Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A

Record Profit for Everton in 2013-14

31/10/2014  Comments (125)  jump
New TV deal boosts turnover

Robert Elstone: "We have every right to be confident and positive on future prospects."

Everton have announced record profits of over 28m and reduced the club's debt by more than 17m according to the club's annual report for 2013-14.

Improved performances on the pitch and a fifth-place Premier League finish boosted live TV coverage, enabling Everton to increase gate receipts by 1.9m from the previous season. Sponsorship, advertising and merchandising revenue also rose from 7.6m to 8.4m.

Turnover increased by 39% increase, thanks largely to the new TV rights deals to 120.5m while operating profit before player trading increased from 0.7m to 23m.

The profits realised on the sales of players during the Martinez's first summer as manager helped fund the transfers of the likes of Romelu Lukaku and Muhamed Besic this year.

Additional investment went into securing new, long-term contracts for Ross Barkley, John Stones and Seamus Coleman. The Club also agreed new and extended terms for Roberto Martinez, contracting him to the Club until June 2019.

The wage bill rose to 69.3m but it now comprises 58% of turnover as opposed to 74% before. The club also used the new broadcasting revenue to reduce its net debt from 45.3m in 2012-13 to 28.1m.

The strong results for 2013-14 are a reflection of the drive, commitment and hard work of all staff at the Club," CEO Robert Elstone said. "Teamwork and clear priorities will always be fundamental to our success. And, at the most senior level in our Club, the passion and talent of our outstanding Manager fits seamlessly with the vision and dedication of our Chairman. These combined efforts, shaped by a clear strategy, will continue to be targeted exclusively on ensuring the success of the Everton first team.

Our financial results highlight growing revenues, costs remaining under control and debt reducing, and when we combine that solid financial base with a playing squad that continues to improve and increase in value, we have every right to be confident and positive on future prospects.

Quotes sourced from The Guardian


Reader Comments (125)

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


Kieran Riding
1 Posted 31/10/2014 at 01:05:58
We made 㿈M apparently last year and rather conveniently we spent that on Lukaku, I believe?
Terence Leong
3 Posted 31/10/2014 at 01:18:05
Re our annual profits; basically, our profits are because of the sales of players & TV money. For all other items, it’s much of a muchness – ie, we didn’t really make any difference there (except our wages going up!).

Meaning, our current business model is still weak, and unless we get more TV money and sell players, it is unlikely we will be able to invest much in buying players in the next two windows.

We have reduced our debts significantly, so thatÂ’s definitely a good thing. However, that might go up again, if we plan to buy players without planning to sell any, or start on plans for a new stadium.

In other words, the valuation of the club canÂ’t be too high, as fundamentally, we are not the most attractive asset. Phil WallingÂ’s note on a more conservative price is probably about right.

Sam Hoare
4 Posted 31/10/2014 at 01:48:47
But Terence, that TV money WILL keep coming, in another few years it will probably be even more. Fact is that all Premier League teams are going to turn large profits now probably due to this new deal so itÂ’s no particular feather in the cap. It does probably mean transfer fees and wages going up though as more clubs have money to throw around. How else were we able to afford the likes of Lukaku and EtoÂ’o?

What I slightly resent is Bill taking credit for it as though somehow his business acumen has worked wonders. Our minescule sponsorship and advertising deals are indicative of a frankly very mediocre financial team, in my opinion. He has appointed managers able to keep us in the Premier League without spending much... that is his main achievement for this club but I suppose he does deserve some credit for that at least.

Steven Jones
5 Posted 31/10/2014 at 04:52:16
Begrudging comments again for those who have an agenda. Some call that bigotry but I wonÂ’t.

Gate receipts up! Hopefully will go up again with increased season tickets and Europa League run.

Sponsorship etc up .. hope they have more ideas and uplift planned for this area in the year or two ahead.

TV money up which is sustainable and as Bill’s strategy to create a steady base, investing in youth and training facilities and a family club atmosphere within – then a continued top-half finish should keep this part of the business model safe and expanding. Also will push up commercial opportunities.

Even debt down – which will reduce interest costs and the fact that debt becomes a smaller percentage of turnover and asset value then re-financing and ground activity become more affordable and credible.

Balance the uplift in player wages and bigger deals such as Rom then we shall see another movement – but the emergence of more home grown talent with values in excess of 㿀M then we have our future in our own control.

Under no circumstances would I want this stable happy situation be risked with a change of ownership – there I said it!

Anto Byrne
6 Posted 31/10/2014 at 05:16:30
Everton need to build Brand Recognition.

We have an ideal opportunity to build our Brand in the USA – Howard and Donavon? We didn’t do much in the Asian market when we had Li Ti and Li Wei Feng. Imagine getting into the China market with its 1.5 billion people and maybe having a link to an Asian team.

What do we do in South America? With our History and the pure footballing under Martinez, we should be out there selling merchandise across the planet... it should be the biggest earner by far. Just look at Man Utd and the big glamour clubs.

The Everton Brand. Everton the team that is synonymous with beautiful football. Once touched by the Everton Brand, there is no escape. The Everton Brand is your football way of life, your philosophy to everything that is good in football.

David Chait
7 Posted 31/10/2014 at 05:43:34
IÂ’m keen to see the financials but the headlines do sound good... Significant that we made a profit excluding players sales. No, those are good highlights!

I did a full analysis some years ago and pointed out the importance of EBITDA. I see they reworked the financials a little later to call it out. That for me is key. Drives spending power and the value of the business.

Lyndon Lloyd
8 Posted 31/10/2014 at 06:25:35
Setting aside where the increase in turnover has chiefly come from for a moment (without ignoring how thankful we should be for it), I think itÂ’s important to remember that rather than chucking money around that we havenÂ’t got (looking at you, QPR) and risking the clubÂ’s future, EFC is being run very prudently right now.

That will stand us in good stead for the future.

Kunal Desai
9 Posted 31/10/2014 at 06:45:22
If record profits off 㿈 million were made then were they spent mainly on Lukaku?? I thought Everton were paying Chelsea ٣M a year over a period of time? This must include the Fellaini, Anichebe & Jelavic proceeds? Just speculating here without seeing the financials.
Aidan Wade
10 Posted 31/10/2014 at 06:53:32
I think that we are going to see a surge in wage inflation with clubs offering big money deals to secure players and new player contracts looking for a slice of the new TV deal but at the least we can see Everton are in a far healthier position than at any stage in the PL era. If we can cut a deal on a new stadium, we should be able to finance it.
Mark Tanton
11 Posted 31/10/2014 at 07:20:07
So does anyone think the club is being well run? Or are we just scraping by on TV money?
Tom R Owen
12 Posted 31/10/2014 at 07:32:10
For a club with now such a high profile the sponsorship money received is pathetic
Mick Wrende
13 Posted 31/10/2014 at 07:34:45
Any idiots could make a profit with the amount of TV money thatÂ’s floating around. And we certainly have our share of them including Billy Liar. How low can he go to claim credit for these figures?
James Hughes
14 Posted 31/10/2014 at 07:41:07
Tom – we don’t have a high profile, we only think we do or should have.

The amount of posts on this site from expats and foreign fans stating the difficulty getting replica kits etc proves this. Our marketing does seem to be less than ideal.

Ged Simpson
15 Posted 31/10/2014 at 07:39:06
There lies the illusion: "club with now a high profile."

We know the clubs with a high profile in the Premier League and we are not one of them. If sponsorship is linked to media coverage, we are way way down the league.

Liverpool have the highest profile in the city, the usual top 4 have it nationally and I donÂ’t think a wee run in the Europa League will have legions of fans abroad buying our stuff.

I remember a period (and it may be still going on) when everyone from the club speaking to the media referred to us as massive. Well sadly that message hasnÂ’t been picked up and I think we are still viewed as punching above our weight and having that "good old Goodison Park". If I wasnÂ’t a fan, I doubt IÂ’d spend my marketing budget on that.

To improve profile we need to win the Europa League, Premier League or have a run in the Champions League. Until then, it seems to me our financial results are pretty good.

Colin Glassar
16 Posted 31/10/2014 at 07:52:02
Sponsorship, sponsorship, sponsorship. ThatÂ’s were weÂ’re seriously lagging behind the Â’bigÂ’ teams. If only we could get one of those mega shirt deals than we could seriously compete with the likes of Arsenal, Spurs and the RS (Chelsea, Man Utd and Man City are in another financial league from the rest) for the higher bracket player rather than looking in the bargain basement.

ItÂ’s all good and well the TV money, and the tiny increase in gate receipts, but as long as our commercial dept is so weak and pathetic we will always struggle to keep up with the big boys.

I firmly believe in youth development but, if we could buy 1-2 class players a season, we could/would be title contenders.

Paul Roberts
17 Posted 31/10/2014 at 07:56:32
Bloody hell, some people are hard to please. Football is a unique business model, which realistically should not work.

Even the biggest clubs – financially – struggle. The likes of Real Madrid and Man Utd carry enormous debts, even considering their global markets.

Now hereÂ’s Everton, a small club in many ways, certainly when measured against the likes of Madrid. We now have a debt of less than 㿀m, with wages as a proportion of turnover reducing. We are in a good position, in every way, considering our size.

But clearly Bill is laughing maniacally as he plots our downfall, unsatisfied until we have failed completely. Well thatÂ’s what some of you seem to think... Ridiculous.

Declan O'Shaughnessy
18 Posted 31/10/2014 at 08:31:50
Colin, while a massive shirt deal would be great, right now IÂ’d settle for someone at the club having the acumen to sell sponsorship of our shirts on those nights when we play in countries where we canÂ’t be sponsored by Chang!

Playing at Lille in blank shirts (whilst nice aesthetically), was a wasted opportunity financially. ItÂ’s not like the powers-that-be couldnÂ’t have seen this happening. All they have to do is negotiate a deal with Chang that allows us to have a secondary sponsor when Chang arenÂ’t suitable.

I always thought SpursÂ’ idea of having different shirt sponsorship for Premier League and European matches was an interesting one.

David Harrison
19 Posted 31/10/2014 at 08:44:09
Until we get a new ground, gate receipts will remain fairly static, that is unless ticket prices rocket.

I tried to buy tickets for Swansea this weekend for me & the lad; only adult prices available in main stand and, guess what, obstructed view! So thatÂ’s a 㿸 hole in next yearÂ’s finances!

Aidan Wade
20 Posted 31/10/2014 at 08:27:54
WeÂ’re not worth a lot to sponsors so they donÂ’t pay us a lot; we have no major profile beyond the English Channel and even nationally we are on the 6th or 7th rung and itÂ’s got little to do with week-to-week performance. ItÂ’s not EvertonÂ’s fault, itÂ’s just the times we live in. It would take a decade of Champions League football to change that.

We can take pride in history but nobody wants to buy it off us, and most brands (with money to spend at least) want to be associated with "New!!" – rather than "Traditional", "Historical", "Osman" etc.

Paul Burns
21 Posted 31/10/2014 at 08:38:27
These results are bog-standard and obvious. TV money is the ONLY reason for them.

Our marketing is crap, prices for tickets go up and we constantly sell more players than we buy, usually the better ones, which means we NEVER win anything.

Our ground is still falling to pieces and people on here ramble on about staying in the Premier League and finishing in the top half... Big fucken deal.

What a charter for mediocrity our great club is living under. WeÂ’ve been treading water like this for a whole generation now.

Alan Williams
22 Posted 31/10/2014 at 09:01:09
This is positive news for the club. I would like to see us paying more off the debt moving forward, so hopefully when the expected new TV deal comes, we can invest that money in to extra or new facilities which will increase revenue streams in the future.

Large shirt deals and massive sponsorship deals just wonÂ’t happen short term as the club just doesnÂ’t hold any standing on the global market; this can only be changed if we win competitions or regular entry in to the Champions League, and fans comparing us to the other top 5 commercial teams are deluded to think otherwise.

Next year will see a drop in profits from this figure with player acquisition and larger contracts offered to current players but it should still come in around 㾻/20m profit if we finish in the top 6. I would like us to reduce debt by a further 50% with moderate spend on new players and naturally no major exits.

If managed well and we donÂ’t start overspending on players, then this could be the basis of a sold future commercially. My only small concern is do we trigger high penalty clauses if we try to pay the debt off quicker? This may detract the board from paying it off and make them spend more on the playing side; as a business, we should avoid this, but as a fan, you always want it.

Kevin Tully
23 Posted 31/10/2014 at 08:56:18
I would say giving credit to our board for these financials, is like lauding a lottery winner for their fantastic business acumen.

The fact is, our board have not invested a single penny of their own money beyond their original shareholding.

They have been incredibly lucky with the money received for Rooney, Lescott, Rodwell, Arteta and Fellaini - those sales have injected desperately needed cash into the club, or we may have been playing in the lower divisions as we speak. You could give the board credit for the sales, if you want to look at it that way.

If the TV money had not increased so significantly, we would still be paying double-figure interest rates in the BVI, Barkley would be out of the door, and we would all be moaning about how much we should have got for him!

I don’t think any of above is being mean spirited – isn’t it just the truth?

Mike Byrne
24 Posted 31/10/2014 at 08:42:55
Steve (5) I honestly don’t know where to begin with your comments. Anyone who disagrees with you either has an agenda, is a bigot or is negative – really?

Anyone who doesn’t follow Kenwright’s bullshit, who can understand a Profit &Loss table, see what the financial drivers for a company are, see who delivers these drivers, see how they compare to the general market-place – is written off by you as a negative bigot with an agenda?

Let us get one thing clear from the start – this (very welcome) increase in revenue which has driven all the other ratios and percentage led improvements is not down to Kenwright and his ’strategy’ (rofl). It has not been achieved because of him but despite him – if he was leading the TV money discussions then clubs would probably have ended up paying Sky for the privilege.

Your primary school economics really is laughable.

Sponsorship is up, you say – yes, it is but a small increase (7%-ish) on diddly-squat is still diddly-squat. Team sponsorship totalling ٦m a year is shameful – there are players with a dozen or so sponsorships who are getting more than this for ONE deal.

Yet here you are lauding this – we should be berating Kenwright et al for this laughable sum. Man Utd have literally dozens of sponsorships across all areas and locations – just two of them (with Adidas and Chevrolet) get them 𧴵m per year – hell they just announced a deal with a soft-drinks company in Nigeria (yes that mega-rich nation) which is worth more than ours with Chang. I am not comparing our appeal with theirs but it gives you an indication of what can be achieved with a competent Chairman.

And your response to this is not one of outrage but you Â’hope they have more ideas and uplift planned for this area in the year or two aheadÂ’!!!

Your strategy seems to be a dependence on TV money being sustainable (far from guaranteed), another half a million a year from sponsorship, a reliance on homegrown talent being worth more than 㿀m (to play or sell them – you donÂ’t make that clear) with all of this giving control of our future. Well I will tell you know we have this already and it could and should be so much better if we had a professional, competent, business-minded management team and Board – not the bunch we have now.

If you are happy with our constant under-achieving then bully for you... but there others who know we can do much much better but then I guess you will write us off as negative bigots.

Just remember that these welcome figures were 95% due to the TV deal – not due to bullshitter Bill in any way.

John Raftery
25 Posted 31/10/2014 at 09:18:52
These figures confirm that the club is well run and living within its means.

In the nineties, we spent money we simply did not have and almost paid the price with relegation. Now we can afford to reject a bid for any player unless the bid meets our valuation and we can use the money to improve the squad. That is what all well managed clubs do.

Those hoping for mega sponsorship deals should not hold their breath. Until we have a European wide profile, no global brand will be interested.

Tommy Coleman
26 Posted 31/10/2014 at 09:32:24
A Europa Cup win would increase our worldwide profile and therefore improve our sponsorship deals.

This trophy is the No 1 priority for me this year.

Phil Walling
27 Posted 31/10/2014 at 09:10:54
Colin, whilst I agree that the ClubÂ’s return from sponsorship is modest, I do have to wonder what football clubs outside the Sky 4/5 (with national/international followers) can hope to sell to hard-nosed brand managers.

Whether we like it or not, Everton is decidedly Â’second tierÂ’ in Premier League terms and will always be seen as MerseysideÂ’s Â’otherÂ’ club in any Â’beauty paradeÂ’ before advertisers.

It is a sad fact that many football outsiders would be hard pushed even to identify the city in which we are situated – believe me, because I ask the question all over England – and, anyway, what do you see as the club’s unique selling point?

The fact is we havenÂ’t one so donÂ’t confuse OUR love for the Club and itÂ’s impressive (fairly ancient) history with something an advertiser sees as dynamic and sexy.

Always a critic of the Kenwright regime, I now find myself accepting that these latest figures demonstrate Everton is doing pretty well – on and off the field – given that we reside in an ancient stadium in a city most members of the public can’t identify.

Peter Murray
28 Posted 31/10/2014 at 09:52:26
Other managers must envy Roberto working for a Chairman who not only believes in the principle of loyalty but backs it up with financial savvy – and well done, Robert Elstone.
Mike Oates
29 Posted 31/10/2014 at 09:47:48
Everton as a brand is poor, not only globally but also in the UK, and whilst lack of involvement in the Champions League etc has an undoubted effect, itÂ’s not the golden goose which will catapult us to mega sponsorships.

I live about 400 yards from the sea on the South Coast at least 50 miles from the closest Premier League team (Southampton), so the locals tend to have no strong local affiliation to any Premier League team. If you go out into the shopping areas, local parks IÂ’d say the kids, teenagers and even dads are wearing Man Utd, Liverpool or Chelsea shirts in huge numbers... why the hell Liverpool after 10 years of lack of trophies? In the second division shirt league come Spurs, Arsenal and Newcastle; IÂ’m lucky to see an Everton shirt and quite surprised also never to see a Man City shirt.

I suspect that Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea have now cornered their own city support, and worldwide they are peopleÂ’s adopted clubs for our major cities. We will struggle to get any recognition against Liverpool, as will CIty vs Utd and as will Spurs/ Arsenal vs Chelsea.

Before I retired, my job took me all over the world except Africa and unfortunately IÂ’d say 80% of the people I met didnÂ’t have a clue of where Everton where from in UK, but they all knew Liverpool.

We have many many years ahead of us to get a global and UK brand.

Mike Oates
30 Posted 31/10/2014 at 10:02:37
Glad to see Phil (#27) and I are in reasonable agreement over sponsorships issues.
Peter Morris
31 Posted 31/10/2014 at 09:58:03
No doubt a much better place to be in than the previous number of years, but I do suspect that the nature of the Premier League will mean that within 3-5 years, the 40% extra coming largely from TV money will find its way into the pockets of players and agents, and weÂ’ll be back where we started.

The fundamentals at Everton remains the same, namely, poor revenue-raising potential from sponsorship and corporate, our antiquated stadium, and our support base demographics, mean that – apart from good housekeeping efforts from Elstone and his team – we have no prospect of the quantum leap needed to propel us into the top 6 in terms of income.

BTW, without the windfall of a Â’freeÂ’ stadium from the Commonwealth Games, Man City would be in the same place as us. That must stick in the craw of Man Utd fans who funded the stadium from their council tax!

Dave Pritchard
32 Posted 31/10/2014 at 10:02:03
Obviously I want us to win the Europa League and it would raise our profile but only by a tiny bit for a very small time period. Sevilla won it last year I think and it is still all about Real and Barca in Spain. Even Athletico who won their league are way behind these two in media coverage and sponsorship.
Kieran Fitzgerald
33 Posted 31/10/2014 at 10:05:07
Every revenue source outside of TV and outbound transfers is up. We are using any spare cash to reduce net debt instead of splurging it all on players. Two huge positives and yet people still only focus on whinging and bitching.

I can understand complaining that neither our Board nor our commercial department are the best; but really folks, are we so bitter as fans that we canÂ’t give a little credit when itÂ’s very obviously due.

Patrick Murphy
34 Posted 31/10/2014 at 10:13:22
Nice headline piece for the PR team at Goodison Park, but the real acid test is how we compare to the other 19 PL clubs? I donÂ’t know the details of every club but IÂ’m sure most, if not all, could claim to be healthier at this point in time compared to previous years.

Those who think that raising salient points are to be castigated should dig a little deeper into the accounts and see where Everton FC stand in relation to their peers. I fully accept that things are a little rosier than they have been, but the basic model remains and it will still be a long while before we can truly compete at the very top end of the division.

Dave Richman
35 Posted 31/10/2014 at 09:41:25
Ged Simpson #15 ..... I would like to expand on one of your paragraphs:

"Liverpool have the highest profile in the city, the usual top 4 have it nationally and I donÂ’t think a wee run in the Europe League will have legions of fans abroad buying our stuff."

Trust me mate, even if we won Europa League + Premiership + FA Cup treble this season, we still won’t have legions of fans abroad buying our stuff ...... purely and simply for the reason that – thanks to our tremendous deal with ’Shitbag’ – you CAN’T buy our stuff abroad.....

The Premier League is massive in South Africa, and we have millions of sports shops all over the place selling the usual: Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City & the Redshite – even Newcastle, Spurs & Villa shirts are freely available – hawkers on street corners sell them. But absolutely no Everton shirts anywhere. It’s pathetic and nothing short of an absolute disgrace.

The standard retort is that they tell us that we can buy stuff online, but the already outrageous prices + minimum 100% duties and fees make it exorbitant, particularly for something that is only relevant for one season. Whoever agreed to that kitbag deal wants shooting.

Brian Hennessy
36 Posted 31/10/2014 at 10:37:49
Dave (35) Can you expand on the Kitbag deal?

I have always wondered why almost every PL club shirts are on sale here in Ireland... Except for Everton, thanks.

Matt Traynor
37 Posted 31/10/2014 at 10:54:11
Kieran #33, the Board do deserve credit for prudent management of the finances, given their inability or unwillingness to invest directly.

However, all this paying down of the debt will achieve is a bigger return for them when they eventually do sell. They paid 㿂m for the club, and the following year, the financial position swung from positive to debt, to the tune of about 㿀m, leading some to speculate that we were the original leveraged buy-out. All of the other borrowings meaning 10s of millions paid out in interest and debt servicing.

So, when they walk away having made an absolute killing, forgive those of us who wonder where we mightÂ’ve been with an ownership more able to deliver what the club needed, rather than stagnating.

Kevin Tully
38 Posted 31/10/2014 at 11:11:04
ItÂ’s all about how high you want to set the bar for the owners of the club I suppose.

Some are happy just to keep our Premier League status, along with a few wins against the Â’big sides,Â’ with a Cup run every few years. Others want to see the club moving forward, including a new or redeveloped ground, and some silverware. (20 fucking years!)

They also want the club to have the means to keep the likes of Barkley here for his whole career, and for Everton to regain their status as one of those Â’big clubsÂ’.

Whatever your viewpoint, it doesn’t mean any Evertonian is a bigger, or better Blue than the other – some just believe our rightful place is alongside the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd.

It wasn’t that long ago we were their equals – that’s were my Everton should be aiming.

Thomas Lennon
39 Posted 31/10/2014 at 10:57:16
This is news we have been waiting 20 years for. Wages under control, massive cut in debt and increase in profits across the board. Realistically that is all we could have asked the team running Everton to achieve over the last year, congratulations to them.

Perhaps the increase on gate receipts, commercial, sponsorship etc and drop in costs for debt havenÂ’t contributed as much as TV money in absolute cash terms, but they are all up by a healthy amount and some have been increasing steadily for some time now. That is how you run a good business. Of course it would be nice to see much larger increases but for that we have to be able to offer a reasonable chance of good return to investors.

Part of the reason why we have good news across the board is the full grounds we now enjoy many (most?) weeks, partly due to a new manager introducing more entertaining football. Congratulations are also due to Mr Martinez and his team – and the men who appointed them. If I remember correctly, we are at the point of needing a waiting list for season tickets?

Looking back only a few years, the picture was very different and the board were at least partly rightly criticised. If we had ousted the board at that time does anyone think we would be where we are now?

We have one of the brightest managers around working for us BECAUSE he knows he will be given time and a fair crack of the whip. Not many other clubs do that any more so it isnÂ’t unreasonable to list that as part of what we have to offer the best talent. That ethos is down to the board. Criticise when it is fair to do so but remember to give credit where it is due too. It took guts to tough it out, it took guts to appoint another young manager.

It isn’t fair to compare us with the leviathans of the Premier League in terms of income just yet, but the only way we will realistically match them is by building year on year as we are – a chance to compete rather than no chance for the future.

Step changes in funding bring success? See Arsenal, Liverpool, QPR, Newcastle, Aston Villa, Portsmouth, Leeds, Spurs, recent Man Utd and even the struggles Man City have had in the Champions League. Massive amounts of money spent for what success?

New stadium anyone? Reckon we can fill it now?

Trevor Lynes
40 Posted 31/10/2014 at 11:17:02
Do we have the most negative fans in England? Every positive seems to be immediately turned into a negative on this site.

We actually have the strongest bench we have had for years and that is a barometer of the strength of the squad overall. Gone are the days when the bench was filled with old has-beenÂ’s and never-wasÂ’s.

We now have a bench which is the equal of most other clubs and better than some. We now expect to win games rather than hope to and finishing below 6th is considered less than anticipated.

Gone are the relegation struggles with goals only scored from set pieces. But still our reliable moaners continue their wailings of doom and gloom. ItÂ’s becoming pathetic on the site where it should be optimistic.

Phil Walling
41 Posted 31/10/2014 at 11:35:20
Trevor, I thought this thread was for comment on the end of year figures not on the strength of Â’benchesÂ’. I think contributors have, in the main, been delighted to acknowledge a much improved financial situation and reference to EvertonÂ’s lack of sponsorship attraction is more a statement of fact than Â’wailings of doom and gloomÂ’.

Having said that, most of us on here have not yet located the source of those phenomenal Â’Everton Happy PillsÂ’ the manager advertises daily!

Graham Mockford
42 Posted 31/10/2014 at 11:27:43
Despite the usual naysayers this can only be good news. I think the Board have done a decent job getting our financials on an even keel and this last year has seen the benefit of nearly 㿍m extra TV money.

And they have also started spending it. Not included in these accounts is the purchase of Lukaku and Besic nor the enhanced contracts of Barkley, Colman, Stones and Martinez.

As the TV deal has another two years to run, and quite frankly there is no sign of the Premier League phenomenon slowing down, is that for the first time we will have money to invest each year in players and contracts as opposed to what we have done in the past ten years which is have to balance the books on these areas.

Aidan Wade (#20) you win todayÂ’s prize for getting an Ossie dig into a non-related post.

Jim Knightley
43 Posted 31/10/2014 at 11:57:50
I agree re. the pessimism on here. It verges on the pathetic. This is great news, because we have markedly reduced the debts which have hung over us for a long time.

Obviously we need to do more, and obviously we all have issues with Kenwright. But there is a lot of great stuff about this football club too. We have a fantastic bunch of youngsters, have invested into the team, are playing with a progressive style, are looking like progressing in Europe, and are within 2 points off all our genuine top 4 challengers despite an awful beginning. We have progressed as a club and have introduced some extremely talented youngsters to the side.

We have managed this, whilst producing a very good profit last season. We are not Chelsea or Man City, or Arsenal, and some Everton fans need to realize that. We were the top team in England once, just as some teams in the lower leagues were top teams in England once. If we want to reach the levels of the clubs above us, we need to be cleverer than them. Turning a profit, and investing in young players, will make us that.

Our situation is not perfect, but there is genuine cause for an optimism too often absent on these forums.

Dennis Stevens
44 Posted 31/10/2014 at 11:43:43
I know much of this largesse is as a result of the TV money, but I am glad to see a lump of it being used to pay down debt. Hopefully within a season or two weÂ’ll be debt free at last.

Although I share the misgivings regarding our commercial nous, we should also bear in mind sometimes the best has to be made of a bad situation. As I recall, there was a time when the whole merchandise activity was an area that was actually costing Everton money at one point. The Kitbag deal may have seemed the best offer available at a time they were grabbing whatever offers they could get, but it doesnÂ’t look so hot now. Therefore, we should see the club negotiating a much better deal when the Kitbag deal ends. ThatÂ’ll be an opportunity for Elstone & the Board to prove their worth to the Club.

Colin Grace
45 Posted 31/10/2014 at 12:25:57
The accounts look better because of the new TV money and player sales last season. The squad is improving and we have a good chance of winning a Champions League place for next year.

The downside is the ground and the new need for a big capital injection which only a foreign owner could provide – assuming we want to win something in the next three years!

We could carry on and hope to see the further decline of Man United and Liverpool (now that they have spent the Suarez money) and sneak 4th place.

Harold Matthews
46 Posted 31/10/2014 at 11:13:58
This financial stuff is way over my head. It all looked pretty rosy till I started reading the posts, and now IÂ’m not so sure. Bill and his mates seem to be doing okay but the club and the fans still face an uncertain future.

Last year the goose laid the golden eggs of Anichebe, Jelavic and Fellaini. Three players not needed in the new Martinez set-up. This year the players not needed are not wanted by other clubs.

Following the Athletico Madrid model we have built everything round a young goal scoring striker who will be moved swiftly on if he proves to be a rip roaring success. Of this there is no doubt. We know he canÂ’t trap a sandbag but if he nets more than 20 goals there are clubs out there who will want him and young proven goalscorers donÂ’t come cheap. Unfortunately, after a slight injury, he has yet to hit peak form.

The likes of Mirallas, Barkley, Coleman, McCarthy, Besic, Stones and Oviedo will attract attention and I would hate to see any of them move elsewhere. LetÂ’s hope it doesnÂ’t happen.

Patrick Murphy
47 Posted 31/10/2014 at 12:32:37
According to the this link Everton earn circa ٠m per year from Chang for a ten year deal, which incidentally is one of the longest of the 20 current Premier League clubs - but in terms of financial gain is half as much as the likes of Villa and Sunderland, following our Â’best of the restÂ’ achievements in the last half a decade and more I personally would have thought we could be doing better - but I suppose having an Elstone around our necks is not hindering our financial position one iota and after all what are we to expect, history and tradition etc have no value in the modern world?
Shirt Sponsors
Andrew Ellams
48 Posted 31/10/2014 at 12:46:35
As Kev Tully states above, the true benchmark here is comparison against other clubs and by that I mean Newcastle, Tottenham, and Southampton.

ItÂ’s okay reducing debt and having a bit of extra spending money but if these clubs have more then we are going to have to find ways of keeping up with them which right now comes back to selling the family silver to prop up the coffers.

Colin Malone
49 Posted 31/10/2014 at 12:54:35
Chris Bush, Tesco finance is not at Everton is he?. ha ha..

I believe it will get better when the new stadium is sorted and what the stadium entails, i.e. its usage beyond match days, concerts, people in the community etc. At the end of the day though, its performances on the pitch that matter big time FULL STOP.

Dave Richman
50 Posted 31/10/2014 at 13:01:04
Brian @ 36. I donÂ’t know the ins and outs of the Kitbag deal, but it was signed in 2009 and is a 10 year deal paying us 30 million ..... or 3 million a year.

I found these stats on an Everton site.
Arsenal: 㿊m per season (Puma, 2014 – 2019).
Chelsea: 㿀m per season (Adidas, 2010 – 2018).
Liverpool: 㿅m per season (Warrior, 2012 – 2018).
Man United: 㿃.5m per season (Nike, 2002 – 2015).
Man City: 㾸m per season (Nike, 2013 – 2019).
Spurs: 㾶m per season (Under Armour, 2012 – 2017)
Everton: ١.2m per season (Kitbag, 2009 – 2019)

Now obviously IÂ’m not for one second suggesting that we should be competing with Arsenal for 30 million a season, but Spurs? Three times what we get..... and I think the 2002 is a typo for United - they ainÂ’t been with Nike for that long ..... so we signed up on a shit deal for 10 years!

Dave Abrahams
51 Posted 31/10/2014 at 13:08:42
Trever Lynes (40),

Do we have the most negative fans? Maybe I think we also have some of the most clever fans who realise that most of the good news from last seasonÂ’s finances are mostly from the increased TV Money.

A lot of us know that and IÂ’m sure you do too.

Sam Hoare
53 Posted 31/10/2014 at 13:41:18
I donÂ’t think anyone is saying this is not good news. Of course it is. The club is in a good financial sitting. But that owes almost entirely to the ludicrous TV deals which should not make us overlook some of the failures of the board and financial team.

Despite the golden goose of TV they have failed to bring forward a new stadium. Failed to find investment. And perhaps most revealingly in terms of financial performance they have failed to bring in advertising and sponsorship deals to mat our on pitch performance as an established top 6 team. They have failed to significantly grow their own brand.

No-one is expecting us to have the same deal as Man u or Arsenal but our shirt deal for example is TEN TIMES less per year than Spurs! It is a quarter what Newcastle get. It is less than Villa, QPR and West Ham. Its on a par with West Brom FFS!

That is why it galls me to see Elstone and Bill hold these records up as a sign of their sterling work on the financial side!

I think Kevin Tully puts it well when he says Â’I would say giving credit to our board for these financials, is like lauding a lottery winner for their fantastic business acumen.Â’

Yes. The results are good. Yes, the club is looking stronger. But lets not let the bumper TV deal blind us to some of the boardÂ’s shortcomings.

Steve Carse
54 Posted 31/10/2014 at 13:36:56
The only beneficiaries from the reduced debt will be the main shareholders as and when they sell up. Our revenues rose principally because of the new TV deal. Gate money rose because of improved performances on the pitch. Our commercial income remains more or less static, in an age when the PL goes from strength to strength on both the national and international stage.

Reasons to be cheerful....or depressed?

Jim Knightley
55 Posted 31/10/2014 at 13:42:28
Dave, thatÂ’s not the point though is it? We all know about the pre-existing problems - how many posts have we read, or even written, about the pathetic shirt deals etc? About KenwrightÂ’s failures? That does not mean we canÂ’t be positive about good news, and this is certainly good news. If not, we might as well turn every good bit of news into something bad. We have generated massive profit in our best league season in the Prem era in turns of points total, but our shirt deal is rubbish and we need a stadium. We beat Burnley well last week with Eto and Lukaku scoring, but we started the started the season in a piss-poor fashion. We have a core spine of fantastic youth prospects, but Osman, Distin, Pienaar etc are over the hill.

There are almost half full glasses, and half empty ones. The frustration at the negativity in this thread, is a general frustration I think. In the last few weeks I have seen multiple posts actually representing us as genuine relegation candidates. I have seen people write off Lukaku because a 21 year old started the season poorly. I have seen Baines written off too. I have seen the most absurd negativity, which not only ignores the post-world cup climate, and our specific challenges as a club returning to the Europa league, but which ignore sense. The sheer idiocy of many of these posts, especially those which referred to us as potential relegation fighters (And I, for the sake of clarity, label everyone which suggested that an idiot) has been beyond frustrating, and has made me want to stop visiting the best Everton based site around.

Trevor Lynes
56 Posted 31/10/2014 at 13:50:12
Dave, I take your point and I am also quite clever.

I just get a little sick of fans who seem to spend whatever time they have on their hands to castigate players and play down any progression that the club broadcast.We have spent a lot of years being labelled as over achieving underdogs.Just lately we have benefitted from finishing in a high position in the league and receiving much higher remuneration than teams who finished below us.In previous seasons our games were usually shown amongst the last on TV as we were not playing very attractively.It has only been during the later seasons with DM and since RM arrived to take the vacancy that our stock has risen.We have played better football which has made us more attractive to neutral fans.I just get the feeling that some fans cannot be pleased and that they derive some smug satisfaction out of stirring the pot.I reckon most of the negative posts come from the same writers who attack certain players.

Jamie Crowley
57 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:02:17
ThereÂ’s a flaw, in my opinion, in some arguments IÂ’ve read. Some saying the board are a fortunate recipient of the TV deal, theyÂ’ve done fuck-all otherwise.

I disagree 100%.

They didnÂ’t spend the money...

Our board is actually exercising some financial restraint and acumen by not acting like drunken sailors and spending willy-nilly. They just banked 㿈 million and are attempting to get their financial house in order.

I donÂ’t give two fiddlerÂ’s farts if the fucking tooth fairy left the money under the pillow. The landscape is what it is, and our board are looking like they have a plan in place and are moving forward in a responsible manner.

㿈 million in profits and we criticize that? Fucking hell man! Well done Everton and long may you be financially strong so our future is bright.

Some people amaze me with their negativity.

"We just made 㿈 million!"

"Fuck off you suck."

Really?!!

Happy as a pig in shit to wake to this headline.

Dave Lynch
58 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:07:40
Whatever way the cake is sliced this has to be good news.

Most clubs including the other lot across the park are awash with massive debt and even though they have the marketing and backing to offset it, it surely wouldnt take much of a shift in financial circumstances to have a detrimental effect on them.

We seem to be doing pretty good at the present.

Kieran Riding
59 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:09:29
ItÂ’s the reduction in the debt that I like the sound of.

When the arse does fall out of the Premier League, and in my opinion it must do eventually, then we could be in a far better position than most other teams.

Evertonians, cynical when it comes to the clubs finances? I wouldnÂ’t expect anything less.

Jay Harris
60 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:03:07
Everyone lauding these figures as great news needs to realise two things.

One... the 㿈 million record profit is due entirely to the sales of Fellaini and Jelavic.

Two... the increase in income is due almost entirely to a TV deal that not one of the Everton management can take credit for.

Sorry to add a negative note but we have to be realistic.

With better management we have so much potential but Bill and his cronies continue to enjoy a soft ride while the Premier League is awash with money.

The only bit of good news is the reduction in debt. But watch those numbers go negative again this year when the acquisition cost of Lukaku etc kicks in.

Dave Abrahams
61 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:21:40
Trevor Lynes,

Yes, I was giving you credit for being sensible, IÂ’ve got very few worries about the playing side of Everton; IÂ’m more than happy with Robbie and I expect things to get better and better under him.

I was talking about the financial side of the club. I’ll never be happy while Kenwright is in charge of the club. If you like him fair enough – each to his own.

Patrick Murphy
62 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:21:19
ItÂ’s not just supporters on this site who rightly in my opinion have some questions about EvertonÂ’s financial situation as one poster stated on GOT :-

These are the figures from the report - rounded off for simplicity

Borrowings 2014 㿝m
Cash held 2014 㿁m
Net Debt 2014 㿈m

Borrowings 2013 㿜m
Cash held 2013 ١m
Net Debt 2013 㿙m

So total borrowings have actually increased by ٟm rather than fallen. Now letÂ’s say that the cash held was not used to pay off some of these debts, letÂ’s say it was given to Chelsea for Lukaku – this means that the debt situation has not really changed – we still need to give 㿝m plus interest to someone at some point.

By the way, two further things from these accounts

1) interest payments on debt has increased from ٢.2m to ٣.2m (interest only, doesnÂ’t include repayments of original amount)
2) within the debt structure, the club is borrowing even more against future incomes at high interest rates than they were previously -

Other loans also include 㿀,924,000 (2013: 㾸,868,000) secured by legal charges over the CompanyÂ’s guaranteed Premier League broadcast revenues. This loan incurs interest at a rate of 8.8% and was repaid in August 2014. The Group has obtained further funding post year end as described in note 1.


Now I donÂ’t know if this a true reflection of the situation but it does indicate that despite the huge increase in TV revenue BK and the Board remain tied to their modus operandi.

As for those who cannot bear the negativity from some posters I agree with them as regards the unwarranted criticism of some of the players, but some of the criticism was warranted and some of the questions regarding Roberto were also warranted. But most of this was down to the results and if Everton manage to keep picking up plenty of points the criticism will subside and then the uber-optimists will take their place, writing on here has little effect on the team itself and probably has little effect on how much money sponsors are willing to give to the club.


Gary Green
63 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:20:23
There are some headline statistics that someone more intelligent than me might be able to explain.

1. Commercial Revenue down ٞ.5 million from 㾹.2 million to 㾸.7 million even though sponsorship, advertising, and merchandising was up ٞ.8 million to ٦.4 million. Where has this revenue been lost?

2. Broadcasting Revenue increased by 㿍 million from 㿠 million to 䀁 million. How would our results have looked without this?

3. The Revenue mix shows that PL TV money contributed 73% of revenue, gate receipts 16%, and commercial 11%. Does this mean that we have worked for 27% of our income and been handed the other 73%.

4. If our total Revenue is up 39% from 䀂 million to 𧴱 million, totalling a rise of 㿏 million, isnÂ’t that almost entirely due to the extra 㿍 million TV money?

I genuinely do not have the financial nous to read beyond the headlines that stand out, but as I said earlier I am sure that other ToffeeWebbers will be able to clarify my queries.

Good new about the average attendances now averaging 37,732; next/this season should be even higher...

Kieran Riding
64 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:41:09
We can afford to give Tom Cleverley a 4-year deal in the summer rather than the 3-year deal we had planned though!
Ed Shacklee
65 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:35:33
Looking on the bright side – Howard’s heroics and Roberto’s charm offensive during the World Cup has given Everton a major boost in America. Fan clubs are sprouting up like mushrooms, and there’s a big increase in the number of bars here showing Everton matches. It’s really been heartening to see, and it’s not a bad thing for the club’s financial picture, either. Everton will always face challenges on its climb to the top, but I like our chances.
Mike Byrne
66 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:42:17
Jamie Crowley @57 – and some people just sicken me with their naivety and sheer stupidity. Read the figures, not just the spun headlines, and you will get a completely different picture.

Wallow in your pig shit if you like – you must have been in there too long if you can’t smell the bullshitter Kenwright in this.

Ken Buckley
68 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:42:08
It could well be a very good year for the finances to look quite rosy. The word is that some very rich American baseball team owners are having a sniff.

Any of our USA blues heard anything?

Andrew Ellams
69 Posted 31/10/2014 at 15:12:46
Where have you heard this Ken? Interesting idea when you think about who owns that lot across the park...
Linda Morrison
70 Posted 31/10/2014 at 15:25:19
The most important part of this announcement is the debt reduction. Next year interest rates are bound to rise and keep on rising. This is going to mean a lot of worry for people with mortgages for EPL boards with large debts it will cause even more problems.

You can see now why Roberto can confidently say we are not a selling club.
The % reduction in the wage bill is also very good news.

Come on folks letÂ’s be happy and positive for once!

John Keating
71 Posted 31/10/2014 at 15:35:38
I see in the ECHO that Tom Canon - who I did admire - is extolling the virtues of Elstone and the Club.
Thank fuck Tom is not doing my books !
IÂ’d be broke next financial year !!!
Mike Byrne
72 Posted 31/10/2014 at 15:41:57
Linda - just to clarify the wage bill has not reduced - the ratio of wages to revenue has reduced almost totally due to the extra TV revenue which not even bullshit Bill has the gall to claim credit for.
Linda Morrison
73 Posted 31/10/2014 at 15:48:43
Okay, Mike but there is still not the same amount of money going on wages, that was bound to happen with an increase in revenue.

I think also credit must be given here to the fans who go to the games, obstructed views and all, that has seen gate receipts go up almost ٠ million. I think BK on this site should be listed along with Hibbert, Osman and now Lukaku, those that some people will always criticise, no matter what.

LetÂ’s get 3 points tomorrow and make everybody happy!

Kieran Riding
75 Posted 31/10/2014 at 15:57:44
John #71, I found this bit of CanonÂ’s article a bit odd myself? This conveyor belt of talent were producing? IÂ’m sure we actually bought Stones for one??

"Everton have a conveyor belt at Finch Farm producing excellent young talent," he added. "You could be looking at Ross Barkley becoming an asset worth 㿔-㿞m, and then John Stones will also add a big, big number in their asset list."

Iakovos Iasonidis
76 Posted 31/10/2014 at 14:21:44
Because a lot is said about the profile of Everton outside UK, I sadly have to confirm that Everton profile.

in Greece at least, it is non existent. Liverpool and Man Utd monopolize the interest. Even West Ham, because of Iron Maiden I suppose, are more recognizable than us.

Back in 2000 was the only time I found an Everton shirt being sold in the market and it was the shirt of 1998! From other teams even the third kits are sold year after year. I recently saw a guy wearing last year’s shirt and I asked him if he supports the team and if he bought the shirt through eBay – he replied that he bought it while in vacation in England as he just liked the colors, he didn’t even know exactly what Everton is (how pathetic is that!).

Consistently playing European football is vital. Making beneficial marketing deals would be good; playing more high profile friendlies like 2 years ago in the USA would be good... The name of Everton must be heard worldwide. Everton need more "manufactured" supporters, this is what separates big clubs from local clubs, it is what makes a team attractive for investment.

This record profit news are great, 㿙 mil debt gone down to 㿈 mil is even better (㿙 mil was there since forever!). All this great news has to translate into supporting and promoting the team.

Steve Carse
77 Posted 31/10/2014 at 15:59:25
To summarise: in themselves, the figures look good... but, given the strong operating environment for the year they relate to, they are poor.
Gerry Quinn
78 Posted 31/10/2014 at 16:02:03
Ken Buckley, reference..."The word is that some very rich American baseball team owners are having a sniff".

If itÂ’s the Houston Astros, Ken, then I donÂ’t think you will be writing from your seat any more!

Phil Walling
79 Posted 31/10/2014 at 16:09:37
Since Rooney moved on in 2004, only Rodwell and Barkley have come right through the Academy sides to make anything like first teamers. As Keiran says above,Stones came from Barnsley and that other most vaunted young full-back, Luke Garbutt was bought from Leeds United.

Hardly a Â’production lineÂ’, is it?

Mike Allison
80 Posted 31/10/2014 at 16:12:03
You canÂ’t write it off as Â’justÂ’ TV money. Money is money. They knew it was coming, they didnÂ’t spend it, they improved the playing squad significantly. All this whilst reducing debt and reducing the wages-to-turnover ratio from 72% to 58%.

It may not be as good as itÂ’s being spun, nothing ever is, but some fans are trying far too hard to make this a negative. WeÂ’ve gone 10 years without spending much money in the transfer market and we have a good manager, a good squad and our financial situation has improved. ArenÂ’t we ever allowed to be happy about supporting Everton?

Mike Byrne
81 Posted 31/10/2014 at 16:16:07
Okay, Mike but there is still not the same amount of money going on wages.

Linda @73: You are right. Linda – the same amount isnÂ’t being spent... it is more – wages have increased by around 10% to 㿲m pa.

I donÂ’t have a particular problem with this but I just wanted to clarify again.

Steavey Buckley
82 Posted 31/10/2014 at 16:20:40
The most important factor at the club is the manager; the money helps, but is not the most important without a plan. Martinez believes the way forward is through the youth academy, and needs a hotel at Finch Farm to keep the young players together, as a proper footballing academy.
Nigel Gregson
83 Posted 31/10/2014 at 16:52:50
Linda, I disagree about the debt part. It all depends on the maturity and terms of the debt that has been reduced. I could argue that now is a good time to change expensive short-term debt to cheaper long-term debt. Not all debt is toxic.
Carl Sanderson
84 Posted 31/10/2014 at 17:01:32
Kevin 23:

"They have been incredibly lucky with the money received for Rooney, Lescott, Rodwell, Arteta and Fellaini – those sales have injected desperately needed cash into the club, or we may have been playing in the lower divisions as we speak. You could give the board credit for the sales, if you want to look at it that way."

Or you could say that they should receive credit for appointing David Moyes. (Am I allowed to say that?)

Jamie Southern
85 Posted 31/10/2014 at 17:09:04
Re Kenwright and the board, but I have to point something out that some on here seem to forget.

The massive increase in TV money is mostly due to the ludicrously good deal negotiated by the Premier League. Quite rightly, it has been pointed out that Kenwright canÂ’t take any credit for this.

HOWEVER, that TV money is also partly made up of where we finish in the league and the number of times that weÂ’re shown live on TV.

Our finish last season in 5th place (and the new more attractive brand of football we played getting there) will have meant we earned more in prize money and live TV than most on here would have predicted at the beginning of last season.

Roberto Martinez can rightly be applauded for his contribution to this. But Kenwright played his part by appointing Martinez and by supporting him in the transfer of players in and out that made the performances on the pitch last season possible. I donÂ’t think his contribution should be forgotten.

Paul Hewitt
86 Posted 31/10/2014 at 17:08:34
The simple fact is – apart from Man Utd, Man City, and Chelsea – without the TV money, every other Premier League team would be fucked.
Michael Kenrick
87 Posted 31/10/2014 at 18:17:29
So the "reduced net debt" is actually all due to cash in hand (that we have probably spent already)?!?!

While the true "Borrowings" (aka Real Debt) have increased by ٟM. WHAT!?!?!

In simple terms, the debt has gone up, people — which explains why the interest payments have also gone up. Yet look at the spin in the original article. Simply astounding.

Meanwhile, the positivists on here insist everything is really wonderful in the blue-tinted rose garden...

Phil Walling
88 Posted 31/10/2014 at 18:29:47
Michael, I am hardly a positivist but it is beginning TO APPEAR that in a game where virtually all clubs survive hand to mouth, Everton are not such a basket case as we believed. I suspect most Â’observersÂ’ would consider our club well run and if nothing else, Kenwright has picked out and supported two successive managers able to keep us at the right end of the table. No mean feat that. Almost phenomenal, in fact !
Colin Glassar
89 Posted 31/10/2014 at 18:43:29
Am I right or wrong in thinking that if it wasnÂ’t for the extra TV money weÂ’d still be skint as ever? If thatÂ’s the case then we are living on borrowed time as sooner or later the bubble will burst.

We might not be in as bad a situation as some but take the TV money away and we are back to square one as our revenue from games and sponsorship deals is meagre to say the least.

Michael Kenrick
90 Posted 31/10/2014 at 18:45:51
ThatÂ’s not my issue, Phil. ItÂ’s purely the spin being put on these accounts, and lots of people picking up on this "reduced net debt" bollocks as if itÂ’s real.

I have a mortgage of 𧴜,000. But I get a windfall from my dead uncleÂ’s will for 㿞,000. IÂ’m so happy, I go to Vegas and put the trip on my credit card.

My Total Borrowings have increased to 𧴦,000... but my "Net Debt" is now remarkably down to just 㿨k... apparently.

What utter bullshit. Especially as I blow $45k in a new game on the Strip — Romelu Roulette.

Dick Fearon
91 Posted 31/10/2014 at 18:43:47
Years of financial crisis, warnings of bankruptcy. crushing debt, the old lady losing her charm — at last some good news... Why do you bastards have to spoil it.
Wayne Smyth
92 Posted 31/10/2014 at 18:39:22
Michael, IÂ’m not sure it is spin.

IÂ’m no accountant, but to me net debt is simply what you have when you have your liabilities/loans and remove any liquid assets such as cash.

I fear that as usual, people read into things what they want to then get disappointed when all the assumptions donÂ’t turn out as theyÂ’d expected.

I suspect that the loans that we have probably have early repayment charges, there are probably other reasons why to literally get rid of those loans would be a bad idea in the short term.

IÂ’ve not looked at the report so I donÂ’t know even what time period it covers, but I reckon that it probably excludes this yearÂ’s transfer fees and that the large profit will end up being swallowed up by 2014Â’s transfer dealings.

The positive piece of news for me is to do with the percentage of turnover spent on wages. It means that assuming we can keep control over that, there should be significant positive cash-flow in future years to improve the squad or the stadium. Something weÂ’ve not been able to do for ages. It also means we can actually remove those debts for good when it makes best sense.

Phil Walling
93 Posted 31/10/2014 at 18:55:15
Touche, Mike. It seems The Catalan is not the only bullshitter at Goodison Park!
Kieran Riding
94 Posted 31/10/2014 at 18:58:50
If the club donÂ’t jib off "Golden Goal" tickets and introduce MichaelÂ’s "Romelu Roulette", IÂ’ll be fuming here.
Andy Walker
95 Posted 31/10/2014 at 18:54:59
Quite staggering, we have now made the wrong type of profit according to some of the folk on here. Profit is profit, end of story. Believe it or not itÂ’s actually quite hard to make a profit in any business. Remember the vast majority of the TV rights across the EPL have nearly always gone straight out the door on increased players wages, to conveniently ignore this factor in order to push an anti EFC Board agenda is transparent and frankly embarrassing for those concerned.

HereÂ’s a suggestion: try reading The a Snowball by a Warren Buffet, it might be a revelation to some.

Paul Andrews
96 Posted 31/10/2014 at 19:27:17
Kenwright has picked out and supported two successive managers...

Supported them in a clapping, slapping on the back manner?

You donÂ’t mean supported them financially, do you?

Mike Byrne
97 Posted 31/10/2014 at 19:55:13
Andy Walker no 95 - show me one post on here that says it is the wrong type of profit. The only negativity is against Kenwright and those who say that it is down to him that we achieved this profit.

I will say it again just in case anyone missed it – this profit is from part of the increased money from TV, if TV money had not increased by 㿍m then this 㿈m profit would in fact have meant a loss of ٣m (assuming same level of spend), no-one at the club was involved in any TV discussions therefore no-one at the club can claim any credit for this profit.

One thing that be associated with the way the club is run managed is sponsorship revenue which was up 7% – sounds great until you realise we are talking about an increase of 𧼐,000 or so to ٦m pa. About on par with Burnley and West Brom and about 40 times less than the big boys.

Still impressed with the whizz-kids at Goodison, still think bullshit Billy is a great business-man and and that profit is profit end of story?

It is great that we are in profit this year but please do take a minute and think how much greater it could be if the club was run professionally by business-men.

Graham Mockford
98 Posted 31/10/2014 at 19:57:35
Michael,

I agree it is a bit of spin because they are aware quite rightly that the net debt went back up the moment we bought Lukaku and Besic in July.

The fact we appear to have 㿊m of operating surplus to play with for the next two years has got to be good news.

But here is where the club canÂ’t win. Should they prioritise reducing debt which means back to balancing the books on transfers or should they accept that the level of borrowings are at an acceptable level and invest in the team. Both views seem prevalent on this thread.

Michael Kenrick
99 Posted 31/10/2014 at 20:26:12
Graham, I suspect the amount of debt is a business decision that the club has to take, under the watchful eye of their bank manager. Some amount of debt is justifiable, some would say essential. At some point, it becomes excessive. Paying ٢M to ٣M in interest charges might be considered excessive for a 𧴰M turnover... or not? I could not say either way...

What I object to is the total falsehood being touted that we almost cut our debt in half, and a number of our pious worshipers genuflect on confirmation of the wonderful fiscal management our clubÂ’s custodians are demonstrating...

Yet the Annual Report of Accounts appears to indicate the exact opposite, that borrowings – far from being cut, have in fact increased. This flies in the face of the common perception that some of the TV windfall would be used to pay down the debt. (A related recurring theme on these pages.) I’m not saying that should be the case – I accept it’s a business decision – but to pretend it has happened already when the debt is in fact just as big as ever, if not bigger, simply defies all rationality.

But, as we see on many threads, when the facts go against a perception or a positive feeling, that must be protected at all costs and the facts must be tossed out of the window, so that there is no Â’bad newsÂ’.

Amit Vithlani
100 Posted 31/10/2014 at 20:23:01
Michael at 90. Right point but wrong example. Wrong example because 1. You still got your 㿞k and can offset against your liabilities to bring these down to 㿨k. You are still 㿔k better off than prior to your windfall. 2. You could have been 㿞k better off had you not spunked a load on Romelu Roulette, yes, but in real life Romelu is an asset, not an expense. He may be worth less, the same or more than the 㿈M paid in the future. After all, there was a time when Fellaini looked like a ٟ.5M player never mind the 㾻M we paid or 㿇.5M we received for the hirsute Belgian enforcer.

However, I do agree with the sentiment that the Sky bonanza will not last forever and the sooner we grow other sources of revenue the better. Wages and AgentÂ’s fees are the other area that need control, as this siphons money away from the game into the pockets of strippers, pimps, hustlers, estate agents and car salesmen.

Frank McGregor
102 Posted 31/10/2014 at 20:56:15
I believe this is great news for the clubÂ’s future and hopefully next year the results will be similar with focus on reducing and eventually eliminating the debt.

Not being a financial expert like 99.9% on this site, I prefer to take in the comments of Professor Cannon who is also a shareholder of the club who indicates these results show a well-run club.

Amit Vithlani
104 Posted 31/10/2014 at 20:51:28
Patrick @ 62 the key to understanding our liabilities lies in transparency. If we held 㿈m on our balance sheet at our financial year end, our net debt is 㿈m just at a particular point in time (since the balance sheet is only a snap shot of our financial position at the year end) and in a worst case scenario the bloke from GOT you quoted may be right in his suspicion. The cash on hand may have been a windfall payment held to fluff up our numbers.

On the other hand, a week later, a month later or 3 months later we might have paid down our debt. Some debt is expensive to prepay (if you repay your mortgage early, you pay 3 months interest as a penalty, so if you have 2 months to go before the penalty clause expires it is better to wait) and the club may have been waiting to call its debt at par before paying it down.

The problem is the lack of transparency. Financials are produced once a year, several months after the year end and with very few post balance sheet notes. Hence it is very difficult to judge how sound our financial position really is. The only thing we can say is that, without the TV bonanza, we probably would have had to sell one of our star names over the summer.

Graham Mockford
105 Posted 31/10/2014 at 20:55:36
Michael,

I donÂ’t get too worried about it really, itÂ’s what companies do, put a positive spin on their accounts. In some ways they have to, as they need to keep the confidence of creditors and potential investors.

ItÂ’s not really a falsehood, the net debt at the time of the accounts had actually reduced. But it was cash in the bank which they have gone on to spend, which I applaud as it shows some ambition to build on last yearÂ’s progress.

But there is obviously some rather limited financial understanding on this thread. IÂ’m waiting for Joe Beardsmore to provide his analysis which is always illuminating.

Ian Bennett
106 Posted 31/10/2014 at 21:07:54
My 10 cents worth is:-

It isnÂ’t board prudence, it is bank prudence. The terms of the overdraft and loans stops the debt from increasingly massively. The board arenÂ’t prepared to put in any further money or guarantee any other debt, so why on earth would you congratulate them for sitting on their hands?

Net debt is a standard accounting term, used under UK GAAP, i.e. What governs the standards of accounts.

Profit on Operations before player trading is the key bit less interest. Previously this has been negative and why the silver had to be sold every 3-4 years. A profit of 㿄m less interest of ٣m, puts us around 㾿m to the good. Yes, we need to pay down debt and any transfer fees on the drip, but at least this gives us a sniff of a transfer budget without having to sell a Ross or a Stones.

If we can keep wages contained, get on the TV more, and have a decent cup run, we have a decent chance of building to supplement the squad that is heavy in the 30+. The accounts are not just Fellaini supported.

Patrick Clark
107 Posted 31/10/2014 at 22:00:05
As an American Blue living in a big city (Chicago), I see the growing popularity of soc... I mean... football in the big cities, but from a Premier League perspective, it is almost exclusively contained to the bigger clubs.

I, for one, would love to see Howard, in his Everton shirt, on Everton promotional posters throughout the city. Capture a new legion of fans with the most popular American player. ThereÂ’s a limited window to capitalize from his World Cup exposure, why not spend a little on it and grow the base?

That said, I am neither a financial nor marketing expert.

Brian Hennessy
108 Posted 31/10/2014 at 22:34:48
Dave @50 Thanks for that info on our shirt deal with Kitbag, it certainly looks like a poor return.

Can anyone expand on why exactly Everton shirts do not seem available in sports shops outside the UK? Is this a direct result of being with Kitbag?

If so, then this looks a terrible piece of business. I can remember as a kid picking up an Everton shirt in the early Â’80s (The one blue on bottom, white on top half) at my local sports shop in Waterford, I liked the look of it and from that day on I was an Everton fan.

How many potential fans are we missing out on by not having shirts in stores outside the UK?

Mike Allison
109 Posted 31/10/2014 at 23:21:01
Michael, 90. I donÂ’t understand the problem. Even in your (not quite accurate) analogy, youÂ’re 㿔k better off. You knew the money was coming, and you managed to only spend 20% of it and keep going as before, rather than increase your expenditure to match your income.

And as Amit, #100, points out, you havenÂ’t spunked anything on Romelu Roulette, youÂ’ve invested a load of it and still have that asset either to sell, probably at a profit, use to make more money or simply enjoy having.

Mark Andersson
110 Posted 01/11/2014 at 01:16:10
Why donÂ’t we all send our old shirts over to a 3rd world country on a big blue ship.
Tony Abrahams
111 Posted 01/11/2014 at 09:28:37
I think this was the kind of thread that Mr Walling was trying to start earlier in the week!

I donÂ’t understand finances like some, but the gist to me seems to come in Matt Traynors post 37.

Brian Waring
112 Posted 01/11/2014 at 10:58:58
Look at what happened to TescoÂ’s when they tried to put a positive spin on their accounts.
Garry Taylor
113 Posted 03/11/2014 at 10:59:52
So in short we made a profit! 㿈.232m

All of this profit was used to reduce our net debt from 㿖.696m to 㾺.464m

Our operating profit (excluding player trading) now stands at 㿃,740m

These are all major positives, largely to the increased TV revenue.

However, our Â’other operating costsÂ’ increased from 㿁.8m to 㿆.381m

Our revenue from sponsorship has only increased from ٠.439m (2003) to ٦.436m (2014)

Our revenue from catering has decreased from ١.329m (2003) to ٞ.934m (2014)

Therefore, the club can and should be doing significantly better on the other operating costs, sponsorship revenue and catering revenue to bring us in line with other EPL clubs.

Steve Carse
114 Posted 03/11/2014 at 11:46:14
American Blue, Patrick (107), are you suggesting weÂ’re not a Â’bigger clubÂ’?
Jamie Crowley
115 Posted 03/11/2014 at 16:48:26
Mike Byrne @97

I was very busy wallowing in pig shit so havenÂ’t had a glance at this post in a bit but...

You say the increased money has nothing to do with Kenwright and the Board. Very true. I think the point some of us are attempting to make is that despite it not being their "achievement" with the new increased TV revenue, surely you have to tip your cap to the Board because they didnÂ’t actually spend the windfall and have attempted to make Everton a more secure club financially. Correct?

ThatÂ’s a good thing Mike...

Profits up because we didnÂ’t spend like drunken sailors. Wage bill down from 72% (totally unsustainable btw) to 58% (sustainable if not healthy). By the way, on 䀁 million in revenue thatÂ’s a savings of 㾸 million on wages...

Kenwright has indeed demonstrated that anything he says should be taken with one large pinch of salt. I agree with you. But these numbers are certainly a step in the right direction and good news however you slice it.

WhatÂ’s seemingly naive and stupid (reference to your earlier post @66) is your unflappable view that Kenwright is always lying, always manipulating, always out to ruin EFC. And yes, you didnÂ’t say that exactly itÂ’s not a quote, but you do seem paranoid and frankly as you allude anyone who doesnÂ’t distrust Kenwright 100% (seemingly in your world) is therefore naive and stupid. ThatÂ’s just...

Naive and stupid.

Back to my pigshit.

Brian Hill
116 Posted 03/11/2014 at 18:04:11
Patrick Clark @107,

"That said, I am neither a financial nor marketing expert."

Unfortunately, neither is anybody at Everton FC.

Welcome to the machine.

Michael Kenrick
117 Posted 03/11/2014 at 23:54:49
More astounding facepalm nonsense, this time from Jamie Crowley @ 115:

Wage bill down from 72% to 58%... on 䀁 million in revenue, thatÂ’s a savings of 㾸 million on wages. — NO!!! Read the story — The wage bill rose to 㿱.3M.

That means they have GONE UP!. Not down. They only appear to have gone down as a proportion of turnover because the turnover went up by more!!!

And why was that? Because of the TV bonanza! Same reason as the cash in hand reducing the Â’net debtÂ’... until it was spent on our summer transfers, their wages, and agentsÂ’ commissions.

WhatÂ’s the emoticon for a dead horse being flogged?

Jamie Crowley
118 Posted 04/11/2014 at 02:00:34
Michael -

Take a spreadsheet and put a number on it. Call it "sales".

Take another cell and call it "accounts payable".

Enter a percentage into "accounts payable" and subtract that percentage from your sales cell.

That, friend, is your "profit".

Now... if you take the "sales" number and increase it while decreasing your "accounts payable" number youÂ’ll see an astounding, and very real, fact - your profits went UP! And yes, that even happens when the overall payables number goes up.

ItÂ’s the percentage that matters...

You see, itÂ’s not facepalm nonsense. ItÂ’s actual numbers.

"But Jamie, you stupid silly American non-Liverpudlian adopted fool, if we had kept the wage bill THE SAME we would have made MORE money!!"

You donÂ’t say Michael? Hmmm.... Never considered THAT.

Jesus man...

Eric Myles
119 Posted 04/11/2014 at 04:52:37
The basic flaw in your calculation Jamie #118 is that you are using "accounts payable" as a percentage of "sales" as your starting premise whereas in the real world "accounts payable" is a determined number that you use to obtain the percentage.

In other words itÂ’s the real numbers that matter, not the percentage, which is a by-product of those numbers.

Michael Kenrick
120 Posted 04/11/2014 at 07:00:41
You may be a Yank, but this is our language — what bit of this don’t you understand?

As a result of strengthening the playing squad, staff costs rose by 10% to 㿱.3m. Percentage and Â’payablesÂ’? IsnÂ’t that what you wanted?

ItÂ’s really not hard... unless you think (and IÂ’m quoting you here): "thatÂ’s a savings of 㾸 million on wages..."

Err... No itÂ’s not.

David Ellis
121 Posted 04/11/2014 at 07:07:52
Michael and Jamie

YouÂ’re both right. Yes wages have gone up in absolute terms. Yes, theyÂ’ve gone down as a percentage of revenue. Yes had wages increased as much as revenue in percentage terms then wages would be 㾸m more than they are.

Now move along gents...

Alan McGuffog
122 Posted 04/11/2014 at 07:46:14
Loving this debate. Brings to mind a line attributed to the late, great George Burns........." ItÂ’s a pity that the people who are best suited to running our country are too busy driving cabs and cutting hair "
Jamie Crowley
123 Posted 04/11/2014 at 12:50:41
I think DavidÂ’s correct. After a sleep I realized the issue - youÂ’re taking umbrage at the fact I used a static number ($85 million) to make a point yet then proceed to say the percentage is what matters but didnÂ’t move the revenues north in my example.

Poor illustration on my part. My overall point is correct... And David is spot on and clears this all up.

It might be your English language but we Americans perfected it. Dude. ;0)

Jamie Crowley
124 Posted 04/11/2014 at 12:59:38
Eric -

It canÂ’t be a determined number... You canÂ’t forecast it and say, "AP will be this number this fiscal year." It has to be expressed as a percentage. Goods, services, etc - their cost will rise and fall various variables. A company wonÂ’t know what the AP number is, but theyÂ’ll know they must try to reduce the AP percentage as much as possible against the sales dollars. And the AP number will always rise with increased sales. Actually not always but most likely.

I do take your point and think its a perspective issue much like David pointed out with MichaelÂ’s and my "disagreement." At the end of the day you know the AP number and then derive the percentage. My point is when forecasting you donÂ’t know the AP number but sure as hell have a percentage goal to maximize profits. Knowing that percentage goal can help you price goods, plan for purchasing, etc...

Flogging the horse and moving on for good now.

Jamie Crowley
125 Posted 04/11/2014 at 13:06:52
BTW Michael...

Yes, staff costs rose 10%. Yes, it went up.

Overall payables on a percentage basis when compared to revenues went down.

Profits overall went up.

You just illustrated my point and I hope you see that.

Done for good...

Eric Myles
127 Posted 04/11/2014 at 14:39:04
Likewise Jamie, if you canÂ’t forecast accounts payable you canÂ’t forecast sales either then, so you donÂ’t have a percentage of anything.
Jamie Crowley
128 Posted 04/11/2014 at 15:30:19
Good point Eric...
Michael Kenrick
129 Posted 04/11/2014 at 16:00:48
Thank you, Jamie. Calling it Â’savingsÂ’ when you actually spend more (on wages) makes no sense. YouÂ’re not saving anything. The percentage stuff is just playing with numbers to make them seem better... when in reality they are worse.

The other factor is the timing of the clubÂ’s fiscal year: ends 31 May, so all the commitments to new wages made during the summer wonÂ’t become visible in the published accounts until next autumn (aka Â’fallÂ’). IÂ’m sure thatÂ’s where a lot of the excess cash we had on 31 May 2014 has already gone...

Denis Richardson
130 Posted 04/11/2014 at 16:29:04
Wipe away the bullshit spin and the simple fact is that without the increased TV money (some 㿍M!) we would have made a loss and still be fooked financially. The TV money is there for now and for the next couple of years, so that at least is a (temporary) positive.

There is no financial magic being carried out by our board. (Fulham, who finished bottom in 2014, received more TV money than Man Utd the year before, who were League Champions – just to put the TV cash increase into perspective.)

Re the wage bill as a % of turnover, the massive percentage reduction (again thanks to the TV money increase, as the actual wagebill went up!) is also good news, for now. HOWEVER, this number does not take into account the wages of any of the new players signed in the summer - e.g. Barry, Besic, Lukaku, Eto, nor any renegotiated contracts, e.g. Barkley and Stones. This percentage is obviously currently much higher than stated in the accounts so I woudnÂ’t be bragging about it just yet.

It will also be interesting to see how this changes as agents will no doubt be looking to massively increase player wages at the next round of negotiations. We also have a number of ageing players that need replacing next year and the wages of their replacements will no doubt be higher than the ones replaced (i.e. Distin, Hibbo, Alcaraz, Osman). Insurance claims would have also covered a huge chunk of the wages last year for Gibson, Kone, Oviedo and Alcaraz.

All-in-all, the picture is much rosier than it was in the recent past, but say a massive thank you to Sky for that and not to our board.

The elephant in the room is, and always has been for about a decade, the stadium issue. The massive increase in TV money must be used to somehow solve this issue over the next couple if years as either the Sky bubble will burst or player and manager wages will simply eat up the extra TV money and send up back to square one.

Michael Kenrick
131 Posted 04/11/2014 at 17:13:58
Great post, Denis @130, to get us back to the real issues, and cut through all the spin.

I can understand it from the club, who always want to polish every side of the turd. But to have some of our own fans on here swallow, twist and regurgitate the stuff in some wonderful positive blue glow is a little disconcerting.

Jamie Crowley
132 Posted 04/11/2014 at 19:27:03
Good post, Denis, and a lot of your concerns re the future and what the accounts will show then, with the wage increases showing in the Fall (good point, Michael, as well), are taken.

And that little tit-for-tat is why I love me some ToffeeWeb.

For the record, I don’t mindlessly swallow anything coming out of BK’s mouth... I just see this financial news as a step in the right direction.

Now let’s all hold our breath and see what those published accounts next Fall tell us.

Calmer, more measured, seeing light through a different part of the prism... but holding to "that’s good news" for now.

Cheers.

Finally, please know – I had posted last night after I attended a board meeting where I’m a member for a local private school. I fought for over an hour against a 5% tuition increase for families despite stiff resistance; only in the end to fail. Champion of the common man and whatnot... I live in a neighborhood (near to it, not in it, can’t afford some lovely places...) where many people wake and shit gold bars and frankly are completely out of touch. I won’t bore you with details, but I will say this — I’m well aware you can paint any fucking picture with numbers your little heart desires.


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, 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 Talking Points submissions across the site.


About these ads

© ToffeeWeb
Menu
OK

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.