Where Did the Money Really Come From for the new Hill Dickinson Stadium?

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.

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

*figures from that talksport chap

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

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.

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

Onwards and upwards.

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

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.

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!!

He owned the Titanic.

Lets hope the outcome is vastly different!!!

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

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.

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?

[Someone had to say it.]

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

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

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.

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.

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

What exactly does it include?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

It mostly seems like throwing money down the drain.

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?

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.

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

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

"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".

Furious agreement!🤣

Anyway, has Barry signed yet?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Link

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

Is your friend a QS?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

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

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???

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.

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.

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

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

It does make you wonder!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

£200M spent by Chelsea so far on transfers.

Wonder if there's any connection?

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

We are looking forward now!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Link

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.

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.

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.

Link

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.