Everton remain in Deloitte Money League top 20

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

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...

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).

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.

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?

"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."

BK and Co have never let us down before.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Taps nose conspiratorially....

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?

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

"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."

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

Magic wand? Money tree? :-)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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. :-)

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.

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