Chelsea line up summer Barkley bid

Bullllllllllllshit

I imagine they will be bidding for him at some point. Very strange decision to sell Mata to Man Utd. He will be a top signing for them.

Isn't this 'tapping up'?

James, I would not be surprised at all if no money has changed hands between Utd and Chelsea, Mata to Utd now, Rooney to Chelsea in the summer.

Barkley will be warming a bench at Chelsea and set his career back years (see Jack Rodwell). They only want him to keep homegrown player numbers up (with Terry, Lampard and Cole nearing their shelf life expiry). However I have seen players make mad decisions before and no doubt his agent will act in Barkley's best interests........

The article in The Telegraph is laughable, I wasn't aware that Everton were "Forced" to sell any of the players mentioned. But then again this just enforces the negative media view of Everton.

It's obvious there is going to be interest in Ross, and if the lad is taken to Brazil, & gets a game, & does what he is very capable of doing.
Then there will be interest from bigger clubs than Chelski.
I'm sure Ross just wants to get fit & back into the team, what comes , comes, any talk of transfers is too premature, I'm sure his Mum will steady the ship.
I'm looking forward to seeing Ross help take Everton to a higher level.

I am hoping the new contract will also have a release fee no less than £50m.

Mick - it's not tapping up because nothing has happened. This is fill-a-page journalist bollocks.

However, of course there will be interest in Barkley and as Al says, we have to protect ourselves by a new contract with a big release fee. Then, either way we win.

I hate this shit. The Telegraph say letting Mata go to Man Utd will "aid" Chelsea in doing a deal for Ross.

And why would that be? We say "thanks for helping OFM, please a token of good will take Ross. As they have enough money, what else could "aid" be. Stupid journalism...

I can't believe that Mourinho would be dumb enough to sell one of his best players to his rival. I think it's a ploy to get the likes of PSG into the bidding process.

Keith 797

I think you will find we were indeed 'forced' to do this.

It surely can't have escaped your notice that our financial strategy is built around player trading to (just about) survive. We have pretty much the lowest net spend of any regular EPL club. In fact, over the past 5 years or so, we have a negative net spend. This is despite the vast sums of cash flowing into the game.

Basically, every couple of years, we have to sell a big prized asset. I just wish it wans't Barkley, who I think offers us a slim chance of breaking the glass ceiling. Much as I like him, I'd far sooner collect the money by selling Baines.

If you want a different strategy, there would need to be a change in board and shareholders.

I think you have to remember that most journalists have good contacts at one club or another, so I suspect that this journalist has speculated that Chelsea would make a bid in the summer for Barkley. Let's face it, if Ross goes to the World Cup and makes an impact then obviously the top clubs will come in for him, and his agent will no doubt be telling him which club to pick.

Mourinho selling Mata has got nothing to do with Barkley, I think it is more Mourinho thinking that Mata doesn't fit into the style of play he wants at Chelsea. He will obviously want to strengthen his squad in the summer, and I think he will sell a lot of the 24 players they have out on loan to make sure he can make huge signings without transgressing the fair play rules.

This journalist doesn't even bother mentioning 'a source' for the simple reason he's dreamt it all up on the train to work that morning.

I also notice this Matt Law character recently wrote a piece called 'Chelsea can regain the title ...' so obviously a closet fan trying to drum up some speculation in the hope it becomes self-fulfilling and he can come back with the big 'told ya so'.

Fecking clown...

Keith Douglas (797) - "The article in The Telegraph is laughable, I wasn't aware that Everton were "Forced" to sell any of the players mentioned."

Are you kidding?

Jesus I thought I understood less about finance than anyone but..

Look, let me see if I can explain this.

I owe mad Micky 500 nicker.

If I don't pay him next Tuesday, he says going to break both my legs (and he'll do it!)

I look around the house for something to sell but I have nothing - zilch, nada, rien (nb: over the years, I've sold everything to keep up payments on loans to mad Micky to prevent him from doing me harm)

Well when I say I have nothing to sell, there IS my late mother's wedding ring but I just can't sell it.

Then I get a message from mad Micky - "Don't forget, I don't get my money Tuesday, you're fucked!'

There's simply no choice, it breaks my heart but...I flog the ring.

And there you have it, Everton's financial model.

Question - is it wishful thinking or BK doing his misty-eyed boys-pen routine, that makes so many Everton supporters just ignore our 'relationship' with those we owe money to?

I wouldn't put frig all past this greedy get in charge of us. We're is the extra tv money gone ,the fellani money ,jeli money. On more luxury diamond incrusted
lawn mowers I bet.Just seen on twitter Bobby saying it's not looking good on the kid from Monaco and there will be no other business this Transfer window. I hope it's Bobby bluffing again and keeping his cards close to his chest. We need cover desperately ,if the West Brom game didn't show him that ,nothing will.

Eugene, Hope Mad Micky likes your ring - guffaw;-)

I have checked Deloitte's new Football Money League report.

Firstly, the club must be getting some money – now I am not an accountant and I do not know where our outgoings are – but according to Deloitte:

"Although Liverpool (12th) grew revenue strongly by 9%, the club was knocked out of the top 10 for the first time since 1999/2000. As the Money League's highest placed non-Champions League club, the Reds may well re-enter the top 10 next year thanks to the new Premier League broadcast deals. The uplifts delivered by these deals will allow other English clubs such as Everton, Newcastle United, and West Ham United to challenge for top 20 positions next year. Tottenham Hotspur maintained their 14th position despite an ultimately frustrating season on the pitch."

There is only ONE club in the top 20 money list that makes it's most revenue from Matchdays - that club being Arsenal. And there is a warning that NO club in the top 20 will do this in future!!

So the future is Broadcasting money and Commercial revenue steams.

Or selling players (or rings) ;-)

funny if it does come to selling the ring ... bendover Bill!

It should be obvious to anyone that the 'big' clubs (shall we call them) will be interested in buying Ross, I will be surprised if the club has not received inquiries already.

Its down to the club & Ross to decide what they want to do, simple as that, nobody can force us to sell.

Raymond (851) - "Its down to the club & Ross to decide what they want to do, simple as that, nobody can force us to sell"

100% wrong.

The banks HAVE done before and (unless there is a change at the top) they WILL do again - sorry but naive wishful thinking to think anything else is the case.

Well Eugene if we are in such bad financial state that the bank/s have to call the debt to be paid I concede they have a shout.
But if we are not, then the banks will be happy for us to keep paying the interest charges on the debt!

I've thought about the sale of Ross Barkley in the past.

If the Board sell him - without pressure from the banks - i.e. like Rooney, I'm done with Everton till Kenwright has gone.

What is the point in supporting a football team if all we ever do is sell our very best home-produced players? Would it be building for the future keeping him or selling to invest in the team?

I find selling elite home-produced players abhorant. They should be the very symbol of the club. Selling would make me question the time I devote to Everton.

That's not a reactionary view. I've thought about this for months now.

Eugene Ruane @ 858

" nobody can force us to sell"
100% wrong.
The banks HAVE done before and (unless there is a change at the top) they WILL do again -"

Euegene, if it was just Boys Pen Billy that we were talking about you'd be right, but I think you'll find that if Ross Barkley doesn't want to move he won't get sold. That's one thing the banks can't do.
We could always offer Leon Twelve Years A Slave Osman instead.

Have been a Blue since 1959, but sell Barkley and I’m off! For once we have a manager and a team that just might go places if given time (not just one season). You don’t do that by selling your prized assets as soon as some big bully boy comes along waving a chequebook expecting us to kow-tow as we have in the past. We want a good future for EFC, not to become a feeder club for the big moneyed millionaire clubs.

We are all well aware of the lack of publicity the club generates, and how we are patted on the head and sent on our way by the Premier League.

T.V. rights are now worth something like £1m every time you are shown live on BT Sport. Many a season we have been live for the bare minimum of 10 games, and to be honest when you look at our past teams, you could see why. Imagine if we had kept Rooney? Forget how much better as a team we could have been. How much more T.V. money, merchandising and club publicity would we have generated?

How we are being viewed as a club presently is slowly changing, a real football team with genuine top 4 aspirations. For the whole of the P.L. era we have been fucking awful to watch bar a few decent spells. We were perennially last on the likes of MOTD as we scraped another functional 1-0 win. We have had no star names to trade on.

Everton now have players & a style worth watching - we are selling out Goodison for games against Hull, or Norwich. Barkley, Coleman, Lukaku & Deulofeu are players who can generate excitement, and get the club noticed outside of L4.

If we have to sell our brightest when we are generating £1m a game T.V. revenue, then we are well and truly fooked.

If you look at our schedule, 4 of our next 7 are being shown live, and some of that is down to the likes of Barkley, and our new playing style. Selling that type of player hurts the club indirectly. When you replace him with 4 average players - we'll be back to 4-5-1 and lone strikers chasing balls down the channels before we know it, last on MOTD and back to square one.

Raymond - "Well Eugene if we are in such bad financial state that the bank/s have to call the debt to be paid I concede they have a shout. But if we are not, then the banks will be happy for us to keep paying the interest charges on the debt!"

Indeed they will and (as our debt rises each year) to pay that interest, given we have nothing else to sell...etc

Ray - "..if Ross Barkley doesn't want to move he won't get sold. That's one thing the banks can't do"

Well I'm happy to concede that's a possibility that theoretically exists.

However it is FAR more likely that, like 99.9% of modern footballers, Barkley will have a greedy shifty fast talking agent who will dangle 150-200 grand a week and the opportunity to win PL/CL etc and the lad will go.

I'd love him to stay, but I know who runs us (and how) and I gave up on wishful thinking when Rooney went.

Good points Kevin about the extra regard that our play & players attracting more tv exposure & hence more likely sponsorship etc, etc.

The concern I have, can we afford the extra wages/improved contracts that go with keeping hold of our star players.

The club is like any business, there comes a time that you have to speculate to accumulate, I think the board have a great opportunity at this moment to do just that,
& keep and improve our squad.

That is, as Eugene has mentioned, if we have the banks blessings.

You only have to look at when Lescott left. OFM says he is not for sale, Mark Hughes says it's not up to OFM, I will go above his head and we will get him.
On a side note, I can see a lot of anger brewing if we do not back Bobby this window with a decent war chest and we end up with a season fizzling out into an average one again when we are so close to breaking into the top 4, knowing full well the board must be sitting on a small fortune after the summer window and the new TV deals which was similar to last Jan though I accept there may have been other issues going on there now.
Don't forget "the McCarhty deal is not dependant on the Fellaini sale", "Martinez has a decent amount of money that had been earmarked for Moyes before we consider money brought in from player sales", and "Martinez will have every penny from player sales at his disposal" were just 3 sentences that came from Bill and Elstone's gobs last summer.

We can speculate to accumulate on players we have bought and invested time in, who have no real tie to the club, i.e. Felliani type players.

The likes of Barkley should be kept at all costs as they are Blue and should be the soul of the team.

Sentimental maybe, but as Kevin Tully states its also financially beneficial.

I would be more wary of the meeting Kenwright had with the Chelski chairman a couple of weeks ago... as was mentioned in a number of media outlets.

An educated/speculative guess would be talks around a deal involving Lukaku and Barkley swapping places....

Beware the wrath of the fans on this one Kenwright, your end would certainly be nigh this time.

Hmmm, If you think about this, it does make sense. Chelsea have very few creative midfielders at the club, the squad that JM inherited is littered with more solid midfielders: Hazard... that bloke off The Voice... Oscar... Ramierez... Schurle... possibly still Mata, perhaps, maybe....

They are crying out for that final piece of the jigsaw – another young English talent to nurture. They elevated the likes of erm SWP and Danny "Strictly cunt Dancing" Sturridge and are known for popping young English talent into the team.

Also, when you realise they have a potent strike force who have gelled well and settled into a frightening prospect, then they really have no other worries than the number 10 role, which they are crying out for. RB will be out of contract by then and is desperate to return to his Cockney roots and play along such well thought of players as John "is this your missus then Ross?" Terry and Ashley Cole — who is a well known proponent of keeping your feet on the ground and not agitating for a move.

Dominic Tonge, Daily Mail
Images by day dreams, words by a crack habbit.

If its insane money, sure, but agree with you Winston, sentimental value does go a long way to building the club brand. As RM said, not even a Bale offer should move us at the moment.

Kevin. Real nice post mate. Pity the Board don't think the same way.

Keith #797, just before the Arteta sale the bank had expressed concern that our overdraft would reach £25m, hence Arteta's sale for £10m which went straight to the bank.

The Club lose around £20m each year before player sales so we have to sell players to keep the overdraft down.

Great info Eric (893) and Kevin (867), the financial info has not been spouted enough imo and that hides why we're viewed as a selling club. I hope with RM, we're removing deadweight much more effectively while also generating more revenue. Certainly would be insane for us to sell RB now. If loansharks are always knocking on the door, there is no way our assets can be priced correctly! Heck, 10m for Arteta is a steal for Arsenal! RB, based on this year and future growth, surely deserves at least a Bale offer imo.

Eric, where did you get the 25m figure? I hope not by digging through that finance doc EFC put online...

Eugene, , "However it is FAR more likely that, like 99.9% of modern footballers, Barkley will have a greedy shifty fast talking agent "
That is one thing I would to see eradicated from the game, slimeball agents. We would have to hope that Barkley is sufficiently grounded and enough of a blue, and to be fair, he seems it, to decide his own future for the next few years and stay with us. I'm sure it would help his development on and off the pitch and he'd still have enough years left to feather his nest with a big move. Mind you, if he's is to be offered £65k a week or more at Everton you've got to ask just how much these guys think they need.

I've always thought that the PFA should act as players agents and make that odious toad Gordon Taylor earn his mega bucks.

What I meant when I said speculate to accumulate was take a gamble & keep hold of Ross, Seamus etc buy another 2 or 3 other quality players & make a real push for the CL places.

Now what Eric says & we need £20m each year to keep the banks happy it may not be possible & I think you have to leave it to the board to decide, whether we like it or not.

That's what you get when you support a club that's skint!

Ray, the clubs and players would prob still need to delegate a negotiator to talk up transfers. I don't see the current system ever going away, but agree with you on the disdain for slimeball agents.

Dennis, as players representatives, the PFA would take the part of the agent. The difference would be that instead of some lowlife lining his own pockets, the money would stay in the game and the PFA would be expected to run as a non profit organisation. They are already paid sufficient amounts from each player that they represent, in much the same way that working men pay their Union subs. Taylor would then be working for his money, instead of passing it all to Paddy Power. The amount agents cream off from some of their deals is astronomical.

if we lose £20 million a year before player sales, would the new TV broadcasting money not cover this?

Ray, don't disagree with that view. I'm worried about how unbiased they can be. The transfer news we see online represents only the biggest clubs but there are so many other club transfers from EPL and lower divisions. I'm pretty sure they will be screaming for a payrise if that is the case...If we ever know anything is that there is no limit to greed. Them having high salaries would not make them unbiased.

What myself and a large number of supporters have stated is the biggest stumbling block to Everton breaking through the mythical glass cieling is, and will allways be, the people who we rely on to provide the financial support at the critical times i.e the board.

We all blame B.K.who is the figurehead but surely the rest should bear the responsibility as well and the critisism.

No we are not a club that can afford the 15--20mill players every transfer window but the question should be asked--Why do we seem to fail to bring in decent players at the last minute due to poor financial negotiations ?. L.Fer is a prime example.

The problem I see at this time is that B.K.apears to find that it is cheaper to bring in loan players than to sign players who can be called Everton players in the true sense of the word.

Like a great number of other supporters I have supported Everton for over 30yrs and there may be a long term plan in the signing of loan players but the problem is, if they go back to their parent club how are we going to replace them without selling a couple of our more prominent players and as K.Tully#871 states go back to square one.

As I am not a financial expert I may be wrong in criticizing the board over the lack of finances for players, but at the same time I might be right in ctiticizing them for the state they have got the club in that they can not release funds for transfers in times that we are all aware of that can move the club foreward.

Presently in this January window we seem to be going from what Mr.Martinez stated, that he would like to bring in 1 or 2 more players in to cover for injuries to no players coming in .

While we are in a far better place financially than we were when we sold Rooney, I think people are forgetting that Everton didn't want to sell Rooney and Everton made him put in a transfer request. Lescott also made it perfectly clear that he wanted out as did Arteta when Arsenal came a calling.

So I would imagine that Everton will not want to sell Barkley now or in the summer, but that doesn't mean that if Chelsea or some other club come in and offer £30 million plus that Ross and his agent might want the move. That being the case all the Chairman can do is get the best possible deal for the club, as they have with most of the players sold in the last 5 years.

Are we in a better place though Brian?, many many assets have been sold during that period - Mostly from a financial perspective we have done well on the players we have sold - If any of those players you mentioned had have turned around and said "I don't want to go" would BK and Everton have been in a position to refuse the bids for them?

The bottom line for any business especially so for one that has been losing upwards of £200k per week for many years is how are you going to pay your bills - we pay our bills by selling players which buys the board more time to continue to run the business in this manner.

Everton are practically unable to build a team for any lasting period and we need a group of four or five excellent youngsters to get into the first team at the same time to have half a chance of building a team. This is why Roberto is using the loan market and why the youth players have more of a spotlight on them.

I would love to know how much money in interest payments has gone out of the club - we are trying to run a football club by constantly using our Credit Card and paying minimum installments - which is the very way so many people have got themselves into serious financial trouble.

Kevin Tully describes the alternative strategy that our board (and in particular our main shareholders) could take. And I would add one more strand beyond some more televised games in the UK.

As an earlier poster indicated, although we are relatively small fry in EPL terms, we are close to a top 20 player in global terms, so powerful a product is the EPL.

I suggest we do not have a world class commercial strategy to accompany such a lofty position. I despair somewhat when I look at our sponsor roster. A good proportion of them are really suppliers, not sponsors, and there is precious little hard cash being generated. We need someone in the club with a bit more ambition, who could perhaps take a look at how Man U approach commercial and sponsorship globally. Sure we can’t generate the same funds (yet) but the model is worth copying/adapting.Then there are the international TV rights which are now close to being the largest single source of revenue and growing fast. And ultimately, merchandise.

This will work best if we are successful, ideally in the CL, so it is a bit cart and horse. Failing that, it would help if we had a globally recognised star or two. The WC is coming up and we ought to have a fair few representatives there so that is the possible springboard. My gut tells me Barkley could be a big global star.

He could then be the figurehead for the Everton brand globally, and get a much bigger global audience interested in our club (and thus attracting more and better sponsors, getting more TV money, selling more merchandise etc).

Or maybe we just flog Barkley for a tidy sum and stick with our relatively minor Thai beer brand and a ginger ale as flagship sponsors….

Patrick, I would honestly read the accounts if I were you before posting things about finance mate.

Whoever told you we have been losing 10million a year (200K a week) for many years now is ridiculously wrong. It is also completely wrong on your assumption we pay our bills by selling players. Our bills are paid through broadcasting money, commercial activities, PL placing monies, ticket sales, match day programmes etc etc etc. Like I said, its better to read the accounts than just guess things. The accounts can also tell you basic info like how much interest we paid on our debts.

Barkley has no desire to leave. Look at his tweets the last time a move was mentioned. So any decision to sell will come down to BK and the banks. I would expect a Chelsea or City bid in summer as those teams especially chelsea need to increase their english quota of players. They will obviously go for the best young English talent of which Barkley certainly is. Shaw at Southampton will be another one they will chase. Hopefully we can resist.

Kevin - 867 - I wish we could find a way to put that post up in the boardroom at GP.

This transfer window appears to be getting to RM a bit. Lost a little of his sparkle in the interview this morning I thought.

It was only two years ago that we were told we were losing £5 million a season 9 income £80m, outgoings £85m). Since then we have lowered the wage bill, sold Arteta and of course the sales of last summer and this window. Anyone suggesting that we are in a position of being forced to sell by the banks is probably mischief - making and is not stating facts.

Dan sorry - that was a typing error on my part it should have read £20k per week which is closer to £1m loss per year. If we don't need the transfer money to pay our bills why do we keep selling good players most seasons?

Obviously there is a need to bring money into the club by this method, so if as you say all the money from TV etc covers the costs why the need to sell players so often and when we do sell not all of those funds are given to the manager to purchase replacements

Has anyone got a simple set of accounts that explain our financial position? Or do we have to be financial wizards in order to understand them. BTW Dan do you know how much have we paid in interest in the last ten years?

Dan 926

However there is invariably a operating shortfall that is generally covered by profits on transfer dealings (in other words, we rely on player trading) and if that doesn’t make it reach break even, the outstanding amount is just added to the debt.

To answer Patrick, the latter I believe is around £45m now, very roughly half of which is bank overdraft, half is secured loans made by shareholders under what I thought were quite advantageous terms- certainly not acts of kindness!

From recollection, debt interest is around the £4m mark.

There’s no such thing as a simple set of accounts although judging from our Chairman’s lack of familiarity with aspects of them, they would be handy to have….

Players like Rooney, Arteta and Fellaini all expressed a strong wish to leave the club Patrick. They want to play Champions League football, and have all gone on to fulfil that dream.

To my knowledge, only Steven Pienaars transfer money was paid directly to a bank. And my understanding is that it was not because the banks demanded it, it was to appease them and get back on side as they had got spooked about something and stopped our overdraft facility.

Your question about where funds go is also quite simple. Most of our resident mathematicians see us sell a player for 20 million, buy a player for 15 million then go on and on about how 5 million has disappeared. I am yet to see a single person consider an agent fee's which of course are not included in a transfer fee. For example, we paid 3.2 million to agents from Oct 2012 to Sept 2013. The PL in total paid nearly 100 million over the same period showing how significant it is. And thats not to mention, that transfer money may also be put aside to pay an increase in a players wages over a certain period of time.

I have not seen an unbiased analysis of the accounts anywhere to be honest, hence the reason I always make my own view after looking through the accounts of other clubs. I have absolutely no financial background whatsoever, and after taking the time to understand the terms and meanings I found it not particularly complicated at all. The accounts themselves are summarised on the first few pages, then it drill down into the details after. For interest, I think we have been paying an average of 3-4 million of recent years. To put that into perspective, the leveraged buy out of United by the Glaziers left them paying around 60 million in interest payments PER SEASON.

If the Guardian article on club finances is a good yardstick to go by, we are falling way short on marketing and commercial revenue. The whole thing about selling players to pay our bills might be true but no club can survive, let alone achieve success if that was true. There's not many clubs (I know we always point to a few of them but that's pretty much all of it) with magical academies that produces talent by the bulk.

I think we're in a better state now not because we don't have to sell players to pay our bills (MU sold CR, Real sold Ozil, sure, not for bills, but still sold the players to equally strong teams), but that we're not as porous on the team sheet as we are not so many years ago. We resisted tappings on Fellaini and sold him for a tidy profit. We need to keep doing that!

Love him or hate him, we can't get rid of BK for now because we're lacking in that marketing department. We need to stamp our authority both on the field and off the field and I feel optimistic that RM will take us there.

p.s. I don't care for his UCL promise. Any manager joining any team needs to improve that team, and so far, we can all agree that is happening. Disappointed if no UCL, yes, but not distraught or angry.

The PL especially will never be a fair & true competition.
How are clubs such as ours, ever going to compete over a reasonable length of time if you have billionaires pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into playing staff & facilities!
This is the bottom line.

The FFP which is being implemented, does not truly begin till 2015 & then there will all types of ways of massaging the figures.

The manager & the board are going to have to perform some kind of miracle to actually achieve CL status, what with the ridiculous transfer fees & wages that players are demanding now its more cloud cuckoo land than business.
We can huff & puff all day long but I think we all recognise that this is the situation.

Every player has his price and Barkely is no different. Hope and believe this is bollocks but if true, they can have him...........for a UK transfer record!

Probably the best English talent, career completely in front of him and possibly will get global exposure at the World Cup. I would sell in the summer to be honest, price...........

Cost of a new f'king stadium!!

Come on Abramovich - 150m, tar.

Thanks Dan and Mark for the information you have provided. As for the Glazers et al they are in another financial league compared to Everton's capabilities and they have huge merchandising operations which help to keep the whole thing going. Perhaps we are only doing what is necessary to keep the club as healthy as possible and to believe that we can ever join the elite or challenge them more often is just a pipe-dream. Oh! well at least we're not Pompey or Leeds or Cardiff or those other clubs eh!

Denis. £40/50m more like. 20/30 goals a year men fetch the big bucks. Fact.

Just as a slight side thought, IF we somehow got ourselves into a position where Real Madrid, Man City, Chelsea, PSG etc were in a bidding war for Ross and we could squeeze over £100m out of them ( and is that so daft a thought when you think of Gareth Bale?) I would want to see that money spent on a new Stadium ( Goodison or elsewhere ) because that’s the only way we will ever break the situation we are currently in.

It’s what’s stopping a City like takeover and it’s what is preventing us generating decent commercial revenue as well as keeping this useless Board in control.

What do others think?

Get a grip; it's just another lazy journo with no sources and nothing coming from anywhere else. Barkley would have to push this and I don't believe he wants to leave, but if he did, we'd squeeze every penny from a bidding war. Remember, the club has parted ways with thousands of good players in its history and we're still in the top division. And don't forget, we haven't got TGT in charge now, I expect Roberto will be building a side around the likes of Barkley, and he won't agree to his sale behind his back. Keep calm and ignore rumours

Karl #035, "I would want to see that money spent on a new Stadium.........It's what's stopping a City like takeover"

If a new or redeveloped Goodison was what stopped the Mansoors from buying Everton how do you explain the spend of nearly £400m on developing City's new training complex? and they are also prepared to pay Manchester City Council £300m for the stadium.

Dan #911, this season it will, i.e. in next years accounts, provided we don't need new lawn mowers.

Mark #939 "To answer Patrick, the latter (debt) I believe is around £45m now. That's nett debt Mark, i.e. what we would still owe if we sold off all our assets.

Dan #942 "Players like Rooney, Arteta and Fellaini all expressed a strong wish to leave the club Patrick" very convenient that it was 5 minutes before deadline hour in a transfer window!

"To my knowledge, only Steven Pienaars transfer money was paid directly to a bank. And my understanding is that it was not because the banks demanded it, it was to appease them and get back on side as they had got spooked about something and stopped our overdraft facility. " it was Arteta's transfer fee not Pienaar's.

Eric #049 the City training complex development is what I've frequently referred to as one of the loopholes of FFP, under "allowable" expenses. There's no way on earth its costing anything like £400m.

Everton's stadium situation is what is stopping a sale to an Oligarch or Sovereign Wealth Fund, as they are often more keen on completed infrastructure, with the spending being visible on the pitch - the perfect vanity project.

Therefore those fearing that type of owner can rest easy. It also means that any prospective owners will be seeing the opportunity for what it is - pay a fair price, rebuild the asset base (with new or redeveloped stadium) and then look for a full or partial sale to recover investment / make a profit. These type of owners will have a valuation vastly different from that of our Board. That's why I fear the likes of Barkley will be sold - he's not listed as an asset as he came through the ranks, and the £40m or so for him would take a chunk off the debt and effectively translate to more money for the major shareholding when they sell.

The likelihood is however we're stuck with all of them until they drop their price, or just drop. Hence why Everton is stagnating off the pitch, which is what I thought was the crux of what the BU were opposing.

Eric 050

I would stand to be corrected on this, but I am 99% sure that the c£45m is actual debt, in other words, stuff that needs servicing, specifically by the £4m debt interest payments.

What you are suggesting, that we have £45m debt once we have disposed of all assets, would indicate we are insolvent. We are not insolvent. Players will be by far our biggest asset, albeit one that is not very liquid. We write down the value of players over time (one reason why we make a book loss that needs to be covered by player trading). This means that when we do sell, we will book large profits. For example, Barkley will almost certainly have minimal value in the accounts.

So, not only do we have plenty enough assets to repay the £45m debt, we would also have plenty enough for shareholders funds. In other words, Bill and his merry band of men are far from losing their original investment in shares. Right now, I'd suggest they are showing a handsome return, albeit only on paper and with substantial risk attached to disposal.

The problem, as Matt suggests, is that I suspect they are greedy for even better returns, so the sale price they have in mind does not attract any bidders. Hence we are stuck with them.

The Chelsea interest in Barkley is realistic and understandable. Under premier league rules (which may be illegal under the EU's single market) each premier league club has to have quota of players qualified to play for England.

Chelsea like Everton at present have difficulty finding any real premiership quality players playing in their respective academies; hence Chelsea's interest in Barkley or any other premiership club that has real quality young English players.

Shaw of Southampton would also come into that category with Chelsea's need to replace Ashley Cole with another English left back. And Barkley replacing Frank Lampard.

Mark, you are indeed correct. Homegrown players have no value in the accounts, and players who have been purchased will undergo a process called amortisation that you may or may not be familiar with. Put very simply, it works like this:

- A player is signed for £20 million in season 1, on a 5-year contract

- The accounts for season 1 will reflect a £20 million increase in the 'intangible assets' column
- Over the 5-year period of the contract, each season's accounts will reflect the reduction (amortisation) of that asset vs the original contract length (e.g. £20 mil, £16 mil, £12 mill, £8 mill etc.)

- There is no requirement to re-amortise a contract renewal, as a transaction has not taken place that can value the player.

So this means, players like Howard, Baines, Jagielka, Coleman, Barkley, Heitinga will not be showing any value through the accounts.

And we also have to remember that a player's value is only accurate at the point he is sold. Eric Myles has been been peddling his wrong view for years, and still refuses to change his tune even when the system is explained to him several times.

But it is true, that football fans have a tendency to not understand the relationship with a players valuation, and the situation with his contract. The Rooney sale was a good example. Had he accepted the EFC contract offered to him, we would have got a significantly higher transfer fee. As he had rejected our offer and put in a transfer request we had two choices. Either accept the offer from Man Utd (which is still the highest amount ever payed for a teenager in world football), or refuse Rooney's request and United's bid, and potentially lose him for nothing when his contract expired. Yet you still see people posting on here about how the club somehow badly managed his transfer.

Most of the negative views we see on this site are through ignorance, purely because people do not understand the concepts. A great example of this, was on here used to see 'Other Operating Costs' peddled as a bona fide marker of bad club management. When the club explained it at the last General Meeting, this stick used to beat the club with for years suddenly disappeared into the shadows, never to be mentioned again. It demonstrates clearly that people will believe what is told to them on face value without question, provided it matches their own agenda.

Dan, yes I understand amortisation. Technically I think you might find that Heitinga, for example, still does carry an asset value but it is now very small and will be extinguished as a further write down/off in the summer.

On the Rooney transfer, I think that was 95% his agent wanting away for a pay day and certainly, the club is in a tougher position in those situations.

As you probably know, I am one of the board and shareholders' critics. At core, I obviously dislike their risk averse approach to investment which seems destined to anchor us where we are. However, I can live with that to an extent, because no-one wants to lose money and there is clearly risk attached to investing, so you can at least understand why they do this, if not agree with it. My objections are:

1) BK claiming each and every transfer window that the money generated from player sales will be available to spend next time around (along with the cash previously raised). It never is. It can't be, because his business model demands occasional injections of player trading profit. Just 'fess up to this and don't treat us like idiots.

2) BK agreeing he has taken the club as far as he can and is desperate to find a buyer yet the steps taken on that seem frankly amateurish, plus I think he and his shareholders are being far too greedy on the return they want, which means less chance of a buyer. I don't even mind this so much – hard-nosed business capitalism – just spare me the teary eyes 'I love my Everton' routine. Again, it's just insulting.

Incidentally, I agree there were no particular hidden demons on 'other operating costs'; however, I'd hope that our Chairman and main shareholder might have a slightly better idea what this very large sum broadly comprised off. I've run businesses myself, and way smaller than EFC, but I would absolutely be well across big cost areas like that, even if I leave the detail to the bean counters.

Mark, I fully share some of your concerns, and appreciate your way of clearly putting your points across.

But I think part of you may be forgetting that our chairman is, by trade, an actor. When he said that he doesn't know the details of the accounts, it was the equivalent of Wenger saying 'Sorry I didnt see that incident'. Of course he knows the accounts inside out, he is after all the only member of the board that actively participates in the day to day running of the club. His response was deliberately evasive, to avoid having to enter the detail in public. I know from my own experience, what Chairman or CEO's say in public will be very different to what has been internally communicated.

Just saw Ross in the first class lounge at Runcorn waiting for London train this morning.

Fascinating thread gents. Thanks to Matt, Mark and Dan for highly informative discussion.

What I gathered from that is that Everton do need to sell players every year to stay afloat - but to the tune of 5 or 6 million. I think we can accommodate that when it's the likes of big Vic or Jella.

On a lighter note, the other day I saw a teenager with a Barkley shirt. Thrilled, I was - the brand is growing! First blue shirt I've seen on the Gold Coast in Australia.

Note to Bill: keep the lad.

Conn, Hope you didn't con him into buying it - the shirt I mean.

Whenever an exciting young player comes along, they are like linked with one of the 3 or 4 richest clubs in the country. All of the media look at all of the clubs outside of the rich 3 or 4 as though they are just there to make up the numbers. Whether it’s in the papers or on the television, only the 3 or 4 richest clubs are worth talking about. They know that to win the league or the Champions League and EPL club needs a billionaire owner, otherwise no chance.

When Everton enter the top four, they are disregarded because they know we haven’t got the means to sustain a challenge. They know that eventually one of their exciting young players will not be able to resist the draw of playing at the highest level in the Champions League. They know that he will not be able to resist doubling his wages.

Having said that, I still firmly believe that Everton over the past two or three years including maybe this year missed a great opportunity in the January window to buck this trend. I look at our team and I can see that with a clinical striker to partner Lukaku and a creative midfielder of high class, Champions League football would not be a dream.Obviously in the long term, investment would be the only way to keep challenging.

I just saw on twitter that Hulk has arrived in London on board Abramovich's private jet........ maybe we will keep hold of Ross after all??

All this talk by supporters on this thread some with no financial experience and others with financial experience are only masking over the problem.

The problem is over the last 4-5 years is when the January transfer window comes around most supporters have been aware that 1or 2 players are needed to get us to the next level and into Europe.

This becomes the time for the board and the chairman to show how mutch they support Everton and time after time they fail .No we do not have Billionaires but collectively we have multi millionaires who must be able to offer no interest loans over exeptional number of years between themselves.

Bill, I understand your view, and I certainly hope they will inject some cash into the club however much they can afford. However, multi-millionaires are based on assets, not necessarily earnings. Based on The Guardian article, we're running at a loss in 2012, so if that's the case even with player sales, we're expecting these folks to dole a few millions in no-interest loans to the club every year and the debt will continue to grow until we get to break even. Not very sustainable regardless of how rich they are. If we can build a break even or profitable model, I'm optimistic that elusive oil baron will arrive soon.

Great discussion by Dan, Mark and Matt.

Can we please forget any notion of the current owners investing in their business?

Bill Kenwright does not have the means, full stop. John Woods purchased his stake in the club for a hobby after he retired. Robert Earl has long forgotten about Everton FC and will only be interested again if a buyer makes an offer.

We have to pay millions in fees and interest just for the Vibrac loan we take out every season.

Why does anyone think their MO would suddenly change now? Especially when there is even more TV revenue this season.

Couldn't agree more with Bill Gall 166. Check out the individual wealth of certain individuals on, or near to, the Board. Specifically Woods, Grantchester and (the elusive) Earl. According to the Elstone interview on ToffeeWeb, the debt stands, fairly static, at £45 million and the interest costs the club circa £4 million per annum. Any of, or a combination of, the above individuals could underwrite that debt, remove the onerous interest payment, and it not touch the sides. A small price to pay for sitting in the plush seats at the front of the main stand.

Additionally Elstone should be getting Terry Leahy to undertake an audit of the Club's marketing and commercial activities. He's forgotten more about marketing than the current shower will ever know.

By the way, Bill, Grantchester is a billionaire courtesy of his inheritance from his grand father, John Moores. Sadly, hearsay has it that his mother, Betty, fell out with Kenwright some years ago. As an aside, in my view, Kenwright should be forever damned for allowing the Kings Dock to slip from our grasp. We should be sitting on the waterfront now cheering Rooney, abetted by young Barkley, lead our latest charge on the Champions League.

Andrew 162, you are pretty much on the money.

We can all criticise owners, as their easy targets!

I read Alan Sugar's account of when he got involved with Spurs, which were/are his own & his families lifelong passion, he said it was the worst decision he ever made, he said the grief that he & his family got off fans, you would not believe!

He also said that the finances in football are crazy, which I think we all know is a fact, and that he couldn't get out of the club fast enough when he realised what he'd got into!

If I was a multi-millionaire, football would be the last place I'd stick any money, with the exception of Man Utd & Arsenal.

If 20,000 of us put £1,000 each into the club (I know it wouldn't happen) we would raise £20m; the way wages & transfers are nowadays it would not go very far, would it?

Every player has his price. For many players, this year's World Cup will definitely be a showcase. In today's Guardian they discuss how a good world cup for Rooney will secure him the move away from MU he wants.

This may be the case with Barkley, but if he signs a new contract we should put an escape clause of £80 million in it... £100 million if it is an EPL club. That is what Liverpool have done with Suarez.

I think, as someone who has supported the team for more decades than I care to remember, it is totally dispiriting to be almost player fodder for the other clubs due to the financial situation we are in.

Linda, agree, except the amount for the clause.

http://www.givemesport.com/192145-top-five-highest-release-clauses

Since I value Barkley WAY higher than Torres ever, it should be close to 150m if not close to 200m!

Chelsea are selling Essien to AC Milan.

On BK's knowledge (or otherwise) of accounting, I'm not sure I buy the bluffing. There is really no reason why he should not be able to talk about our general operating expenses, if not in minute detail, than at least in broad terms. Claiming you don't have a clue what they are is not canny acting, it just made him look stupid.

A Chairman of a plc would be fired by the shareholders if he/she showed such a feeble grasp of the club's costs. Everton is not a plc, but in some ways, it resembles one, with tens of thousands of very involved stakeholders. Personally, I think he has found himself a little way out of his depth and I don't think his fellow shareholders have helped much.

I could see that canniness being more relevant when talking about our seeming obligation to keep selling off player assets. Obviously owning up to that would not go down well with the many supporters who don't realise this, but would also put him/us in a worse negotiating position. So I understand why you would be careful what you said – but not why he keeps making strong and repeated assertions, often unsolicited, that this is not the case. There's a balance here...

As Kevin says below, unfortunately this is all academic because I don't think he/they will change the business model. I wonder if they see that even the 'conservative' play carries risk. Look at us now, relying ever more on loans for quality squad cover. This can be effective short term, but with our model, you eventually run out of road. Yet, in the hands of people with more ambition, there could be a way out of our position; it would take skill and nerve, but it exists as an alternative to the current stasis.

To conclude with (paraphrasing) Kennedy's words, there is risk associated with a policy of action, but not half the risk associated with a policy of inaction.

"To do nothing at all is the most difficult thing in the world, the most difficult and the most intellectual." — Oscar Wilde

I have heard that this is framed on the wall's of BK's office – but it's probably untrue.

Is he that super mastermind that we've always believed he is not all these years? Hhhmmmm....

In regards to Robert Earl, Has any one any idea of BCR Sports value? This is his investment vehicle that he used to buy his 23% stake in Everton. It is registered in the Virgin Islands and at one time was supposed to own Goodison Park.

It is indeed all about opinion and interpretation Mark, I could be completely wrong on this. But the reason I am not convinced he is as stupid as he makes out during interviews, is that the amount he manages to negotiate during our sales seems to be excellent. Felli, Anichebe, McFadden, Jelavic are all sales where I have thought 'wow, thats a great deal'. This coupled with the fact that his own business seems to have not only grown but reinvigorated an industry that was practically dead, makes me believe its all a big act, the guy clearly knows exactly what he is doing.

Dan, you may be right and he is, to paraphrase Blackadder, as cunning as a fox who is professor of cunning at Oxford.

I have a slightly different take. His success comes from production, theatre and film. My wife has some contacts and connections in that area and from what I've seen, the task basically involves conjuring things out of thin air, because you are the person who has the clean sheet of paper and needs to fill it. In other words, you need to be a blagger and a salesman with a large helping of chutzpah and self belief.

So you return to football, if Everton didn't exist and we wanted to start a football club, I might well have a Kenwright driving the project. However, I wouldn't have him running a global business turning over £100m or so, with ambitions to double in size. I suggest that needs a very different skill set.

But then, I might be wrong and Bill is the professor...

Do you really believe Sheik Mansoor didn't go for us because of the stadium ?
Bloody hell I bet that never entered his mind.
One hundred million to do up Goodison or whatever hundred million to build a new stadium in Stanley Park - chicken feed to him !
No IF and I mean if he did actually look at us before City it was something else that put him off.
My thoughts - for what they're worth - was ego.
He wanted a team to play with that would take over from its more successful rival.
He saw the challenge in Manchester far greater than here in Liverpool and that's why City lucked out

John, plausible points. Another addition to your point in that the name Manchester has been glorified by MU and that taking over the reins given the right investment might also be more attractive to him.

Mark and Dan, I wish he put those conjuring to good use when he was negotiating the Arteta and Rooney sale. Selling players for better money than they are worth is what I've always thought we've not done well until this season. I do share Dan's thoughts that he knows what he's doing, though much to our disgust sometimes.

Our case is a mixed bag of needing conservatism to survive during that relegation dogfight years while sustaining our proud history that we've not relived for so many years. If we're to think that he has split personality to do this, perhaps that explains the "neither or" situation that we so often debate about him.

Another content-free article most likely based on ill-informed speculation or a dollop of somebody's wishful thinking. There could be some purposeful unsettling going on, of course, but most of these stories are like Coleman's current ailment: 'minor soft tissue injuries', but in this case in the journalist's brain area.

Roll on the end of the window, although it will only provide a brief lull.

Mark #069, consider yourself corrected, it's called net debt in the accounts (net liabilities actually, liabilities = money owed, i.e. debt) and is calculated by taking the total debt and subtracting the total assets.

Look at page 9 of the accounts, see that line "Creditors - amounts falling due within one year" = 57 million (Creditors are people we owe money to). and the line below "Creditors - amounts falling due after more than one year" = 27 million (that's even more people we owe money to). That's 84 million we owe in total debt and the line below that shows the net liabilities (net debt) of the 45 millon.

Dan #090, I am fully aware of what amortisation is but "we also have to remember that a player's value is only accurate at the point he is sold" Which means it cannot be included in the accounts because your consideration that Barkley is worth, for example, 'Bale money' might not be the actual value that we get for him. So to show an unsubstantiated valuation in the accounts would unrealistically alter the actual true value of the company, which is what happened with Enron.

Your should also note that accounts can show other false figures such as was the case with Robinho at City whereby they sold him for less than they bought him but recorded a profit in the accounts on the transaction, that was due to the magic of amortisation.

Mark #190, as for the OOC, I don't think that anyone questioned what they were, it was more like 'why did they just suddenly double in one season to 23 million?' The answer from the Club is that they bought new lawnmowers (12.5 million worth??)

And as you say, then for the chairman to claim that he didn't know what 30% of the Club's income was spent on just showed him to be a fool, rather than a good actor.

Eric,

My apologies for not answering sooner. If you look at p5 of the accounts, you will see net debt defined as borrowings minus cash on deposit (i.e liquid assets). This categorically does not mean our liabilities exceed our assets (i.e we have a real net liability and therefore are bankrupt). On the same page, it makes clear that there is a very understated value on the balance sheet for players. Home grown players like Barkley are virtually zero valued, yet there is talk of him being worth as much as the liability alone.

You'll note there is a shareholder deficit of over £40m. This does not mean they are sitting on a huge loss. How big a profit they are sitting on depends on the valuation of the squad (net after amortisation) and whether you think there is value in an intangible asset such as being a participant in the world's most successful sporting franchise. Personally, I'd be very content as a shareholder right now.

Mark,

I understand that homegrown players have no value in the accounts and as I have explained that is because they cannot be valued until they are sold.

As I also pointed out your valuation of Barkley of £40m will not match what someone is willing to pay for him, and this is why such assets cannot be included in the accounts. That is basically what Enron did (book future income) and look what happened to them.

If the Club went into administration and needed to dipose of players do you think we would get top dolalr for them? Look at what happened with Rangers.

I'll check page 5 of the accounts when I get home, I'm at work now.

To be going on, here's a couple of definitions of net liabilities

The net current assets is the total current assets less the total current liabilities. If this is a minus figure then the liabilities are more than the assets and this could be termed as net current liabilities.

The value of an accounting entity's current liabilities minus the value of its current assets at a particular time when current liabilities is the greater amount.

As you can see, it's the total assets minus the total liabilities, which means when all is sold we still owe £45m.

Mark, I found a copy of the accounts online.

Net debt is the net amount of debt that interest has to be paid on, and doesn't include non-interest bearing debt such as payments outstanding to suppliers.

The net debt plus the non-interest bearing debt is the total liabilities, i.e. the total amount of money that a company owes (is liable for) and the net liabilities are the total liability less the total assets, i.e. what money can be raised by selling off everything.

So, as I keep saying, the net debt is not the total amount of money owed, and when you deduct the total amount of money owed from the total value of the assets you still have a negative figure, i.e. asset value does not cover the total amount owed.

Eric #249, so can you explain how:

a) The club is valued at £180m (if the amount of shares BK and mates own are "worth" £125m as per the Stan Collymore programme last year);

b) BK isn't beating off queues of buyers with a shitty stick at that price

c) How most fans still think he's doing a good job?

Oh, and does that figure include off-balance sheet loans (I guess the answer's in the question).

Eric, you would only be correct in your scenario if we were not a going concern and there had to be a 'fire sale' of assets which would mean that we would not get 'top dollar' for them.

I agree with you that this is a possible scenario in a 'melt down' situation which is why the club maintaining it is a 'going concern' (which it must do and set out the reasons for, in the accounts) is a rather important matter. That said, I think it would mean we would get less for these assets rather than barely anything. You mention Rangers, but their squad was worth a fraction of ours.

This isn't an Enron case. There is no booking of future profits involved here. It is more akin, if anything, to the financial crash. How do you price assets? Easy enough if they are liquid assets (gold, commodities etc). Not so easy with players or complex financial instruments!

Like I say, the shareholders are doing dine just now with the proviso that there is undoubtedly risk in realising the value of their assets.

Matt
a) Who values the Club at £180 mill?

b) The answer to this is obvious from the answer to a)

c) Because they don't know the answers to a) & b).

d) No

But I think you knew the answers before you asked the questions ;-))

Eric, so if I follow you correctly your saying that if our assets are valued say at £100m, we have borrowed £145m, therefore leaving us with a debt of £45m that we cant cover?

Mark, I know we're not in an Enron situation, that's because we're not allowed to book mythical figures of player valuations as you and others would like. For example, what was Oviedo's value on Friday? And what is it now he has a broken ankle? And he's actually in our accounts!!

Didn't Walter Smith say that when he was manager the Club almost went into administration twice? And do you think our financial situation improved since then or worsened?

And didn't BK himself say he had to beg the banks not to kill us?

Raymond, that's what the accounts say.

Since Moyes left, RM has been doing the only right thing by getting rid of our top earner Fellaini. On top of that, we have gotten rid of average players such as Neville, Mucha, Anichebe, Jelavic, Rodwell and this leaves us in a much more healthy state money wise.

Add to that the loan players instead of permanent players we will probably have lowered our yearly loss of £5 million to £1 million. RM is addressing the deficit problem and add to that our new income from the TV deal and we will have a profit to show in May.

I think we need to trim the squad further by getting rid of Heitinga, Junior, Gueye and Naismith. We simply have no room for average players and RM has started to address it very quickly.

Eric, I am not necessarily advocating a 'mark to market' approach to player valuations, but I am saying that as things stand, we are far from insolvent and the shareholders are sitting pretty, because the probability is, the players will be sold well over the very conservative valuation in the accounts.

Why otherwise do you think the banks don't just pull the plug?

Oviedo represents the kind of risk there is in football, which I haven't and don't deny. There is nothing scary about risk though; it just needs managing, for example it may well be he is insured, although I don't know what Everton's policy is in this area.

So yes, if the entire squad suffer ACL injuries in training, and they're uninsured, then yes we have a big problem. But so will we, if a large asteroid hits the earth.

Regarding the Walter Smith days, I think we are in better shape now, when you consider the healthy revenue streams, the much more valuable squad we now have and the fact that we aren't likely to see Sky or BT collapse. However, point taken, football is a high risk business.

Jimmy #356, the last yearly loss reported was 9 million, not 5 million.

Rodwell left 2 seasons ago and the result of his departure will appear in the next accounts, which I expect will show a similar loss as we are losing around 20 million before player sales.

Mark, we may have better revensue streams now but we are increasing our debt yearly (from 5 million to 9 million the last 2 seasons) and our net liabilities have gone from a positive asset value of 23 million to a negative asset value of 45 million, that is 68 million loss of value in 12 years.

That is what you consider better shape?