens next time Saha is out injured, we are left with Beckford and Anichebe, the latter is a poor man's Heskey at best without goals. What happens if Coleman or Baines gets injured or suspended, we have no cover for those positions. What happens if Fellaini gets injured, Rodwell isn't the same player and vice versa and Heitinga isn't a midfielder despite all of DMs attempts. The size of the squad now has no room for error or contingency whatsoever, but planning and Everton have never met.
Aiden Jones
55   Posted 08/02/2011 at 22:29:20

Report abuse

"But the outcome of crucial matches are quite often decided not by the size of the bank balance but more by skill, good fortune or the whim of a referee." More words of wisdom from BK. Just need some luck , a dodgy ref and some skill costing nothing and we will be top 4.
Alan Williams
56   Posted 09/02/2011 at 08:22:43

Report abuse

I get the impression most of you are gutted that the accounts don?t look worse and you are now using this crap that they are 8/10 months old. Really, some of you need a cold shower and are just a bunch of pessimistic tosses. I don?t apologise for using those words as your rumours have been proven incorrect so why not accept that the club is surviving ok in difficult circumstances.

We have just announced another sponsor today with Japanese mobile network that has Man Utd & Arsenal, EFC revenue is guaranteed whilst still in the Premier League so the banks wouldn?t withdraw the loans or overdrafts as they are making good revenues. If you look in detail, 85 pence out of every pound spent goes to on the field activity at all levels, the board take no income or expenses and the CEO even jokes about BK paying his own mobile bill.

Leeds wasted money on fish, jets and fancy hotels for their Chairman and pals we have no such lavish goings on at our club. Yes, they have limitations, that?s obvious... but I and many fans that live in the real world are happy with the board and back BK as Chairman!

Unless you have any factual evidence to the contrary can we please return to debates about the team, support the Club and get behind us and hopefully we can rise up the table and progress in the FA Cup, isn?t that what matters most? COYB

Steve Guy
57   Posted 09/02/2011 at 13:06:24

Report abuse

Alan #56, if you are going to call people at least spell the insult correctly... it's tossers not tosses, the former is someone who enjoys a bit of onanism and the latter describes the action of throwing.

Hope that's clear.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.

© ToffeeWeb

Latest News

Subscribe to The Athletic, Get 40% off

Online Football Betting with Betway

Bet on Everton and get a deposit bonus with bet365 at

Recent Articles

Talking Points & General Forum

Pinned Links


We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.