Everton annual accounts

[Bruce Wayne]

Surely the debt repayments are considered to be part of the overall expenditure figure that is used to calculate our profit or loss? It seems a bit ridiculous to calculate a profit or loss, and then take into account debt repayments. If this really is the case, then we haven't made a profit at all, but yet the accounts are saying that we have?

The idea that extra revenue is entirely spent on extra wages isn't true. The last massive increase saw us pay for Andy Johnson, Joleon Lescott, Kevin Kilbane and the signing of Howard a few months later. The new rules would prevent us from spending it entirely on wages anyway.

The figures are broken down thus:

- Turnover minus operating costs
- Then player trading is taken into account
- Then debt repayments
- Then taxation

In 2012 those figures were respectively:

- minus £19 million
- plus £14 million
- minus £4 million
- no tax

Thus a loss of around £9 million last year (2012).

This year the figures are:

- minus £9.8 million
- plus £15.6 million
- minus £4.2 million

This overall leaves a profit of £1.5 million.

It should be noted that player purchases are included in operating costs, so the player trading figure is only transfer fees received.

Now I can't remember a year when figures weren't similar to these, ie next to no profit OR a loss, so history shows we're spending as much as we can afford already.

 

[Dymak]

The figures are broken down thus:

- Turnover minus operating costs
- Then player trading is taken into account
- Then debt repayments
- Then taxation

In 2012 those figures were respectively:

- minus £19 million
- plus £14 million
- minus £4 million
- no tax

Thus a loss of around £9 million last year (2012).

This year the figures are:

- minus £9.8 million
- plus £15.6 million
- minus £4.2 million

This overall leaves a profit of £1.5 million.

It should be noted that player purchases are included in operating costs, so the player trading figure is only transfer fees received.

Now I can't remember a year when figures weren't similar to these, ie next to no profit OR a loss, so history shows we're spending as much as we can afford already.

So we have made a small profit, and our revenue will now be dramatically increased through the new TV deal, plus our considerable surplus from recent player trading.

Money really shouldn't be in short supply at this moment in time, in fact plenty should be available.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You've subtracted debt repayments twice above: once before player trading is taken into consideration, once after.

However, you have identified the salient point: we have been massively reliant on player trading to make up the shortfall of a club incapable of running a successful commercial operation and whose owners show no inclination to attract inward investment (either from large individual or institutional shareholders or through a share issue to get fans onboard). I see no reason whatsoever to cut them any slack over their 14 year inability to trade better than that.

As for extra tv money going straight to wages...you are wrong, completely wrong. I think you need to familiarise yourself with the changing environment, Bruce. We have seen a decline in wages last year at Everton; and the new guidelines clubs now operate on from UEFA and PL generated mean that wages will never again be allowed to become the whole cake in terms of revenue taken in.

The CEO has said openly the extra 25M tv revenue is there to do with what they please: buying of players, debt reduction, infrastructure...there's a mix they can choose at their own discretion each and every year now. You'll be told that money is there today and tomorrow (when it isn't spent...obviously).

There really is no excuse now, and the club wont pretend there is. They'll just work the friendly BK media to make sure everyone knows (by implication, of course!) that it's Martinez choosing not to spend now but be frugal and wait until the summer.....Ahhh, the summer...there's always the summer....there's always jam tomorrow.

Funny that.

I've shown the figures above (with debt removed once). We made a big loss in 2012, and a small profit in 2013.

I quite agree that we need to raise more money as a club. I think of our £80 million or so in turnover, something like £55 million of that comes from the television deal. That's a whole lot of eggs in one basket. That is also pretty much our wage bill. It doesn't take much to put the two together, does it?

History suggests we use player trading to fund transfer activity, and extra income to fund operating activity. That's pretty much how it's always been, and I doubt it will be any different now. Lets be realistic here, football income has gone through the roof in the past few decades, yet there are only two clubs that consistently turn a profit, and both of those (Arsenal and Man Utd) are such that they earn as much from non-tv things as they do from television.

It's not hard to draw the conclusion therefore that the vast majority of all the billions in television money over the years has gone to players in increased salaries.

As for UEFA, I'll believe that when they collar a big club. A big club like the one that's currently waltzing away with the Premier League having made a loss of £50 million last year and spending ~100% of their turnover on wages, and seem set to spend another few million on the two players from Porto in this window.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So we have made a small profit, and our revenue will now be dramatically increased through the new TV deal, plus our considerable surplus from recent player trading.

Money really shouldn't be in short supply at this moment in time.

Yes, and we made a big loss the year before. That piper will need paying. We also have the very real likelihood that we've paid out several million for the loan players we have this year. Does anyone know how much?

 

[Dymak]

Yes, and we made a big loss the year before. That piper will need paying. We also have the very real likelihood that we've paid out several million for the loan players we have this year. Does anyone know how much?

I have heard it said more than once that the Rodwell money was used to pay for the majority of the loss you are talking about, it certainly wasn't all invested back into the squad.

How far do you want to go back when factoring in losses from previous years? We made a profit in the last accounting period, it doesn't seem right to then be factoring in repayment of losses from years and years ago.

Surely the latest figures have accounted for the repayment of the loss you are talking about, otherwise the repayment of such a loss is going to be documented in accounts from two years down the line? That doesn't sound right to me.

 

[davek]

I've shown the figures above (with debt removed once). We made a big loss in 2012, and a small profit in 2013.

I quite agree that we need to raise more money as a club. I think of our £80 million or so in turnover, something like £55 million of that comes from the television deal. That's a whole lot of eggs in one basket. That is also pretty much our wage bill. It doesn't take much to put the two together, does it?

History suggests we use player trading to fund transfer activity, and extra income to fund operating activity. That's pretty much how it's always been, and I doubt it will be any different now. Lets be realistic here, football income has gone through the roof in the past few decades, yet there are only two clubs that consistently turn a profit, and both of those (Arsenal and Man Utd) are such that they earn as much from non-tv things as they do from television.

It's not hard to draw the conclusion therefore that the vast majority of all the billions in television money over the years has gone to players in increased salaries.

As for UEFA, I'll believe that when they collar a big club. A big club like the one that's currently waltzing away with the Premier League having made a loss of £50 million last year and spending ~100% of their turnover on wages, and seem set to spend another few million on the two players from Porto in this window.

Wages are still an issue with clubs, of course, but they are not the runaway train anymore. FFP means only a certain ratio of all revenue can be spent on wages...any rise dependent on that revenue becoming greater or it coming from a rise in non-tv sourced revenue (fat chance with us). The PL's own commitment to rein them in is also in place. These are matters that tether wages going forward.

Your other point in agreement is the one that matters though: we are a chronically run business and as such have been overly relaint on selling off the assets in blue shirts to survive. However, that new revenue is a game changer - or should be. And yet here we are AGAIN talking about the need to get squad members out in order to get a loan deal done.

It's outrageous.

 

[Moomin]

Actually, if you look at the balance sheet. In reality we are worse off this year. It's only the jump of 6 million in player assets which stops the net assets and liabilities from increasing.

Anyway, it may be possible that the extra tv money and money from player sales has been used to get rid of the bridging loan we always take out each summer. That would be the sensible option, net debt would be decreased by 20% and the creditors within a year would be down by 11 million in the next set of accounts.

This would give us the full amount or majority of the TV money this summer to use on players. But, the worrying thing for me is that we will make a few signings and everyone will be happy, but it will be the matter of how we buy these players on staged payments like the Fellani deal. Don't take me word for it, but the CEO's who said we sell cash high up front and buy on staged payments in his interview with Mickey Blue Eyes.

So come summer 2015, we have no cash to spend as its allocated to the transfers we made this year. We will have to rely on player trading, by then no doubt Barkley will be wanted even more by the big boys, cue the " Tears on the phone " speech again.

 

[davek]

Robert Elstone 23rd January 2014.

"to prosper at the top end of the Premier League you need a generous billionaire and/or a shiny big stadium that you fill every week. Without those, you need to be exceptionally good at developing, coaching and yes, trading talented footballers,"

IT'S IN OUR DNA

 

[Del]

Robert Elstone 23rd January 2014.

"to prosper at the top end of the Premier League you need a generous billionaire and/or a shiny big stadium that you fill every week. Without those, you need to be exceptionally good at developing, coaching and yes, trading talented footballers,"

IT'S IN OUR DNA

Nothing but the best Dave

Nothing but the best

 

[davek]

Nothing but the best Dave

Nothing but the best

Nil Satis.

It looks like that **** badge is going to be the right choice for this season after all. A big let down coming up in the run in. The air coming out of our tires fast now.

 

[The Esk]

I have not kept up with todays discussions will read later when I have time, I meant to mention last night, did anyone notice that player/training staff numbers had fallen whilst administration staff had risen?

Might be a perfectly reasonable reason but interesting nevertheless

 

[Steve Wigan]

Robert Elstone 23rd January 2014.

"to prosper at the top end of the Premier League you need a generous billionaire and/or a shiny big stadium that you fill every week. Without those, you need to be exceptionally good at developing, coaching and yes, trading talented footballers,"

IT'S IN OUR DNA

Yes...it is in our DNA...because we haven't got a shiny new stadium or a generous billionaire , and I'm afraid that until that changes you'll have to live with it, being the good Evertonian that you are. But of course you won't, you'll keep moaning about how angry it makes you feel. I think some peoples greatest pleasure in supporting the club is to moan about it. Enjoy Transfer Deadline Day.

 

[davek]

Yes...it is in our DNA...because we haven't got a shiny new stadium or a generous billionaire , and I'm afraid that until that changes you'll have to live with it, being the good Evertonian that you are. But of course you won't, you'll keep moaning about how angry it makes you feel. I think some peoples greatest pleasure in supporting the club is to moan about it. Enjoy Transfer Deadline Day.

...who failed to get that sorted out then?

You're friend Bill.

 

[Moomin]

Yes...it is in our DNA...because we haven't got a shiny new stadium or a generous billionaire , and I'm afraid that until that changes you'll have to live with it, being the good Evertonian that you are. But of course you won't, you'll keep moaning about how angry it makes you feel. I think some peoples greatest pleasure in supporting the club is to moan about it. Enjoy Transfer Deadline Day.

Steve, we need your story about Miss Saigon and the Helicopter to diffuse the fume on here.

You did promise you would do this week, come on, it will be the highlight of the day to me.

 

[Steve Wigan]

...who failed to get that sorted out then?

You're friend Bill.

So go on...first of all, lets have some evidence of my 'friendship ' will Bill Kenwright.Because your statement is factually incorrect. And is it not a FACT that unlike a couple or so Premier League clubs, we do not have the benefit of a generous billionaire. Are you suggesting that its Bill Kenwrights fault that he isn't a billionaire? Are you a billionaire? If not, is it your fault youre not? Am I a billionaire? You don't know because YOU DON'T KNOW ME.