Overall, turnover was reported as £125.6m compared with £120.5m for last year but Everton FC posted a post-tax loss of £4.1m.
Wages as a percentage of turnover rose again, from 58% last year to 62% but there was an operating profit before player trading of £16m. Net liabilities were recorded as £18.5m.
Broadcast revenue dropped from £84.8m to £81.7m, largely due to the club's 11th-place finish in 2014-15 compared with fifth-place the season before, but there were increases in commercial and sponsorship income and a boost in gate receipts of £1.1m helped by the Europa League run and the addition of 4,000 season ticket holders.
Chief Executive Robert Elstone said: “Our financial performance, like so many Premier League clubs, was underpinned by the second year of a TV deal that beat all expectations, but also by increases in matchday and commercial revenues.
"We also continue to work hard managing and controlling our cost base and remain determined to ensure investment and spending is effective and delivers returns.
“Beyond the Premier League table, probably the most significant barometer of success is attendances and 2014/15 broke all recent records with our highest season ticket total for at least 10 years, the lowest season ticket non-renewal rate, 12 full houses and an average attendance in excess of 38,000 for the first time since 2004."
Reader Comments (35)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 18/11/2015 at 12:47:22
5 Posted 18/11/2015 at 16:29:02
Turnover increased by over £5m due to the TV money but wages must have gone up by approximately £8.5m which doesn't even reflect the signings of Delofeu, Cleverley and Lennon.
I now see "Unexplained" Other operating expenses has now jumped a further £4m to over £30m a year compared to 1m when Kenwright took over. Must be an awful lot of lawnmowers at Finch Farm.
I also see management and administration number went up from 57 to 71 people as Elstone builds his empire while marketing stayed the same at 32 people, although I think there were a couple of marketing appointments post accounts from memory.
I also see Land and properties almost double to £979,000 from £550,000.
Anyone know what this represents
6 Posted 18/11/2015 at 17:07:27
7 Posted 18/11/2015 at 17:20:11
8 Posted 18/11/2015 at 18:18:37
Actually that should be £125.6m..and thirty nicker.
(well, I'm only human)
9 Posted 18/11/2015 at 18:36:25
10 Posted 18/11/2015 at 19:13:05
I'm sure they buried a ton of shit in "other operating expenses" to lower their tax exposure.
"New car Bill?"
"Why yes, thank you. Company car... I'll take the £100k Mercedes please, and we'll be paying cash."
11 Posted 18/11/2015 at 19:14:06
If that is the case why would it go up by about £450,000 (almost double)?
I cant remember any land or building development or acquisition.
12 Posted 18/11/2015 at 19:21:39
What do you mean wait?
That picture IS me wearing it.
(admittedly I'm very short and can be heavy-handed with the starchs).
13 Posted 18/11/2015 at 19:34:56
14 Posted 18/11/2015 at 19:56:05
Basically we had £5m more turnover than last year but made a £4m loss. Given we made a £28m profit last year, that would mean that our costs increased by a whopping £37m compared to the year before!
Put another way, had our costs this year been the same as last year, with the extra £5m turnover we'd have made a profit of £33m. However, we made a loss of £4m!
How on earth did we manage to get an extra £37m in costs in just one year? I know we gave new/improved contracts to a few players and some of the costs would simply be writing down the player 'values' over the remaining contract terms... but £37m?
15 Posted 18/11/2015 at 20:20:07
- Players wages up £8m
- 'Other' operating costs up £4m (to £30m!)
- we made £25m less profit on 'disposal of players' registrations' (£3m compared to £28m the year before)
The profit/loss on selling players is not reflected in the turnover figure and our profit from the year before had the sales of Anichebe and Fellaini in it. Since June 2014 we've not really sold anyone of note, just Duffy and a few youngsters.
Doesn't look pretty - we're still in a position where we need to make profits on player sales to turn a profit overall - despit the sky money being about 35m more a year than it was in 2013.....
The Everton accounts however need to be taken with a pinch of salt as football club accounts never reflect the true value of the player, e.g. Barkley would not have any value at all as he was home grown and Stones' value in the accounts would no where near his market value.
If for instance Stones was sold for 35-40m before end of May, we would like again make a big accounting profit in next years' accounts.
16 Posted 18/11/2015 at 20:37:28
Basically it's yer algorithm ads innit though blood - the net knows what you're interested in (coz every web move you make is logged), so gives you ads trying to flog related stuff.
The algorithms don't always get it right of course. For instance I used to spend a lot of time on youtube watching Mexico's toughest cockerels being pitted against each other.
Had to knock it on the head in the end,
I mean even though I'm a supporter of gay rights, very disconcerting to open my laptop and see 'we know you like big hard latin cocks.'
17 Posted 18/11/2015 at 20:37:43
My main concern is the stadium issue. Until we can solve that problem, we are in limbo for the foreseeable future. I just wish they would try a bit of honesty for a change. They really do make a rod for their own backs. The idiots even stated they would have planning permission in place by now for WHP. Meanwhile, most fans were left scratching their heads as to where the money was coming from to build this mythical new ground?
"Identifying enabling partners" does not constitute a deliverable plan for the future of this club. Do they take us all for fools? Clearly, we know the answer to that particular question. No doubt, some will try to defend their record, but a child could see past the smoke, mirrors and bullshit.
You could have some respect for those in charge if they at least showed some integrity and honesty. In my opinion, they would all sell their own mothers to turn a profit, which seems to be their only motivation to me.
18 Posted 18/11/2015 at 20:55:13
The conspiracy theorists will say that it's to help out Bills financial cronies who are the ones behind the shadow companies that are lending to us. Is this true or are there more logical explanations?
Without really knowing much at all about it I feel instinctively that our club is not run quite right. Probably just reading too much ToffeeWeb!
19 Posted 18/11/2015 at 21:22:21
20 Posted 18/11/2015 at 21:35:53
21 Posted 18/11/2015 at 22:19:30
"You could have some respect for those in charge if they at least showed some integrity and honesty. In my opinion, they would all sell their own mothers to turn a profit, which seems to be their only motivation to me."
Given the lack of profit over the years, player sales and purchases apart, we have a lot of motherless managers at the club, apparently, which of course is rather sad.
22 Posted 18/11/2015 at 23:18:42
23 Posted 19/11/2015 at 00:18:53
24 Posted 19/11/2015 at 00:21:38
Nah; It's to park the lawn mowers.
25 Posted 19/11/2015 at 08:58:32
This suggests we are not currently in a position where we have to sell to buy, as proven this summer where the net spend was roughly equivalent to the £16m figure (Deulofeu, Funes Mori and Cleverly signing fees).
Others will have more to spend due to the Champions League money and much better commercial performance but I don't think we are in a position where we have to sell to buy (modestly).
26 Posted 19/11/2015 at 10:52:52
That debt continues to grow in this time of Premier League affluence is nothing short of criminal. It's not as though fortunes on the field have improved is it?
27 Posted 19/11/2015 at 11:49:26
If Kitbag & Chang account for approx. ٦m, and other advertising & sponsorship must be in the millions, I wonder just how much it was worth?
Someone said we had signed a ٤m per season deal with them? In fact, it was all over the news we signed a "club record 5-year deal"
From The Liverpool Echo:
Everton FC have announced a club record five-year kit deal with sportswear manufacturer Umbro.
The British firm will take over as the club's kit supplier from American brand Nike this summer.It resumes an old partnership with the Blues, who sported the Umbro double diamond for many previous seasons, most recently from 2004-09, and last won the top flight title and FA Cup in their kits.
Toffees chief executive Robert Elstone said: "The club is delighted to be entering into this new and exciting partnership and looks forward to working alongside the Umbro team over the next five years."
28 Posted 19/11/2015 at 14:26:51
Back on track, if we have made a bit of a loss, but not a significant one, without selling anybody and buying a little, does this not basically mean that expenses are more or less in hand... although with no signs of improving significantly?
29 Posted 19/11/2015 at 14:36:50
Additionally, those same contributors have consistantly stated the clubs debt levels are increasing. Again shot-down by Kenwright's believers.
Their silence is deafening...
30 Posted 19/11/2015 at 14:39:54
Increased debt - (Short-term debt)
Sell-to-buy still evident (no players sold = massive drop in profit/loss ratio)
31 Posted 19/11/2015 at 16:33:57
Umbro don't hand over a load of cash for the privilege of making our shirts. Adidas don't for Man Utd. I read some info on Man Utd's deal and what effectively happens is that the manufacturer sells shirts to the club / Kitbag at a discount to sell on. The 10 year, billion pound deal that Man Utd have is valued on the estimated sales multiplied by the discount.
We don't get a big cheque.
32 Posted 19/11/2015 at 16:56:35
I always thought these shirt deals were agreed upon the basis of the club advertising Umbro, Adidas, Nike etc...
I know we didn't receive anything from Nike when we sported their logo, except they kindly refurbished our club shop.
I wonder how much it is worth then?
33 Posted 19/11/2015 at 17:21:38
34 Posted 19/11/2015 at 18:02:48
Which would have you preferred: a drawing down of debt or the investment of increased revenues into both transfer fees and wages to strengthen the squad (Lukaku, Barry, Besic and Galloway)? A net investment of c £44m
Because that is the very simple choice the Board had and they chose the latter.
35 Posted 19/11/2015 at 18:07:56
36 Posted 19/11/2015 at 18:20:46
Man Utd 2014 £88m
37 Posted 19/11/2015 at 18:44:21
I know your position re this administration so let me break the silence and provide a little balance.
Everton have been a buy to sell club for ten years. This is easy to evidence by our financial statements over that period and the fact our net spend was pretty much flat. During that period we more or less took our debt to the limit our creditors would allow and one some occasions (Arteta) we were forced to sell to generate cash.
The improved revenues of the last two years have changed that to some degree due to the improved TV deal. You can see this in the last two years transfer activity. A net spend of £51m on transfers alone.
Underlying profit before player trading was £16m against £23m last year. This was due to two factors. Increased player wages and a worsened league position ( this alone cost us £8m) but it still represents more in the last two years than the previous ten.
Net debt rose slightly but actually less than I was expecting. Don't forget every year in the income statement one quarter on average of the players asset values are written off against profit.
The net debt position is at a significantly improved position in the last two years and if you add in increased turnover our debt position is much improved and is of a very manageable level.
Of course although the situation is improved we are still at a significant disadvantage to a number of clubs. Also worryingly this TV windfall may well be eroded through increasing player wages which has what has happened through the history of the Sky bonanza.
So there you go, not a set of accounts that will give you a warm glow but certainly a much improved position in the last two years.
38 Posted 20/11/2015 at 01:20:51
Bearing that in mind, I think the loss is not significant. The "other operating expenses" is a worrying figure, though.
I also don't understand the huge increase in Land and Properties.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
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.