Philip Green

[malfosse]

He looks like a dinosaur's scrotum.

Did Dinosaurs have scrotum's?

 

[malfosse]

Read that Green is an 'advisor' of Kenwright's and a good friend. He doesn't invest in the club despite his millions because he claims if he invests in Everton then Liverpool fans won't shop at his stores, meaning he's cutting off a potential market. If this is the genuine reason he is very business orientated.

I didn't know Top Shop had stores in Norway

 

[nigelcoyb]

Green and Earl has a certain ring to it ......... Like Hicks and Gilette.

 

[Coach]

When you say "business", do you mean Sky Money?

1999 turnover = £22.6 m
2011 turnover = £82m

Whatever way you want to cut it that is growth of 250%

 

[Moomin]

1999 turnover = £22.6 m
2011 turnover = £82m

Whatever way you want to cut it that is growth of 250%

What is the debt growth for that period?

 

[Jeff Jones]

From what I have heard of Green there is no way he has invested or lent any money to Everton, football does not make money and Green is extremely financially prudent. He would not put money into a venture without a great deal of confidence that he would see a return.

It doesn't matter whether football makes money or not. A loan has to be repaid regardless what the borrower does with it.

And I repeat, Bill Kenwright has had loans from Philip Green. This is widely known, though some of the rumours about the circumstances surrounding these arrangements may not be true. For example, BK having to sell players because Green is demanding repayment.

 

[Coach]

What is the debt growth for that period?

At the risk of boring everyone senseless, it is easy to work out for turnover as that is a simple figure but for debt it is harder to say given the different accounting practices and formats used at the two different times.

No doubt someone will correct me and take a different stance, but net debt is quoted as £44.9m in the latest accounts - although this includes £9.1m of deferred income which is not really debt.

It is difficult to arrive at a comparable figure from the 1999 accounts but far as I can tell it was £16.3m (bank overdraft being the only quoted borrowings in the accounts and little cash - £43k at the bank) plus £2.8m deferred income making it £19.1m.

So including deferred income in the calculation:

1999 net debt £19.1m
2011 net debt £44.9m

Growth 135%

Excluding deferred income from the calculation as I think is more sensible:

1999 net debt £16.3m
2011 net debt £35.8m

Growth 119%

 

[steken1]

You're just copying Kris Kross.

Is that what they meant when they said Kriss Kross'll make ya jump?

 

[Bluesnapper]

Excluding deferred income from the calculation as I think is more sensible:

1999 net debt £16.3m
2011 net debt £35.8m

Growth 119%

With the accounts due out that takes us to May 31st 2012, I take it we are now officially debt free after bringing in circa £40 million in the last year.

 

[Neiler]

At the risk of boring everyone senseless, it is easy to work out for turnover as that is a simple figure but for debt it is harder to say given the different accounting practices and formats used at the two different times.

No doubt someone will correct me and take a different stance, but net debt is quoted as £44.9m in the latest accounts - although this includes £9.1m of deferred income which is not really debt.

It is difficult to arrive at a comparable figure from the 1999 accounts but far as I can tell it was £16.3m (bank overdraft being the only quoted borrowings in the accounts and little cash - £43k at the bank) plus £2.8m deferred income making it £19.1m.

So including deferred income in the calculation:

1999 net debt £19.1m
2011 net debt £44.9m

Growth 135%

Excluding deferred income from the calculation as I think is more sensible:

1999 net debt £16.3m
2011 net debt £35.8m

Growth 119%

I would have different figures, but ball park there similar, i have the net debt in 99 higher in fact almost 100% turnover ratio, which is massively scary and shows how badly of we were post Johnson.

That said, although the business is far healthier and run more prudently, i would agree with many who would say much of the growth is of the back of Sky Money - i dont have the problem with that, that many do as its compariable to the rest of the PL - i.e. every club is given the same wedge. Its about how you invest it and in the main we have done it better then most if your yard stick is placement in the PL.

That said organic growth as a business though hasnt been great, merchandising, commercial revenue, improving infrastructure, sponsorship etc - many feel this can be improved on, as do i and im far from a board basher.

The truth really is the board are not killng the club as many suggest, but there is plenty of room for improvement as a business with no future strategy or plans to grow organicaly, we're simply threading water after a period of growth doing the best we can with whats there. In comparison to where we started from they have done terrifically well as we were business on the brink, fair play, but something new or some kind of stimulus is needed now in order for us to grow organically.

 

[Neiler]

With the accounts due out that takes us to May 31st 2012, I take it we are now officially debt free after bringing in circa £40 million in the last year.

Not a chance.

 

[Bluesnapper]

Not a chance.

With that circa £40million coming in, and if it hasnt gone to pay off debts, then where has it gone?

 

[TheBlueGibbon]

With that circa £40million coming in, and if it hasnt gone to pay off debts, then where has it gone?

The financial black hole that is other expenses most likely.

 

[The-Golden-Vision]

With that circa £40million coming in, and if it hasnt gone to pay off debts, then where has it gone?

 

[kanie46]

flymo's