EFC shareholders to get £20 Dividend for transfer of Women's Club

Paul has been a big supporter of The Friedkin Group's takeover of the club, but the piece he wrote today is a bit worrying to say the least. He says " financial news released around this holiday period can often be viewed as companies wishing to bury news."

He says this is something our previous owners did, and he thought it surprising that our new owners, acting in the name of Roundhouse Capital Holdings, would inform shareholders of the dividend they would pay on some or all of the proceeds from the sale of the women's team.

They propose to pay around £20 per share, he estimates the pay out would reduce Everton's balances by around £43.98M.

He then rightly questions is this the right time to make such a payment given the recruitment requirements that will be needed in this January window.

I've had a go at trying to explain what has been going on, and what it might mean -- not for poverty-stricken Everton Shareholders -- but for the transfer kitty, which appears to have been plundered by The Friedkin Group.

Follow the money…

I read about this on Everton NewsNow I think, which I would admit is a terrible site full of non-existent transfer speculation and other assorted bullhit. (Toffee Web's going that way.)

Anyway they spun the story as a positive, claiming our transfer kitty could be boosted. I think I'm more likely to believe Paul Quinn's interpretation. Bit worrying.

If you are a minority shareholder, you should have an account at Signal Shares.

But, any way you cut it, this seems like a massive kick in the balls to all Everton fans who want to see real progress being made with team building in very single transfer window.

We all know what players we need till we're blue in the face reading it on here. But this surely sends a very clear message: that extracting a profit from the club takes a high priority over team building.

Or am I wrong?

To an uneducated person like myself, it looks like Usmanov, tried to put money into the club, by paying overinflated sponsorship prices, but TFG, are taking money out of the club, by selling the women’s team, to another one of their investment companies?

Hopefully I haven’t quite read this right, because it doesn’t look very good if what I’m writing has got any truth in it.

Presumably there's a medium-term plan here, and as long as we are safe in the Premier League there's no need to panic. I'd still be surprised to see nobody coming in.

A move straight out of the Glazer playbook frankly. Hence the context of the CEO's statement: “We will work towards identifying and executing opportunities that will make us stronger in the long term. But these opportunities will need to be exceptional, and we will avoid short-term fixes that will weaken our hand for phase two of our rebuild next summer."

Pretty cynical stuff but hardly surprising with American owners. Even if they flipped the club today now they would make an enormous profit given Moshiri agreed to convert his £450M of shareholder loans into equity.

I know nothing about TFG's operations, because it's a privately held company, and so I have no clue why they declared the dividend, but based on information from a CFO consultant I once worked with, it's likely the dividend will have zero impact on our ability to buy players in January.

The EPL is transitioning from the old PSR system to Squad Cost Ratio (SCR), which focuses on player spending as a percentage of team revenue. And through a loophole in the rules first spotted by Chelsea, a club selling its women's team to a fully owned subsidiary was allowed under PSR to book the sale as revenue -- pure profit -- which Everton did. (I think the loophole was closed recently by SCR.) Generally, I believe a club can spend 85% of revenue plus the profit on player sales.

The point is that revenue, not cash on hand or P&L or the bottom line, is what determines SCR limits on player spending. Just football-related revenue. By selling the women's team, TFG jacked its 2025 revenues and thus would have raised Everton's SCR ceiling.

It's vital to note that dividends are paid not from revenues, or from cash on hand, and certainly not from the "transfer kitty", but based on a percentage of net income. I'm surprised the Esk didn't discuss that, but his expertise vastly exceeds mine and I would await further information from him.

Now I will briefly indulge in pure speculation (given my dearth of knowledge about TFG), but on the question of whether a £44M dividend payout will impact cash resources, I would just point out that TFG has annual revenues somewhere around $15 billion and Dan Friedkin's personal fortune is almost $8 billion. I know nothing about TFG's business operations or priorities, but I'd be willing to guess that cash is not a problem for these guys.

I believe the Esk is mistaken with his negative interpretation of the timing of the announcement. Remember, we're dealing with Yanks. US companies almost always declare dividends at the end of the quarter, or fiscal year if it's an annual or onetime dividend. Lots of dividends get announced around this time of year.

And finally, Michael, I will take issue with your description of the timing as "precipitous" because we're in "desperate" need of January reinforcements. I know many fans feel that way, but the public statements by Kinnear and Moyes made clear that they and the owners feel no such urgency. They've both said not to expect big business in January, and they didn't mention lack of funds as the reason.

Again, I have no clue why the Friedkins are distributing dividends. I just hope my £20 actually arrives, given that I'm still waiting for the stock certificate for my one share more than a year after I bought it.

The shareholder dividend will be financed by the club, and will be reflected in our results. The main beneficiary is Roundhouse Capital who funded the sale of the women’s team and Goodison. The sale price and the dividend return are broadly comparable.

Maybe I am just being cynical but it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

It’s mostly just lip service anyway, and why I go by that old adage about actions speaking a lot louder than words.

At least TFG, haven’t given us empty promises, but they haven’t filled me with much confidence either. I have a feeling that they are here for the long haul, (because I believe the scope around the stadium is absolutely incredible for people with serious money, and the obvious connections having money and owning Everton, will bring) but I’m not sure if Everton, is the biggest part of the agenda, for these very successful businessmen. I obviously hope I’m wrong.

This is Mr. G. who said he could 'guarantee' that big Dan was falling for us but now tells us that 'Now I will briefly indulge in pure speculation (given )'.

Well, I'm bemused. Where does your 'guarantee' come from Mr. G.?

People, bookmark 'my dearth of knowledge about TFG'.

Exactly.

And I can't wait for Mr. G to be proved right about Barry and our smashing recruitment team this next window where any fool knows that we need incoming.

I think you encapsulate everything far better than me, but what I will say is Paul Quinn as you know is very clued up and financial matters and if he says it will cost EFC £43.9M then I believe him. I am sure TFG havent put all this money into the club without having plans to recoup their outlay, now whether they do what the Glasiers have done I don't know.. I was really disappointed to hear Kinnear our CEO suggest that little would be spent in Jan, yes its not a great time to buy players but sometimes needs must.

I would just reiterate Paul Quinn has been a big supporter of TFG but when he raises concern we should all sit up and take notice,.

I'm no expert but I don't think Dan was scratching round Christmas eve looking down the back of the couch for cash to buy the missus a nice present.

Seems this was always the plan when the women's team was sold, I don't think they are sitting round celebrating about 44m when they are sitting on billions.

David @22, I'm not sure it makes that much sense to context £44M in cash removed from Everton Football Club's bottom line, with the billions The Friedkin Group are 'sitting on'.

Of course they don't 'need' the money, but they clearly had an objective here -- to put the company back in profit (where we have not been for many many years), to facilitate payment of a substantial dividend (relative to EFC's finances, not TFG's). As far as I can tell, it's a completely above-board way to extract profit from the club they bought -- a classic 'Return on Investment'.

As Brian @21 says: I am sure TFG haven't put all this money into the club without having plans to recoup their outlay. I would change that to "without having plans to show it making a profit. 'Recouping their outlay' would likely only happen when they sell us on to someone else.)

I can't compare TFG to the Glazers because I don't know enough about what they've done at Man Utd but the fundamental Yankee principle at play here surely is to get an income stream back from your investment. If it's making a loss all the time, that can't be done.

But if, by moving money around internally as they have done to balance the books, and that enables them to pay themselves a massive dividend (£44M is one heck of a lot of money), I'm having a very hard time believing that has no impact on the club's ability to fund new transfers.

Mike @ I'm sorry but the Squad-Cost Ratio argument is a complete red herring: PSR remains in full effect for the current season. This is the final season where clubs will be judged on the rolling three-season loss limit of £105M.

SCR comes into effect next season. From the start of this season, the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) will be scrapped and replaced by the Squad-Cost Ratio (SCR) and the Sustainability and Systemic Resilience (SSR) rules.

And let's ratackle this assumption that TFG have billions they could pump into Everton if they wanted to... isn't that where the Saudi PIF came a little unstuck after their purchase of Newcastle Utd, but were unable because of the rules to just [pump money in. I suspect the same rules apply here... which is where I think TFG have been a lot smarter with these equity swaps and the like.

So I think very definitely the money for the dividend could certainly have been counted as cash available to fund transfers. But TFG and their minions have clearly made a choice... and the choice appears to be to make a profit rather than fund squad rebuilding.

Oh I get that £44M taken out of EFC is massive for us, but not to them.

So seems a bit odd doesn't it, to weaken our transfer position after the good work done to strengthen it since the takeover?

So I'm now a bit concerned that they may be happy how we are now and that's the limit -- sitting mid-table, Premier League status, sell-out stadium, and the money it generates enough to keep pulling profit from EFC.

No real ambition to go to next level, which we know requires a lot more investment at bigger levels for better players.

Just read another post on Twitter by Paul Quinn under the heading of

The Analysis Series: Value extraction in the Global sports economy

Its quite a long article and he goes through the different types of sport ownership. These include the leveraged Buyout, Sale and Lease Back transactions.

He goes into depth about the Glazer buyout at Man Utd, also the Derby County ownership model under Mel Morris and the sale of Pride Park, also relates what happened at Derby to what happened at Sheffield Wednesday.

I am a philistine when it comes to such matters but Paul explains in such a way that even I can understand, well, I say 'understand'... I mean get the jist of it anyway.

My only other question would be why you believe the funding of the dividend is being pulled specifically from the TFG-provided transfer kitty, given that this is a Roundhouse Capital transaction. We'll never know, obviously, unless Kinnear comes out on January 31 and announces we couldn't afford X striker because of funding the dividend. But I really believe that regulations are the concern, not cash.

Brian #21, I'm not casting doubt on Quinn's concerns about the transaction. His corporate financial knowledge exponentially exceeds mine. I'm only questioning his implication that the dividend declaration was "buried" or, in Steve's words, "sneaked out" under cover of the holiday. Sending a letter to every shareholder would seem to me a very strange way of hiding something. More like blowing trumpets.

As for post #19, all I can do is laugh at the ongoing fixation and the utter irrelevancies of my compulsive admirer. For the record, I have never expressed a single opinion about the efficacy of our recruiting team, nor about the quality of TFG's ownership of the club (except to criticize the hiring of Moyes -- oops, my bad!). But am I a cheerleader for them? Damn straight I am. Rooting for them like crazy. As every good Evertonian should.

The section on the Glazers is particularly relevant given the concerns expressed by some here about the Friedkins. I've previously read about the staggering debt and asset skimming inflicted on Man Utd by the Glazers, but the article really hammers it home.

TFG have a fiduciary duty to communicate the dividend pay-out to shareholders. The timing is their choice, and I am very suspicious that it went out on Xmas Eve. The communication to shareholders came two days after our CEO’s interview stating “ we will avoid short-term fixes that will weaken our hand for phase two of our rebuild next summer” i.e. no money for transfers.

As Michael states, the payment of the dividend generates immediate ROI for Roundhouse Capital (TFG). It will be reflected in the club’s financial results as a cost. Unless the club can generate profit elsewhere comparable to the dividend amount, it will remove £44 million from the business; some of that could have been invested in transfers this January.

Of course, if TFG do commit substantial funds for transfers in January, then I will stand corrected.

Also, the SCR will not include 2025/2026 season revenues - it is being trialed on a non-binding "shadow" basis this season to allow clubs and the league to evaluate how it works in parallel with the current rules. Clubs must comply with the current PSR only this season.

Kenwright had a lot of people rejoicing when he first purchased Everton, with what I thought was a very similar buyout to The Glazier’s, so although I’m not particularly enchanted with TFG, at least they aren’t telling us any lies.

They will have to be careful imo though, because the logistics for the new stadium aren’t very good, so once the novelty wears off, if it looks like the owners aren’t that serious about trying to turn Everton into a successful football club, once again, then it’s quite possible that apathy could set in.

They could be taking money out this month, putting it back in the next. I don't think it much matters how the balance sheet reads from season to season, as they can elect to change it at any point.

If you remember, this is what stopped the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) from doing exactly what you describe at Newcastle Utd.

Re your second paragraph, I will again point out that the SCR restrictions will be based on revenues and revenues alone. Not ROI or club costs or profits.

Yes, the dividend removes £44 million from the business, but regarding your suspicion that it could limit our transfer business, I would point out that we have no idea of the size of the kitty, the availability of additional Friedkin cash or the PSR limits on our spending. So that point seems speculative to me -- possible, but unsupported.

As to your conclusion that TFG can only correct you by providing extensive funds for January transfers (which Kinnear and Moyes already called unlikely), I disagree. I would say that large-scale summer spending would disprove that concern as well, and that's the "phase 2" that Kinnear said they are targeting. That'll be the test of ownership's financial commitment to Everton excellence. Not January.

They are a Balance Sheet item.

They won't impact PSR.

Unlike PSR, which often resulted in punishments for previous seasons' behaviour, SCR will be assessed for the current season on 1 March each year to allow for sanctions to be applied within the same season.

Unlike PSR, which looked at what a club had already spent in previous seasons, the SCR assessment on 1 March is based on agreed projections for the current season.

1) At the start of the season, the League and the club agree on a Projected Revenue Base.

2) On 1 March (after the January transfer window closes), the club must submit its total squad costs for the current season — which are much easier to track in real-time (wages, amortized transfer fees, and agent fees).

Because the "squad cost" is mostly fixed by contracts and the "revenue" is largely predictable (TV money, sponsorships), the Premier League can calculate the Squad-Cost Ratio for the current season immediately, and impose fines or points deductions straight away.

So, to your earlier point, it seems the 2025 transactions you referenced will have no bearing on the application of SCR next season.

I understand that the P&L Account tracks everything through the year, and that, if there is a profit, then that can fund the dividend payout after the end of the year.

But the money has to come from somewhere, so is it not money that could be used for something else... like retained earnings... used for future investment... say in new players, for example?

Paul Quinn claims to be an expert on this stuff. Why would he ask these two 'fundamental' questions:

(i) Given Everton's recruitment requirements in this January window, is this a wise use of cash? and

(ii) What does it say about Roundhouse Capital's future investment policies regarding Everton?

He seems to think paying the dividend has some sort of impact on the amount of money available for players.

I like Paul's stuff but, unless I read it on here, I don't see it. So I'm not necessarily sure that what I'm posting contradicts Paul.

I'm not an expert but essentially Everton calculate their profit and loss on normal trading activities and, if they make a profit, that's transferred to the balance sheet.

As you've stated, any dividend to shareholders is then deducted from the profit transferred to the Balance Sheet but in terms of PSR I believe it to be irrelevant as PSR doesn't concern itself with what happens post Profit & Loss.

Of course it we pay out a significant dividend it has an impact on certain areas... on cashflow not least... but not on our transfer budget.

Now a follow-up question: I read that the loophole through which Chelsea and Everton generated PSR-enhancing revenue by selling their women's teams to themselves had been closed last month under the new SCR agreement. Do you know if that's correct?

Why wouldn't you want you invest that £44M or at least some in this transfer window, giving you a better chance of finishing in a higher league position, even a European spot, and therefore increasing revenue from prize money and participation in the European competition next season?

As I said, it's not like they need this £44M urgently now, is it? Seems we won't be looking to compete at the top end of the league if this affects our ability to spend. Do they want us to get into Europe?

We know that would be a headache with them owning Roma too, so are they just happy floating along safe every year in the Premier League?

Spend it on Roma.

This is a thread for grown-ups. Did you fake your ID again?

If only everyone from the "virtual pub" that is ToffeeWeb could take the craic as well as you mate.

The last thing we want is owners who think Top 10 and playing in the Europa League is success. Everton FC demands trophies... starting with the FA Cup in 2026!!!

Yes, you are correct. The Premier League officially voted to close that loophole on 21 November 2025.

Under the old PSR system, clubs could sell "fixed assets" (like hotels, training grounds, or even women's teams) to a sister company owned by the same people and book the proceeds as "revenue." Chelsea famously did this with two hotels and their women's team, and Everton followed suit with a sale of their women's team to their parent company, The Friedkin Group, earlier in 2025.

What has changed?

With the move to the Squad Cost Ratio (SCR), the rules regarding these transactions have been significantly tightened:

Removal from Revenue Calculations: Starting in the 2026-27 season, any income generated from selling capital assets (like a women's team or stadium) to a "related party" will be excluded from the revenue figure used to calculate a club's spending limit.

Focus on "Football Revenue": The SCR is strictly based on 85% of relevant football revenue (TV money, tickets, kit deals). Since selling a building or a separate sporting entity to yourself isn't considered core "football revenue," it won't help a club's ability to buy players or pay higher wages.

The "One-Time" Nature: This move effectively prevents clubs from using "paper profits" to inflate their spending power. While clubs can still legally sell these assets to restructure their business, there is no longer a sporting advantage for doing so.

It is important to note that these changes are not retroactive. Chelsea and Everton's previous sales were approved under the rules active at that time (PSR). Because PSR remains in effect for the current 2025-26 season, those clubs have already banked those "profits" to stay compliant for this final PSR cycle. The loophole is essentially being "shuttered" just as the door closes on the PSR era.

Why did it take so long?

The Premier League originally tried to close this in June 2025, but they couldn't get the required 14-club majority to pass the vote. It wasn't until the full SCR/SSR package was finalized in November that the league secured the 14-6 majority needed to ban the practice.

Paul Quinn also mentions that we no longer own Goodison, so seeing the women's game is starting to generate more funds, Everton under TFG will not benefit.

My other concern is what is to stop TFG separating the Hill Dickinson Stadium to Roundhouse Capital and benefit from all the profit it will generate from non-Everton games, like the Euros in 2028 and the concerts and other sporting events that may be staged at the stadium.

Also, if we manage to qualify for a European competition and Roma also qualify for the same event, then, as Palace found out that their owner John Textor also owned another club that had also qualified for the Europa League, so Palace had to drop into the Europa Conference League.

I think they see the docks area as an opportunity to develop, maybe not to the benefit of the club but to TFG.

The SCR seems to make the gap between the clubs who already have massive revenue and those who don't harder to bridge, which we know the top clubs want.

If it's only TV money, kit deals, sponsorship and tickets how are clubs supposed to compete?

Man Utd get £90M a year just from Adidas for kits. By comparison, Everton get £18-20M. Then the unbalanced way TV shows games, giving more to the "Big 6"

It may stop clubs over overspending but it's stifling to competition!

If I had billions of dollars and had bought plucky little Everton to give me a stake in the Premier League bonanza, would I give a fuck that some balding old fans wanted me to show my face?

I have a lot more respect for the bloke sticking to his personal priorities and schedules and not wasting his time with a trip to The Dick when he can watch it all on telly every week, and he has delegated all responsibilities to Chairman Marc Watts and CEO Angus Kineear.

It seems perfectly sensible to me for the Men's Everton (EFC) and the Women's Everton (EWFC) to be separate, self-sustaining entities with their own means of revenue generation. They want equality, after all what more could you ask? But maybe the Goodison pitch is 9% smaller than the Hill Dickinson?

David @48 might be right; I think your fear that the Stadium is somehow hived off to Roundhouse Capital and all the revenues go directly to them is a complete fantasy. I'm sure the stadium is and will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of EFC -- as has always been the case.

However easy for them to develop the dock area and have the revenue benefit TFG rather than the club, if they wanted.

In hindsight, it appears that the CEO's dumbing down of expectations in the transfer window were because he knew that TFG were about to take £44M out of the club and that would affect transfer business.

I don't agree that TFGs transfer spending commitment will only be shown in the summer 'cos that's when we receive a tranche of the broadcast revenue; even Chairman Bill was able to fund player purchases in the summer.

David #40, exactly what I said in another thread.

On SCR revenue. If it excludes non-football revenues, does that mean concerts, rugby matches, weddings and conventions etc are excluded from the revenue calculations and thus benefit Roundhouse only? Or does the fact that they are hosted at a football ground make them eligible for inclusion to the benefit of the club?

I assume, but do not know for sure, that the latter applies even to clubs who don't own their stadium (City, Hammers, Chelsea, Skunks).

With other clubs, it would depend on their lease agreement I'd guess. Wasn't Kenwright's objection to his mate Paul Gregg funding Kings Dock 'cos his mate would get the non-football revenues, not the Club?