Everton remain in Deloitte Money League top 20

21/01/2016  114 Comments  [Jump to last]
Everton have moved up to 18th place in the Deloitte Money League for 2014-15.

The club were ranked 20th in 2013-14 but have improved their position this year thanks to record revenues on the back of the bumper Premier League TV deal.

Everton are ranked eighth out of the nine English teams on the list, behind Newcastle United who enjoy higher commercial revenue and ahead of West Ham United.

The list is topped by Real Madrid and Barcelona, with Manchester United third.  


Reader Comments (114)

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


Anthony Dwyer
1 Posted 21/01/2016 at 00:56:10
Behind Newcastle who enjoy higher commercial revenue!
Kieran Kinsella
2 Posted 21/01/2016 at 01:55:35
Seems pretty meaningless when related to onfield performance.
Matt Traynor
3 Posted 21/01/2016 at 04:39:50
Perhaps we could arrange a flypast with a banner to show our appreciation to those who have helped us achieve such record revenue performances?

For those that are interested, BSkyB are located in Isleworth (not far from Heathrow), and BT Sport at the Olympic Park in East London.

David Ellis
4 Posted 21/01/2016 at 05:20:51
This is important. Over the long term it correlates to on-pitch performance and enables us to attract the better players from other leagues which closes the gap on the big money clubs.

As evidenced by this years Premier League... which is now much more competitive than before with the Sky Four cartel well and truly broken as clubs like us now have real fire power and real stars. Things are actually getting better...

Matt Traynor
5 Posted 21/01/2016 at 05:37:06
Yes, David (#4), but the cry from the media is that this season's Premier League is awful, because the likes of Chelsea and United aren't having it all their own way... The Premier League model was set up to create an elite, so that the same teams qualified for the Champions League year on year – and for many years it held true.

Now, all this new money has done is made the middle tier more competitive, and introduced a fight at the bottom. This in turn means that, with uncertainty in the top 4, England's 4th Champions League place is under threat (Man City being gash for 2-3 years doesn't help) and both the Premier League and UEFA are shitting themselves about that. (Don't forget that BT Sport paid a fortune for UEFA TV rights – means that UEFA's income could be hit, god forbid).

David Ellis
6 Posted 21/01/2016 at 05:39:43

Here is what the report says about Everton:

Everton rise two places to 18th in this year’s Money League
with total revenue of 𧴵.6m (€165.1m), the club’s
joint-highest position and the first time it has appeared
in consecutive editions of the Money League top 20.
The Toffees progressed to the last 16 in the UEFA Europa
League but domestic performance was disappointing,
with early exits from the English cup competitions and
a finishing position of 11th in the Premier League, the
club’s lowest league place since 2005-06.

Everton, like many Premier League clubs, now receive
most of its revenue from broadcast rights, which
accounts for 69% of the total after an increase of
٠m to 䀂.8m. This is the 10th highest in the Money
League and more than European powerhouses Bayern
Munich and Paris Saint-Germain earned from this
source. Reduced Premier League distributions from a
lower league finish were offset by the receipt of €7.5m
(٣.7m) of additional UEFA distributions in 2014-15 for
performances in the Europa League. Everton’s failure to
qualify for European competition in 2015-16 means a
strong league performance will be important to sustain
the overall level of broadcast revenue.
The Europa League campaign resulted in three
additional games at home in 2014-15, contributing to
ٟ.2m (7%) matchday revenue growth.

Following the feel-good factor generated by the league performance
in the previous season, Everton’s highest season ticket
total for ten years contributed to a 2% improvement in
average home league attendance in 2014-15. However,
the ongoing challenges in moving from (or even
expanding) Goodison Park, means matchday revenue
remains restricted and is unlikely to see substantial
improvement in the near term.

The Toffees continue to generate the lowest commercial
revenue in the Money League top 20 despite 10% growth
to 㿀.1m (€26.4m). Agreements with Chang (shirt
sponsorship) and Umbro (kit manufacturer) remain in place
for the next edition of the Money League, making further
development of the club’s wider commercial activities
important. However, these figures must be considered
in context as Everton continue to outsource many of its
commercial operations thus reducing the overall revenue
figure but not the bottom line.

Back-to-back Money League appearances for the first
time represents outstanding financial development for
Everton. However, increased pressure on broadcast
revenue in 2015-16 through the lack of UEFA
distributions, coupled with challenges in matchday
and commercial activities, means a third consecutive
appearance may prove just out of reach next year.

Colin Glassar
7 Posted 21/01/2016 at 07:43:01
Does this mean we can buy higher quality lawnmowers? And what's happened to these so-called investors? Are they really interested in buying us or is this just another West End show?
Mark Andersson
8 Posted 21/01/2016 at 07:51:48
Just to add on to Matt's post #5, in the Daily Mail online there were SEVEN separate stories bigging up the RedShite today. Media bias will keep all but the Sky favourites down where those fuckers think we should be.... That's why I hope Leicester City go on to win the league.

Martinez has been walking on thin ice for 3 years now and, although on paper we should be doing better, the fact remains we are doing what he did with Wigan. So this money table means nowt to me. Are we really going forward... or is it just an illusion because we play attractive offensive football for the neutrals to enjoy?

Chris James
9 Posted 21/01/2016 at 09:27:18
"The Toffees continue to generate the lowest commercial revenue in the Money League top 20 despite 10% growth to 㿀.1m (€26.4m). Agreements with Chang (shirt sponsorship) and Umbro (kit manufacturer) remain in place for the next edition of the Money League, making further development of the club's wider commercial activities important. However, these figures must be considered in context as Everton continue to outsource many of its commercial operations thus reducing the overall revenue figure but not the bottom line."
This is most interesting thing for me as it suggests what we all think here that we have a LOT of room to improve on commercial revenue. However, it does also evenhandedly mention that it isn't quite apples for apples as we outsource a chunk of stuff (like the Kitbag deal) the money isn't all logged in the same way other clubs do it.

John Audsley
10 Posted 21/01/2016 at 09:30:37
Gawd Colin I forgot about those investors... don't panic yet though as a close friend of mine tells me that the FFS fund cheque from 2004 will be in the post in the morning.

BK and Co have never let us down before.

Shane Corcoran
11 Posted 21/01/2016 at 09:59:25
John, on that FFS money, I remember it, but was there any attempt of an explanation given by the board as to what happened?
Dave Abrahams
12 Posted 21/01/2016 at 10:12:06
I think most of us on here are more interested in how much we spend, especially in this transfer window.
Teddy Bertin
13 Posted 21/01/2016 at 10:25:30
Matt (#5), can you give some examples of where/who in the media is saying that this year's Premier League is awful? – because the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United are not getting their way?

Everything I've seen from the media is about how this is one of the most exciting and unpredictable EPL ever. I've not seen anyone write a story saying that the league has been awful this season.

John Raftery
15 Posted 21/01/2016 at 11:30:45
Interesting that, contrary to what many believed, the money from the Europa League compensated for the drop in income from league placings. Unless we climb the league and/or have a long run in the FA Cup, it appears we will suffer a drop in overall income this season.

The prize money for the League Cup winners is £100,000 and for the runners up £50,000 so the immediate benefit to the club's finances if we win next Wednesday is minimal. We will of course receive money for the TV coverage of both semis and the final if we get there but this won't be enough to make up for the loss of European competition this season.

John Raftery
16 Posted 21/01/2016 at 11:34:01
Dave (#11) – I am more interested in who we buy rather than what we spend. Bringing in quality players who will improve the squad is much more important than throwing money away on players other clubs are desperate to offload.
Tony Abrahams
17 Posted 21/01/2016 at 12:07:04
It's going to be interesting to see what The Americanos do now. Surely The Board are giving us away too cheap when you read positive news like this!!!!!

Shane, as soon as I saw Chris Samuelson on the telly at The AGM, I thought he looked like an extra from Emmerdale. I'm sure there was an explanation given, and it just goes on the very long list of why a lot of people don't trust Bill Kenwright's Everton board.

John, we have got to bring in quality, especially since the rumours about us losing our own quality, just won't go away. I know football has always been a business but when you see the prize money on offer for the League Cup, it becomes obvious why winning doesn't seem to matter as much anymore.

John Jones
18 Posted 21/01/2016 at 12:16:15
Looking at the analysis of us it would seem out revenues next year will be down a fair bit.

We wont spend in the summer I will guarantee that now and we wont spend more than £6m of the Naismith money.

Mark my words next summer we receive record tv money, do this is how it goes. We spend roughly £30m on a few players (including a cb) then with roughly 10 days to go in the window Stones goes for circa £45m, thus meaning another £15m will go missing never to be seen again.

Am I just negative or cynical, sadly no im not. This is Evertons business model and it stinks. Its served us well for a time but it isn't sustainable eventually we will make expensive mistakes and we cant afford to do that.

Ernie Baywood
19 Posted 21/01/2016 at 12:28:22
Don't understand Deloitte's comment on outsourcing at all. Surely our revenue from outsourcing is still in there? It's just we receive fixed fees instead of based on sales? And how exactly does that not affect the bottom line?
Matt Traynor
20 Posted 21/01/2016 at 12:34:02
Teddy (#12), really poor examples I know, but basically Ladyman and Samuel in the Daily Mail are two that I read.

(Peril of living overseas is you tend to read what's not behind a paywall!)

Denis Richardson
21 Posted 21/01/2016 at 12:40:40
I seem to remember sometime in December we were told that American investors were beginning a 6-week period of exclusive Due Diligence. As we're now some 3 weeks into January, surely this period is coming to an end fairly soon (if not already, given they started before Xmas...).

Anyone got any updates? Or is this more guff conveniently timed to coincide with the January transfer window. (Or am I being too cynical?)

Tony J Williams
22 Posted 21/01/2016 at 12:45:49
Denis, the transfer window is still open and the sales of half season tickets are still going....

Taps nose conspiratorially....

Thomas Lennon
23 Posted 21/01/2016 at 12:52:09
Deloitte figure refers to total amount of money passing through the club. If those businesses we outsource turnover 㾶 million of 'our' business then pay us ١ million we can only record the ١ million at the moment.

If we ran that business in-house we would record it as 㾶 million revenue (pushing us up past Newcastle in Deloitte figures) but the bottom line (profit) would still be ١ million.

I think that's a fair approximation of our financial situation in this respect?

John Raftery
24 Posted 21/01/2016 at 13:04:57
John 16 - our revenues this season may well be down if we finish mid table and don't have a long run in the FA Cup. Our revenues along with those of all Premier League teams will increase significantly next season with the extra TV money coming in so we will be spending big in the summer on transfers and extending the contracts of the players we wish to keep. The fact the TV money will be received a month earlier than normal makes that a certainty.
Ged Simpson
25 Posted 21/01/2016 at 13:31:51
Who cares? The money just goes in the pockets of stupidly overpaid young men. Would like to see the money for the whole PL and Euro leagues plummet. Is the PL more enjoyable on the whole since huge TV money? No. They are wimps and the game just becomes an ever lasting debate on TV recorded ref decisions. And the rest of us end up arguing about fair/biased comments from overpaid pundits.

I have no link to Deulofeu, Mirallas or Lukaku apart from they are humans and play in a blue shirt. They live in a different world.

Every time I see this rich list, I realise I am as stupid as the rest of you to be suckered again my this huge ripoff. It is a reason I would never pay a league price home or away and nick the TV coverage.

Rant over... for now!

Raymond Fox
26 Posted 21/01/2016 at 13:42:11
At least we haven't regressed, last year was a certainty to be an improvement on recent years.

Just look how far we are behind we are the 'usual suspects' in our league though, that's a very large mountain to climb. The owners are going to have to take an almighty gamble and invest a large fortune in the team next season to break the glass ceiling. On past experience I'm not holding my breath.

Where the hell have the American potential buyers of the club disappeared to? I don't think we would see a radical change if they indeed bought the club, I'm not 100% in favour of them actually, more like 60%, lining their own pockets will be their priority.

As far as the commercial side of the club is concerned, we need to win something first before we are that marketable. That's going to have to be a Cup, in the short term.

Garry Taylor
27 Posted 21/01/2016 at 13:46:37
Thomas (#21), Very well put and explains the situation perfectly.

IMO it was the correct approach to take during the credit crunch as it guaranteed the club a fixed income regardless if the outsourced company performed or not. However, I would like to Club to review its position going forward.

The top 20 money league is pointless in a lot of respects, yes it shows how much revenue a club makes but it doesn't report profit. If your costs outweigh your revenue it doesn't really matter where you sit in the top 20.

Our revenue will increase significantly next year, with the new record TV deal coming in, but inevitably players and transfer fees will increase and the status quo on profit / loss will remain the same.

Phil Smith
28 Posted 21/01/2016 at 13:55:46
My sister used to work for Everton but now she works for the enemy and she says the difference in commerce, vision and facilities is astounding. Everton look like amateurs in comparison. Still a long way to go if we are to get higher or even stay on that list.
Brian Harrison
29 Posted 21/01/2016 at 14:43:47
I saw one of the other lists that Deloitte put together was just revenue from gate receipts. Arsenal were top of this list with over £100 million. I bet Man Utd were non too pleased seeing Arsenal's ground holds 16,000 fewer seats, although maybe they can say, "Well, at least we don't rip our fans off as much as Arsenal."
Joe Foster
30 Posted 21/01/2016 at 15:07:36
Hopefully we don't end up in 18th position in the Premier League. But just think of the bragging down the boozer, "Well at least we came 18th in the money league, you meff."
Thomas Lennon
31 Posted 21/01/2016 at 15:09:47
Garry (#25), I completely agree – but it goes further back than the current recession. Everton struggled to make ANY profit from merchandising until the outsourcing took place. We have never invested in a professional approach to merchandising in-house and outsourcing was the correct decision at the time.

We should however have not been resting on our laurels and should have been aiming to get the operation back in house when practical – hiring experienced staff from the outsourced operation if needs be.

I suspect that we simply lack the facilities at GP. One of the reasons why we need a drastic upgrade of GP is to provide much more space for this operation and others. Stacking seating onto the present very limited footprint is not the answer to this!

Steavey Buckley
33 Posted 21/01/2016 at 16:19:32
Everton appear to Dolittle with the Deloitte Money.
Ged Simpson
34 Posted 21/01/2016 at 16:19:54
Like it, Joe!
Dave Abrahams
35 Posted 21/01/2016 at 16:25:37
John Rafferty (#15) yes John I agree with you, I want quality players as well, but John you will not get quality players unless you spend decent money to get them.

Of course, Everton being Everton, or Kenwright's spending plans, we are most likely to get one or two on loan, we'll wait and see.

Scott Goin
36 Posted 21/01/2016 at 16:28:04
We should absolutely be transferring our merchandising in-house. 5 years ago, it would have been a risky thing to do but now Everton are in a much better financial situation. We can handle the start-up costs related to merchandising and with the increased TV deals and exposure around the world, turnover should only increase going forward.

If Everton do end up with the American buyers, it'll be interesting to see how they plan to handle merchandising, the stadium, and general infrastructure. One thing's for sure, they will ONLY care about making money and improving Everton's financial valuation. These are businessmen, they aren't going to be putting in their own money. If they decide to build a new stadium, it'll be through outside investment and a big pile of debt. That being said, you have to spend money to make money. The eventual reward of improved infrastructure and merchandising should outweigh any initial cost. Everton likely can't continue competing in the top half of the Premier League with the status quo.

John Jones
37 Posted 21/01/2016 at 17:53:40
Look at how far ahead of us Tottenham are, they are about to embark on building a new 61,000 capacity stadium. We are well and truly adrift of the fold, the current board haven't invested a single penny into the club since Day One. It is an absolute travesty that we haven't pushed then harder into either selling up or putting up. We genuinely have been conned.

I actually feel sorry for the Blue Union guys, a group I've never been involved in. They actually started raising issues and fans attention, but then we finished 5th and the majority of fans seemed to think we where some kind of mini English Barcelona, which thankfully is now beginning to look like the total shite it was from the off.

Colin Glassar
38 Posted 21/01/2016 at 18:21:30
Ged (#24), don't say that. Didn't you see poor Adebayor shopping in Primark with his personal skivvy (or was it Harrods)? And that poor soul who plays for WHU, the one who crashed his £200k Lamborghini into a wall?

Or what about our own gold Bentley player? I mean, give these guys a break, they suffer just as much as we mere mortals do.

Ged Simpson
39 Posted 21/01/2016 at 18:53:14
Sorry... so cruel, Colin.

Is it time for a bit of perspective or have Sky blinded us all ?

Martin Mason
41 Posted 21/01/2016 at 19:16:41
John @34,

It is very rare for a director to invest his own money into a large business – especially in a football club where the return on investment is basically non-existent. In fact, Everton's board would have to be stark raving mad to "invest" a penny into Everton.

There is also not a shred of evidence that this board hasn't been trying to sell the club to the best of its ability and the Kirkby enquiry found that the club was indeed for sale. Until recent heavy increases in Sky revenue, only an idiot would have bought the club.

There is this really bizarre alternative and that is that the board are actually doing a very good job for which they take no money out of the club. They put the money up when we demanded change and were then heroes; they will get their return when they sell and that is absolutely their right to do so.

Jackie Barry
42 Posted 21/01/2016 at 19:37:19
And if you believe that....
Tony Abrahams
43 Posted 21/01/2016 at 20:01:06
The Duke returns!
Martin Mason
44 Posted 21/01/2016 at 20:43:40
I've never been away, Tony.
Tony Abrahams
45 Posted 21/01/2016 at 21:00:09
I know Martin, but you have been talking football, instead of defending The Riggler, with your Riddles!
Peter McHugh
46 Posted 22/01/2016 at 00:22:45
Martin if the Director is a shareholder of the business surely most directors do use their own money to run the business. Doesn't seem like an alien concept to me.

On the question of football clubs, haven't directors of them for over 100 years invested their own money. Again doesn't seem unusual.

Take if further that a director is also a staunch supporter of the club. Wouldn't you consider it unusual not to put your own money in? I would.

Helen Mallon
47 Posted 22/01/2016 at 07:37:39
I have thought long and hard about this next statement: I don't want a takeover. I just want the club to be run properly.

I would love a new ground, yes... but not at the expense of becoming a Man City or Chelsea – blow that.

I don't care if we finish 11th just so long as we go on cup runs – and if we have to sell players to keep afloat, so be it.

Thomas Lennon
48 Posted 22/01/2016 at 07:45:08
Another way of looking at this is perhaps if they ever get round to forming that European league they are going to use the top 20 clubs or so. This puts Everton right up there.

Of course, they might use Uefa ranking points instead but unlikely.

Martin Mason
49 Posted 22/01/2016 at 08:55:05
Peter, I didn't say it never happened only that it was rare especially when the amount of investment needed dwarfed what the directors have in assets. The only cases I know of it are when the club is a plaything and the investors are massively rich fans. Most directors take out, not put in, like Man Utd's, Levy hasn't put a penny into Spurs and he's mega rich. They aren't obliged to do so and they'd have been absolutely insane to do so in the case of Everton.

A challenge for you who feel the directors should put their money into the black hole: Put some of your own in and I'll act as broker. Yes, I thought not.

Eric Myles
50 Posted 22/01/2016 at 09:43:42
Martin (#46), get rid of BK and his mate's first then give us your address and I'll send you a cheque.
Derek Thomas
51 Posted 22/01/2016 at 10:02:24
Martin @46; many of us, you included no doubt, have been putting money into the club for years.

If all you ever bought is a program for 6d in 1962 you'd be ahead of the Board.

Eric Myles
52 Posted 22/01/2016 at 10:03:06
Peter (#43), Martin is of course ignoring our neighbours owners who are funding their stand redevelopments with interest free loans.

And also seems oblivious to the fact that Spurs are in the process of developing a new stadium and many other clubs in all leagues are either redeveloping or have already.

Meanwhile, our board do... what exactly??

Martin Mason
53 Posted 22/01/2016 at 10:21:39
Derek@48

But we pay as customers for a product rather than investors. Would you be happy if the board paid for their tickets?

Eric, the directors of Spurs and Liverpool aren't putting a cent of their own money into the clubs and even Abramovic is insistent on getting his money back. The reality is that the aim of the franchised clubs is only to take money out which our directors don't do.

What do our board do? They are responsible for making all decisions concerning the running the club, think about that.

I don't say that they run the club perfectly but I also don't agree with the often totally unjustifiable criticism that's aimed at them which amazingly only comes from our supporters and then a very, very small percentage of them. I for one believe that they do a pretty good job considering the dire straits that we've been in. Remember that the board are the ones that have to be credited with the quality of the squad we have now, not Martinez; he has no financial decision-making capacity and is just a coach.

Ged Simpson
54 Posted 22/01/2016 at 10:32:19
There is a ring of truth about "...often totally unjustifiable criticism that's aimed at them which amazingly only comes from our supporters and then a very, very small percentage of them."

If you take all your views from TW you tend to think we are the unhappiest, most miserable supporters in the league.

There are just some loud loud moaners on here. In a Premier League that has lost it's soul and I increasingly hate, we are doing pretty well.

Tony Abrahams
55 Posted 22/01/2016 at 10:40:14
Martin 46, you sound like you belong on Everton's board mate. Put some of your own money in and I'll act as a broker, Why the thought not right after?
Martin Mason
56 Posted 22/01/2016 at 10:48:37
I agree, Ged, I get slagged a lot for my views but I see myself as a supporter and that as a supporter I should be as positive or at least as constructively critical as possible, rather than just be negatively critical for the sake of it, as a few on here are.

We are surviving well in a league where, because of our weak financial situation, we never had any real potential to do well and, whatever our history, we have no right to expect success.

We are amazingly easy on the eye when we hit form and maddeningly frustrating when we give up winning situations but that is what being an Evertonian entails now.

Peter McHugh
57 Posted 22/01/2016 at 11:46:15
Martin, in the company where I am a director, of course I put my own money in. I also pay staff outgoings etc. Like I said, this is usual. I didn't choose to buy Everton so why would I give you money to act as a broker – what an odd reply. I have no interest in buying Everton.

Apart from Everton, I have never heard of a supporter buying the club and putting none of their money in. Feel free to reel off all the other clubs where this happens.

Eric Myles
58 Posted 22/01/2016 at 12:13:04
Ged (#51), totally unjustified criticism... like:

Fortress Sports Fund
Kings Dock
Desperation Kirkby
The ground will fail it's safety certificate etc. etc.

That sort of criticism?

Martin "the directors of Spurs and Liverpool aren't putting a cent of their own money into the clubs"

Wrong again Martin

"Liverpool expect to generate an extra 㿀m per season from the new main stand at Anfield and will fund the 𧴪m cost of the project with an interest-free loan from Fenway Sports Group, the club's owners."

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/04/liverpool-new-main-stand-anfield-corporate-seats

"Liverpool FC news: Anfield stadium construction begins with 𧴫m interest-free loan from FSG"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/11273448/Liverpool-FC-news-Anfield-stadium-construction-begins-with-115m-interest-free-loan-from-FSG.html

"Liverpool's American owners Fenway Sports Group, who also own US baseball team the Boston Red Sox and successfully modernised their Fenway Park Stadium, are effectively lending Liverpool the stadium expansion money in the form of an interest-free loan"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2909725/Liverpool-set-revenue-surge-25m-year-Anfield-expansion.html

"Club will fund Anfield redevelopment with €145m interest-free loan from owners FSG"

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/liverpool-expect-to-new-stand-to-generate-25m-per-season-1.2026147

Eric Myles
59 Posted 22/01/2016 at 12:15:16
FSG's Mike Gordon explained: "This project is so important to FSG for precisely the reason you mention: it's essential to the long-term future of the club."

If only we had owners concerned enough about the long term future of our Club to do something about it, eh?

Alex Bonnar
60 Posted 22/01/2016 at 12:25:33
Martin,

It's great to see such sensible, balanced points of view. So, what on earth are you doing on ToffeeWeb? Surely you appreciate that this belongs to time-served keyboard warriors who inhabit the fantasy world of 'Planet Everton' – where they are 'experts' on anything appertaining.

I hope that you continue trying, despite the odds, to maintain a semblance of fairness. For myself I have no inclination to try and help the blind to see.

Best wishes, Alex.

ps: The match reports are great.

Raymond Fox
61 Posted 22/01/2016 at 12:34:11
I would suggest that the clubs where owners are putting their own or their own companies money, into expansion projects as in Eric's examples look a very safe bet to pay off in the near future. It could not be said that Everton would be such a safe wager, could we attract more than 40,000 fans per home game?

I've said before though, that it's a chicken-and-egg situation with our club: we need considerably more investment in the squad to have a chance of breaking the glass ceiling and staying there. Once we started winning something, then we have the potential to attract more than our current attendances.

Ged Simpson
62 Posted 22/01/2016 at 13:17:36
Eric... what do you like about Everton? What have they done well?
Martin Mason
63 Posted 22/01/2016 at 13:45:15
Eric, they are investing in the certainty that they'll get a return on it. You're expecting Everton's owners to invest in the certainty that they will lose that money? Nobody is that stupid, Eric.

Now how about that investment from yourself if you support total loss contributions?

Peter McHugh
64 Posted 22/01/2016 at 13:57:18
Martin, there's no such thing as a sure thing in business. However, I don't understand why investing in Everton means you are likely or certain to have no return on your investment? The owners of us have not invested a single penny yet they stand to make a massive return if / when they sell. What's so risky?
Jay Harris
66 Posted 22/01/2016 at 14:49:08
Martin and Ged,

The reason so many supporters criticize the board is because of their apathy towards developing the club or even spending time on it and the constant stream of lies – let alone the continuous unexplained Other Operating Costs of £20 million plus, which was only £1 million when Kenwright took over.

It is one thing to be a shareholder but it is an entirely different matter to be a Director or Chairman. That brings responsibilities which quite a lot of us are not seeing performed.

Many shareholders take nothing out of their companies preferring to drive the share price up.

I would say that a profit of £180 million is more than enough for a £20 million investment over a 15-year period when you have sold or mortgaged every asset that you inherited.

Michael Kenrick
67 Posted 22/01/2016 at 15:54:07
Good post, Jay. Although the OOCs were explained by Elstone at one point a few years ago. Whether you accepted the explanation is another matter...

A bit like Martin. The issues that concern most fans who have taken an interest in the workings of the club have been presented to Martin repeatedly. He simply does not accept them as being valid concerns. However, his lack of concern doesn't stop them from being major issues for those who feel strongly that the custodians could have done a far, far better job.

While Ged has previous for not taking any of this stuff seriously... And Peter (#61), I'm not sure it's right to say the owners have not invested a single penny. In conventional terms, their £20 million purchase of shares is viewed as investment in the club... although, if you follow the money, it actually went to Peter Johnson. But that's how investment works in a capitalist system, is it not?

Iain Latchford
68 Posted 22/01/2016 at 15:57:40
What's happened to the takeover we were all reading about a few weeks ago???
Eric Myles
69 Posted 22/01/2016 at 16:18:26
So Martin (#60), glad to see that you agree that you were wrong about our neighbours owners "aren't putting a cent of their own money into the club".

But how can you be sure that they are certain to get a return? And if so why can't Everton get a return from spending ࡩ of the amount on developing Park End?

Shane Corcoran
70 Posted 22/01/2016 at 16:21:11
For what it's worth, this is from Phil McNulty on the BBC today:

"The latest, as I understand it, is that the process of going through Everton's finances is still ongoing with the US-led consortium headed by former owner of the San Diego Padres baseball team John Jay Moores and fellow entrepreneur Charles Noell.

"As far as I know the takeover is not racing ahead nor is it going backwards. And my information is that it has certainly not been called off.

"It takes time –: which is perfectly understandable when a potential 𧶀m takeover is involved. Important both parties get it right."

Patrick Murphy
71 Posted 22/01/2016 at 16:28:11
Thanks for that, Shane (#66).

Slowly but surely is the Everton FC Way. BTW, I tried to look for the piece you quoted and I can't find it on the BBC website –: have you got a link to it?

Patrick Murphy
72 Posted 22/01/2016 at 16:30:59
It's OK Shane (60) I found it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/34977133

Shane Corcoran
73 Posted 22/01/2016 at 16:32:07
Patrick, if you go here Link and scroll down to 14:10 you'll see it.
Eric Myles
74 Posted 22/01/2016 at 16:40:53
Ged (#59), they've done nothing well which is why I want Martin to remove the current board before I would consider giving him any money.
Scott Goin
75 Posted 22/01/2016 at 16:50:56
The current board have certainly made some glaring errors in judgement over the years. However, they've also done many good things and kept a fairly successful product on the the pitch. My feeling is that they have good instincts for player transfers, development and club cohesion. They tend to fail at business-related matters and long-term planning.

I expect any new owners will do better on the business side but I'm a little worried that they won't know enough to sustain or improve the on-field product. I don't want to be a club that ditches our manager the second we start losing. I don't want to pick up veterans off the trash heap and play them instead of youth just to get a few more points each season. The youth movement of Everton is vitally important to our future.

Also, as I've said previously, the chances that the new owners will finance the stadium and infrastructure with their own money are very slim. These are businessmen, not supporters or billionaire playboys. Looking at their finances, I doubt we would even get an interest-free loan from them. They aren't that rich.

I want this purchase of Everton to go through but I definitely have worries. I do think they can improve Everton's earning potential and Kenwright's reported bad health means the old group is on very shaky ground going forward. If something happened to BK, I could see the other guys just selling to anyone. With BK still around, I have some hope that he'll make sure the new owners have a positive, realistic plan in place.

Brian Harrison
76 Posted 22/01/2016 at 16:54:40
I think I read that the Due Diligence takes about 6 weeks, after that period they have to make an offer or the club goes back on the market. Should it be the Americans who buy the club, let's hope that they are better than the Glazers or Hicks and Gillette. All they did was leverage both clubs, although I understand that is no longer allowed.

Let's hope with the figures being quoted for the purchase of Lukaku, Stones and Barkley, they don't view it as an asset stripping exercise.

Michael Kenrick
77 Posted 22/01/2016 at 17:03:39
Since this OCC question seems to rear its head repeatedly, I thought I'd look and see what we had:

This from the EGM in June 2013:

CEO Robert Elstone then took up the issue of the club's financial performance and specifically addressed the controversial issue of "other operating costs" in the annual accounts. He expressed his surprise at the focus placed on that particular item when Everton are the only Premier League club that discloses those costs.

Nevertheless, he showed figures breaking down the expenses and attributing them to various costs like business bar wages, image rights, travel and player accommodation, the upkeep of Goodison, insurance charges, etc.

There is another comment that Elstone went into more detail (lawnmowers?) at some other fan meeting that I can't trace...

While I think the origin of the infamous 'lawnmowers' attribution was in Elstone blog on the Official Everton Website from 4 years ago, that we reported as Elstone attempts to clarify the numbers – except that the one set of numbers he didn't clarify were the Other Operating Costs.

Denis Richardson
78 Posted 22/01/2016 at 17:11:40
Brian, I don't think they'd be foolish enough to sell off the family silver for a quick buck. After all, the playing staff and our league status are the only valuable things we actually have. Sell off the star players (without decent reinvestment) and the club goes down the tubes in no time.

In saying that, I would be happy to sell off the odd star here and there if the funds were put towards finally solving the stadium issue – eg, redevelop GP over 5-7 years. We've admittedly been saying it for years now but the Old Lady's going to start crumbling down at some point, never mind increasing corporate income and sorting out the viewing.

Eric Myles
79 Posted 22/01/2016 at 17:31:33
Brian (#72), what's the difference between new owners 'asset-stripping' those players and our current owners who have history of doing the same thing?
Kevin Tully
80 Posted 22/01/2016 at 17:34:53
Quite simply, your view the board of Everton FC depends on where people think we should be as one of the finest, original old clubs of English football and an ever present member of the Premier League.

If you believe that never being relegated and sometimes flirting with the second competition of European football is a great success, then the board have done everything that could be expected of them.

My personal view is that they should have addressed the stadium issue years ago (three failed ground moves surely says this board are a failure??) and the fact we haven't won anything for 21 years is another sad indictment of their tenure. It's clear their only ambition is survival. Some supporters are also content with survival – that's their view and they are entitled to it.

If anyone thinks that record is good enough, I won't waste my time debating with them. This is before we even discuss the business side of the club, which is an absolute shambles. It's public knowledge the club were offered improved shirt sponsorship terms, and turned that company away to stay with Chang. No other club in the Premier League has had a shirt sponsor for 13 years, are they all wrong? Many Premier League matches take place without a match sponsor – incredible.

It's a well known fact that Bill & Co have turned away opportunities to sell the club in the past, they have also been offered investment which has been declined. This is his biggest crime. I see BK as a caretaker owner who should have left a decade ago. The man himself admitted he can't take the club forward, so why do so many still want him here? It's a bizarre case of thousands of Blues being over-sentimental.

Eric Myles
81 Posted 22/01/2016 at 17:41:16
Micheal (#73), Elstone may have attempted an answer at OOCs in 2013 but wasn't the question raised around 2002 and there had been no attempt at clarification from the Club until Elstone's botched "lawnmower" excuse you refer to above?
Phil Walling
82 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:01:19
Well spoken Jay! I think it fair to say that BK has managed HIS asset (his shares) very well indeed.

His only achievement for the CLUB is choosing managers who have kept us in the top flight. Perhaps his wish to get rid right now is because he shares our uncertainty about where the present manager will take us.

Martin Mason
83 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:06:13
Why is there so much confusion over the meaning of "other operating costs" and some kind of unquantified nod and wink that because some as individuals don't understand what it means that it must be a sleight of hand by which the board takes money out of the club? It doesn't matter that they have increased because that depends only on how they are defined at any given time.

Other operating costs are costs incurred in running the club that aren't included in other line items in the accounts and they are available for any authorised concern such as the auditors to inspect and, as they did, approve the accounts.

Eric, do you understand the difference between an interest free loan from a Company and a director putting his own money into the club? Have you also ever thought that Liverpool and it's financial model are in any way the same as ours?

As I see that none of you critics will put a cent of your own money into the club I take it that you completely agree with our directors not putting a cent of theirs in. Thank you.

The only common thread that I see between much of the nod and wink criticism offered against the board is that it is completely unsupported by any inconvenience like fact or a shred of evidence, shame on you.

Winston Williamson
84 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:28:47
It's a futile attempt to argue against Kenwright's past deeds, whichever side of the argument you fall on.

Supporters of Kenwright cannot give any valid argument (backed up with hard facts) about his ownership being successful.

Opponents of Kenwright can present arguments based on quotes, comparisons, accounts, experience etc... but it changes nothing... the past cannot be re-written!

Best concentrate on the future (made easier by the prospect of the club being bought).

Martin Mason
85 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:29:49
Kevin

How do you see the club having made this transition from basket case to success?

Magic wand? Money tree? :-)

David Graves
86 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:30:50
Martin, I am indeed a critic but I do "invest" in the club by purchasing season tickets. I don't know of any other way to invest so your argument is completely irrelevant.
Martin Mason
87 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:34:00
Eric, there has not been one example of asset-stripping by the current owners because asset-stripping requires that the money acquired from the sale of the assets was removed from the club to the gain of the strippers. EFC used the sale of assets to keep the club afloat and to buy players. The owners have taken no money from the club or perhaps you can identify what it was?
Patrick Murphy
88 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:38:25
Martin (79) The people who have run Everton for the past sixteen years have never had an annual assesment that didn't begin with "must do better", or "Failed to grasp key elements", or "Lack of focus led to misguided decisions", this despite the fact that TV money has arrived into the Goodison coffers every single year without fail.

The current owners are nearing the end of their time at the club and not soon enough in my view. What we get to replace them we don't and can't know, it may be worse it may be better we'll have to wait and see, but it can't be that much worse than we've suffered for sixteen years can it? of course if they do get it wrong there will be those who will sit back smugly and trot out the "I told you so's".

Who knows the new people may be a tad more ambitious for the club and therefore more in line with the majority of supporters who are fed up to the back teeth of the lowering of standards on and off the pitch and the tacit acceptance of mediocrity that has surrounded Goodison Park for far too long.

Winston Williamson
89 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:39:44
Martin, I notice you shoot people down for presenting opinion or assumption as facts, however, you are guilty of this yourself:

EFC used the sale of assets to keep the club afloat and to buy players. The owners have taken no money from the club or perhaps you can identify what it was?

Can you provide evidence for your assertions?

Tony Hill
90 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:47:26
FSG is in effect a Director of Liverpool through the natural person of John Henry, as is customary with parent companies. The point is that Kenwright and Co have never been prepared to invest structurally in the advance of the club because they do not have the resources, and such resources as they have mustered have been the result of manoeuvring on a relatively small (though rather high interest) scale.

More's the pity, then, that the Board so mismanaged, through the unsatisfactory and central involvement of Paul Gregg in the scheme, the major opportunity Everton had to propel itself into the Premier League elite via the Kings Dock Scheme. There were indeed other factors in the consortium's collapse but the dithering and compromised position of the board were crucial.

It's why Mrs France in her recent interview so laments this failure and why she said BK had stayed on about 13 years too long. Too true, there's been no asset stripping – they've never troubled to create the assets.

Martin Mason
91 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:54:47
Winston, I quote this directly from the article by the wife of Dr Everton (The Times they are a Changing). As I have never seen any credible evidence to the contrary and the accounts have never shown such a payment to the directors then I accept that it is correct. Feel free to correct me.
Martin Mason
92 Posted 22/01/2016 at 18:59:42
Tony, the interest that Everton have paid on their loans is peanuts. I work for a Company called GKPI with massive reserves in Kurdistan and we're paying 13%.

Please remember that the concept that the board mismanaged anything or that any involvement by Paul Gregg was in anyway unsatisfactory is your opinion only. The reality was that Everton were never in any position to make Kings Dock happen, it was a Bill dream that we swallowed.

Tony Hill
93 Posted 22/01/2016 at 19:05:08
Martin, I do not suggest that the interest is globally significant but it has been / is uncomfortable for Everton notably through the Vibrac indebtedness. I'm afraid you will find that the view that I have expressed about the Kings Dock is shared by many other Evertonians who followed the whole shambles very closely indeed.
Martin Mason
94 Posted 22/01/2016 at 19:12:52
Tony, I'm sorry mate, I believe we were deluded over Kings Dock as we had no money and nobody ever said that we did or that it was ring-fenced.

That we are disappointed how things have gone doesn't mean that it has been the fault of the board. In football, the expectation of fans always exceeds the ability of any board to deliver. The reality is that as fans we are irrational and live on dreams while boards have to live with reality and deal with creditors and the ego of players.

Winston Williamson
95 Posted 22/01/2016 at 20:32:16
Martin, I'm arguing neither for nor against Kenwright's ownership. I'm quite past these endless debates.

I was merely pointing out (in the interest of balance) that you yourself make assumptions and pass opinion as fact.

Again, your source for information is based on an article, but not exactly a factual source. Dr Everton's wife was merely stating her opinion...

Dick Fearon
96 Posted 22/01/2016 at 20:50:49
Brian (#72),

Having witnessed an American takeover of a highly profitable Australian company that employed 3,000, I share your concern that we could also be a target of an asset-stripping exercise. Immediately the yanks bought the business, huge loans were taken for much more than the buy-out cost. This was followed by a storewide sale of stock that was never replenished.

The next step is resignations at board level as the perps run for the hills with their ill-gotten loot. What remains is the shell of a once thriving business and thousands of soon-to-be retrenched loyal workers.

To me this seems very similar to the G&H debacle across the park.

Tony Hill
97 Posted 22/01/2016 at 21:14:57
Dick, I am prepared to take the chance, however, because the status quo is intolerable and doomed. I am afraid that if we wait for the perfect buyer, we will be waiting forever.

This would not be, moreover, the purchase of a failing business, rather the reverse given the broadcasting investment and the massive potential of a club like ours. I am actually encouraged that these people are taking their time and I believe that the potential for intelligent American investment is enormous.

Tim Howard is not my favourite but he, Donovan and McBride have helped to create a serious base for us in the States. If we get proper investors from that country then I think the possibilities are vast. We have already got a very sound fan base in America (as we see on here) and the fact that Lerner and G&H proved to be hopeless means nothing.

I am quietly encouraged – I just hope that those currently looking at the books can see beyond them to the wonderful opportunity they could be able to realise.

Peter McHugh
98 Posted 22/01/2016 at 22:17:07
Michael, for clarification the owners have never invested a single penny in the business. They did, of course, buy the club off Johnson and later took Gregg out.

I haven't actually criticised owners just the statement by Martin suggesting it's highly unusual for owners to invest their own money and that only madmen or playboy billionaires would. I vehemently disagree.

I also don't understand what Martin is on about throwing money down a drain although it is hugely amusing that he keeps repeating it like there's no comeback and justifies his stance. Each to their own.

I mostly agree with Scott's post in 71 and share the same concerns although can't say like him that I want this deal to go through. I don't know anything about it and am frightened by it in all honesty.

Eric Myles
99 Posted 23/01/2016 at 04:17:01
Martin #79 & 83, what part of 'the owners are funding the redevelopment from their own funds' makes you think that they are not using their own money??

Asset-stripping does not necessarily entail taking money out of the Club to put into the pockets of the board, and only you in your obtuse arguments suggest that is what has happened. In its simplest form, asset-stripping is the selling off of assets; another definition is selling off assets to pay debt, especially debt that the owners have created.

Does this apply to our board? Most definitely.

Martin Mason
100 Posted 23/01/2016 at 08:57:09
Eric, selling assets and paying off debts isn't stripping only changing of state and is often done for benefit. You can't have it all ways.

If they are selling assets to pay off debts that have been created for the running of the club especially for buying players (the actual case) then good on them.

I note your nod-and-wink insinuation that the debts would have been created for the benefit of the board. Again this is a totally baseless insinuation.

Winston Williamson
101 Posted 23/01/2016 at 09:13:03
Martin,

If they are selling assets to pay off debts that have been created for the running of the club especially for buying players (the actual case) then good on them. I note your nod-and-wink insinuation that the debts would have been created for the benefit of the board. Again this is a totally baseless insinuation.

About as baseless as your insinuation... how do you know (as fact) that asset sales paid for debt paid for the purchase of players? It could just as easily have paid for the costs entailed in two failed ground move schemes... which on your words were never going to happen?

Martin Mason
102 Posted 23/01/2016 at 10:14:28
Winston, either way the debt was created or the money was spent for the benefit of the club and not the board, that's the difference. The accounts have shown no payments of that magnitude to the directors but have clearly stated that the directors take no remuneration for their duties.

Remember in all of this that the null hypothesis is that the directors are acting at all times in the interest of the club and not siphoning money out. It is absolutely on the accusers to demonstrate that the null hypothesis is not correct and nods, winks and conspiracy theories demonstrate nothing.

Don't get me wrong, like 99.99% of our supporters I know nothing of what is happening at the detailed level in the running of the club. That's why I don't raise accusations that I can't substantiate, I support the club in any way that I can and that means not dragging it down with such accusations unless I have very good grounds to do so.

Winston Williamson
103 Posted 23/01/2016 at 11:07:36
Martin, I agree that making a statement that the club's owners have taken money from the club (without any evidence) can only be based on assumptions or opinion.

Equally, making statements that the owners have not taken a penny from the club (without any evidence) can only be based on assumptions or opinion.

Owners who knew what they were doing, could (key word) be able to profit from the club by some means, without it being shown up in the accounts or labelled by the auditors as fraudulent.

However, I'm not saying the above paragraph is true, just possible, even if the possibility is remote and unlikely...

I'm merely trying to highlight that the argument is futile... for both sides!

We should be concentrating on the future, starting with three points against Swansea!

Martin Mason
104 Posted 23/01/2016 at 11:54:31
Winston, I feel that as a default we have to be fair to people because the internet gives us a forum to make totally unfounded accusations and yet the accused has no right of response. I'd say that fairness is that people are innocent unless shown to be guilty which is just the same as the Null hypothesis being innocence not guilt.

My intent is not to argue about the competence of the board in general because that is too subjective but to show some fairness as a partial balance to the grossly unfair stuff that is thrown at them.

Eric Myles
105 Posted 23/01/2016 at 13:50:58
Martin (#96), I have never insinuated anything of the kind, it has always brought up the red herring of board wrongdoing as you don't have anything to substantiate your opinion.

History shows we have sold assets: Bellefield, Arteta, to name a couple, to pay off debt to the banks. The definition of asset-stripping is substantiated.

Eric Myles
106 Posted 23/01/2016 at 13:54:48
It has always been you, Martin, that brings up board wrongdoing as a red herring in discussions.
Martin Mason
107 Posted 23/01/2016 at 14:21:22
Eric, you're begining to sound like a bad wife.
Paul Ellam
110 Posted 23/01/2016 at 15:32:44
All this money sloshing around and we still struggle to sign top drawer players without selling top drawer players first to get them!

As I am led to believe, we had approximately £17M ready to spend on Yarmolenko last summer, add that to the £8.5M we just got for Naismith and any other funds we had and yet apparently we aren't prepared to go back for Yarmolenko this transfer window!! Surely we have more than enough to get him now, even if it's on a pay-now-but-loan-back-til-summer deal?

Or, as some other posters have posted, are we going to see yet more money disappear into the Everton sinkhole? I'm fed up of being "rich" but shopping like paupers!

Eric Myles
111 Posted 23/01/2016 at 16:35:14
So Martin, you've once again been proven wrong and have no answer but invective.
Martin Mason
115 Posted 23/01/2016 at 18:00:45
As promised a couple of definitions and a comment

Oxford dictionary
The practice of taking over a company in financial difficulties and selling each of its assets separately at a profit without regard for the company's future.

SFO
Asset stripping is taking company funds or assets of value while leaving behind the debts.
Company directors transfer only the assets of one company to another and not the liabilities. The result is a dormant company with large liabilities that cannot be met and it has to be put into liquidation

Wiki
Asset stripping is a method in which a company or an individual, known as a corporate raider, attains control of another company, and then auctions off the acquired Company's assets.

Q finance
the purchase of a company whose market value is below its asset value, usually so that the buyer can sell the assets for immediate gain. The buyer usually has little or no concern for the purchased company's employees or other stakeholders, so the practice is generally frowned upon.

Asset stripping is accepted as a financial malpractice to take advantage of a situation where a Company's assets are worth more than the company and it is taken over with no beneficial thought to the company or its stakeholders.

Selling or leasing assets to pay off club (not individual) debt or buy players as EFC did is not asset stripping but is corporate or financial restructuring and was carried out for the benefit of the Company not any member of the board. There has been no asset stripping at Everton.

Ged Simpson
116 Posted 23/01/2016 at 18:01:45
What surprises me is the effort put into an argument you all seem to concede you know naff all about. Hey ho....each to their own
Martin Mason
117 Posted 23/01/2016 at 18:17:44
Ged, for me the good thing about discussion is that I learn from it. When I read about the KD criticism I found about what really happened and it isn't the accepted wisdom, when I read the DK outrage I read the history of it and the final government report and realised that few really knew what happened. When I read accusations now I find out the background so that I can discuss it.

I still know nothing much, just a little bit more than I did. I hope that I can somehow counterbalance criticism where it isn't correct and add something to the knowledge of others at the same time.

I hope that I can accept the views of others where they are valid. Not necessarily supported by evidence in blood but having decent credibility. :-)

Eric Myles
119 Posted 23/01/2016 at 18:52:05
Martin (#109), ALL those definitions you provide apply to our board – they took over a company with a nett positive asset position and turned it into one with a nett negative asset position!!
Martin Mason
120 Posted 23/01/2016 at 18:59:27
Eric, none of those definitions apply and how you are reacting now is exactly the reason why I didn't want to discuss it any further with you. Add something to the discussion in a rational and civilised manner or I'll be blanking you.
Eric Myles
121 Posted 23/01/2016 at 19:02:40
Shane #107, Martin has a history on this board of not accepting that he's wrong even when presented with the credible proof that he pretends to seek

Thus he continues with his fingers in his ears singing nanananananana, until posters get bored with his lack of recognition of the facts and give up in frustration, then he claims victory.

So everyone but Martin is an idiot in his world.

Eric Myles
122 Posted 23/01/2016 at 19:04:19
See what I mean Shane??
Peter Howard
123 Posted 23/01/2016 at 22:10:45
Martin,

Whilst you've got your dictionary out, look up 'Asperger's Syndrome'.

Martin Mason
124 Posted 23/01/2016 at 22:30:13
Peter, I have a daughter who is autistic. I understand about the autistic spectrum.

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