Everton FC Statement Of Accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Only had a brief look at the figures particularly the borrowings aspect, and it would appear that the 6mil difference in borrowings from those specifically noted in the 2014 accounts have been repaid, by the 31st of May2015. The only borrowings as such are VIBRAC (reduced to 19 mil from the 2014 figure) and the season ticket Prudential "mortgage".

Interesting to see that there were derivatives bought to hedge the GBP-EURO position in May. If I may be mischevious, I would venture to say that these were to partially cover a position on Yarmolenko and Geri.

The marginally worse net debt position is mainly due to the fall in trade debtors, which unless I'm barking up the wrong tree will include deferred payment for players, so quite understandable.

Strangely, and may be reading too much into this, I find it interesting that the accounts were signed off on 23rd October, yet only being released now. If @the esk or anyone else can think of a credible reason other than the club couldn't be bothered, I would be interested to know. (have my own thoughts, but let's not get a feeding frenzy going here)

Oh, the jump in operating costs. Don't know, never will, no comment except - although it probably wouldn't account for all the rises, I would imagine that insurance for players is horrendous and wouldn't be included in staff costs, so the higher the squad value the higher the premium.

Finally, when the charges were satisfied and to paraphrase my posting I said "may be a house cleaning exercise/due diligence thing and it doesn't mean that debt was paid today,", according to the accounts I was probably right, because at 31 May only owed VIBRAC (per accounts repaid in August 2015) and the mortgage on season ticket sales through EIL and GPSL.

Finally, bear in mind that there has been another transfer window and funding round with JG Funding since, so the accounts aren't really that interesting.

Await castigation as a smug bell who should at least receive a thread ban.

:coffee:
 
Last edited:

Strangely, and may be reading too much into this, I find it interesting that the accounts were signed off on 23rd October, yet only being released now. If @the esk or anyone else can think of a credible reason other than the club couldn't be bothered, I would be interested to know. (have my own thoughts, but let's not get a feeding frenzy going here)

Speculation, M'Lud ....... lol
 
Everton are really big in America, mainly due to Tim Howard. That ship has nearly sailed. I am amazed we never tried to make more of it.

Others have mentioned this already, but in addition to Howard, I think you'll find these are also contributing factors in what has drawn many Americans to follow and support the club:

Brian McBride
Landon Donovan
Men in Blazers (increasingly so)
and, Everton
 

Oh, the jump in operating costs. Don't know, never will, no comment except - although it probably wouldn't account for all the rises, I would imagine that insurance for players is horrendous and wouldn't be included in staff costs, so the higher the squad value the higher the premium.

Logic will never gain traction on this issue, but occam's razor suggests that operating costs rise directly when revenue rises.

In other words, did you buy a new car after a promotion (with pay raise) or when you were worried you'd be laid off (made redundant, as you say)?
 
Logic will never gain traction on this issue, but occam's razor suggests that operating costs rise directly when revenue rises.

In other words, did you buy a new car after a promotion (with pay raise) or when you were worried you'd be laid off (made redundant, as you say)?
May be well wide of the mark here, but isn't this going back to the "the board extracting money by nefarious means" position?
 
Today's accounts prove once more, if further proof was needed, that without significant investment of additional capital the scope for further development of the club is limited. With the access to capital and hugely superior commercial and gate revenues of the group we wish to compete with (Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham) then that battle to do so gets harder and harder each year.
And yet people will rage when we inevitably finish in 6th or 7th place.
 

Many have suggested OOC is a mechanism for such
Yes, but in order to take that position, the starting point is that the auditors are having the wool pulled over their eyes, the accounts are not in compliance with the Companies Acts, and the minority shareholders are being short changed.

I have always taken the position that the board have integrity (but not brilliant business acumen) and a couple of months or so ago at the height of the watched toffee stuff, I posted on here why I believed that the position of OOC being a mechanism was not possible unless there was possible criminality occurring.

It's one of those situations where it's always better to agree to disagree to be honest.
 
Yes, but in order to take that position, the starting point is that the auditors are having the wool pulled over their eyes, the accounts are not in compliance with the Companies Acts, and the minority shareholders are being short changed.

I have always taken the position that the board have integrity (but not brilliant business acumen) and a couple of months or so ago at the height of the watched toffee stuff, I posted on here why I believed that the position of OOC being a mechanism was not possible unless there was possible criminality occurring.

It's one of those situations where it's always better to agree to disagree to be honest.

I'm with you on this (maybe my first comment wasn't clear), but I like the simpler argument.

If I'm looking to buy a new car, I buy it after I get a pay raise. If I have deferred maintenance on my house, I get this taken care of after my tax refund returns. Unusual income always results in unusual spending; that's what individuals do and that's what businesses do. It would be weird to see OOCs rise when income is falling; it would take an extremely efficient firm to have such a strong control of costs that OOCs don't rise when income rises. So I expect to see OOCs rise when income increases (although they are variable), because that's the null hypothesis.
 
I'm with you on this (maybe my first comment wasn't clear), but I like the simpler argument.

If I'm looking to buy a new car, I buy it after I get a pay raise. If I have deferred maintenance on my house, I get this taken care of after my tax refund returns. Unusual income always results in unusual spending; that's what individuals do and that's what businesses do. It would be weird to see OOCs rise when income is falling; it would take an extremely efficient firm to have such a strong control of costs that OOCs don't rise when income rises. So I expect to see OOCs rise when income increases (although they are variable), because that's the null hypothesis.
Apologies, I totally misinterpreted your opening post and now see what you mean.
 

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.

Shop

Back
Top