Evertonians have watched with immense pride as the magnificent new Hill Dickinson Stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock has risen from the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey. A truly transformative project for the club and the city, its completion marks the beginning of a new era. 

However, amidst the excitement, questions have lingered regarding the financing of this colossal undertaking, especially given Everton's well-documented financial struggles under Farhad Moshiri's tenure. This in-depth analysis of Everton's Annual Reports and Accounts aims to provide a definitive answer to the question: Where did the money really come from?

The Initial Vision and Moshiri's Pledge

When Farhad Moshiri took over as majority Everton shareholder, the vision for a new, state-of-the-art stadium was central to his ambitious plans. Initially, Moshiri had pledged to largely self-fund the project — a commitment that seemed to offer significant reassurance to supporters considering the accountant's widely reported wealth.

Indeed, his initial substantial injections of capital were crucial in kickstarting the development of the new stadium. In recent disclosures, Moshiri himself stated he invested £400M directly into the stadium project. This shareholder funding, often structured as interest-free loans, was a significant fiscal cornerstone for the early stages of construction.

The Shifting Sands of Funding: External Debt Becomes Crucial

The landscape of the stadium's financing shifted dramatically, particularly following Russia's horrific invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This geopolitical event led to sanctions against Alisher Usmanov, Moshiri's business partner and a key Everton sponsor of Finch Farm through his USM Holdings. The loss of this significant financial backing meant Moshiri could no longer solely finance the project as initially envisioned.

As a result, Everton had to increasingly turn to external debt to continue the rapid pace of construction. The club entered into various loan agreements to bridge the funding gap. Key lenders during this period included:

  • Rights & Media Funding: This was a significant source of borrowing, secured against the club's future media and broadcasting revenues. These loans often came with high-interest rates, a point of concern for the club's financial health.

  • MSP Sports Capital: Another investment firm that provided substantial funding, further adding to the club's debt pile.

  • 777 Partners: This firm, which later attempted a takeover of the club that ultimately failed, also provided important loans to Everton during the stadium's construction phase.

By 30 June 2024, the Everton Stadium Development Company Limited, the entity responsible for the project, owed over £800M. Of this, approximately £575.15M was owed to its parent company, Everton Football Club Company Limited (which included Moshiri's shareholder loans), and £200M was a "one-year facility" secured by charges in favour of various lenders.

The capital costs incurred on the new stadium project were substantial, with the accounts showing approximately £210.9M in 2022-23 and a significant £312.7M in 2023-24. By the end of June 2024, the value of the stadium development on the balance sheet had increased from £410.6M to £730.17M. The estimated total cost for the stadium is now around £750M to £800M.

The Friedkin Group's Intervention: Refinancing and Stability

The acquisition of Everton by The Friedkin Group in December 2024 marked a pivotal moment for the stadium's financing. The new ownership swiftly moved to address the high-interest debt burden.

In March 2025, Everton announced a long-term £350M financing deal for the new stadium. This crucial agreement, arranged by The Friedkin Group in partnership with investment bank JP Morgan, came from a consortium of "blue-chip institutional lenders."

The purpose of this deal was explicitly stated as refinancing the existing high-interest debt that had supported the completion of the stadium. This refinancing is expected to save the club tens of millions of pounds annually in debt repayments due to more favourable interest rates and longer repayment terms.

Furthermore, The Friedkin Group's takeover involved a comprehensive financial restructuring. This included the conversion of Farhad Moshiri's interest-free shareholder loans into equity, significantly strengthening the club's balance sheet and reducing its overall debt position. All existing debt facilities were repaid as part of this process.

Beyond Debt: Commercial Growth and Future Prospects

While debt and shareholder funding have been the primary drivers, other income streams will contribute to the stadium's long-term financial viability and indirectly to its ultimate cost recovery.

  • Commercial Partnerships: The recent agreement for Hill Dickinson to acquire the naming rights for the stadium, reportedly worth up to £10M a year (though some estimates suggest a lower figure closer to £6M plus add-ons), represents a significant new revenue stream.

  • Matchday and Other Revenue: Once operational in the 2025-26 season, the new stadium is expected to significantly boost matchday revenue due to increased capacity (recently adjusted down to 52,719) and enhanced hospitality offerings.

  • Non-Football Events: The stadium is designed as a multi-purpose venue and has already been selected as a host venue for a Rugby League Test Match against Australia in November, and Uefa's 2028 Euros, with plans for various other events, further diversifying revenue streams.

Conclusion: A Complex Tapestry of Funding

The journey to fund Everton's new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock has been a complex one, reflecting the club's challenging financial situation under its previous ownership. While Farhad Moshiri's initial substantial investment provided the essential catalyst, the project's completion ultimately relied on a significant accumulation of high-interest external debt.

The recent intervention of The Friedkin Group has been critical in stabilising the financial picture, primarily through a substantial refinancing package and the conversion of shareholder loans to equity. This has shifted the burden of the stadium's cost from precarious short-term debt to a more sustainable long-term financing structure, underpinned by the new owners' commitment and the anticipated commercial revenues from a world-class venue.

In essence, the fantastic new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock was built through a combination of:

  1. Farhad Moshiri's significant personal investment (estimated at £400M).

  2. Substantial high-interest loans from various lenders (Rights and Media Funding, MSP Sports Capital, 777 Partners), which covered the remaining majority of the construction costs as Moshiri's direct funding diminished.

  3. The Friedkin Group's recent refinancing of this debt into a more manageable, long-term package, along with their conversion of Moshiri's loans into equity in the form of a massive issue of new Everton shares, which has ultimately provided the long-term financial security for the stadium.

The Bramley-Moore Dock stadium stands as a testament to ambition and resilience, with its funding story serving as a stark reminder of the financial tightrope the club has walked, and the fresh start offered by the new ownership.


Reader Comments (128)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()


John Burns
1 Posted 03/07/2025 at 09:32:52
Thanks Michael, that's a good and clear summary of the stadium's financing.
Michael Kenrick
2 Posted 03/07/2025 at 09:33:04
Before I looked at this in some detail, I was still curious about the state of Everton's finances after the takeover by TFG and the effect of the claim that they had resolved all the horrible loans that Farhad Moshiri had committed us to.

On that score, checking the Companies House listing of charges confirms that the JP Morgan Chase instrument for £350M is the only significant financial one left, and that is new, dating from the TFG takeover in December 2024.

I can't find the exact cost of servicing this debt but seems it should be around £20M-£25M, which is around 10% of turnover, and I would expect to be manageable.

I was curious about how this may affect the various claims flying around about (a) how much debt TFG have committed us to; and (b) how much may really be available in terms of transfer kitty.

None the wiser really after all that effort! So I'll have to go with the £70M to £100M that has been bandied about. But some have said the debt we carry is massive; I'm not sure that it is really, considering the investment in the new stadium.


Laurie Hartley
3 Posted 03/07/2025 at 09:39:23
Thanks for the report, Michael. It seems we are now financially stable which is good news.

I only have one question – did Farhad Moshiri get any of his £400M back?

Ryan Holroyd
4 Posted 03/07/2025 at 09:54:25
I heard 25m up to 50m based on Everton achievements. So 25m!!

*figures from that talksport chap

Brian Wilkinson
5 Posted 03/07/2025 at 09:57:47
This is one of the best articles you have done, Michael, and believe me you have contributed some great stuff on ToffeeWeb — clear, precise and understanding of the stadium build and funding, and future costing and future income.

Really enjoyed that read.

ps: Most of us feared the worst when yourself and Lyndon where leaving the site, to see you back here is absolutely brilliant. I know you have been back for a while, and I know Evertonians will have difference of opinions, not just with you over players but also among ourselves, it's all about difference of opinions that makes this site the best.

I personally think if you walked away, Michael, this site would fold, so yes you will get some Blues who will disagree on some articles, some will say spot on, that's the problem, you put on different articles and no matter how well put or how true, there will always be divided opinions, whether it is about a player, or a match performance. But I just want you to know how valued you are on this site, along with every other single Evertonian on here that I can honestly call a family, people I have met on here, and people just simply I have spoken to on here.

Onwards and upwards

U.t.f.t

Ian Wilkins
6 Posted 03/07/2025 at 09:58:54
From your analysis Michael, we have a brand spanking new stadium, an asset worth £800M which will generate substantial new revenue.

To deliver that, Moshiri has taken a substantial personal haircut upon his exit sale.

We now have £350M of debt owed to blue chip lenders at sensible commercial interest rates. A toxic debt position has been refinanced. This is not significant debt in Premier League terms.

Our balance sheet is in such a healthier state now. We now need our annual Profit and Loss account to start showing better returns, in which the stadium will play its part.

Tony Cunningham
7 Posted 03/07/2025 at 10:29:14
Thanks for writing this and clarifying our position.

So the conclusion is we have an £800M stadium and owe £350M on it. That is quite amazing really.

Onwards and upwards.

Stu Darlington
8 Posted 03/07/2025 at 11:13:27
Yeah, but I bet the price of pies goes up!
Jake FitzGerald
9 Posted 03/07/2025 at 11:20:56
And barely 18 months ago, those utter cowboys 777 were the only name in the frame. We wouldn't exist now if they'd gotten their scabby mitts on the wheel.

I can't stand American capitalists but at least the Friedkins know what they're doing.

Hugh Jenkins
10 Posted 03/07/2025 at 11:34:20
Jake (9),

I doubt that American capitalists are different in any way to capitalists from any other country, and whilst many despise the democratic capitalist system, the alternatives (eg, Russia, China etc.) are dreadful.

Stewart Lowe
11 Posted 03/07/2025 at 11:49:57
As much as I despised Richard Masters and the Premier League, not allowing 777 Partners to take ownership because they couldn't prove assets were in place to fund what they wanted to do, probably helped us dodge one hell of a bullet!!

Similarly, but very different, not opting with John Textor has now proven to be yet another huge bullet dodged!!

With the above two in ownership, that could have set this new Everton back 5-10 years, so maybe the tide has turned for us, and I can't wait to be there on 9 September!! COYB!!

Martin Farrington
12 Posted 03/07/2025 at 11:56:58
JP Morgan… 😲

He owned the Titanic.

Lets hope the outcome is vastly different!!!

Nick Riddle
13 Posted 03/07/2025 at 11:57:18
Thanks for doing the legwork on that Michael, and congratulations on putting together a very readable article on a very dry subject.

It's going in my digital library to keep for future reference.

Jake FitzGerald
14 Posted 03/07/2025 at 12:06:15
Hugh @ 10,

The only alternative to Anglo-Saxon western capitalism doesn't have to be Russia and China. Dunno if you've noticed, but they're both about as capitalist as it's possible to get - and Trump's America is actively seeking to go down their route.

Pete Neilson
15 Posted 03/07/2025 at 12:11:54
Thanks for the article, Michael.

As I understand it, Spurs has around £70M depreciation per season against their stadium, it's the main reason they satisfy PSR.

Presumably from this coming season we'll also be able to assign tens of millions of depreciation, hugely boosting our PSR position. More headroom for TFG to invest in the squad?

James Marshall
16 Posted 03/07/2025 at 12:14:45
And there I was thinking they funded it when they found the Arteta money down the back of Bill's sofa.

[Someone had to say it.]

Andrew Merrick
17 Posted 03/07/2025 at 12:15:33
Martin 12, most people rate that hotel...haha
Laurie Hartley
18 Posted 03/07/2025 at 12:28:38
Brian # 5 - I agree with your view that Michael is crucial to the viability of ToffeeWeb.

Don't worry about us arguing with him on occasion though. I think he likes bit of biffo now and again.

Martin Farrington
19 Posted 03/07/2025 at 12:30:30
Andrew, lol. Indeed. Let's face it, the only crisis we have had so far is the reduction in capacity because some idiot forgot to factor in the separation required between home and away fans.

So the stupid capacity number that was dreamt up, is now a really stupid number. Thankfully it's not a massive drop.

Michael Kenrick
20 Posted 03/07/2025 at 13:34:38
Wow, Brian, that's really generous of you and much appreciated.

There's others who wouldn't quite agree, of course, but they include some who seem to take pleasure from using the site to wind up and then attack other Evertonians, and I'm simply done with that.

We have different opinions and that's all part and parcel, but I will no longer tolerate belittling personal attacks on here.

Sean Kelly
21 Posted 03/07/2025 at 13:49:41
Thanks Michael for putting out an article that simplifies our finances to the great unwashed, I don't come on here praising anybody and am normally a moaning auld sod but this cleared things up for me.

This is the tonic I need having twisted my whole left side in a recent accident. The legal drugs help also. Maybe going forward I won't be on here giving out. Onwards and upwards. Thanks again, Michael, for the clarity.

Eric Myles
23 Posted 03/07/2025 at 14:08:29
The estimated total cost for the stadium is now around £750M to £800M

By any chance do you have a breakdown of that cost Michael?

What exactly does it include?

Michael Kenrick
24 Posted 03/07/2025 at 14:27:39
Sorry, Eric, I have no idea and would have to use my 'Phone a Friend' card. This is what she reckons:

Given the range of £750M to £800M, a highly illustrative breakdown might look something like this:

Direct Construction (Materials, Labour, Major Systems): £550M - £600M

Enabling Works (Dock infill, Ground prep, Utilities): £70M - £100M

Professional Fees (Architects, Engineers, Project Management, Legal): £70M - £100M

Financing Costs (Accrued Interest, Fees): £60M - £80M (total over construction period)

Contingency / Ancillary Costs / Overruns: £0 - £50M (depending on how much was absorbed into other categories)

It's important to reiterate that these are estimates. The actual figures are closely guarded by the club and the contractors. However, this breakdown gives a likely indication of where the significant investment has gone.

Brendan McLaughlin
25 Posted 03/07/2025 at 14:41:20
Pete #15,

That doesn't ring true.

Stadium costs are excluded from PSR so we've already "benefited" somewhere to the tune of £700 million.

Surely we can't benefit a second time as we depreciate our new home over whatever number of years?

Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

Tony Abrahams
26 Posted 03/07/2025 at 15:17:40
A good article Michael, and judging by your last paragraph@20, it sounds like you have been looking in the mirror and doing a little bit of soul searching lately!

I'm glad you stayed on Michael, because I think this website needs you mate, but the standard has definitely been lowered since Lyndon departed, so articles like this are very welcome.

Not that it really matters but if it's true that Moshiri lost £400M, I'm wondering if he received any money when TFG, purchased the club?

Jay Harris
27 Posted 03/07/2025 at 15:34:47
Tony he took a bath on around £400M (his interest-free loans to the club) and just asked for £50M when the deal was finalized. So he was taken to the cleaners by Black Bill and TFG.

We should be grateful to him for what he did for us despite his bumbling management.

Great post by the way, Michael, and so glad you're still on board.

Pete Neilson
28 Posted 03/07/2025 at 15:42:13
Brendan (25), the joys of PSR!

I got it from The Athletic which is pretty reliable. They reported that Tottenham's stadium depreciation costs were essential to their PSR compliance.

According to them, Spurs depreciation and non-player amortisation have run at around £70M since 2019-20. Primarily as a result of the stadium.

Tony Abrahams
29 Posted 03/07/2025 at 15:46:39
Thanks Jay.
Michael Kenrick
30 Posted 03/07/2025 at 15:54:46
One figure I recall seeing, Tony, was something around £40M but I can't find any confirmation of that.

Paul Quinn did a breakdown of the various stages in the TFG deal back in January but it's unclear how much (if anything!) Moshiri actually received in cash for all his previous generosity in funding the club and at least half the stadium… until he pulled the plug.

I guess the bottom line which I didn't really draw out was that Moshiri only funded around half of the stadium and effectively stopped funding the team. That's what left us in such a huge hole, allowing TFG to step in for possibly very little outlay (other than some guarantee to JP Morgan Chase?) for the creative restructuring that accompanied the decimation of share value for the small shareholders.

I estimate the combined loss we small shareholders 'paid' in terms of lost value through that deal is around £20M — ironically almost exactly how much it cost your friend Bill Kenwright to buy the entire club off Peter Johnson 25 years ago!

Paul Kossoff
31 Posted 03/07/2025 at 16:04:32
Ian 6. Our debt is apparently higher.

Everton's debt situation is complex, with various sources contributing to a significant financial burden, including stadium development costs and operational expenses.

The club's net debt, which stood at £330.6M as of June 2023, increased to £567.3M by the end of the 2023-24 financial year, according to the latest accounts. This increase is attributed to investments in the squad, stadium development, and general operational cost. Who do we believe as far as the accounts goes?

All we can say is we are in a far better state than we were, God knows what situation we would be in now if 777 Partners had taken us over.

Details of the Friedkin financial restructuring of Everton emerge

Brendan McLaughlin
32 Posted 03/07/2025 at 16:19:48
Aw Pete #28... now I see.

If we depreciate our stadium costing £800M over 40 years that's £20M each year.

Technically that means we can exceed PSR limits by £20M a year… but, as it's all already accounted for, it doesn't actually give us any extra financial headroom.

Tony Abrahams
33 Posted 03/07/2025 at 16:42:45
Twenty million that he never really had, Michael, which is why I'm always concerned about this type of deal.

It looks like Moshiri stopped funding when The Oligarchs got sanctioned, but his boss had that much money that it wasn't a problem for him to lose such an enormous amount?

The winners have definitely been TFG, so let's just hope that, along with being sensible, they are also going to be ambitious!

Pete Neilson
34 Posted 03/07/2025 at 16:55:32
Brendan (32) my understanding is that it does give headroom from a purely PSR perspective.

For example, at the moment, Spurs depreciation gives them £70M plus a season which can be offset against any PSR recognised losses. As long as the league sticks to the £105M limit over 3 years they've already got cover for £210M of losses which could be used as headroom for spending on players.

It's why they are £280M safely away from any PSR issues this window despite having nearly £900M of debt. A decent accountant is probably worth as much as a player nowadays.

Ian Bennett
35 Posted 03/07/2025 at 17:18:19
I don't think stadium depreciation is subject to PSR.

Companies house outstanding charges don't justify the claim that net debt is still £567M.

There's a £350M mortgage, and an overdraft with Metro Bank. There's a charge over the shares as well, but no other debt directly on the club.

The full picture will become clearer in the next set of accounts.

Daniel A Johnson
36 Posted 03/07/2025 at 17:18:41
We really need to acknowledge Moshiri in all of this.

Without his considerable initial finincial input and desire to get this off the ground, this stadium wouldn't exist.

Tony Abrahams
37 Posted 03/07/2025 at 17:29:41
Every single time I drive past the site where The Tesco Stadium in Kirkby was going to be built, I curse Bill Kenwright and acknowledge both Farhad Moshiri and every single KEIOC member who fought to defeat a move that I'm certain would have absolutely destroyed Everton Football Club, Daniel A.

Danny O'Neill
38 Posted 03/07/2025 at 17:54:08
Great article Michael. One of your masterpieces.

Very well-articulated and made it easy for someone like me to follow. Football finances confuse the hell out of me.

I like your post @20. Absolutely. We come on here to comment and voice opinions. Sometimes we'll agree, others we won't. That's normal, but it doesn't need to revert to personal insult.

Daniel A Johnson
39 Posted 03/07/2025 at 17:54:26
Amen to that, Tony. Destination Kirkby… the thought of it even now gives me Nightmares.

A true Sliding Doors moment it would have doomed the club.

David West
40 Posted 03/07/2025 at 18:29:30
MK. Great read that mate !

Are there any clues to the length of time we are looking to pay back the 350m refinancing deal ?

When you mentioned servicing the debt £25-30M is that £25M per year? So we are looking at 12 ish years?

Do you have an estimate of matchday income for the new ground?

An increase in capacity, ticket price, hospitality offerings, multi use of the stadium, non football events, conferences and the just the the wider range on offer to fans to spend their money at the ground on match days, should surely see that £350M paid up relatively easily while leaving a fair chunk for transfer business.

£25-30M seems like a excellent deal over a long period and gives clues that TFG are here for the long term.

Liam Mogan
41 Posted 03/07/2025 at 18:55:17
Nice summary, Michael.

Does anyone ever make any money out of owning a football club?

It mostly seems like throwing money down the drain.

Derek Taylor
42 Posted 03/07/2025 at 18:55:58
'The £400M loan by Moshiri was reputedly turned into share capital.' Are these shares held in the name of Moshiri or that of the Friedkins?

ps: Does Everton FC own a women's team that can be sold to an Everton FC subsidiary if we get in debt trouble again? And, if so, can their forthcoming tenancy of Goodison Park now be seen as such team's asset?

Pete Neilson
43 Posted 03/07/2025 at 19:01:58
Ian (35), for PSR the Premier League treats the depreciation of a stadium as that of fixed asset.

The yearly total is subtracted from any figure that the club subsequently presents to the Premier League for PSR purposes. It's an accounting figure rather than real outgoing cash but it's a deduction that can help in the PSR calculation.

Spurs are experts in it and they're very transparent about the numbers involved.

Brendan McLaughlin
44 Posted 03/07/2025 at 19:04:35
Liam #41

"Does anyone ever make money out of owning a football club?"

Too obvious... Dave and Tony won't fall for that.

Ian Bennett
45 Posted 03/07/2025 at 19:06:34
Pete, not sure if you're agreeing or not. But this is a Spurs article:

"Given that the club were some £77million over the £105m allowance that might have seemed curious, but Spurs have a significant amount of allowable deductions, largely due to the depreciation related to the stadium, something that amounts to around £70m per season. Add to that the deductions for youth development, the women's team and community work and the figure grows further.

Football finance expert Swiss Ramble estimated that Spurs had around £93m per year of allowable deductions when it came to PSR compliance, with that figure made up of depreciation of £70m, £15m on youth development and £3m each on the women's team and the community".

Pete Neilson
46 Posted 03/07/2025 at 19:11:19
Ian, that’s what I meant. It counts towards the calculation of the figures used for PSR.

Furious agreement!🤣

Anyway, has Barry signed yet?

Ian Bennett
47 Posted 03/07/2025 at 19:15:03
Derek, yes to all.

Pete, you should of said no. A good 15 minutes of entertainment missed there! 😂

Brendan McLaughlin
48 Posted 03/07/2025 at 19:30:14
So Ian #Various…

Does stadium depreciation impact the money available to spend on players?

Pete Neilson
49 Posted 03/07/2025 at 19:41:27
Brendan, yes it does as long as we’re not pushing PSR to the limit in which case it’d only help us not getting a points deduction!

If for example we had three year losses of £105M before depreciation was taken into account we’d be unable to spend any more on players. But if the depreciation of the year is let’s say £30M it cuts our losses to £75M meaning the cheque book could come out.

However the depreciation is just accounting rather than real outgoing money so it’d obviously also depend on TFG wanting to spend real cash.

Brendan McLaughlin
50 Posted 03/07/2025 at 20:06:32
Pete #49

If our losses were £105M before depreciation... after depreciation of £30M was factored in the losses would be £135M.

Depreciation is effectively ignored in terms of calculating PSR and won't affect the money available to buy players. It's the same as spending money on women's or youth football.

Ian Bennett
51 Posted 03/07/2025 at 20:07:41
Brendan, no, I don't think stadium cost are within PSR spend, be it depreciation or interest.

The only impact on the business, is the interest and capital repayments (assuming it's not interest only) from cashflow.

Christy Ring
52 Posted 03/07/2025 at 20:18:30
Michael a superb article and very thorough. I still believe it was Moshiri's dream from the very start, and he did put his money where his mouth is.

Michael, I also applaud your stand @20, no more wind-ups and personal attacks on fellow Evertonians, just different opinions.

Pete Neilson
53 Posted 03/07/2025 at 20:22:46
Brendan, it’s an allowable deduction expense, not an addition. It’s not “real” outgoing cash. It’s a deduction from reported losses when calculating compliance, PSR. It’s included in the calculation of our final profit or loss as presented to the EPL.

Easiest way to see this is in action is to lookup Spurs depreciation and how they use it to put themselves in the best possible PSR position.

Kevin Molloy
54 Posted 03/07/2025 at 20:23:30
People will be looking at what went on here in a hundred years, and saying 'Hang on, this doesn't make sense.'

A club burdened with debt has a billionaire come from nowhere and sink nearly half a billion into building a new stadium, swallows that hit, then promptly disappears.

There's something not right about the whole thing. I refuse to believe Farhad suddenly got an attack of nostalgia for Da Blooz and sunk all this money in for no return. Will we ever find out what really went on? Probably not.

Pete Neilson
55 Posted 03/07/2025 at 20:39:53
Brendan this article explains how depreciation is a PSR blessing.

Link

Brendan McLaughlin
56 Posted 03/07/2025 at 20:55:32
Sorry Pete #53

I thought you were talking about how depreciation impacts the actual P&L figure rather than the PSR calculation.

Imagine Everton had been run reasonably efficiently (I know) in recent years and every year we only made a loss of £35M. Our PSR would be £105M at the end of each three year period but we don't breach it.

Our new stadium kicks in and the depreciation charge for the year is, say, £30M but nothing else changes. So our P&L loss rises to £65M for the year but our 3-year PSR will stay at £105M.

So I just can't see how stadium depreciation allows more leeway for spending on players when it isn't included in the PSR figure (as opposed to calculation) in the first instance

Just saw your most recent post... will have a read. Thanks.

Andrew James
57 Posted 03/07/2025 at 20:55:34
Good article Michael.

Those asking why people buy football clubs... well, I agree, it must be like pouring money down the drain when sole owners invest but for clubs like Chelsea when there are multiple shareholders, the risk can be spread so taking the dividends will be good business.

For the modern day Jack Walkers, I guess there is the caché of owning a club. I suspect that pleased the late Bill Kenwright a lot. But more and more, I think we will see set ups like those at Newcastle Utd and Man Utd.

Paul Kossoff
58 Posted 03/07/2025 at 21:01:52
Where exactly did the money come from?

A club that its owner stopped funding, heavily in debt, in his own words, on the brink of collapse, most of his wealth gone, and he thinks, oh I know how to get out of this shit show, I'll build a new stadium!

Who did pay for BMD? I don't think Moshiri had the funds to build it– in fact, if he had handed the keys to Barkley's Bank, as Liverpool did to save themselves, Moshiri would have came out better off.

Ian Bennett
59 Posted 03/07/2025 at 21:10:06
The club losses reduce from increased gate receipts, hospitality, naming rights etc, therefore improving the PSR position from say negative £35M, to plus £15M a season.

Whilst the cost of the stadium, are excluded from the psr numbers.

In theory, the club has capacity for a further £25M a year in wages, and another £25M in amortisation assuming the league position doesn't improve. £25M over 5 years, is a potential spend of £125M.

That's to say, it's unlikely the club would spend all that capacity in one go. But also noting that we've ditched probably £40M+ a season in wages.

Ian Burns
60 Posted 03/07/2025 at 21:11:18
Simple message from me, Michael. Extremely well researched and the time taken to produce this article to share with us on TW has to be both admired and appreciated.

It was also an extremely interesting read and each of us now has a better understanding of something that has been a bit of a mystery for the likes of myself for a long time. Well done and thanks!

Pete Neilson
61 Posted 03/07/2025 at 21:25:16
Brendan no apology needed mate. I think part of any confusion, me as much as anyone, is the use of “excluded from PSR calculations”. But this means they've already been deducted from the “adjusted” figure presented to the league.

On this basis, and looking at Spurs as an example, depreciation does help with the PSR as well, as it's already been deducted from the losses. Which in turn means more potential spending against the shackles of the Premier League. Clearest explanation of this I've seen:

“Each club has a ‘PSR Calculation' which, in its simplest terms, is its adjusted earnings before tax, amalgamated over a rolling 3-year period.

“Adjusted” as clubs are allowed to deduct from their PSR Calculations any costs which relate to:

The depreciation of tangible fixed assets or amortisation/impairment of intangible assets.
Women's football expenditure.
Youth development expenditure.
Community development expenditure.”

Cheers

Brendan McLaughlin
62 Posted 03/07/2025 at 21:39:52
Pete #55

To be honest I don't see anything in the article to support your view that stadium depreciation will provide more headroom for player purchases.

The only items which will increase funding for player purchases are those which form part of a clubs actual PSR such as increased ticket receipts, profit on player trading etc.

Any item which does not form part of the 3-Year PSR figure - stadium depreciation, women's and youth football - cannot by definition affect the 3-Year PSR figure because they don't form part of it and it's largely the PSR figure which dictates the headroom available for player purchases.

If our women's team was making millions it would not provide an avenue for extra funding for the men's team because those millions would not be included in the 3-Year PSR figure.

Same principle applies to stadium depreciation.

Eric Myles
63 Posted 04/07/2025 at 00:34:25
Michael #24, looks like a reasonable breakdown of costs although the land purchase should be added in and also to get the true total cost the ongoing interest on the debt until repayment, assuming it's intended to be repayed.

Is your friend a QS?

Bob Parrington
64 Posted 04/07/2025 at 01:28:47
Michael, Thanks for the article. Like most others, I was worried about ToffeeWeb's future when the ownership changed and am really happy to read your articles.

In terms of the stated value by several (of up to 800m pds), I wonder if this is an underestimation. This might well be the cost but I would imagine the value of the finished article is considerably higher than the cost of the individual building costs. What are your thoughts on this point?

Eric Myles
65 Posted 04/07/2025 at 02:48:40
What other costs were you thinking need to be added Bob?

As I've pointed out land cost and continued interest should be included.

I assume the planning permission costs are included in Michael's breakdown @20 which looks pretty good considering the initial reports were that the dock infill cost would be around £100 million and the LO'R construction contract was £515 million.

Eric Myles
66 Posted 04/07/2025 at 03:12:33
Correction Laing O'Rourke contract was £555 million.
Bob Parrington
67 Posted 04/07/2025 at 04:23:46
Eric, I wasn't thinking of adding further costs. I was suggesting that the true value, when all is completed will likely be higher than the sum of the costs. Sorry if I didn't make this clear.
Eric Myles
68 Posted 04/07/2025 at 04:44:51
My bad Bob, misunderstood your post, sorry.
Jay Harris
69 Posted 04/07/2025 at 05:11:30
Just for clarification the club can amortize the cost of a player over his contract period up to 5 years so if we spend 75m on players this financial year and they all get 5 year contracts only 15m a year would go against profits.
Eric Myles
70 Posted 04/07/2025 at 05:12:58
The value of a building is not necessarily as high as the actual cost to build, or especially the sales price of the building. Developers costs are generally 60% of the sale price of a development.

But an easy guide to 'value' would be 'what's the cost to build it now?' So I'd say that has got to be more than 800 million.

If it was actually for sale you'd increase the selling price to factor in the three years saving of time for construction, plus immediate returns for usage. Maybe TFG could sell the stadium to themselves and generate a good income for the Club a la Chelsea?

Jerome Shields
71 Posted 04/07/2025 at 06:40:43
Just glad that Everton are in what appears to be a reasonable financial position and Financial Management going forward appears to be prudent.It will be the 24/25 accounts that provide further clarifying nb information.

Moshiri & Co did not lose anything since the original Capital injection cost them nothing.Both Kenwright&Co and Moshiri&Co were no fit to run Everton.

Eric Myles
72 Posted 04/07/2025 at 07:00:36
"Moshiri & Co did not lose anything since the original Capital injection cost them nothing"

You'll have to explain that one to me Jerome, where can I get £400 million that costs me nothing?

And if I invest it and get nothing back I've not lost anything?

Ian Bennett
73 Posted 04/07/2025 at 07:35:09
If they only spent 25 pence more on the tunnel.

I love the new stadium, but there are elements that are proper Temu.

Derek Thomas
74 Posted 04/07/2025 at 07:42:08
My immediate answer to the question is; who cares, it's built now.

The real question is how are the repayments going to effect us.

Robert Tressell
75 Posted 04/07/2025 at 09:06:21
Whatever the source of funding, I am delighted it is done.

Personally, I don't believe Moshiri has ever been that personally exposed to the financial issues at Everton - regardless of what the accounting books say. Somehow the source of funding and real financial exposure probably lies with Usmanov.

What was he trying to get out of it all? Maybe something to do with the construction related contracts and redevelopment of the wider docks. Maybe an Abramovich style platform / visibility to help keep him safe(r) from the political situation in Russia. Maybe both.

Why didn't he step back in to protect himself from losses? Presumably sanctions and scrutiny of sources of funds post Russia / Ukraine prevented it. Abramovich had to sell Chelsea in May 2022. And maybe the construction / redevelopment had already given him at least some of what he was after.

All speculation of course. We'll never know.

Pete Neilson
76 Posted 04/07/2025 at 12:14:38
Brendan (62) here is a link to the EPL handbook.
Link

Depreciation is used in the calculation of our Adjusted Earnings which is then used by the EPL for PSR purposes. Page 308 is Form 3A which shows the calculation. Its actually done as an "add back" which increases our earnings on paper. This increases our PSR wriggle room.

Depreciation will be positive for us in PSR terms just as it has been for Spurs.

Raymond Fox
77 Posted 04/07/2025 at 13:14:44
We needed a new ground sooner or later whoever owned the club.
As its proved its taken an eye watering amount of money to build the stadium which very few owners could afford.

I have got an headache trying to unterstand all the finance involved.

My questions are, what have Friedkin paid for the club which of course includes the stadium and players, and what do we think its worth now.
Do we know, or is there a way of knowing.

Christine Foster
78 Posted 04/07/2025 at 13:53:01
Good article Michael, over the years the amount of shady loan companies and financial motzarts, had taken a stranglehold on the club and its ability to survive, in short we were all but bankrupt long before Moshiri and Usmanov came on the scene. The lack of ability, management acumen and commercial contracts, would leave the club in great peril with PSR for years to come, so the advent of Moshiri's tenure brought a short term measure of relief. It's worth noting that Moshiri and his friend Usmanov had been trying to buy Arsenal for years and when Everton became available they could see opportunities for business, their business. Without doubt Usmanov was the power behind the throne, holding interviews with prospective managers, ploughing money into Finch farm sponsorship and it would seem, underwriting the cost of the stadium build for his friend. Moshiri bought into Everton in 2016, but Usmanov didn't sell his shares in Arsenal until Aug 2018. The go ahead for BMD was not given until 2021.

The timelines are important as the money ploughed into the project by Moshiri literally dried up when Usmanove was sanctioned.

The question was why buy Everton Football club if the cost was so high? Location opportunities, construction deals due to Usmanovs steel business, the opportunity to make a financial killing by buying up more docklands? Conjecture I know but when the sanctions came in, Moshiris appetite went.

He took a bath, but in the end TFG benefited and I suspected it was a very close call with the club failing.

David West
79 Posted 04/07/2025 at 18:11:09
Pete neilson.

The spurs link article is interesting. They now are bringing in massive revenue, but spending alot also.

I think it's only a matter of time until Levy stumbles across the right manager, leading to the final piece of his long term puzzle .

The article gives me hope, as it shows that still now on pitch success is the real way to progress, yes stadiums, pints and prawn sandwiches help, but getting it right on the pitch and with your transfer business is how to move upwards.

You can have all the revenue you want, all the allowances for psr, all the NFL games, concerts and boxing matches.

If you don't bring the right players, have the right man leading them as manager then you just have a shit team in boss stadium.

Let's hope we get our recruitment right !

Pete Neilson
80 Posted 04/07/2025 at 18:28:13
That last couple of sentences sum it up nicely David.
As you say, get the recruitment right and with a much stronger commercial base the future will be bright.
Ian Bennett
81 Posted 04/07/2025 at 18:45:46
Villa and Chelsea given substantial uefa fines.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13392443/chelsea-and-aston-villa-fined-27m-and-9-5m-respectively-by-uefa-for-breaching-financial-rules

David West
82 Posted 04/07/2025 at 20:16:06
Chelsea fined €11M for breaches of squad cost ratio.
€20M for the dodgy hotel sale.

Ridiculous that Uefa fine them but the Premier League allow this dodgy hotel sale scam.

When are we selling Goodison Park for £250M to the women's team???

Jerome Shields
83 Posted 04/07/2025 at 22:55:38
Eric#72

The money came from dubious Russian Oligarch sources, which only had value if it had been able to be laundried through Everton,.Which it was not as TFG placed no value on it and Moshiri appeared to right it off or lose it.Over the same period it had no effect on Moshiri wealth as it increased.

So the £400m was worthless.

Jake FitzGerald
84 Posted 04/07/2025 at 23:13:33
EFCW Holding Company Ltd, set up a fortnight ago by the Friedkins. Expect the women’s team to be sold for an inflationary figure back to EFCW pretty soon.
Brendan McLaughlin
85 Posted 04/07/2025 at 23:16:08
Pete #78

PSR is all about limiting the losses a club can rack up in terms of it's Premier League men's team. The easiest way of arriving at that figure is to take a clubs overall loss and reduce it by the things that are PSR deductible... depreciation, women's and youth football etc.

So of course there are going to be PL forms.

Because Spurs have a relatively new stadium... their annual depreciation is significant but it's a book entry, an accounting convention. It's not real cash.

Imagine Everton spent 10M on woman's football, 10M on youth football and 10M on EiTC and decided to terminate all of those programmes. That would free up 30M cash to spend on the PL team.

If our new stadium was fully depreciated tomorrow...there would not be a single extra penny to put towards the PL team. So how "depreciation" provides more financial headroom for player purchases is beyond me and sorry but for me there is nothing in the Athletic article nor the PL regulations that make me doubt that view.

Enjoyed the debate Pete and the lack of rancour but I think we're probably boring people now... so unless you or I can deliver a "knockout" blow I think we should leave it there.

Of course I started the debate.. so you're more than welcome to a reply to finish.

Been a pleasure mate... but you've now got a target on your back.

Christine Foster
86 Posted 04/07/2025 at 23:24:03
Jerome, that money had value. It "bought" goods and services, without it there would be no stadium.
Where the money came from, how it could be replaced or returned is another matter, such is the definition of money laundering. Dirty or tainted money is still money, what it buys is questionable by many as tainted itself but what it has bought still has value in its own right as does BMD. The new owner, in this case TFG has paid a heavily discounted price for the value of what it could be worth as a result.
Brendan McLaughlin
87 Posted 04/07/2025 at 23:35:59
Jerome #83

It's equally plausible that but for his dabbling with Everton... Moshiri's worth would have increased even more over the period concerned?

Pete Neilson
88 Posted 05/07/2025 at 06:30:24
No problem, Brendan (85).

We'll agree to disagree on this, debate closed. Cheers

Tony Abrahams
89 Posted 06/07/2025 at 08:07:30
Those fines for both Aston Villa and Chelsea, do make you wonder about the double standards that many people believe exist with regards the EPL.
Dave Abrahams
90 Posted 06/07/2025 at 08:38:22
Tony (89), It does make you wonder about how different the penalties were for different clubs, even Forest were treated more lenient than Everton and yet here on ToffeeWeb some Everton fans were saying we were lucky to get away with the points deductions we received.

It does make you wonder!

Ray Robinson
91 Posted 06/07/2025 at 09:32:40
Tony, those financial penalties relate to UEFA wages to income rules and are not comparable to Premier League PSR regulations, so it’s not relevant to compare. Had we been in Europe, we might also have been heavily fined.

I take your point though about being treated differently though. Far more relevant for me is how Chelsea got away with selling their hotels and women’s team to themselves, the latter at a seemingly grossly inflated price.

And if Chelsea are repeat offenders in Europe, why haven’t they been banned from European competition? What Chelsea are doing with player trading is appalling and I can’t understand how they’re allowed to get away with it.

Jerome Shields
92 Posted 06/07/2025 at 11:32:34
Brendan#87

That is possible when you think outside the box, which seems to be a requirement these days.

Jerome Shields
93 Posted 06/07/2025 at 12:14:17
Christine #78

That is 100% correct.But when I was dealing with Money Laundering in a organisation what struck me was the value they placed on the tangible benefits, interest, security for loans and increases in value allowing refinancing.They did not appear to value the money just concerning themselves with front names, getting the money into the system and getting in a position to get tangible benefits.Thankfully they took their money under procedure pressure and on finding a Friendly Bank Manager who ended up with Legal issues. The Money Laundering Officer who I told to report it, I later found out never did, being in financial diffs herself and probably ad-hoc to them.

I liken it to the difference between a Business and Trader.The Business fulfils it's legal requirement, a Trader trades and Legal requirement play catch up.The laudriers hopes they don't.I did place value on money within the organisation, but such money has its side affects , which Everton are now clear off , as far as I know.

Alot of Moshiri's regien for me followed this template, with the added bonus of bollockacy Bill, after his visits to Monaco.

Jerome Shields
94 Posted 07/07/2025 at 08:34:33
Brendan #87,

One benefit derived for Moshiri is that he avoided sanctions and didn't get caught. Not getting caught is highly regarded in those types of circles.

That in fact was his job objective — and didn't he do well? He never gave the appearance of someone who lost a pound.

Danny O'Neill
95 Posted 07/07/2025 at 09:30:52
Ray @91, I wouldn't be too judgemental on Chelsea's sale of their women's team. We've discussed this previously. Villa look like they are about to do the same and there were stories Everton could be considering it. The FA has admitted there is a loophole.

You might have thought that in addition to the fine, they would have had a transfer ban for a window or two? Not sure how that would be distinguished between players purchased for Premier League use and those for UEFA competition. Then again, the FA, like other European national associations are part of UEFA, so should be across the board.

Anyway, not transfer ban. They have reportedly already spent £200M with others lined up.

Ray Robinson
96 Posted 07/07/2025 at 09:46:57
Danny, I wouldn't blame Everton if they did sell their women's team to raise their spending levels but the loophole surely doesn't permit assets to be sold at rates higher than market value. £200M for Chelsea's women team is having a laugh.

Chelsea have had a UEFA transfer ban of sorts applied haven't they? I've read somewhere that certain players will not be eligible to play in Europe and certain others from last year's European squad will have to be sold. I can't remember the subtleties.

An outright ban might have been more appropriate, given their persistent and blatant rule-breaking.

Liam Mogan
97 Posted 07/07/2025 at 09:59:15
£200M for Chelsea's women's team.

£200M spent by Chelsea so far on transfers.

Wonder if there's any connection?

Danny O'Neill
98 Posted 07/07/2025 at 09:59:53
Yes, that's what I mentioned Ray, when I said distinguishing between players allowed to play in Europe. You've just said it better!!

I forgot where I read about Everton, it might have even been on here somewhere. Apparently, we could generate between £60-65M from it.

Found It a BBC article:

Could Everton sell their women's team to help with PSR?

@Liam, I think on the previous discussion, it was you who said if there is a loophole, we'd best move swiftly, because if the FA get wind we're thinking of doing it, it will be closed as of yesterday!!

Raymond Fox
99 Posted 07/07/2025 at 10:31:11
Would we want to sell the women's team though?

I don't know the viability of it now, but the women's game has seen a great increase in popularity in recent times.

I don't think I would be selling, if I owned it.

Brian Harrison
100 Posted 07/07/2025 at 10:35:47
Chelsea have used the rules as they exist to their benefit, they got round PSR by first selling the hotels to themselves, then sold the Women's team to themselves for a reputed £200M. I wonder if this made the Friedkins decide to move the Women's team to Goodison Park to be able to do the same?

Also, Chelsea exploited the length of contract you put players on which to some extent has now been curbed. But let's not forget that the tribunal looking into Man City's 115 counts was finished in December and we were told a decision would be announced by March, yet here we are in July and no judgement passed.

But why aren't the press hounding Masters as to why they still haven't reached a verdict? Only took weeks for the same committees to deduct points from us and Forest… couldn't be we were easy targets, could it? Nah.

Danny O'Neill
101 Posted 07/07/2025 at 10:38:20
It's all internal, Raymond. They would still belong to TFG.

I think it was Michael who explained it well in another article.

Basically, they set up another company that is part of the same group and sell it to them.

Same owners, still Everton.

Raymond Fox
102 Posted 07/07/2025 at 10:49:56
I see, thanks Danny.
Dennis Stevens
103 Posted 07/07/2025 at 11:18:24
We would, presumably, also be in a position to sell Goodison Park to the Women's team.
Eric Myles
104 Posted 07/07/2025 at 14:06:11
Dennis, I was thinking about that, and BMD also.

While selling the grounds would bring in a large cash lump sum to improve the balance sheet / fund player acquisitions, I think it would be better to rent them out and get a regular income over a longer period of time and still retain ownership of a saleable asset.

In times when the Club need a bit more cash they can raise the rent. Oh, hang on, we've been there before haven't we, maybe not.

For BMD I'd set up an entertainment company and rent it out to them for non-football related activities; concerts, boxing matches, the upcoming rugby match, etc.

The club retain ownership of the asset so can't be seen as doing something dodgy like Chelsea.

I think TFG already operate an entertainment-related business? Maybe time for them to expand their theatre of operations.

Paul Smith
105 Posted 07/07/2025 at 14:11:49
If Usmanov was still here, we would have bought Goodison back off the women's team for £60 million after selling it to a separate Everton-related holding company for the same amount.
Danny O'Neill
106 Posted 07/07/2025 at 14:19:16
Good thoughts there, Eric.

Just don't mention theatre. It could open wounds.

We are looking forward now!!

Dennis Stevens
107 Posted 07/07/2025 at 14:38:10
Eric, if the Women's team "buy" Goodison Park it will still all be owned under the TFG umbrella.
Eric Myles
108 Posted 07/07/2025 at 17:21:39
I know that Dennis, and I'm suggesting renting it to them rather than selling it.
Mike Gaynes
109 Posted 07/07/2025 at 19:19:10
MUST READ!

The Athletic's Paddy Boyland has been given a tour of the new stadium, and he writes about it today:

Behind the scenes at Everton’s new £800M stadium

Interesting excerpts:

Heritage assets — of which there are many — have been preserved and in some cases restored. Historic features likes cobbles and tramlines have been retained. The walls of the existing dock have been incorporated into the design, with surfaces visible in places. During the construction of the main supporter entrance, individual bricks had to be taken out, catalogued and then put back in the same order. The preservation of the wall means the site can, if necessary, be turned back into a fully functioning dock.

But only if we get relegated.

Boyland also tells us that the place has 747 toilets, 279 wheelchair bays, a chapel for the players, a towering platform for Moyes's postgame media comments (reporters sitting in the front row may not see him!), and a Tunnel Club where supporters can see the players walk out.

At a 34.99° gradient, the South Stand is as steep as it can be while remaining within the rules, with the legal limit 35°.

Deffo check out this article.

Danny O'Neill
111 Posted 07/07/2025 at 19:41:19
Thanks for that, Mike.

I have my ticket for the AS Roma match and attended the 2nd test event. What struck me wasn't just when you enter the stadium. I was equally impressed as I walked through the preserved dock walls.

The exterior is equally as impressive.

Mike Gaynes
112 Posted 07/07/2025 at 20:44:12
Can't wait to see it, Danny, but I'm afraid it won't be next season.
Jake FitzGerald
113 Posted 08/07/2025 at 22:18:22
Mike, I was aware of the steep gradient beforehand, but it still scares me a bit. I remember away games at the Upper Tier at QPR in the 90s and shitting myself that I’d end up on the pitch when we scored.
Handily, we didn’t.
Dennis Stevens
114 Posted 08/07/2025 at 23:02:02
I'd think it benefits the men's team more to sell the old ground to the women's team, Eric. However, I suspect that the women's team might then rent out some parts to other parts of the organisation.
Eric Myles
115 Posted 09/07/2025 at 02:06:25
I just don't think Goodison is worth that much Dennis, I remember seeing £10-15 million quoted at one time.

I'm thinking we get some income from it, helps our PSR, use that income to support the Women's Team, helps PSR, and still have asset value on tbe books, helps accounts overall?

I guess TFG would want the Women's Team to generate a profit though? Or at least be self sufficient? It would be no good if it was draining money from the men's team.

Derek Thomas
116 Posted 09/07/2025 at 04:20:24
Eric @ 115; slightly tongue in cheek, but if you consider what it cost to replace it (£800M?) it must be worth...see Chelsea and their 'Monopoly game' Hotel manouver...whatever you can get away with.
Ernie Baywood
117 Posted 09/07/2025 at 04:39:39
With all the possible loopholes, tricks and accounting jiggerypokery, it still amazes me that we failed PSR and then mounted a set of mitigations that looked like they came from those sickly virtue signalling social media memes. COVID, mental health, Ukraine. How about a bit of actual commercial acumen?!?!

Eric Myles
118 Posted 09/07/2025 at 05:38:08
Derek, of course if we could get away with £60-100million it could be worth considering but it would surely put the Women's Team finances in a bit of a mess?

Or we sell it to the company that owns their team and they rent it to them? Getting into more realms of the dark arts of accountancy than I care to think about.

James Hughes
119 Posted 09/07/2025 at 05:57:42
I sill don't understand how the Chavs get away it.

an article on the BBC, they signed 19 forwards and spent £600m just on forwards, maybe they could loan us one

Link

Steve Brown
120 Posted 09/07/2025 at 06:13:25
Ernie @ 117, commercial acumen has been absent in Everton since the departure of John Moores in 1977. It took a lot to fail to maximise the commercial potential of the EPL, but we somehow managed it.

Moshiri and Bill certainly lacked the wit to consider how the transfer of club assets between different legal entities could mitigate the impact of PSR.

The estimated cost of the Goodison Legacy project was £82.5 million, therefore the valuation of the ground will also factor in redevelopment potential of the land even if it is not realised immediately. There will also be a commercial value of the women’s team. Transferring both assets to a new legal entity produces a sale price to offset the impact of PSR; it also isolates any future losses to that entity so good risk management.

Derek Thomas
121 Posted 09/07/2025 at 06:13:36
Eric @ 118; if only we were owned by somebody who supposedly knew how this fancy jiggery-pokery hotel stuff worked...like I dunno, some sort of 'Billionaire Accountant' maybe.
We're stuck with these car salesmen johnnies.
Paul Hewitt
122 Posted 09/07/2025 at 06:18:33
How sad that football has come down to all this silly selling assets you already own to yourself. The games dead.
Danny O'Neill
123 Posted 09/07/2025 at 06:56:26
Paul @122,

I have no idea how it works in the confusing world of football finance, so can only offer a non-football example, in the form of a company I worked for.

Owned by a New York based global asset and investment company (mother ship), who owned multiple companies around the world, each operating independently.

Our specific company was split into three separate entities itself:

Company A: US based.
Company B: UK based.
Company C: Australia based.

Each operated independently. The "mother ship" made decisions on where money went, not just between our 3 regional businesses, but across their entire portfolio.

I don't know how they did it, or how it benefited one against the other, but I suppose that's what they have clever accountants for.

Interestingly, any contracts or finances for Company B (UK), were dealt with by Company B GmbH, based in Switzerland and Lichtenstein. I don't need to teach anyone to suck eggs to wonder why.

That's exhausted my knowledge of what it might look like.

So, whatever happens, TFG will still own Everton and Everton Women, including Goodison Park and their other 20 businesses.

How they do the finances is beyond me, but as an amateur in this subject, they seem to have enough flex to take from Peter to give to Paul.

Eric Myles
124 Posted 09/07/2025 at 07:49:25
Thumbs up Derek ;-))
Danny O'Neill
125 Posted 09/07/2025 at 08:17:47
Not sure about that "stuck with these car salesmen johnnies" tag Derek. A bit harsh in my opinion.

Yes, a number of car related businesses. But also investment, arts, entertainment, travel and luxury hotels, high class golf resorts and now two top football clubs. One in a new stadium, the other moving to one in the next 2 years. You could actually say 3 football clubs if we included Everton Women.

Stuck with them? Well, again, an opinion, but they haven't been in the chair for 7 months yet. They have made significant changes to how our debt has been restructured and completely restructured the board and player recruitment.

The focus now is obviously how they support getting the players we need to bolster the core of what can be a very good team.

Tony Abrahams
126 Posted 09/07/2025 at 08:27:09
Read it again Danny, because I’m sure Derek, was just being a little bit sarcastic mate!
Danny O'Neill
127 Posted 09/07/2025 at 08:27:40
Okay. Medicine taken!!
Tony Abrahams
128 Posted 09/07/2025 at 08:56:46
The billionaire accountant wasn’t even using his own money, whereas the car salesman hopefully knows the value of everything🤞
James Hughes
129 Posted 09/07/2025 at 09:49:53
According to Alan Myers and from companies house, we have sold our shares in both EWFC and Goodison Park

Link

Dennis Stevens
130 Posted 09/07/2025 at 13:18:02
I think the numbers are pretty much small change in terms of the men's team, Eric #115. However, a small lump would probably be more useful in the short term from a PSR perspective.

The meagre regular income from renting part of the stadium out to other parts of the TFG/Everton empire would probably be more beneficial to the women's team on an ongoing basis.

Although, as others have mentioned, some clever folks with calculators & spreadsheets will be doing the maths.


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


How to get rid of these ads and support TW


© ToffeeWeb