Everton FC Statement Of Accounts

[dublinbluenose]

Seems the Echo have is in the bargain basement,what ever our accounts read.http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spor...erton-transfers-2016-bosman-signings-10461416

There is not one player on that list I would like us to take. Stephen Fletcher ffs.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

There is not one player on that list I would like us to take. Stephen Fletcher ffs.

Thought we'd already been linked with Sam Byram tentatively a couple of times?

 

[SerenityNigh]

There is not one player on that list I would like us to take. Stephen Fletcher ffs.

Charlie Austin?

 

[USABlue]

Marchetti and feghouli are decent
Nothing new in the accounts really, like majority of outside top 4 clubs, we're reliant on TV money

 

[magicjuan]

Because he's running a solid ship but one which is lacking in two key areas:

1) better commercial opportunities
2) massive external investment

It's a matter of debate how much we blame him for the first point. It's the Board's job to worry about the second point.

Isn't that pretty much the 2 most important factors to judge the performance of a premier league club's CEO?

 

[dublinbluenose]

Charlie Austin?

Maybe one then

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Quality site SwissRamble.

Looking at us, it's clear where we fall short: we rely too much on TV earnings (73% of total) while having shockingly-low commercial earnings (11% of total).

Perhaps I'm being thick here, but if you look at the SwissRamble TV figure and compare it to the 2014 accounts it's overstated by 3mil, should be 85mil, gate receipts 17 mil and commercial/other 19mil.

I agree that the proportion of TV money is absurdly high, but on the commercial side with outsourcing the club reckoned that it would have an extra 6.2mil turnover in 2014 (per note 2 in the 2015 accounts comparative) so really speaking the percentages would be 66.89% TV, 13.26% gate receipts and 19.85% commercial. This assumes that if we had catering/and merchandising in-house that the profit would remain static.

Just saying.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

**Opens door**

I could very easily get myself banned in here.....

**closes door**

 

[davek]

**Opens door**

I could very easily get myself banned in here.....

**closes door**

Ha Ha Ha.

 

[steken1]

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.

I've took this as you volunteering to find us an investor?

 

[hibbo'sclass]

One other thing about the SwissRamble figures for EFC is they don't cross cast, they're 1 out. Not denigrating what they do, but if the figures don't reflect the accounts (public record) and don't add up I would treat them with the utmost caution.

I'm all for change, all for highlighting the poor commercial performance of the club, but if you're beating someone with a stick, make sure it has no weaknesses.

With regard to the increased turnover, I would assume that this is taken by projecting back the amount received by the club from Kitbag/Sodexo and projecting the gross profit and therefore the turnover required to achieve a net profit of the receivable amount (if that makes sense),using industry standards, which is a favourite of HMRC.

 

[jinkyali]

Speculation, M'Lud ....... lol

Go on....

 

[Woolly Blue]

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

I think you need to step back and look at the facts. The accounts were signed off by the auditors on the 23rd October and the glossy year end review came out today, roughly four weeks later.

I havn't gone any further back than last year, but those accounts were signed off on the 7th October, with the glossy published on the 31st, roughly three and a half weeks later. As conspiracy theories go, I'd say this is a fairly p poor one

 

[hibbo'sclass]

I think you need to step back and look at the facts. The accounts were signed off by the auditors on the 23rd October and the glossy year end review came out today, roughly four weeks later.

I havn't gone any further back than last year, but those accounts were signed off on the 7th October, with the glossy published on the 31st, roughly three and a half weeks later. As conspiracy theories go, I'd say this is a fairly p poor one

In fairness, I shy away and try to de-bunk conspiracy theories.
In this case, I was trying to bring some levity to a dust dry subject along with the derivatives comment.

 

[dholliday]

Isn't that pretty much the 2 most important factors to judge the performance of a premier league club's CEO?

No. The 2nd point he has little influence over. The 1st point sure, it's his area of responsibility, and I agree it's weaker than it should be. Question is what can be done to improve this?