Latest Accounts

[ianefc]

That was 18 months ago, not last summer.

Well then that was simply down to the TV deal and nothing else, and those dealings were not included in this set of results and also dave surely meant Martinez first window, as he reffered to the Fer deal which fell through 6 months before hand in Moyes last season. Why would you have skipped a whole window to make a point about a window which has nothing to do with this set of financial results

 

[Dymak]

Cheers. I think it's clear that we have used that money for Lukaku and that another VIBRAC loan will be incoming (again ahead of TV money).

In simple terms then is it safe to say we're talking bigger numbers but standing still? There is no excess money for squad additions unless we sell and none for improvements to infrastructure.

How have you come to that conclusion? A single tranche of TV money has allowed us to reduce our debt by 17 million. There are another two similar tranches of TV money on their way. We don't have to use it to pay off debt, the debt is entirely manageable and minuscule by Premier League standards. The conclusion is that there should be money available to spend. Extra money from the Europa League should also be available.

 

[ianefc]

That and the sales of Fellaini/Jelavic/Anichebe.

@Dithering Dougie He meant the window I reffered too, an I think this confirms it

 

[SerenityNigh]

2001 Everton accounts:

Broadcasting = £12.8M
Commercial
(advertsing/
merchandise/
sponsorship) = £5.6M

2014 Everton accounts:

Broadcasting = £88.5M
Commercial
(advertsing/
merchandise/
sponsorship) = £8.4M

The club has done very well improving broadcasting revenue

 

[Dithering Dougie]

Well then that was simply down to the TV deal and nothing else, and those dealings were not included in this set of results and also dave surely meant Martinez first window, as he reffered to the Fer deal which fell through 6 months before hand in Moyes last season. Why would you have skipped a whole window to make a point about a window which has nothing to do with this set of financial results

I never Dave did, I've said we've spent money this summer. We also spent money last summer though, and we've reduced our debts. That's not "penny pinching" is it.

 

[SerenityNigh]

I'm happy with the results, but I just hope everyone doesn't get pre-occupied with reducing the debt. For example, we have chosen to reduce the debt by 17 million pound (21 million Euros), well you can buy players like Cabaye or Firmino for that type of money. And had we done so, our debt still would have been entirely manageable and relatively small in Premier League terms at just 45 million. We would also have another extra 60 million or so coming our way over the next two years. It wouldn't have been risky at all.

The main beneficiaries from the reduction of debt are the major shareholders as it increases their equity and ROI in the event that Everton were sold. It also may make us more appealing to a new owner, and it may also make borrowing for a new stadium easier, but it actually means that the money to pay off the debt would return to Kenwright's pocket in the event of a sale, it wouldn't be going into the club, although we would have a new owner.

I guess I'm asking you what you prefer? A reduction in a debt that was/is entirely manageable, or making our squad strong enough to truly compete in the champions league through signing the likes of Cabaye or Firmino?

Debt is harmless except in two cases:

1) when debt service requirements consume too much turnover/keep you from spending in other areas (i.e., you want to buy players, but can't)
2) when debt size and debt service ability prevents taking on new debt (i.e., you want to build a new stadium, but can't secure financing)

Reducing debt is a clever move in the chess match, but wiping it out entirely is a foolish move because it has no end game.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Remember this increase in the main is due to BSkyB and BT. Other PL sides will also see similar boosts so it's a case of how individual clubs manage this income. People expecting an EFC with greater muscle in the transfer market will be sorely disappointed I feel.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...striker-romelu-lukaku-from-chelsea-for-16328m

 

[LinekersLegs]

Debt is harmless except in two cases:

1) when debt service requirements consume too much turnover/keep you from spending in other areas (i.e., you want to buy players, but can't)
2) when debt size and debt service ability prevents taking on new debt (i.e., you want to build a new stadium, but can't secure financing)

Reducing debt is a clever move in the chess match, but wiping it out entirely is a foolish move because it has no end game.

It is also a bad when it forces you into sales that you don't want to make as was reported to be the case with Arteta.

 

[davek]

The club has done very well improving broadcasting revenue

Hats off to Elstone. He certainly knows how to put his hand out and take a big fat cheque in.

Some people grumble that he's overseen the commercial side of the club with disastrously drawn up deals like the Kitbag one and grown the club's coffers by the sum total of £25 and 80p in 6 years. For me, though, he's a real asset.

 

[Prevenger17]

Last summer's spending was almost covered by the Fer money that was there before the tv cash tipped up + the first Martinez season in charge cash from player sales.

Expect more sell to buy windows in the next few seasons as the tv revenue floods in and people fall for the carpet bagger's insulting explanations about paying down debt (the one they ran up because they're either too parsimonious to invest their own cash or too thick to generate organic growth) and 'having a stadium to pay for'.

For some reason people fall for their excuses every time. How many times does someone have to piss on your leg and tell you it's raining before you realise it's not rainwater?

I can't really put up too much of a struggle here, I admittedly know nothing about finances. But it seems to me we have money and we're spending it while reducing debt. In the last window we held on to all our best players while signing Lukaku, Besic and Eto which is an incredibly successful transfer window by any team's standards. I understand completely that the board can hardly take the credit for the new TV deal and the money we get for it, but we should be willing to see how we operate in the next two transfer windows with that new influx of cash before assuming we're going to maintain a sell/buy policy.

 

[SerenityNigh]

It is also a bad when it forces you into sales that you don't want to make as was reported to be the case with Arteta.

Agree, although that's really just #1 all over--you can't afford your debt service, so you sell players

 

[MickA]

Wouldn't say that was true. Excluding transfers, we made a profit of about £20 million. That's a fair amount of cash which, if repeated for this season, means we can spend it on players / wages / infrastructure in some sort of split. It's money we've not had before so, as long as our wage bill doesn't explode we should have a few quid to spend on improving the squad.

OK so we made a profit but we're not paying down the gross debt with it? If I have a £500 overdraft and win £100 on the horses I've made a profit but unless I put that towards the debt it remains the same.

How have you come to that conclusion? A single tranche of TV money has allowed us to reduce our debt by 17 million. There are another two similar tranches of TV money on their way. We don't have to use it to pay off debt, the debt is entirely manageable and minuscule by Premier League standards. The conclusion is that there should be money available to spend. Extra money from the Europa League should also be available.

But the gross debt is increased by £1m to £49m. There hasn't been a reduction in the amount we actually owe others at all.
The £17m we may well have used for Lukaku so it's listed as cash but hasn't it just 'rested'?

 

[Visitor22]

Debt is harmless except in two cases:

1) when debt service requirements consume too much turnover/keep you from spending in other areas (i.e., you want to buy players, but can't)
2) when debt size and debt service ability prevents taking on new debt (i.e., you want to build a new stadium, but can't secure financing)

Reducing debt is a clever move in the chess match, but wiping it out entirely is a foolish move because it has no end game.

Agree that any company, unless in unusual circumstances like a billionaire owner or practically owning the market, should always have some debt. Not having it is often a sign of lack of ambition.

On 1), paying £5m interest per year is too much on £49m borrowings but it is not unmanageable and should not be a barrier to progress

On 2), having £49m borrowings on £120m turnover might prove to be an issue when you need to borrow something like £200m for a new stadium

 

[davek]

I can't really put up too much of a struggle here, I admittedly know nothing about finances. But it seems to me we have money and we're spending it while reducing debt. In the last window we held on to all our best players while signing Lukaku, Besic and Eto which is an incredibly successful transfer window by any team's standards. I understand completely that the board can hardly take the credit for the new TV deal and the money we get for it, but we should be willing to see how we operate in the next two transfer windows with that new influx of cash before assuming we're going to maintain a sell/buy policy.

I think it's plain as a pikestaff already. The fantasy stadium scheme in WHP (which isn't even a scheme yet) will drag out for years and the club directors and CEO have trailed this across the stage already as 'infrastructural' investment for any incoming cash.

Elstone talks about a mix policy of paying down debt, stadium needs and squad improvement. I know which of those three I think will be treated like the red headed stepchild,

 

[EverBlue86]

We are arguing over 2 facts strangely

1. This is good news in general

2. Elstone and the marketing side of the club are inept and we need to massively improve our commercial side of the club