Guardian finances article

[Neiler]

Exactly, that was the article I was referring to from Elstone: he says there's 'around 25' costs incurred bundled up into other operating costs...and then proceeds to give only 11/12 of them and he doesn't cost them! And he'd never ever address why the cost of all those everyday costs he did mention have rocketted in recent years to around £20M from almost nothing.

As I say, anytime there's a reasonable explanation found on the other operating costs please let me know, I'd be interested to read it.

Good stuff mate!

 

[Goat]

Bob gave an explanation a month ago mate, i take it you don't believe him?

​

I dont.

 

[SweetJesus849]

Everton (17) Just behind Spurs (20) and Manch C (20) in match day income. How can Liverpool (41) generate 150% more match day income ?

Some of these figures are absurd, United are on 109, Arsenal 93, whilst the likes of Blackburn are on less than 10.

 

[Nails]

Some of these figures are absurd, United are on 109, Arsenal 93, whilst the likes of Blackburn are on less than 10.

Have you seen the cost of Arsenal tickets?

 

[Brennan]

Good stuff mate!

Do you have an explanation for how the other operating costs have appeared out of nowhere ?

 

[kenada_blue]

The fact that our turnover is only £5m higher than Fulham is embarrassing.

Villa above us by a big margin. Fulham, Sunderland and West Ham around about near us...

Its something that needed addressing for seasons

 

[davek]

Villa above us by a big margin. Fulham, Sunderland and West Ham around about near us...

Its something that needed addressing for seasons

Two failed stadium bids

Annexe announced then sidelined

Subcontracting out merchandise/catering

...basically all the majority owners of Everton have done for 12 years is put their hand out for season ticket money and tv deal money (and borrowed...a lot).

They're a disgrace. A heavy weight bearing down on the playing side of things which has performed above what most could reasonably expect in that 12 year period. They cant believe their luck they haven't been pitchforked, and for that they have the insane level of loyalty to the fraud AKA Bill Kenwright to thank. Clap Clap Clap!

 

[Neiler]

Do you have an explanation for how the other operating costs have appeared out of nowhere ?

TBH i dont think anythings hidden and i can rationalise STB's explanation, clearly while some want a compleate balance sheet - which isnt going to happen i can see how some of the iteams he mentioned could come up at that figure, tbh its not that bottom line figure that worries me. They havnt jumped irrationaly over the years they have been grouped together under that heading from previous accounts over the last few years. Like i say his explanation seems more rational then Kenwright taking money out of the club to pay of Philip Green et al or Robert Earl in bridgeing loans - which if your being pedantic about you could say you would want a breakdown of, or even any evidance - even if Everton were paying Earl interest (which is less likely then Bobs explanation) he wouldnt be the only director in the Prem who lent money to a club and receiveing interest.

Comes down to what you believe at the end of the day - im not trying to change anyones mind if they beleive in Philip Green, the directotrs back pocketing money or the tooth fariy or whatever.

 

[davek]

TBH i dont think anythings hidden and i can rationalise STB's explanation, clearly while some want a compleate balance sheet - which isnt going to happen i can see how some of the iteams he mentioned could come up at that figure, tbh its not that bottom line figure that worries me. They havnt jumped irrationaly over the years they have been grouped together under that heading from previous accounts over the last few years. Like i say his explanation seems more rational then Kenwright taking money out of the club to pay of Philip Green et al or Robert Earl in bridgeing loans - which if your being pedantic about you could say you would want a breakdown of, or even any evidance - even if Everton were paying Earl interest (which is less likely then Bobs explanation) he wouldnt be the only director in the Prem who lent money to a club and receiveing interest.

Comes down to what you believe at the end of the day - im not trying to change anyones mind if they beleive in Philip Green, the directotrs back pocketing money or the tooth fariy or whatever.

Do you have a breakdown of that type of shifting of items from other categories into this 'other operating costs' category which has swollen the bottom line figure? A detailed one that shows, as you imply, that when you add all the moved costs up and add it to the earlier existing other operating costs figures it comes to the bottom line figure we see now in accounts?

Seeing as you give more creedence to nailed down, hard empirical evidence rather than believing in tooth fairys, this is not an unreasonable request...otherwise it's just one assertion countered by another assertion.

 

[nigelcoyb]

TBH i dont think anythings hidden and i can rationalise STB's explanation, clearly while some want a compleate balance sheet - which isnt going to happen i can see how some of the iteams he mentioned could come up at that figure, tbh its not that bottom line figure that worries me. They havnt jumped irrationaly over the years they have been grouped together under that heading from previous accounts over the last few years. Like i say his explanation seems more rational then Kenwright taking money out of the club to pay of Philip Green et al or Robert Earl in bridgeing loans - which if your being pedantic about you could say you would want a breakdown of, or even any evidance - even if Everton were paying Earl interest (which is less likely then Bobs explanation) he wouldnt be the only director in the Prem who lent money to a club and receiveing interest.

Comes down to what you believe at the end of the day - im not trying to change anyones mind if they beleive in Philip Green, the directotrs back pocketing money or the tooth fariy or whatever.

If there was nothing to be ashamed of or hide the details would be there.

 

[steken1]

The fact is you wouldn't really give much away to your competitor's by giving a rudimentary breakdown of OOC.

It's a stick used by both KEIOC and the BU to beat Bill and the club with.

The club(Bill) could have made both look silly by offering an explanation without needing to go into minute detail. The fact they have tried to pass it off as Lawnmowers and all other kinds of bollocks that adds up to nowhere like the £23m it has hovered around over the past few years says a lot.

Nobody has ever really explained the massive jump over the last decade either. It was around £2m at one point. what's changed so dramatically?

Some refuse to accept we are dealing with a delibreately evasive and propagandist set of people who are doing nothing but look after their own interests.

 

[nsno-chris]

Exactly, that was the article I was referring to from Elstone: he says there's 'around 25' costs incurred bundled up into other operating costs...and then proceeds to give only 11/12 of them and he doesn't cost them! And he'd never ever address why the cost of all those everyday costs he did mention have rocketted in recent years to around £20M from almost nothing.

As I say, anytime there's a reasonable explanation found on the other operating costs please let me know, I'd be interested to read it.

You've got the wrong end of the stick here mate, Elstone states 25 cost centres, not costs. In my budget line in work I have 7 cost centres with around 15 indiviual items/costs (sometimes more, sometimes less) within each centre.

 

[Neiler]

Do you have a breakdown of that type of shifting of items from other categories into this 'other operating costs' category which has swollen the bottom line figure? A detailed one that shows, as you imply, that when you add all the moved costs up and add it to the earlier existing other operating costs figures it comes to the bottom line figure we see now in accounts?

Seeing as you give more creedence to nailed down, hard empirical evidence rather than believing in tooth fairys, this is not an unreasonable request...otherwise it's just one assertion countered by another assertion.

No prob mate, ill show you mine if you show me yours! You have to laugh looking for specific breakdown of exact tanable outgoings to the nearest penny of LEGALLY audited accounts, then spinning fairy stories of Philip Green and Robert Earl - id love to see that evidance tbh - seeing as your so fond of it - possible dreams youve had dont count.

*Doesnt hold breath.

 

[pfim]

It's a pointless debate. Everyone should be concerned about the top line, that is where the problem lies. Everything else is just getting worked up for no reason.

 

[davek]

You've got the wrong end of the stick here mate, Elstone states 25 cost centres, not costs. In my budget line in work I have 7 cost centres with around 15 indiviual items/costs (sometimes more, sometimes less) within each centre.

That's a reasonable point mate. I suppose all Elstone left out then was the detailed figures that went with each of those sub-categories...and how and why we've seen the whole category increase tenfold. I accept (if it can be shown) that costs that previously weren't shown in Other Operating Costs will be one reason for the inflated figures. As Steken mentions above though, if the club wanted to they could break this whole section down forensically and have done with the debate over what the hell is going on with that part of the club's outgoings. They wont or cant.

No prob mate, ill show you mine if you show me yours! You have to laugh looking for specific breakdown of exact tanable outgoings to the nearest penny of LEGALLY audited accounts, then spinning fairy stories of Philip Green and Robert Earl - id love to see that evidance tbh - seeing as your so fond of it - possible dreams youve had dont count.

*Doesnt hold breath.

But I accept that what I profer on the OOC front is an assertion. I dont have to show any workings out. My assertion is based on the club's vagueness/evasion in accounting how that OOC sack stands upright and the Philip Green quotes that he's helped Everton out in the past (confirmed by Kenwright). You believe the Elstone line to be nearer the mark - for that to be anything other than your counter-assertion the burden falls on you to present the evidence. You cant because it's not there. The only real debating point here is 'why is it not there?'. Just tardiness or something more sinister?