Based on the financial reports, wages, transfers etc, it seems reasonable to assume they are budgeting for a higher-placed finish to cover the expenditure.

But still, the submission of the detailed Bramley-Moore Dock planning application should surely deliver good news in the next 50 days, shouldn't it? I mean, after all, what could possibly go wrong?

As they say in the antipodes “It's Sydney or the bush”.

Players-wise, I think there will be much more of "sell before we buy" going on in the next few windows.

It's a reality check of the business that is Everton FC. A great deal is at stake.

That is why, in my opinion, the 3 points yesterday was so vitally important. As the saying goes, there is literally “everything to play for”.

I can see a big push to offload Directors, internal management, deadwood players coming in the next two months and the early part of next year. Any providers of finance will demand it. What Moshiri has inadvertently done is to give them all a very expensive rope to hang themselves.

I think that the new stadium development, first muted in 2016, is very much up for grabs. What we have had up to now is a PR stunt with balloons, where the aim was to flush out money, which included Moshiri's contribution. For Kenwright & Co, it was all systems go in 2016, flush with a considerable cash injection. The outcome and performance of which is about to be revealed.

We are all well aware of the resulting constraints in the transfer market, and it has dawned on some that Everton is not a priority career move for many. The last thing Everton needs at the moment is a change of Manager, not that there are many that would want the job anyway.

The main hope is that Silva can turn performances around enough, despite his erratic management, to get Everton safely midtable and with his short-span motivated squad to get them to play to their utmost in one-off Club matches. It could be that a young squad needs the closer winning post of Cup runs, rather than the drudgery of a climb up the Premier League table every season. As least Brands is already working on the wages bill.

I am of the opinion that necessary change is always accompanied by inevitable setbacks, where the stark reality of the situation provides its own momentum for change.

Everton are now approaching this critical juncture or, in modern terms, growth crisis, which Everton can push on from next season.

I understand all the words but not in the order you have arranged them.

Do you need a new stadium, well tell me who got the stadium, before on the field success, Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Man City (but had the benefit of being given one) all had success before stadiums. Chelsea have had huge success without a new stadium, admittedly with a billionaire backing them. The stadiums just allow you to maximise the monetary benefits of on the field success. Has West Ham's new stadium brought them success? - No, not at all.

Do Everton need a new stadium, yes because Goodison cant keep continuing at all, will Everton ever get success before a new stadium - no one has got a clue. I personally believe every successful club needs a Top Top Manager to deliver it, a Klopp, Guardiola, Pochettino, Wenger, a Rogers, and it looks like at the moment that Lampard might prove to become one.

Will Silva become one? I haven't got a clue, but I don't think he's got it, to be honest. I think Moshiri will give him till the end of the season, as the summer recruitment didn't work out as planned and together with injuries to Gbamin, Bernard, Gomes and Delph for most of the time, and add Mosie Kean's failure to date then it just hasn't worked out for Silva. Moshiri will support a new Stadium planning application but with a plan that will minimise spending over the next 6 months and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up like Spurs' satdium, 1 year late delivery, and it won't be ready till the 2024-25 season.

"Profit & Loss account situation, it is unlikely in the extreme that we will see significant inward transfer activity involving highly valued players this summer"

Completely contradicted ofcourse as the club went on to make a series of acquisitions and had a number of high value failed bids.

I wrote in reply to that column that I disagreed with the financial analysis. Instead, I felt we would be restrained not because of financial reasons but footballing reasons - the squad was still bloated and I saw no way of trimming it significantly.

I too was wrong - Brands achieved a significant clear out to make room for the 6 new arrivals + permanent transfer of Gomes. We might have added Doucoure and Zaha too.

We have perpetually been facing a crisis off the field, in the eyes of some, since Moshiri arrived. The reality has proven that we are in significantly better shape, financially and commercially, than before he arrived. Each window has seen us surprise people with our transfer activity. This is because they have been proven wrong in how committed Moshiri still is. In addition, in Ryazantsev, Everton have a Chief Financial & Commercial Officer who is very capable.

On the pitch, different story. A footballing nightmare has unfolded under Moshiri's watch.

Crisis off the pitch? No.

Crisis on the pitch? Yes. Silva was the wrong man. People have tried to pin the blame on Brands (wrong). It is Silva, and Moshiri (who chased him) who are to blame for our current state.

Excellent dispassionate overview of where we are on and off the pitch.

I'm personally expecting a delay in the planning application, I've got no evidence why this should be, other than the fact that the club has mentioned very little about funding sources. We've had lots of pretty pictures and animations and that's about all.

On the pitch, despite the result at Southampton, I think we're about to be taken apart in December. If we can come away with 2 pts from Liverpool, Leicester City, Chelsea and Man Utd, we'd be lucky. I'm not fooled by us beating a very slow and passive Southampton.

If we experience a good stuffing from the above fixture run, will there be any fire left in them? We then face Leicester City again and then Man City. It's a grim picture and there's no other way of painting it.

I thought we did well getting loads of players out of the club, but I was a bit disappointed in our recruitment though, unless it’s true that we have now got a long term plan?

Daft question now I think about it but we could try to shame them at the first glimmer of doubt about the project!

Is Usmanov on board?

I guess whether all that amounts to 'not inconsiderable dosh' will depend on one's circumstances!

Were do you live mate? Haven't you heard on the local grapevine regarding major problems with Bramley-Moore Dock. Word is its not going to happen and this information is not from mischievous Kopites. I have said from Day One it won't happen and it looks like it now won't.

He has a lot of coin jingling around in his deep pockets, that apparently Moshiri doesn't have.

Some might say Uzbek gangster, but Moshiri made his fortune by being Uzmanov's accountant?

Does it really matter which one of them owns club?

It makes sense at some point Usmanov might get involved, especially if Moshiri can't get the deal the club wants from the banks.

We were 8th in the Premier League with £58.5m of net Spend in the summer. A pretty hefty number. The club did well in the window – disposing of non-first-team players like Lookman, Vlasic and Onyekuru and buying first-teamers in their place (perhaps Kean excepted).

In here – this is where Paul the Esk's analysis usually fails. A P&L and balance sheet does not include the market value of our squad. We have fringe players who can be disposed of for cash without harming the balance of the first XI.

You ask about our long term model and I think it is based on bringing through Academy players and unheralded young talent and either integrating them in the first XI or selling them for profit. That strategy sits alongside the purchases of more seasoned first-teamers.

Terry #25, Kenwright sold his shares for £36.75 mill, Woods for £33.25 mill and Earl for £42 mill.

What gives me hope is that Moshiri is a businessman and, whilst I am sure he now counts himself as a fan, I cannot help but feel he is in this for the money-making potential whilst getting a kick out of what he could build here.

As for Usmanov, I am with Tony Abraham's in believing that he will be involved. His company could make a fortune in helping to construct the stadium and him firstly buying Farhads shares in Arsenal and then selling the lot intrigues me. He is supposedly worth around £13 billion so didn't really need the £500m he received for his Arsenal shares. He has allowed that sale to gather some dust now, the speculation has given way to fresher events worldwide. allowing his profile to settle back into the shadows.

My guess, which is purely a guess, is that once Planning Permission is granted, he will come to the fore and help his mate with what will be a historical event which will ensure that the men involved will forever be remembered in the city. He has £500m going spare from the sale of Arsenal shares without needing to dip into his piggy bank – time will tell.

If you know what I mean.

On a more serious note I think they will make a lot more money out of the whole regeneration scheme, so I hope they're not using the blues just to get in bed with Peel Holdings, because I think Laurie comes up with the correct phrase when he describes it as MEGA!

Well written and well researched, I asked on another thread do you think that the Government upping the % rate that councils could borrow at has effected the speed of our planning application. I would have thought that, with Moshiri's background, the financing of the stadium would have been in place before we purchased the land.

Also, I think if push comes to shove, a loan would be done via a vehicle for Usmanov's (rather than Moshiri's) money. I have a suspicion (no evidence for it) that Usmanov's involvement will be limited to financing the stadium and that he will make a pretty penny in doing so.

You may well be right about us moving on from the idea of borrowing the money from the council. But I thought the deal offered by the City council was a win win situation, great for the City as it was making £7 million a year in interest payments and it allowed Everton to proceed with the application knowing the money was in place.

I hear all the rumours about Alisher Usmanov and certainly we have taken his money to buy Finch Farm. And I am sure he would not turn down the chance to make money out of any deal involving his company putting up the money. But as for him becoming actively involved in the club I don't see that happening. He has stated on many occasions he is an Arsenal supporter, and although he failed in his bid to get control from Kronke, I cant see him wanting to take over at Everton.

First and foremost, these types of people are supporters of money more than they are supporters of a team.

He may well have watched the Gooners in relation to his investment in them, but if he makes the same investment in us, he'll want us to win just like he did the Gooners.

There are always rumors but “the grapevine” saying “it's not going to happen” is pretty weak. Why exactly won't it happen? What is the issue? Who is sharing this info? If you want to spread doom and gloom, at least flesh out your story.

They'd need to be looking at the club from a completely different view to the rest of us to want us to not have a gleaming new stadium, considering the state of Goodison Park.

I'm definitely in the pessimistic group about it's chances of happening, but then I don't know any truly optimistic blues, this club grinds you down.

The only rumour, and I stress the word 'rumour', is that it is going to be difficult and expensive to fill in the dock.

Some people are putting two and two together with how long it is taking to go to Planning Permission that it will not go ahead.

There are no indications or rumours coming out of the club that it will not proceed so lets wait and see.

The planning application will be the first litmus test.

My main concern is not that it won't be built but that 52,000 is totally unambitious but this is Everton we're talking about and since John Moores passed we have lacked any ambition.

I have been watching Everton since the mid 60's even though I am from Greater Manchester. I was lucky enough to attend both the WBA and QPR games in 70 and 85 when we won the league. I want my son and others not old enough to experience those feelings. If we don't have hope, what is the point?

I heard the rumours, I read about them getting shot down, I have heard that the club is going to tell us that they have put in the plans to the council, even though they haven't.

I have heard the council see no problems and are ready to go along with the club just to give everyone a lift, and I have heard that Usmanov is ready to take a more active role, which would give everyone a massive lift imo.

I reckon it will get built, Tony. I told Rob Halligan that Everton were going to build a 52,000 stadium when Mike Gaynes came to Liverpool this time last year, and my source has said all along that Moshiri has been sent by his friend, and that one of the big hitters from Peel had tears in his eyes because it was a personal dream come true for him to witness Everton build a stadium on our world famous waterfront. I also honestly think it's gotten to the stage were Peel now really need Everton to kickstart this unbelievably massive regeneration scheme.

Our day will come, Tony, or the club will be well and truly finished on the big stage, mate. I'm fucking praying I haven't been told a pack of lies... although, if VAR doesn't change, I might not even be into football anymore by the time it's fuckin built!

It is the sensible way to go.

I am not going to start naming names or the "he said, she said" nonsense. If you think I am wrong on the stadium issue, then that's okay, mate, but I ask each and everyone of you out there to point me in the direction of one single shred of evidence that relates to Bramley-Moore Dock stadium actually being built.

As far as I can see, there has been absolutely nothing of significance done on the dock road in 4 years. Apart from some dodgy artist's impression the other week due to fan pressure, what tangible evidence does anyone have the Bramley-Moore Dock will go ahead? I believe this stadium was relying on The Commonwealth Games coming to Liverpool. Since that fell through, it's been deathly silence from the club. Fans forums and questionnaires... just more heel-dragging exercises.

If we don't have plans submitted yet, and no plans passed and no finance in place, plus no work clearing the site or the infrastructure, in and around the site, then what do we really have apart from an idea?

I hope I am wrong but my trust in Kenwright has long evaporated. Kings Dock broke me. I have never looked at the club in the same light since. Just because we dream with Kenwright doesn't mean anything will actually materialise from those dreams.

Bill found a buyer who let him stay in power and for Bill that's all he ever wanted. Expecting Bill Kenwright and Farhad Moshiri to deliver a stadium on the waterfront is simply a step too far, in my opinion.

Seeing is believing and I am seeing nothing to make me believe.

Given that one of the prime reasons for abandoning the Goodison site focussed on the need to improve 'commercial' income from its present lowly level towards that available at most 'new' grounds, what has brought about this re-focus?

What worries me about the whole project is not only the nonsense of having to blow zillions on filling in the site before building can be started, but also that, when completed, the matchday 'take' will be little improvement on what is garnered at present!

You have overlooked a further injection of cash, which would show up in future accounts. Paul the Esk was working on figures available and making reasonable projections as a result.

I also can't understand more corporate (seems crazy, unless the ground is genuinely getting squeezed in) but honestly think this is about two powerhouses getting together, and hopefully waking up a sleeping giant in the process.

Tony M is a proper scouser, a genuine Evertonian, and you only have to read his post @55, (please give us 55,000 at least) to realise what Kenwright has done to Everton since he came on board?

No need for arguments on this, it's been done to death on TW for years, but once you split the fan base (with lies) then you will never be trusted by people who don't suffer fools ever again.

You decline to say who your source is (don't need a name but just something to give him credibility) and you challenge us all to provide one shred of evidence that it will happen. Well, the club has spent a lot of money to get this far and has clearly wasted Dan Meis's time at the expense of his reputation if there is no intent to do this.

Equally Moshiri's reputation in business circles would take quite a hit as it would go down as a huge failure or even, if you are right, a con-merchant who could never be trusted again. At this stage that is as good as I can come up with, not being privy to the negotiations undoubtedly taking place.

There's a lot to be done but I think the venture is genuine. I don't know if I'm right and don't know if you are.

If, however, you can produce one shred of actual evidence to back up what you say, then I'd love to read about it.

The big question will remain not answered and that's whether the stadium will actually be built.

I was just listening to my mate who has got some good connections, but the same lad was telling me that he'd heard, but didn't believe, that Everton were looking at sites in Speke, only a few weeks ago so different rumours are constantly getting bandied around in this city. (Tony M, says and not just by Liverpudlians, but other than him and a couple more on this site, they're the only people I hear coming out with these rumours)

Life goes full circle, I heard that Liverpudlians were very desperate before Shankley came, and I see something similar in most Evertonians nowadays, and although I won't ever give up hope, (how can I, when I'm still here after Kenwrights lies) some of my posts are probably somewhere in-between my desperation and my hope when it comes to Usmanov, so I pray that these rumours are true.

Everything crossed!

The whole way the PR surrounding the statement was implemented did not ring true. Even the balloon that would have ended up in Kirby in an offshore breeze. Questions were thrown up regarding Stadium Capacity, figures released in presentations, size of the site, transport links, remoteness, Council involvement , absence of a financial plan, the lack of an overall Financial plan for Everton, Barrett-Baxendale as Director responsible for Stadium Development and the inevitable Everton in the Community Tours.

It was as if, after two failed attempts to build a stadium, that mana from heaven had descended to build a Stadium. Kenwright & Co had run outside to do whatever you do when mana descends from the sky. . .

The problem is it hasn't arrived.

A Peel Group with their tongue hanging out. . . a PR department thinking of putting out that the plans have been delayed and considering taking the chance of announcing that plans have been submitted (more likely a leak). A Board and Management having to explain their performance in the immediate future.

The truth is they are all collectively shitting themselves.

The actual providers of mana are sitting back, playing a long game, with an inside track on a huge docklands development site at their mercy, and sitting on a huge profit after they achieve total control, should they decide to offload Everton.

They where prepared to work with Kenwright on his terms to get into Everton. They are probably a bit pissed off they have spent more money than they should have, but they are still playing the long game.

Tony Abrahams could be right.

I try not to be so. Believe me, there have been many times when I have felt that way. There still are. But I attended the presentation at the Titanic, and was impressed and inspired by it. Was I a mug? I am open to being exposed so.

Please give me your opinion. If it is not going to happen, what was that all about? What is the whole process about? Surely it cannot be a charade? If it is, it can only be very a short-term exercise, after which any credibility would be shot for ever. Certainly for me.

Hello Peter,

I wasn't at the presentation, but listening to some who have been such as yourself, they were all very impressed, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

The cost of that presentation and that of the Architects fees will be small compared to the overall cost of actually building the thing. If It goes wrong they will not miss this money.

The club I believe are making a genuine effort to build this stadium and they simply had to get the ball rolling, with the site, architect and the presentation, it was imperative to them and the fan base that this forward momentum was not slowed in any way. This I believe was done without funding in place.

This project/initiative has been underway for a while now, on the funding side there was the option for the Council to fund the stadium through the Public Works Loans Board (PSWLB), but there was political opposition to this and the interest rates went up, this option has now become very unlikely. We are left with finding straight loans from the banks or possible private funding alongside or private funding on its own.

When the council put the loan option on the table, conditions were favourable to us, it's not anymore and I have the feeling they're struggling out there in the big bad financial world. I have no proof of this struggle other than to point to current circumstances, we are at the application stage and the club has had ample time to get the funding in place, it hasn't done this (that we know of, but I would love to be proven wrong at the planning application).

Ironically when the club put in its application for the Kings Dock, the funding according to the club was in place, but was so poorly presented the council knocked it back. This time we have the presentation right but no money on the table.

I suspect at the least delays.

His pre-Russian oligarch days are filled with stories about some pretty horrible things, not the least of which include heroin trafficking, organized crime-related activities (and subsequent 6-year prison sentence), and most recently, buying up the last independent media outlets in the former Soviet state, turning them into nothing more than propaganda mouthpieces for Putin.

Is it a "look the other way" situation, or does it bother any of you?

Evidence for it? Absolutely none but I can't think of another reason why we still have the Chairman that we do who has, in stages, sold almost all his share holding or why Usmanov would buy the Arsenal shares that he gifted to Moshiri.

Neither Paul, you or me have any proof of what Moshiri's motives are and how deep his commitment is. It makes every window unpredictable.

The premise of the article is that we are in "Critical Times". Why? How do we know if Moshiri sees the current situation as anything except a bump in the road?

Furthermore, the projections made on the P&L cannot be used as a firm guide to predict what Moshiri's behaviour will be come January or the summer. The projections are simplified and take no account of broader matters and how the club funds itself. This depends on valuation; which depends on expected future income streams. Does Paul know what the impact on Broadcasting rights the entry of Amazon into the space will have on Broadcasting revenues? Do we know what the club's sponsorship drive looks like? Do we know the pipeline for other commercial activities?

In addition, at the end of September, Companies House filings revealed Everton had satisfied 8 of their 11 charges - indicating that debts associated with those charges had been paid off. Admittedly, we don't know how these charges were satisfied; but on the face of it, it appears a positive step.

Meanwhile, the club has posted losses and yet we have continued to incur significant net spend on transfers each season. Despite predictions to the contrary.

Nobody knows what Moshiri's true wealth is. The Times Rich List is not a reliable source. Nobody knows what he plans to do - after all, Abramovich & City's owners are not likely to see a profit. Spurs owners (Joe Lewis?) and the Glazers who are clearly profit motivated have owned the club an awfully long time. The Thai owners at Leicester appear to be in it for the long haul too.

So, I dispute we are in "Critical Times", if the inference is that the club may end up in some sort of financial peril depending on how the season pans out. The P&L projections are simplified and not a guide to behaviour; there are several loss making clubs with very long standing owners. The P&L projections ignore the market value of the squad and potential assets the club has which it can dispose of. There is no analysis here of growth from commercial sponsorships or broadcasting rights given new trends.

It appears to be based on past performance only.

Moshiri has been a force for good off the pitch. Anyone who thinks different is wrong. He inherited an awful financial mess, and factually we are in a better position.

On the pitch - different story. Critical Times for Silva perhaps, but not Everton, its finances or Moshiri's ownership.

Gomes + Delph = £30 million. Gabamin =£25 million. Kean =£27 million Lossil = free Sidibe= loan, who else have I forgotten because this equals around £82 million?

Gueye = £30 million. Lookman = £22million. Vlassic= £14 million. McCarthy=£2 million and I'm sure we got a couple of million somewhere else which would equal around £70 million coming in, and was why I honestly thought last summer was more about balancing the books.

Maybe I have missed someone out Amit?

After the Titanic presentation, I seem to recall one of our number posting that he expressed a concern to Dan Meis about the financing. Dan Meis response was along the lines “don’t worry, the finance is in place”.

Regarding the cost of filling in the dock, I would have thought that would have been one of the first questions asked by EFC before buying. If I can find out that it cost £145m to infill the Waterloo Dock and build the SBR (whatever that is) next door, then it shouldn’t have been that difficult to come up with an estimate of that cost. Link

As for Alisher Usmanov - what do we know?

He was a business partner with Farhad Moshiri in Red and White Holdings which owned 30% of Arsenal shares. They wanted a bigger stake but Kronke wouldn’t cooperate. This cheesed them off.

Moshiri then sold his stake in Arsenal to Usmanov and bought into Everton with the proceeds.

Subsequently Alisher Usmanov said he was going to keep his shares in Arsenal as a long term investment for his family - but he changed his mind and sold out to Kronke.

Nobody knows what he has planned for that money (£500m) but he won’t be putting in a savings account that is for sure.

Alisher Usmanov then involved himself in Finch Farm

When I watch the games at Goodison on Optus Sport the Megafon name is rolled across the screen at the bottom of the stands throughout the game.

If I was Farhad Moshiri, I would much rather borrow the money off Alisher Usmanov than a corporate banker.

Similarly if I was Alisher Usmanov and had a spare £500m to floating around, I think I would be tempted to get involved in the BMD and Liverpool Waters project. His son in law is a developer. Ryazantsev another former Usmanov man would be all over and able to provide the numbers.

So my view, which is of course purely conjecture, is that the finance is indeed in place but that there is a trigger point at which Moshiri says “Ok - Go” and I suspect it relates to EFC’s prospects of maintaining its Premier League status over the next three years.

The 39,000 Goodison faithful that turn up every home game have and are playing a big part in all this. We are tenth on the list of averages but with the exception of United and “them” none of the clubs above us fill their grounds every match like we do. That is amazing really when you think what they have had to put up with over the last 3 or 4 years.

I feel that just for a change a few pieces of the jigsaw pieces need to fall in place for us and we will be on our way.

I quoted Sky - and the issue is ofcourse what the real transfer fees were, so perhaps that skews the figures (I freely admit!).

Iwobi was anywhere between £23m to £36m depending on media and Lookman was supposedly lower at £16m; McCarthy and Gueye too were supposedly lower than what you mentioned. We also sold Robinson and William's for £3.5m

So anywhere between £105m to £118m out,

£60m to £75m in.

Gives you a range of £30m to £60m net spend before

1. Loan fees for players loaned out (not entirely sure this amounts to much)

2. Agent fees

3. Signing on bonuses.

4. Mirallas contract - did we pay off the final year?

I am pretty sure when everything is added up you will find it is another chunky outlay this summer.

Perhaps not the £58.5m I quoted, true, but still a hefty chunk of change.

I have always contested whether Moshiri was just a front for Usmanov. Principally because the man is very rich in his own right and does have his own investments.

The USM and Megafon sponsorships could well have been engineered anyway by Moshiri because he has deep interest in both entities. In addition it is both he and Usmanov who wrote to the Arsenal board expressing dismay that they had turned down sponsorships from these two entities.

I always felt their Arsenal involvement was as a partnership and factually, Usmanov trousered a nice profit on the sale of his Arsenal shares - he bought Moshiri's piece at a lower price if I am not mistaken.

So, close business partners - yes. Front? No evidence I see.

I also think people confuse wealth with ambition. Usmanov investing in Everton does not automatically mean we will end up spending another £500m on players.

Fosun group - who own Wolves - make north of $15bn in revenues a year and worth perhaps double that. Yet they have put a chunk of their shares in Wolves up for sale.

West Ham's owners are worth abit less than Moshiri's (indeed John W Henry is supposedly worth abit more than Moshiri).

Committment, ambition & smarts as ever, are worth as much as financial muscle. Leicester are a very good example.

Furthermore, Brands did a pretty good job on the selling front - we offloaded non first teamers and spent that cash on bringing in some depth in the first XI.

Off the pitch we are in decent shape. The P&L does not wholly reflect this.

This is not a defence of Moshiri completely as like you I am repeatedly astounded at his poor judgement on the managerial front.

On the pitch we really have struggled to progress under his ownership.

So balancing the books is clearly part of the plan, as was keeping an eye on sell on value.The squad depth was improved, but the first team was arguably weakened. Injuries have made it worse.

Since Silve and Brands arrived about 30 players have left permanently, about 12 are out on loan and about 10/11 have signed.

So it’s a project, which is probably why Silva is still there

I think the Esk's prediction that we will not be spending much in January feels accurate. Though perhaps it will depend on how we are doing and if we have a new manager. I expect a couple of loans perhaps or maybe a bargain if one is out there.

I find the idea fanciful this stretch of land is the new Klondike for any experienced investor. Stadium costs alone are looking north of £500M to kick start regeneration and the location is the Mersey, not the Thames.

Global billionaires won't be queuing up to leave the bright lights of London for a view of New Brighton and the Beatles tour

Someone convince me Moshiri and Usmanov have seen something I haven't.

So if we indeed did not make acquisitions it would be nothing to do with our financial capability or projected losses. Also, you are right - Loans may actually be the way to go and could solve our on field weaknesses. So we are not quite looking at "critical times" in my view.

Brian @ 82. The club perhaps have one eye on FFP. But again, FFP is not only driven by what losses we have made - it also depends on revenue generation and in this regard we don't know what deals the club has lined up.

(PS: I understood in the summer that the link between wages over a certain threshold and having more commercial revenues has gone; i.e. FFP was watered down abit giving more room to manouvre).

The fact is in the summer we were in terrible shape - not least because Brands had the job of off loading so many players.

I'd suggest we are in much better shape now in terms of squad size, wage bill and room to manoeuvre.

I too wonder about the funding, and how the payments upon it will be met over the next 25-35 years. However, this stadium does seem a genuine once in a generation opportunity, so my hope is that it comes about.

The schedule and timelines have been met so far regarding the outline scheme and consultations. We were told that a planning application will be submitted this year. From this coming weekend there are 5 working weeks up to the Christmas break, so time is ticking - it is a crucial stage in the programme.

I don't think we are at 'critical times' necessarily but I do agree with some of The Esk's ideas and the probability that the money will not keep being thrown in until the financial situation is a bit healthier.

We've seen this a little already with the net spend of £35M this summer compared to £69M and £64M the previous summers. Moshiri is no charity and will not keep spending unless he sees signs of recovery (more off the pitch than on it).

We wasted a lot of money and Brands is having to pull us back from some poor player investments. All those people who crowed "It's not our money, who cares what they cost!" are seeing the consequences of poor purchases and negotiating. Once we have got rid of the likes of Mirallas, Sandro, Bolasie etc, that should give Brands some breathing room but that room may be lessened if it looks like we are going to finish 15th and not 7th.

One thing is for sure as far as I'm concerned and it's that the club does not inspire much confidence, they've given us no firm timeline with which to judge their progress by, it's all a bit vague. This I suppose is understandable because they've gotten it wrong so many times before, do they really want to give us the fans any ammo to fire at them?

Also this slick new PR department they have, to me seems a bit too slick.

Paul the Esk' Critical Times ' article describes the situation of Everton based on the figures available, It is a true reflection of the performance of the Board and Management and what they will have to explain and account for, which is a good thing.

I am of the same opinion as you that there a wider picture that Moshiri is working at, which may or may not involve' friends'. Moshiri has bent over backwards to buy Everton and this is the only way that Kenwright would have dealt with him. It means that Everton was bought at the right price and when he obtains full control, will own a asset worth considerably more. He has had to intially fund Directors and Management who thought that money would make them more able, than they actually where. The Stadium project could fit into a similar scenario. There are pointers that could be on speculated on, that this is the case.

In the previous two Summer transfer windows there as been last minute cash been made available, against the need for projected tightness. The Stadium project is a good deal, but not necessarily in the vision that Kenwright & Co are putting forward , without known financial intent. .

But from the known figures that Paul the Esk is working of for his assessement is correct and both my and your assessement is speculation until furture events unfold with actual figures. are available.

For the Board and Management of Everton it is Critical times , as it should be and hopefully they will get what they deserve and Moshiri dishes it out.

My angle, as ever, is that you can’t afford to carry passengers in a club aspiring to build a great stadium for a great team. My thinking on this is hugely informed by the American business philosopher, Jim Collins. In his definitive book, From Good to Great, Collins uses the analogy of a travelling bus to describe how any organisation trying to move from being good to being great needs to have the right people in the right seats at the same time and that wrong people must be thrown off the bus. Until EFC ceases to recruit staff on the basis of benign nepotism rather than seeking the best people it makes the realisation of BMD more difficult. Some may not like the man but Klopp was spot on in previewing the City match by saying that “everybody must be at the top of their game, and I mean everybody including the hot dog man and the cleaners.” In Jim Collins’s successful organisations everything is connected. We are miles away.

Gerard, the director of the stadium build is there on merit, he has a lot of successful experience, the club atleast appears to have gotten that bus seat right.

The drivers seat, the CEO on the other hand has no experience of managing an enterprise of this type, big question mark for me?

For the less pessimistic amongst us, however, the evidence, as Tony cites it, is actually also fully consistent with the project going ahead. Think about it: what kind of project would do any of those things he mentions... unless and until the vital hurdle of Planning Permission had not only been sought but actually granted? Not only would they be crazy, it would probably be illegal to start anything without all the required permits, I imagine. Think about that one, Tony. No, on second thoughts, don't bother. I told you all this before, when you wanted to see spades in the ground as proof that the project was real. And yet back you come with the same old nonsense again and again.

I guess I'm stuck with failing to grasp the psychological aspects of Tony's vehement denial. Why come out from Day One and insist that it's not going to happen? Does that somehow inoculate you against the consequences of failure? So you can be among the few that will be beaming with joy when you can yell "I told you so!" on the day they do announce the demise of this project? I suppose it's like betting against Everton winning? You at least have some tangible benefit of your own to show when we lose. Still seems to be odd behaviour to me... but then I'm no betting man.

That's why I can't say Tony is wrong... but I can't agree that anything he says about Bramley-Moore Dock is right either. The outcome has still to be determined; it could go either way. The new Stadium may go ahead... the new stadium may not go ahead. (Is everything so binary now in this digital age that you must embrace one or the other... but NOT both???)

He wants to see preparatory work on site but there is none. And yet, if the project were going ahead, there would still be none until the project actually goes ahead. As I've said repeatedly, it may go ahead... or it may not go ahead. Yet wait! There was some preparatory work done — the only preparatory work that could reasonably be expected for such a project – the geotechnical site investigation. But the all-knowing Tony Marsh of course wouldn't even accept that, since there was no proof that it had anything to do with the new stadium.

What's that saying? "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I'd rather you think on that a little, Tony, before restating your next boring diatribe.

Thanks for everyone's contributions even those that don't agree with me, it makes for good debate.

Michael, I'm thinking in entirely a pessimistic mood and outside the box here with my suspicions running away with themselves.

What if the club really are struggling to get the funding and need an out? All they really have to do is put elements into the stadium that won't get past planning? Cry foul and run away!

I say this because surely we knew Kirby (and the Kings Dock) would never happen, but the club had to appear to be doing something.

Don't worry, Michael, I'll ask the doctor to up the dosage of my medication and these thoughts should just float away!

Good point you make. Why on earth Everton continue to recruit key personnel from within baffles me. Bill's choice of our new CEO, 'little Miss Dynamite' (his words not mine), is a prime example.

The world is crammed full of really talented, driven individuals with excellent credentials. We simply need to stop being so bloody insular.

Uncertainty in the outcome is something I can handle. It is the definitive "not happening" that sticks on my craw.

Your scenario sounds more like a classic conspiracy theory, and requires deliberate machinations by the club to hide the inevitable if it happens. I doubt they would go ahead with the planning application if there are serious doubts about the financing, and that will kill the project.

But I would question your historic perspective. My understanding was that Kings Dock was happening until Kenwright rejected Paul Gregg's reverse mortgage (and strings attached), thus putting a £28M hole in the financing.

Destination Kirkby would also have gone ahead, I believe, if the club had had its wishes granted and the public inquiry had not gone so awry – mainly thanks to the sterling efforts of many dedicated fans who were so strongly opposed.

Keep taking the tablets!

With respect - that is exactly what men like Usmanov and Moshiri do and also the reason why they become billionaires. That with a willingness to take a punt.

The Mersey is a mighty, mighty river and a valuable natural resource for the people of both Liverpool and Birkenhead. Since the sixties it has been wasted. Peel know that, and perhaps Moshiri (and hopefully even Usmanov) do also.

The waterfront on both sides of the river has huge potential for development. BMD is the kick starter for this development and my view is that the people of merseyside should be getting wholeheartedly behind it.

On a lighter note, if you happen to have a large seagoing yacht the parking is much easier near BMD than in London and you are only 20 minutes into the open sea.

Amit # 80 - I don’t won’t Usmanov to give us £500m to spend on players. I want him to build us the stadium with it then rent it back to us ;)

There has to be an angle in their somewhere.

Now that I've taken my 'reality' pills and have joined the rational again, I do believe the club as I've stated above has got the ball rolling with the site, architect and the presentation, but without a funding model that they were sure would come to fruition.

I have no proof of this and when all is said and done we are all making suppositions based on incomplete information. However, they haven't stated at any time during the life so far of this project that the money is ring-fenced and so I believe it's reasonable to assume they don't have it yet.

Without the presence of Moshiri and this thing in the hands of Kenwright et al, I would be in doom mode now, but Moshiri looks a lot more capable of delivery even if he is flying by the seat of his pants on the finance. There still exists though a small or outside chance that he may pull the plug in the interests of self or good business.

I've based what I've said about the Kings Dock fiasco on a comment made to me by a middle manager I know in the council, who I've always found to be a reasonable person (he's also a blue). He said that the application was regarded with jibes at the time as a back of an envelope/Sayer's wrapper submission by those viewing it in the council? It was doomed without Bill pulling the plug (maybe that's why he pulled it?).

Kirkby, I've already implied they knew it wouldn't happen due to outside input.

It's the kind of thing that, had it been made public at the time, opponents of the Blue Union might have responded to, rather than simply Happy-Clapping Bill's image on the Big Screen after cocking a snoot at their 'Kopite' attempts to change the inevitable course of history.

If you think too hard about it, it becomes far too easy to descend down the path of anger, frustration and foul language Jer Keirnan exhibited at the weekend. What Kenwright has done to this club doesn't bear thinking about... which is why most of us don't want to... or we just don't want to know.

A sad acceptance of mediocrity? Yet how exactly could we have changed it? I know that question has been asked already...

Mediocrity yes, but mediocrity in the Premier League is his achievement.

What more can I say, my rage at our impotence over the past four decades has subsided somewhat as I become older. There's little anger anymore, just bemusement at our predicament.

"Yes, I know. I'm an engineering geologist. I know the guys that did the drilling at Bramley Moore. The sandstone is extremely weak and weathered in a lot of places. Bedrock may well be found at 10-15 m, but it may not be competent until 50-60 m at times.

My comment was 'Unforseen works below ground' that well known cost-eater.

On it goes, as always with The Ev – more questions than answers.

Mark # 70 - in truth I would prefer Warren Buffet - as for Usmanov’s background, well no one really knows the facts but whatever they are our owner made his money with him. It’s a rabbit hole that I don’t want to go down.

Derek # 109 - I wonder how much bearing capacity a football stadium needs? After all it’s not a skyscraper we are building.

The pitch runs almost the full width of the dock and the dead and live loads of the side stands will be spread over 114 metres each side.

In the article I posted a link to @ 75 it states that they poured a 750mm slab after they drained Waterloo Dock. Would that provide the necessary bearing capacity for 52,000 seater stadium? Surely Dan Meis would already know.

I am no engineer but I would certainly be interested to know the answer to that particular question - are there any engineers among our number who would be willing to comment because this is not the first time the issue has been raised.

Laurie #111, all of the bearing capacity is on the piles.

People bang-on about London, all the time, but Liverpoool, especially with the scope on this Waterfront making it unique, will become an incredible place once this development begins to take shape.

I always refer to Laurie H, and his own adopted city, going through a similar transition through the regeneration of their own wasted dockland, and the figures involved are truly staggering, which is why these very big hitters get involved in the first place, so I'm sure it will make a lot more business sense to be involved in such a major project.

I'm still clinging to a Labour victory, and a change of heart about staying in Europe, but if we leave, then suddenly we will be on the right side of the country (Boris the Bastard's condescending words) and will become the gateway to the world for this country once again, so this development will suddenly take on even more importance imo.

Do you think the methods and learnings from that project are transferable to Bramley-Moore Dock?

Alan # 113 - I have still got two arms and two legs but admit I am one-eyed ;)

What part of my post is "All hearsay and speculation" please?

Regarding funding on the stadium, funding can only be secured when the club knows who the main contractor will be. That obviously requires final designs and specifications. I say this due to the structure of the funding. We might know who is likely to fund but we are away off having agreed quantum and cost.

Amit #21. At the time of writing those comments, I was not aware Moshiri was preparing to fund the transfer activities of the late window by injecting further capital into the business. Prior to this, he had indicated that he was not prepared to do so. I suspect the fact that we failed to sell as many players as we had hoped forced his hand.

Tony #26 I'd have to say that there is no evidence of Usmanov's financial support other than the sponsorship arrangements regarding USM and associated companies.

Ken #40 undoubtedly the stadium is contingent on our likely Premier League survival. It could not proceed if we were to be relegated this season. The probability of relegation is relatively low but still remains a factor.

Brian #42 The Council funding option has long since disappeared. Not only for the reason you provided but there was not the political will within the city to see it through.

Derek #56, I agree totally that both the capacity but also the premium seating capacity is woefully inadequate. It is difficult in the extreme to see the stadium being significantly more cash generative having deducted financing costs without very significant increases in ticket prices.

Amit #73, Regarding the satisfaction of charges in September, ICBC withdrew its facilities (not the fault of the club) and we had to seek an alternative funder. That we did by returning to Rights and Media Funding (possibly as a means of expediency given the urgency). Thus the ICBC charges were satisfied and replaced by Rights and Media Funding.

Amit #81, We have to look at the P&L as football is a regulated business and as you know there are limits as to the accumulated losses permitted over rolling 3-year periods. We are at the very limit of those permitted losses for the period 2018-2021. Something which may require further player sales prior to the financial year end June 2020.

Regarding the timing of the planning permission, I am told by the club they remain confident of submitting an application before the end of the year.

The annual report and accounts usually are released late November to late December. As yet, I do not have knowledge of the release date. Technically they have until the end of March to release the accounts. I suspect late December though.

The dock road development seems very long-term with mediocre returns for a helluva lot of outlay and, as our 2 protagonists are no longer in the first flush of youth, I just don't see it being the major factor many seem to believe.

You said that Moshiri, might pull away in the interests of self, or good business, and I was speculating why I didn't think this would make good business sense.

Spending a penny to make a pound is my observations on this matter Rob, although the figures are obviously a billion times bigger than this.

Usmanov did go to prison for 6 years for organized crime-related activities (mostly trafficking I believe). And he did purchase the last independent media news outlet in Russia, and it did turn into a Putin propaganda mouthpiece (sounds like Rupert Murdoch & FOX over here)!

I don’t really know where I stand, mostly because I’m cynical and think all rich people have shady pasts lol, but the old adage “where there’s smoke there’s fire” is very regularly spot on.

By contrast around 100m x 50m of our footprint will be pitch, requiring no piling at all. And our structure will be around the periphery of that. Piling, if necessary, will not be that extensive, thus costs are a lot lower.

We could perhaps learn from the sand compaction / piling mat and piling method they used, but we might just be able to build using raft foundations instead.

I know this is all about Peel, (the overall development) but I’ve read on these pages that Usmanov’s son-in-law, is a property developer, so maybe this might also be about leaving a legacy for his grandchildren, a family project that will possibly last 30/50 years, and loads of money to be made in the process, especially because they own a company that deals in steel.

All speculation “on my part” but everyone should read what Laurie posted about Melbourne, because it really is impressive, especially the money some very lucky buggers must have made.

The more I think about it, the more it makes absolute sense, because Liverpool is a football mad city, and a stadium on the waterfront is only going to compliment it in the future!

So you're saying to fill the dock, we're looking at pouring 145 million into a literal black hole? No wonder Everton picked this site. This is completely in line with our general spending strategy

He is one of the nicest men I’ve never met.

I don't think it will bother Everton Supporters too much. They will just call the new stadium The White House.

In the presentation documents for the New Stadium the estimated cost for site preparation, which I take to mean preparation below ground level and filling in was £100million, which I thought was very optimistic. It was one of the reasons, along with lack of financial information, that made me doubt the authenticity of the PR.

Derek#129

You are thinking in terms of Nationhood, I am thinking in terms of Sources of Funding.

Link

This constitutes the biggest ever public consultation in the history of the city of Liverpool.

Amongst other things, DB-B is quoted as saying "we can submit for planning before the end of this year with confidence."

If, as some continue to believe, this is all a hoax and nothing will come of it, it is an exceedingly public and elaborate one.

If this isn't realised, there would be absolutely no hiding place for all concerned and Evertonia will be in uproar.

But the depth and breadth, the transparency of this public consultation in comparison to earlier proposals, does not belong in the same 'smoke and mirrors' league.

They simply HAVE to deliver or they'll (metaphorically) join Shankly, St. John and Yeats on being strung up on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey and ceremoniously tossed into the river at BMD.

Tony, I said there is a small or outside chance he might pull the plug, however if I was forced to place a large bet on the stadium, I would bet It would happen.

This small or outside chance is based upon the fact that if you're looking for a loan and you are not happy with the rates of Interest you're being offered, you walk away, it's that simple.

It's good business at a personal level and at company level. And it is possible if Moshiri cannot get what he wants.

I'd say it's unlikely to happen, but not impossible and wouldn't be too surprised if it did.

At £500m+ the financing is not a small issue.

There may be build issues due to UNESCO or infrastructure issues locally to iron out, but this time the Council is with us and Central government should also see the benefits to the docklands. I don't think planning permission will be too much of a problem.

On planning English Heritage remain a potential problem, it seems that UNESCO less so as the city is prepared to see WHS wither

Can I request that you write an article in the future on the funding of transfers. Many on here make the mistake that buying a player is like buying something down the supermarket. You pick a Moise Kean or a Gylfi Sigurdsson off the shelf you pay £30m or £40m and then you sell an Ademola Lookman and pocket £15m.

The reality is that whilst you can pay the amount upfront, you can also spread the cost over the transfer, or you pay in a number of instalments, and you may even take out finance to pay these instalments. You also receive money in this way. So all this talk of net spend, it's way, way off.

I'm sure you will be able to write an article explaining this much better than I can and hopefully put an end to this simplistic stuff once and for all.

Bill Kenwright lied through his back teeth to all of our fans
during his pathetic fund raising inability BK lied to the LCC he also lied to Rope walks he even lied to himself. Bill took the Kings Dock deal through two deadline extensions still claiming he had our share of funds to go ahead with the Stadium build but it was all a load of shit.

Bill Kenwright took the Kings Dock fiasco all the way to the wire and when the other partners involved lost patience they pulled the plug forever. We never got our dreams fulfilled Kenwright scurried away like the weasel that he is and 20years later we still play football in a Merseyside version of Fratton Park.

Anyone who will trust Bill Kenwright and Little Ms Dynamite to get Bramley Moore done need therapy. Moshiri hasn't a clue what he is doing at EFC he is putting dough on the table but Boys Pen Bill is still calling the shots. Why else is Bill still at this club employing His mate Barret Baxendale if he isn't in charge of things.?

Kieran # 126 - Eric is definitely not saying that it will cost £145m - read his post again and the previous threads and article it refers to.

Mark # 121 - if Dave Abraham’s says he is alright that will do me ;)

Jerome # 130 - what was your basis for thinking the estimated cost of £100m for the ground preparation was optimistic?

Jay # 135 - thanks for posting that link. I would suggest that if anyone has invested their time posting on this thread should read through it. I found it very encouraging.

All I know for certain is that if Bramley Moore does not go ahead, I don't want the club considering sites on the edge of, or outside, the city. That would be the beginning of the end.

If Bramley Moore does not go ahead, we must stay at Goodison, re-building in phases, unless miraculously a site turns up in, or close to, the city centre.

Having said that, I do believe a good each-way bet on what may transpire is a scaled-down stadium at Bramley Moore.

In the meantime, I am optimistic that our talented but inconsistent squad of players will win a cup this season.

In a way us fans might seem to be akin to Henry VIII. He had several wives before he relied on his artist Hans Holbein to get his ass over to Cleves to depict their princess Anne. His portrait was a stunner and so Henry married her only to see, when she came into view, that she resembled the back of a bus. I just hope this allegedly wonderful BMD stadium doesn't end up being a comparable disappointment to us.

That said, Holbein aside, I don't think any historian can point to Henry VIII being had over by anyone else, unlike us Toffees who've been fucked about for decades by our boardroom.

That may be the case for all I know, but if Moshiri (and whomever else with a finger in the Ten Streets pie) is now feeling financially compromised Mr Hughes has previously outlined in detail how we may still grow as a club whilst Goodison is transformed at a far lesser cost than BMD.

Just saying, as a comparatively ignorant observer on matters of high finance.

I also think he secretly rues the day he let our resident snake oil salesman talk him in to it. (grudgingly doffs cap to Boys Pen Bill)

I don't know if it will go ahead or not - who does. But it needs doing. Not to raise revenue...any extra raised will be swallowed up by the debt - and, if The Emirates and NWL are a guide, more besides.

Just because its not 1969-70 any more...I wish it was, but it ain't. We don't have the best ground in the Country any more, nor the best team. Both need addressing.
50 years! where the 'k did that all go? Sort it please Mr Moshiri.

The more likely scenario is that he's rubbing his hands in glee openly. He paid somewhere up to 30 million for the Bramley-Moore location. The value of that property is about to sky-rocket, as is his share of the Liver Building.

Five years from now, the value of his shares will make it look like he fleeced Kenwright etal with how much he paid them for their shares.

" Amit #21. At the time of writing those comments, I was not aware Moshiri was preparing to fund the transfer activities of the late window by injecting further capital into the business. Prior to this, he had indicated that he was not prepared to do so. I suspect the fact that we failed to sell as many players as we had hoped forced his hand."

But that is exactly the point. Your article in the summer predicted financial constraints would prevent us making a significant outlay on transfers. Furthermore - I have seen no evidence of Moshiri stating he would not inject further capital. Where have you seen this?

"Amit #73, Regarding the satisfaction of charges in September, ICBC withdrew its facilities (not the fault of the club) and we had to seek an alternative funder. That we did by returning to Rights and Media Funding (possibly as a means of expediency given the urgency). Thus the ICBC charges were satisfied and replaced by Rights and Media Funding."

Paul - this appears to be inside information you have, which suggests ICBC were withdrawing a committed facility (committed for 3 years). They could only do so legally if there was a breach of the terms of the facility by the club. You say it was not Everton's fault, but what legal right would ICBC have to withdraw?

"Amit #81, We have to look at the P&L as football is a regulated business and as you know there are limits as to the accumulated losses permitted over rolling 3-year periods. We are at the very limit of those permitted losses for the period 2018-2021. Something which may require further player sales prior to the financial year end June 2020."

Paul - ok, well there are two distinct issues here.

1) Moshiri's funding and commitment to the club
2) FPP

On 1) Moshiri's commitment/funding

A) As you yourself admit you have been surprised the club's actions, including in the summer. I also think there is clear proof that the man is committed to the club and he and his team have cleaned up our awful balance sheet (which now stands with positive net assets - i.e. we are not technically insolvent as we were in 2016).

B) So unless you have more inside information on his about turn, I don't see evidence of it. In addition, any analysis of an his appetite to fund Everton must factor valuation and growth prospects. We do have a valuable playing squad. We are showing strong growth potential, especially in our commercial activities. The Broadcasting market now has multiple bidders and Sky is no longer the monopoly. If Sky collapsed 10 years ago, the EPL would have sunk (like ITV Digital did for the Championship).

C) Furthermore, our losses in 2018 do not matter any more. They have been funded and the question is what will happen to the club going forward. For this, any analysis needs a 3-5 year forward looking view, which I have not seen in your article.

On 2) FPP:

A) This is a completely separate discussion to point 1) above, as FPP rules are based on different metrics to a simple P&L bottom line loss. It therefore is based on a very different set of analysis, and there are far too many gaps in information and knowledge, to jump to the conclusion that we are in critical times. Unless you are privy to information we have not seen...

B) I am very grateful for your dedication - but I think on this occasion you have not shared enough on your FPP calculations and assumptions to conclude as you have.

C) From the time I have been able to spend, I have gathered the following regarding FPP:

(a) UEFA FPP:

(i) As part of the licensing conditions for a club to participate in UEFA competitions (so only of concern to Everton if we qualify for the Europa league for 2020/21 or the season after), the core requirement is for us to demonstrate break-even (or a maximum permitted loss of up to Euro 35m if funded by Moshiri's equity) by calculating the Relevant Income (which has specific meaning) and Relevant Expenses over a 3 year period:

Reporting Period Ending May 2018
Reporting Period Ending May 2019 (not published)
Reporting Period Ending June 2020 (we changed our year-end; not published).

(ii) Reporting Period Ending May 2018: We posted - £13m net loss. But this is not the result for FFP: that calculation makes exclusions and inclusions which differ from GAAP. Exclusions for FFP would include any EITC costs (not split out in the accounts) and all our Academy expenditure. So our FPP loss for 2018 is likely to be lower than £13m. How much: I do not know; as I cannot see this split out anywhere. There are also exceptional and "non-monetary" costs and revenues which must be excluded.

(iii) Reporting Period Ending May 2019: You appear to be predicting a -£95m loss. Again, this figure (if true) would need to be adjusted for the cost and revenue exclusions defined by FPP as described above. From my look at the club's previous accounts, I find it hard to see these items to make an estimate. On a separate note, your loss is co-incidentally fairly similar to the article here on our expected performance for the period ending May 2019:

Link

(iv) This predicted a higher loss than you, but I think their analysis is based on big leaps in assumptions.

(v) The core driver for a very large loss in May 2019 seems to be as follows:

- Revenues are likely to be abit lower than 2018 (£189m) as we did not play in the Europa League

- Wages apparently gone up

- Exceptional costs reduced

- Amortisation charges for Players gone up

- Profit on player sales (significant in 2018 because of the Lukaku sale) lower or negative.

(vi) The key questions are as follows:

- Turnover of £189m in 2018 v Turnover in 2019: how much of the loss of Europa League revenues is offset by growing commercial revenues? We know Broadcasting Revenues were largely flat 2019 v 2018 based on the EPL publication. I don't think we will suffer as much of a loss as suggested.

- Exceptional Costs in 2018 v 2019: We had significant exceptional items in 2018. How much lower are these expected to be in 2019?

- Amortisations: Player Amortisations: This will increase from £66m in 2018 because of the acquisitions of Mina, Digne, Richarlison for the period ended May 2019. By How much? The club's 2018 accounts indicate £88m of transfer spend in this period. Amortising these over an assumed 5 year period means an increase of £17.6m

- Gain from Disposals: What was the impact of selling Klaassen, Funes Mori & Browning? If the transfer fees are to be believed, we would have suffered a book loss of -£8m on Klaassen (factoring in 1 year of amortisation), and a gain on Browning & Mori of around £12m, suggesting a £4m surplus.

- Wages & Operating Costs: £145m and £36m respectively in 2018. What did these become in 2019? (For FFP operating costs would exclude Academy related costs). Klaassen & Rooney were high earners. We also loaned out a significant number of players in 2018/19 (many of them were with us in 2017/2018) - what was the impact on wages?

vii) For the periods ending June 2019-2020, similar questions abound. Furthermore, I think we will do better than 2019 in terms of net loss. Revenues are likely to be up vs 2019, and it is likely our books show a significant gain on the disposals of Lookman, Vlasic and Onyekuru (by my calculation, their combined net book value was £15m, and we sold them for £40m, suggesting a £25m gain). Meanwhile, transfers of atleast £105m out, adding over 5 years another £21m charge to amortisations. Assuming 2019 was £80m, this would mean £101m less those player amortisations for sold players and any player whose amortisation period has ended. I think we will make a profit or break-even before player trading costs, which will also show an improvement in 2019-2020 vs 2018-2019. So, we could have an improved trend.

(viii) Here is the key point on UEFA FPP; exceptions can be made even where the rules are breached. Article XI a) states that if the break-even guidelines have been broken, an improving trend will be considered positively. We do not know the trends AC Milan, Man City, Fenerbahce or Monaco were exhibiting, but it would certainly seem a fact that Everton's worst position is the period ended 2019 with 2020 showing improvements as the squad will be smaller and commercial revenues are growing.

(b) EPL FPP

(i) Key rule here is not to lose more than £105m over a 3 year period. We were fine for the period ended May 2018, and even if I take your loss of -£95m, we will be fine for the period end May 2019 (-£78m). I do not know if EPL FPP requires any form of adjustments like the UEFA FPP.

(ii) The issue would then be for the period ended June 2020. The prior 2 years, 2018 & 2019, would give us £108m loss if your estimate was correct, so we would have to book a profit of £4m for the period ended June 2020 to meet the threshold.

(iii) We already could be showing a book profit on transfers (gain of £25m from disposals). The question is then the gap between revenues and wages+operating costs. Provided there are no exceptional charges, wages of £145m + operating costs of £36m posted in 2018 could be abit lower in 2020. Our turnover could conceivably reach £190m or more. Before Player amortisations, we therefore could be in surplus. The question is then the level of player amortisations in 2019-2020 and hence the size of the loss thereafter.

(iii) I have not seen the sanctions imposed by the EPL for breaches of the £105m loss, but it is hard to see that the EPL will take a tougher line than UEFA, which allows factors such as an improvement in trends to be considered. Furthermore, with improved commercial revenues and a leaner squad we might show a lower wage bill profit before player trading. The business is viable and the trends (especially in our player trading) will have improved in 2020 v 2019.

CONCLUSION

Well, the lengthy post is ultimately to say I still see no analysis here to say we are in "Critical Times". I think you may have started with your conclusion. We really need to consider more forward looking factors, and have a much more detailed look at FPP, before thinking that there is a financial bogey awaiting us.

I also think we have established that Moshiri has been a force for good off the field, and his commitment is unquestionable.

It is surely football related considerations - smaller squad size, Brands' preference for the summer window, whether Silva will be in a job or not, that will drive our transfer recruitment. If we are in critical times - it is for reasons on the pitch.

So, for me: Critical Times could just as well be a bump in the road.

" Amit #21. At the time of writing those comments, I was not aware Moshiri was preparing to fund the transfer activities of the late window by injecting further capital into the business. Prior to this, he had indicated that he was not prepared to do so. I suspect the fact that we failed to sell as many players as we had hoped forced his hand."

But that is exactly the point. Your article in the summer predicted financial constraints would prevent us making a significant outlay on transfers. Furthermore - I have seen no evidence of Moshiri stating he would not inject further capital. Where have you seen this?

"Amit #73, Regarding the satisfaction of charges in September, ICBC withdrew its facilities (not the fault of the club) and we had to seek an alternative funder. That we did by returning to Rights and Media Funding (possibly as a means of expediency given the urgency). Thus the ICBC charges were satisfied and replaced by Rights and Media Funding."

Paul - this appears to be inside information you have, which suggests ICBC were withdrawing a committed facility (committed for 3 years). They could only do so legally if there was a breach of the terms of the facility by the club. You say it was not Everton's fault, but what legal right would ICBC have to withdraw?

"Amit #81, We have to look at the P&L as football is a regulated business and as you know there are limits as to the accumulated losses permitted over rolling 3-year periods. We are at the very limit of those permitted losses for the period 2018-2021. Something which may require further player sales prior to the financial year end June 2020."

Paul - ok, well there are two distinct issues here.

1) Moshiri's funding and commitment to the club
2) FPP

On 1) Moshiri's commitment/funding

A) As you yourself admit you have been surprised the club's actions, including in the summer. I also think there is clear proof that the man is committed to the club and he and his team have cleaned up our awful balance sheet (which now stands with positive net assets - i.e. we are not technically insolvent as we were in 2016).

B) So unless you have more inside information on his about turn, I don't see evidence of it. In addition, any analysis of an his appetite to fund Everton must factor valuation and growth prospects. We do have a valuable playing squad. We are showing strong growth potential, especially in our commercial activities. The Broadcasting market now has multiple bidders and Sky is no longer the monopoly. If Sky collapsed 10 years ago, the EPL would have sunk (like ITV Digital did for the Championship).

C) Furthermore, our losses in 2018 do not matter any more. They have been funded and the question is what will happen to the club going forward. For this, any analysis needs a 3-5 year forward looking view, which I have not seen in your article.

On 2) FPP:

A) This is a completely separate discussion to point 1) above, as FPP rules are based on different metrics to a simple P&L bottom line loss. It therefore is based on a very different set of analysis, and there are far too many gaps in information and knowledge, to jump to the conclusion that we are in critical times. Unless you are privy to information we have not seen...

B) I am very grateful for your dedication - but I think on this occasion you have not shared enough on your FPP calculations and assumptions to conclude as you have.

C) From the time I have been able to spend, I have gathered the following regarding FPP:

(a) UEFA FPP:

(i) As part of the licensing conditions for a club to participate in UEFA competitions (so only of concern to Everton if we qualify for the Europa league for 2020/21 or the season after), the core requirement is for us to demonstrate break-even (or a maximum permitted loss of up to Euro 35m if funded by Moshiri's equity) by calculating the Relevant Income (which has specific meaning) and Relevant Expenses over a 3 year period:

Reporting Period Ending May 2018
Reporting Period Ending May 2019 (not published)
Reporting Period Ending June 2020 (we changed our year-end; not published).

(ii) Reporting Period Ending May 2018: We posted - £13m net loss. But this is not the result for FFP: that calculation makes exclusions and inclusions which differ from GAAP. Exclusions for FFP would include any EITC costs (not split out in the accounts) and all our Academy expenditure. So our FPP loss for 2018 is likely to be lower than £13m. How much: I do not know; as I cannot see this split out anywhere. There are also exceptional and "non-monetary" costs and revenues which must be excluded.

(iii) Reporting Period Ending May 2019: You appear to be predicting a -£95m loss. Again, this figure (if true) would need to be adjusted for the cost and revenue exclusions defined by FPP as described above. From my look at the club's previous accounts, I find it hard to see these items to make an estimate. On a separate note, your loss is co-incidentally fairly similar to the article here on our expected performance for the period ending May 2019:

Link

(iv) This predicted a higher loss than you, but I think their analysis is based on big leaps in assumptions.

(v) The core driver for a very large loss in May 2019 seems to be as follows:

- Revenues are likely to be abit lower than 2018 (£189m) as we did not play in the Europa League

- Wages apparently gone up

- Exceptional costs reduced

- Amortisation charges for Players gone up

- Profit on player sales (significant in 2018 because of the Lukaku sale) lower or negative.

(vi) The key questions are as follows:

- Turnover of £189m in 2018 v Turnover in 2019: how much of the loss of Europa League revenues is offset by growing commercial revenues? We know Broadcasting Revenues were largely flat 2019 v 2018 based on the EPL publication. I don't think we will suffer as much of a loss as suggested.

- Exceptional Costs in 2018 v 2019: We had significant exceptional items in 2018. How much lower are these expected to be in 2019?

- Amortisations: Player Amortisations: This will increase from £66m in 2018 because of the acquisitions of Mina, Digne, Richarlison for the period ended May 2019. By How much? The club's 2018 accounts indicate £88m of transfer spend in this period. Amortising these over an assumed 5 year period means an increase of £17.6m

- Gain from Disposals: What was the impact of selling Klaassen, Funes Mori & Browning? If the transfer fees are to be believed, we would have suffered a book loss of -£8m on Klaassen (factoring in 1 year of amortisation), and a gain on Browning & Mori of around £12m, suggesting a £4m surplus.

- Wages & Operating Costs: £145m and £36m respectively in 2018. What did these become in 2019? (For FFP operating costs would exclude Academy related costs). Klaassen & Rooney were high earners. We also loaned out a significant number of players in 2018/19 (many of them were with us in 2017/2018) - what was the impact on wages?

vii) For the periods ending June 2019-2020, similar questions abound. Furthermore, I think we will do better than 2019 in terms of net loss. Revenues are likely to be up vs 2019, and it is likely our books show a significant gain on the disposals of Lookman, Vlasic and Onyekuru (by my calculation, their combined net book value was £15m, and we sold them for £40m, suggesting a £25m gain). Meanwhile, transfers of atleast £105m out, adding over 5 years another £21m charge to amortisations. Assuming 2019 was £80m, this would mean £101m less those player amortisations for sold players and any player whose amortisation period has ended. I think we will make a profit or break-even before player trading.

(viii) Here is the key point on UEFA FPP; exceptions can be made even where the rules are breached. Article XI a) states that if the break-even guidelines have been broken, an improving trend will be considered positively. We do not know the trends AC Milan, Man City, Fenerbahce or Monaco were exhibiting, but it would certainly seem a fact that Everton's worst position is the period ended 2019 with 2020 showing improvements as the squad will be smaller and commercial revenues are growing.

(b) EPL FPP

(i) Key rule here is not to lose more than £105m over a 3 year period. We were fine for the period ended May 2018, and even if I take your loss of -£95m, we will be fine for the period end May 2019 (-£78m). I do not know if EPL FPP requires any form of adjustments like the UEFA FPP.

(ii) The issue would then be for the period ended June 2020. The prior 2 years, 2018 & 2019, would give us £108m loss if your estimate was correct, so we would have to book a profit of £4m for the period ended June 2020 to meet the threshold.

(iii) We already could be showing a book profit on transfers (gain of £25m from disposals, and additional amortisation charge of £18m). The question is then the gap between revenues and wages+operating costs. Provided there are no exceptional charges, wages of £145m + operating costs of £36m posted in 2018 could be abit lower in 2020. Our turnover could conceivably reach £190m. We could be fine.

CONCLUSION

Well, the lengthy post is ultimately to say I still see no analysis here to say we are in "Critical Times". I think you may have started with your conclusion. We really need to consider more forward looking factors, and have a much more detailed look at FPP, before thinking that there is a financial bogey awaiting us.

I also think we have established that Moshiri has been a force for good off the field, and his commitment is unquestionable.

It is surely football related considerations - smaller squad size, Brands' preference for the summer window, whether Silva will be in a job or not, that will drive our transfer recruitment.

So, for me: Critical Times could just as well be a mere bump in the road.

Paul may end up being right or he may not. But I would prefer we avoid hard conclusions where there are clearly many holes and uncertainties.

Also, I note you said Silva has not really been given money. I'm afraid he has and plenty of it. Our amortisation charges have grown as much under him as under the previous lot. It is what worsened our financial result in 2018 and will do so in 2019/2020.

Of course Silva has had money, but I’m not sure this summer was a patch on last summer’s recruitment, and £58 million, definitely came down by at least £20 million, and that was without putting Henry, into the sold accounts Amit?

But the reasons for it the lower spend contentious. I still think Brands is rightly imposing squad pruning. It is not a lack of commitment by Moshiri. As for FPP, there seems to be too many gaps to ascertain whether it will bite. In addition UEFA has created leeway for breaches. As for the EPL FPP - I haven't seen anyone punished, and I don't think we face any issues until the 2020 financials are published. Alot could happen between now and then.

I’ve been wondering if this year was more about balancing the books, than greatly improving the squad, and your phrase squad pruning is a much better description mate, although I’m not sure it did Marco Silva any favours, unless he’s here for the long term? Shush I better shut up now I think.

Let’s start by acknowledging that neither you nor I know much about each other. I appreciate and welcome your sometimes forensic examination of my posts and subsequent comments and am always happy to answer them as fully as I can. They add to the debate, thank you.

To my knowledge Moshiri has never publicly stated what he can or is willing to support financially. The key here is “publicly”.

Through a number of sources (and you might have to accept that I have considerable sources when it comes to the business affairs of the club) some within but many outside the club, Moshiri made it very apparent that he was not prepared to provide additional capital to fund further purchases. The key to the summer’s transfer activity was to (i) reduce the wage bill and (ii) generate player trading profits where possible to assist with the reduction of losses for both 18/19 and 19/20.

As the summer progressed it became apparent to Moshiri and the board that we would not sell the players we had budgeted for and in order to bring in new players additional capital would have to be injected into the club (company).

Regarding ICBC you will have to believe me that the club were not in breach of any of its covenants regarding the ICBC facility. The withdrawal of such (quite legally and within the conditions of the facility) was entirely due to strategic decisions made by ICBC.

Regarding FFP and the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules I will write a new article explaining exactly the position of the club. It will include projections for the last financial year and 2019/20.

As far as “critical times” are concerned we absolutely are in such. Without repeating all the points in my article, we face challenges on the pitch, there are justifiable questions regarding the long term position of the manager; our financial position is not healthy; we are not assured of planning approval for the new stadium; the funding of the new stadium is contingent upon planning approval, Premier League survival, a viable debt funding package and a very significant capital injection by shareholders or mezzanine funders. All of which has to happen in the next 12 months (max).

From a risk management perspective, how can the above not be described as critical?

The club know who the lenders will be, it's a question of meeting the above conditions.

I expect that the AGM in the New Year will cover the above.

And I gotta say that you both intimidate the hell out of me.

I agree Amit and Paul are really illuminating for those of us who struggle with these things.

Paul @ 165

"Let’s start by acknowledging that neither you nor I know much about each other."

Paul - I don't use a moniker. Plus I have an unusual name. It isn't difficult to find me via google. That said, not sure of the relevance.

"To my knowledge Moshiri has never publicly stated what he can or is willing to support financially. The key here is “publicly”. "

If you mean precise £££ - I know of no owners who have ever publicly committed a number. Why would they? It's folly. What he has said publicly is this: "At Everton Football Club, so long as I'm the major shareholder, financial issues are irrelevant". Powerful statement. He then pumped £100m in 2018 on top of £150m in 2017 and his initial £80m outlay. Then increased his shareholding by buying more shares in 2019. He publicly said he knew Lukaku's importance and personally tried to keep him at the club and matched deals that were on the table. But Lukaku wanted the UCL. Strong words and actions of a committed shareholder.

Kieran Maguire - of price of football.com (well worth a read), takes a different view to you, having done his own analysis: "I think Mr Moshiri is clearly in it for the long-term. You wouldn't have put that amount of money into the club on a short-term basis."

"Through a number of sources (and you might have to accept that I have considerable sources when it comes to the business affairs of the club) some within but many outside the club, Moshiri made it very apparent that he was not prepared to provide additional capital to fund further purchases. "

OK. So you did start with your conclusion when you wrote this and other negative pieces regarding the club's financial affairs; further more you aren't piecing together available facts and making a judgement. You have been guided by your sources. Your sources are obviously not Moshiri or Ryazantsev. Privately, I now wonder what the agendas of your sources are. Why reveal such terribly negative sentiments, which then persuaded you to write an article saying we are in "Critical Times", when, as you yourself admit, there are still a few unknown factors which could swing the picture?

"The key to the summer’s transfer activity was to (i) reduce the wage bill and (ii) generate player trading profits where possible to assist with the reduction of losses for both 18/19 and 19/20.
As the summer progressed it became apparent to Moshiri and the board that we would not sell the players we had budgeted for and in order to bring in new players additional capital would have to be injected into the club (company)."

This is not what your article in the summer alluded to (which now appears to have been influenced by your sources). You directly pointed to the P&L as being a constraint on summer spending. The club promptly did the opposite. It also, based on strong press rumours, missed out on two very significant acquisitions. The decision to sell players was publicly declared as necessary from a footballing perspective: Brands, Silva and Moshiri all said the club needed to have fewer players, and wanted to focus on buying younger players. They promptly broke that rule by buying Delph and bringing in Sidibe.

"Regarding ICBC you will have to believe me that the club were not in breach of any of its covenants regarding the ICBC facility. The withdrawal of such (quite legally and within the conditions of the facility) was entirely due to strategic decisions made by ICBC."

OK, very strange. If a facility is legally committed for 3 years, you need a legal, not "strategic", reason for withdrawing it.

"Regarding FFP and the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules I will write a new article explaining exactly the position of the club. It will include projections for the last financial year and 2019/20."

Thanks Paul. Look forward to it.

"As far as “critical times” are concerned we absolutely are in such. Without repeating all the points in my article, we face challenges on the pitch, there are justifiable questions regarding the long term position of the manager;"

Yes I agree we are in critical times from a footballing perspective. But this is not the core of your theme.

"our financial position is not healthy;"

From what perspective? We have positive net assets on the balance sheet. Our leverage is low relative to our asset base and turnover (key FPP metrics). We have a very valuable squad. Growing commercial revenues. Increased competition in the broadcasting space. Our P&L is negative primarily due to growth in wages and player amortisations. That is a good thing - the club actively went out to invest in the playing squad. Inevitably, our P&L was bound to suffer.

"we are not assured of planning approval for the new stadium; the funding of the new stadium is contingent upon planning approval,"

OK, but we are not assured either that it will be rejected - so why not wait to see how things develop?

"Premier League survival,"

A footballing matter again - and a risk we appear to have faced every season since Moyes left, every time we hit a bad run of form. Spurs fans are apparently concerned on relegation too!

"a viable debt funding package and a very significant capital injection by shareholders or mezzanine funders."

Again, let us see how things pan out?

"All of which has to happen in the next 12 months (max).
From a risk management perspective, how can the above not be described as critical?"

First let us establish some facts. You admit you have inside information - so your conclusions are influenced by that; this is not an arms length analysis. There are a large number of unknowns and variables, which only the passage of time will reveal. Many of the risks you cite are footballing related. You do not have an inside track into Moshiri's inner circle. Seasoned observers such as Kieran Maguire have concluded differently to you: Moshiri is committed for the long-term, which must mean he will be prepared to invest more. No one knows the true extent of his wealth. BMD project has not yet died. On FPP: UEFA's licensing regulations can provide exemptions for breaches, as they take trends into account.

If we accept these facts, then it is not possible to conclude we are in critical times - except on the footballing front. This could just be a bump in the road.

Critical can be defined as a point defining transition from one state to another. By that definition the club is indeed living in critical times on the pitch and off it. The use of the word critical does not necessarily imply negativity.

Regarding our finances I have written numerous articles giving my opinion on the health of the club's finances. I will be doing so again when the next accounts are published in the coming weeks.

On ICBC, as with any bank, credit facilities can be committed or non-committed. These terms would only be found in the facility agreement, a document that is not in the public domain.

If non committed (as I suspect this facility was) the bank can cancel or reduce the facility at any time subject to a notice period that would be defined within the facility agreement.

They were never going listen to the number the fans voted.

If it ever does get announced as going ahead, the club can give me some hope back if they do it the same day satans babys win the league.

Then the drawings and details follow daily until pre season when we announce Messi on loan for a season because he bit Suarez while he was on exercise bike at Barcelonas training headquarters.

Pure speculation on my part, but since I read someone somewhere reporting Ryazantsev as saying something along the lines that "Liverpool [the club, not the city] has no idea of what we are planning and where we want to take Everton", then shortly after Moshiri buying the Liver Building with BMD already established as the new stadium location, I have wondered the following:

That Moshiri and some exceedingly rich interested parties are using Everton as the vehicle to facilitate a mammoth return on real estate and wider commercial interests that would result from a revival of the neglected area from the city centre to BMD (and beyond).

A front and back fill of the two compass points, a possible revival even of Liverpool docks post Brexit as the UK looks west rather than east for trade, the city an attractive destination for Cunard-like cruise ships, never mind the returns on investment that could result on the land real estate development that will happen, and some people could do very well out of this if it comes to pass.

Even by your comparative analysis, with a simi!ar scheme, where the estimated cost of site preparation was £145 million, the Everton estimate is low. In my experience of projects I was involved in the actual cost was always double the estimated cost. I think the cost of site preparation will be closer to £200 million, as long as there are no unforeseen problems, which can often occur in such Dockland developments.

I still think there is a wider p!an regarding both the development of Everton and the new Stadium, behind and running parallel to the PR hipe.