Everton Accounts Released

Status
Not open for further replies.
As long as we have enough money to pay the bills - in other words cash flow - the dangers are minimal. It becomes a problem if the long term future is bleak and that might arise with (most likely) relegation. Relegation (or long term poor performances in the PL aligned to poor transfer management (high fees on dubious talent) could cause a Portsmouth. As long as there is a squad worth (nominally) more than the transfer fees laid out (generally accepted to be true) and there are future income streams (Sky money essentially) we'll be ok-ish.
 

toffeedan is right, but only if your happy to be ok-ish.
Ok-ish wasnt the club I fell in love with.
Our current owners are holding us back from returning to the top, it will never happen under Kenwright and co.
 
Dell Boy said:
Not at all. Don't lump everyone in the same boat. I don't jump because someone tells me to. I want to see facts in black and white and - get this - some kind of alternative put forward before I have a go at anyone at the club. That to me is simple logic.

Has he taken cash out of the club? Give me proof? Has he turned away viable investors/new owners? Tell me more? Has the present board made mistakes? I can answer that myself. Of course they have. All boards of every company do but that alone is not enough to want to throw it all up in the air and hound Bill out when there's no white knight standing in the corner.

I think Kings Dock was the single biggest mistake. I think not investing properly when we were fourth was a massive regret. But sometimes we have to face facts. The stadium is knackered (as much as I love it) and we have next to no corporate base and the city is on its arse. Outside the North West we hardly register with newbie fans beyond those with links to the 80s. We have the RS on our doorstep and all that brings with it. I personally would have hated Kirkby but if it had gone ahead I wouldn't have washed my hands of the club.

I take the point that a lot of how I feel about the team is down to the success of Moyes working miracles. Buy many's a chairman would have sacked him at various points.

And don't dismiss the fact he's a Blue so easily. I for one like that and it means something to me at least.

At the end of the day I'll happily look at any alternative that's properly laid out to take the club forward.
Click to expand...

10 years looking for a buyer. Half way through that he's been looking 24/7.

In that time apparently there are ZERO people in the entire world of business who are worthwhile to take over the club.

ZERO.

Or Bill could be selling for a ridiculous amount.

But hes a blue.
 
Slavan said:
toffeedan is right, but only if your happy to be ok-ish.
Ok-ish wasnt the club I fell in love with.
Our current owners are holding us back from returning to the top, it will never happen under Kenwright and co.
Click to expand...

agree mate theirs so much more the club could do in terms of advertising/management etc. you forget just how bleak our club is off the field when we have had money to bring in players from player sales then when no one is leaving it hits you just how skint we are, it also shows that even with the new tv revenue your looking to subtract around £10 mil of whatever we are going to get just to break even so doesnt leave much for a transfer budget regardless bad times boys.
 
So if I understand this correctly, the sale of assets (Arteta etc.) allowed us to offset increases in debt due to higher wage bills and lower turnover? That's why the liabilities side of the balance sheet is unchanged, even though we incurred a 9 million pound loss?

I'm confused about what this "loss" means in real terms. Surely the 'value' of assets in the football world is very inconsistent. Since the club's equity hasn't gotten any worse, can we interpret this 9 million pound 'loss' as a depreciation (and selling off) of our asset base against which we can borrow? If so, I'm not really bothered because a loss in football terms means nothing really. Nikica Jelavic's potential selling price probably increased 7 or 8 million pounds in the last half season, but this won't be reflected on the balance sheet as an increase in assets (though typically appreciated assets are accounted for.)

I know a bit of accounting but have never done so for a sports team, so please tell me if I am interpreting this information wrong.
 

mpatton said:
I have a question. Does anybody know what it would cost us to build an etihad type stadium in kirkby on its own?
Click to expand...

Well...its going to cost £150 million to convert the Olympic Stadium to a combined football and athletics stadium...and that could take four years. So I reckon a City type stadium in Kirby(why Kirby?) would cost around £600 million. So only £646 million to find....lets get started.
 
Steve Wigan said:
Well...its going to cost £150 million to convert the Olympic Stadium to a combined football and athletics stadium...and that could take four years. So I reckon a City type stadium in Kirby(why Kirby?) would cost around £600 million. So only £646 million to find....lets get started.
Click to expand...

It can't be that much surely? To convert always costs more than from scratch or am i wrong.
 
"Everton Accounts Released"

FFS MOYES Y U RELEASE ACCOUNTS. HE BETTER THAN BAXTER.
 

toffeestillidie said:
So if I understand this correctly, the sale of assets (Arteta etc.) allowed us to offset increases in debt due to higher wage bills and lower turnover? That's why the liabilities side of the balance sheet is unchanged, even though we incurred a 9 million pound loss?

I'm confused about what this "loss" means in real terms. Surely the 'value' of assets in the football world is very inconsistent. Since the club's equity hasn't gotten any worse, can we interpret this 9 million pound 'loss' as a depreciation (and selling off) of our asset base against which we can borrow? If so, I'm not really bothered because a loss in football terms means nothing really. Nikica Jelavic's potential selling price probably increased 7 or 8 million pounds in the last half season, but this won't be reflected on the balance sheet as an increase in assets (though typically appreciated assets are accounted for.)

I know a bit of accounting but have never done so for a sports team, so please tell me if I am interpreting this information wrong.
Click to expand...

Most of the clubs assets are intangible (players). So it makes more sense to forecast cash flows and compare those to debt maturities. I wouldn't say the balance sheet is irrelevant, but it can be very misleading in this case.
 
Neiler said:
Very poor analysis tbh. If only they did it properly, fans deserve more.
Click to expand...

With over a 50% increase in their net loss, from £5m to £9m, which is only limited by the continued sale of intangible assets [players], over £23m in this period, the signs are poor. Wages, already too high a percentage of turnover, continue to increase due to enhanced contracts, new arrivals and most importantly diminishing turnover. Other operating costs remain relatively static at £23m despite employing a company specialising in cost reduction.

Yes, yes they do.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top