Club finances

[DungaDog]

Of course most of us believe we will have another owner alongside Moshiri in the not too distant future, so its all a bit moot.

Who's this new owner you speak of coming in alongside the mosh....???

 

[Nymzee]

Maybe because if they are bad it may affect how much we can spend in the transfer market, especially with the new stadium too? I know, how stupid of me. Do you have to be a shareholder to be concerned about club finances?

Yes

 

[Nymzee]

He signed us the single player who scored more goals for us than any other since the days of Sharp and Lineker. A player who we then sold for our club record profit and who we still miss nearly two seasons later.
Had Martinez stayed I suspect that we would have kept Deulofeu....he’s not playing badly for Watford is he?
I hardly think that the couple of hundred million has been wonderfully spent since Martinez left. Whilst Iceman and Richarlison are clearly talented players and probably our best signings since Martinez left, Iceman is only now coming into some form and we don’t yet even know what Richarlison’s best position is. £90 million there.

1 decent (and obvious) signing out of many. Bravo brown shoes.

 

[HongKongToffee]

Arrogant and self opinionated maybe but I'm 6ft 2 and over 200lbs.

Ohhhhhhhh yeah baby!



Are you excited about the new stadium?

That'll help revenues. Corporate seats, no obstructed views, conference facilities, concerts.

New kit deal, uzzy already pumping money in via sleeve sponsorship, training ground sponsorship, don't be surprised to see this increased now that uzzy has increased his stake in our club.

Its looking good tbh. Still need like 10 players (pickford, digne, Gomes and Mina are good enough to take us forward). Siggy too but he's oldish. Oh and lookmam. Big fan me. But it's a project and these things take time.

Your post is all conjecture and hope.

New stadium at most will bring in £30-40 million extra at most,if you think a new stadium will double our £189 million turnover then your financial nous is lacking and on top the stadium debt will be have high interest rates as i don't think the Mayor hoping tax payers foot the bill will not happen in a post Brexit UK.

The top 15-20 clubs in the rich list, the match day revenue is the 4th most important revenue stream after TV, Commercial, CL.

Not sure what the numbers will be for the kit deal but i'm sure they will be no where near those i posted in my previous post that the top 6 clubs get,those clubs have exposure worldwide being on tv the most and having worldwide fan bases and being established in the CL which companies want to be associated with when clubs are in that competition.

Uefa are clamping down down on owner linked commercial deals, have you read the Der Spiegel expose articles on City and PSG, Both are going through a 2nd investigation from UEFA on these shady deals now with the threat of being kicked out of European competition as just fining them the 1st investigation is nothing to state owned clubs, They have a threat of being banned from CL participation which would hurt them far more and damage their brand and PR that they use those clubs to distract from their human rights abusing slave owning dictatorships.

I'd like to ask you about about our debt that is greater than our entire turnover, you seem to ignore that fact and where is the news "Uncle Uzzy" has increased a stake in the club when UK/Russian relationship is worse off since the Cold War.

 

[TheBrace]

Yes

Brilliant reply.

 

[devlinadl]

Well he's defined the loan from uzzy as debt. Technically that's right but uzzy has not said he wants it back, it's debt in the same way abramovichs money is ch3lseas debt. Also equity is actually a dearer form of finance anyway.

The fsg loan to Liverpool hasn't been included in his figures. When it really should've been.

Liverpool are way over 200m in debt with at least £7m payable in interest every year compared to less than £4m for Everton.

There's no real way to spin it. There's a reason you've had to sell your best players every year and it's not because you're swimming in cash.
The extra 12m a year the new stand brought in was wiped out by the new contracts given to speedy mo and mane.

Wolf has been kept from the door but already lost 3 players on frees with 8 squad players due to expire in the next 18 months. It's either pay them the silly money given to others or let them go for free.

Fabinho and Keita look out of their depth. Moderate players not worth the transfer fee or wages.

This is the calm before the storm. Basically a Leicester. Relying on a couple of players to carry the team and refereeing decisions and ludicrous bounces to help them along.

I think you have it wrong, and Swiss Ramble is correct.

I not sure where the figures for Everton's debt for 2018 come from because I have seen the annual report, only the statement issued on the website. However, the esk confirms that the debt as at the end of the season was £150m to Moshiri (also confirmed in the statement on the website) and £75m in loans from the banks, so £225m in total. That's the figure quoted by Swiss Ramble.

The equivalent for Liverpool for the end of the 2017 season (they have not released their accounts for 2018) are £110m in shareholder loans from FSG and £72m from the banks, so £182 in total (this is all set out at note 15 on page 27 of their annual report). That's the figure quoted by Swiss Ramble. Of course, that is to the end of the 2017 season, so things may well have changed but we don't have any more recent numbers yet.

As far as I can see, Swiss Ramble is treated both clubs entirely the same.

FSG is charging interest on its loan at 1.24% whereas Moshiri is providing his loan interest free, which is probably why the interest incurred by the clubs is so different (£6.7m for Liverpool in 2017 compared to £2.8m for Everton in 2018, although the figure for Everton in 2017 was £9m, before Moshiri paid off the previous debt). Moshiri has already pumped more than twice as much into Everton compared to what FSG have put into Liverpool, and he is not charging interest unlike FSG. I think he can be described as a bigger benefactor.

 

[witchdoc187]

My analysis tells me Moshi and Uncle Uzzy aren't acting like they want to sell their stake in Everton any time soon.

Good times.

We'll have the second biggest stadium in the championship after Newcastle

 

[devlinadl]

I'd like to ask you about about our debt that is greater than our entire turnover, you seem to ignore that fact and where is the news "Uncle Uzzy" has increased a stake in the club when UK/Russian relationship is worse off since the Cold War.

Yes, but the vast majority is owed to Moshiri. It's effectively quasi-equity, and treated as such in the accounts. It's not a risk to the club because Moshiri can't recall the loan without damaging his own investment. Worst case scenario is he just has to write it off.

 

[Steve0]

I think you have it wrong, and Swiss Ramble is correct.

I not sure where the figures for Everton's debt for 2018 come from because I have seen the annual report, only the statement issued on the website. However, the esk confirms that the debt as at the end of the season was £150m to Moshiri (also confirmed in the statement on the website) and £75m in loans from the banks, so £225m in total. That's the figure quoted by Swiss Ramble.

The equivalent for Liverpool for the end of the 2017 season (they have not released their accounts for 2018) are £110m in shareholder loans from FSG and £72m from the banks, so £182 in total (this is all set out at note 15 on page 27 of their annual report). That's the figure quoted by Swiss Ramble. Of course, that is to the end of the 2017 season, so things may well have changed but we don't have any more recent numbers yet.

As far as I can see, Swiss Ramble is treated both clubs entirely the same.

FSG is charging interest on its loan at 1.24% whereas Moshiri is providing his loan interest free, which is probably why the interest incurred by the clubs is so different (£6.7m for Liverpool in 2017 compared to £2.8m for Everton in 2018, although the figure for Everton in 2017 was £9m, before Moshiri paid off the previous debt). Moshiri has already pumped more than twice as much into Everton compared to what FSG have put into Liverpool, and he is not charging interest unlike FSG. I think he can be described as a bigger benefactor.

The debt for Everton is correct. But uzzys proxy hasn't said he wants it back. My issue is more that our debt to usmanov is a non issue. Swiss ramble is making it sound like uzzy will call it back any minute. It's equity in the same way City's is equity.

If you think fsg have put less into Liverpool than uzzy has put into everton than you haven't been paying attention.

FSG loan to Liverpool is about 130m but they also wiped out the 237m debt. This has to be repaid to FSG shareholders. This is financing via equity. There has to be a bigger return on this 237m than just putting it in the bank.

 

[devlinadl]

The debt for Everton is correct. But uzzys proxy hasn't said he wants it back. My issue is more that our debt to usmanov is a non issue. Swiss ramble is making it sound like uzzy will call it back any minute. It's equity in the same way City's is equity.

If you think fsg have put less into Liverpool than uzzy has put into everton than you haven't been paying attention.

FSG loan to Liverpool is about 130m but they also wiped out the 237m debt. This has to be repaid to FSG shareholders. This is financing via equity. There has to be a bigger return on this 237m than just putting it in the bank.

I agree that the shareholder loans from Moshiri are a non-issue (and said so in my response to HongKongToffee), but the same could be said about all shaholder loans to football clubs (such as Ashley's loan to Newcastle, etc). If Swiss Ramble treats them all the same, he is being consistent.

The £237m you mention is the money FSG paid to RBS to buy the club. As you said, its equity not debt. The only way FSG will get the money back is to sell the club.

If you include the money used to buy the clubs, Moshiri has still spent more than FSG, but it is much closer, and certainly not double.

 

[maccavennie]

When is our new kit deal up for renewal and is it still the kit bag deal.

Amazing if they pull off breaking United's £75 million a year deal from United, which will increase their spending power, seems to be a battle with Nike and Adidas to sign them up if they don't stay with New Balance. Their revenues seem to be going up 30% ever year since Klopp has been there and that's in sequence with their on field performances improving home and abroad, we are miles away from them on and off the pitch and no matter how much it hurts it's glaringly true and even @Steve0 can't spin that.

These are the current kit deals right now with the big 6.

United £75 million a year/ 10 year deal with Adidas.
Chelsea £60 million / 15 year with Nike.
Arsenal £60 million a year /5 year with Nike.
City £50 million a year /5 year with Puma.
Spurs £30 million a year /15 years with Nike.
RS £50 million a year. 6 year deal with Warrior/New Balance.

And what do we get from ours a year, less than £10 million a year?

Moshiri doesn't seem to have a plan so far, Nothing has improved on the pitch despite the splurges, On his 3rd appointment and 4th manager since he's been at the helm and commercially and turnover wise we still cannot get past the £200 million pound barrier while wages to turnover is an incredible 77% and a debt that is more than our entire turnover!!!!!!!!!!, This is absurd with an owner who was a personal accountant for a billionaire Oligarch to get in such a precarious position financially.

Mad the way you don't know when the kit deal ends and how much we get from it yet you seem to know everyone else's kit deal fee and how long they have.

Would have thought you would of taken a keen interest in knowing something such as how much we get and how long it's for and where we are/aren't tied into the deal with kitbag

 

[CRIMHEAD]

Yes, but the vast majority is owed to Moshiri. It's effectively quasi-equity, and treated as such in the accounts. It's not a risk to the club because Moshiri can't recall the loan without damaging his own investment. Worst case scenario is he just has to write it off.

Much like the Man City owners did that converted their debt to equity, Mosh did it up front. I believe there are still several club owners that have it as legit debt FYI.

 

[Steve0]

Your post is all conjecture and hope.

What is life without hope. You're hopeful too I, we, hope! Right?

New stadium at most will bring in £30-40 million extra at most,if you think a new stadium will double our £189 million turnover then your financial nous is lacking and on top the stadium debt will be have high interest rates as i don't think the Mayor hoping tax payers foot the bill will not happen in a post Brexit UK.

30-40 million extra sounds about right.

400,000 extra a game
10,000 x 20 normal tickets
2,000 x 100 hospitality.
That's a bit conservative really but best to be prudent.

Then the concerts and conference facilities.
Personally I'd open a riverfront restaurant in the ground. Revenue every day.

The top 15-20 clubs in the rich list, the match day revenue is the 4th most important revenue stream after TV, Commercial, CL.

Clubs need stadiums though. It's why l7verpool spent so much money hurling families out of their houses and borrowed a massive £130m from fsg to build their big stand.

Not sure what the numbers will be for the kit deal but i'm sure they will be no where near those i posted in my previous post that the top 6 clubs get,those clubs have exposure worldwide being on tv the most and having worldwide fan bases and being established in the CL which companies want to be associated with when clubs are in that competition.

It'll be more than we're getting now. Don't be surprised to see it strangely high. An easy FFP dodge for Uzzy.

Uefa are clamping down down on owner linked commercial deals, have you read the Der Spiegel expose articles on City and PSG, Both are going through a 2nd investigation from UEFA on these shady deals now with the threat of being kicked out of European competition as just fining them the 1st investigation is nothing to state owned clubs, They have a threat of being banned from CL participation which would hurt them far more and damage their brand and PR that they use those clubs to distract from their human rights abusing slave owning dictatorships.

They've been clamping down for years. UEFA are essentially hamstrung because there's no legal basis for their restrictions. As soon as they impose a punishment a club isn't happy with they'll be taken to court.

I'd like to ask you about about our debt that is greater than our entire turnover, you seem to ignore that fact and where is the news "Uncle Uzzy" has increased a stake in the club when UK/Russian relationship is worse off since the Cold War.

Uzzy isn't

 

[devlinadl]

Much like the Man City owners did that converted their debt to equity, Mosh did it up front. I believe there are still several club owners that have it as legit debt FYI.

The loan from Moshiri is still a loan. At note 16 to the 2017 accounts it is described as follows:

"The loan will be repaid at a date to be agreed by Bluesky Capital Limited and Everton Football Club Limited. In accordance with FRS 102.22 the loan has therefore been classified as equity."

 

[Steve0]

We'll have the second biggest stadium in the championship after Newcastle

When we play Plymouth they'll be as green as their shirts.