Latest Accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MickA said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

LinekersLegs said:
Seems a bit high of an amount just for Lukaku isn't it?

Surely some of 28m will only be paid out based on future performance (cups/CL/EL qualification) and the rest staggered over two/three years. Would have guessed that Lukaku would only cost us ~10m for the upcoming accounting period.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly but there have been other signings too and I'm guessing that Chelsea were bastards in the negotiations as they didn't really have to sell him so a fair bit of that 18m has probably gone to them. Some of the money may well still be there or used for other stuff. As there have been broadcast payments, the amount in the bank might now be higher. My guess though, is that the club have not paid down any debt unless they really felt they had to. Either way, at the time of the accounts, Everton owed £49m plus interest to various loans
 
Dithering Dougie said:
£28m on Lukaku isn't penny pinching Dave
Click to expand...

Prevenger17 said:
Come on, Dave. After the inaugural year of the new TV licensing deal we smashed our transfer record and laid out 28 million smackeroos. That's a huge fee for most clubs.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Visitor22 said:
Net debt in a set of company accounts has decreased by £17m. This is true however this is not debt as you or I would normally refer to it.

Net debt equals total borrowings minus cash held

This is a slightly simplified version but it will do for the point. Two things have essentially changed since 2013. Firstly the money borrowed has increased by 1m. Secondly the cash in the bank has increased from zero to 18m. The difference is the 17m reduction. My point is that the money in the bank has not necessarily been used to pay off some of the borrowings (we cannot possibly know what it has been used for or whether it is still there). However, I would make an educated guess that most of it has been used to pay for Lukaku. This means that our borrowings (what you and I would normally call debt) have increased or stayed around the same.

Neither the Guardian nor the club are inaccurate or dishonest by stating a 17m decrease in net debt - it just doesn't necessarily mean what many people think it does
Click to expand...

But the increase in borrowings is because of these pay-day loan facilities, the ones that are paid back each year. I do realise that it is still money that needs to be paid back, but the way it's set up (short-term), it's more just like spending tomorrow's income today. I can see why it is being referred to as borrowings rather than debt.

But yes, we still owe 49 million pound, but 17 million less than previously, and half of our debt is in the form of this pay-day loan like facility.
 

The only way to judge this is to compare it to the other 19 clubs who played in the top flight last season, and then when they are all announcing record revenue's an profits, we will probably realise that we all have one man to thank, Richard Scudamore, who has pushed this league on (in terms of TV revenue) not kenwright, we got an additional £32 million pound at the end of last season as our TV share, almost to the penny what we commited to pay out in transfer fees over the course of the repayment, would be interesting to see who we would have signed and what financial power we would have had if the record TV deal was negotiated 1 year later than it had.
 
davek said:
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?
Click to expand...

What the £30m+ we spent last summer was covered by not signing Leroy Fer for £7m 18 months earlier?
 
The major issue is that everyone gets the increased TV money to an extent (obviously varied a bit by league position etc) and that has a knock-on effect on transfer fees and wages so it's not a huge competitive advantage. I mean, seriously, would anyone have even considered 28m for Lukaku two years ago?

The difference in competing is always going to be Champions League football and commercial revenues. CL is incredibly tough to get unless you have the money first and only for four clubs so that realistically leaves commercial revenue as the area that drastically needs to be improved. Otherwise, you get into a cycle of always needing to perform better than your means. You can't rely on that when your best players and manager will be constantly poached by clubs who have already sorted out their commercial revenue streams
 

Dithering Dougie said:
What the £30m+ we spent last summer was covered by not signing Leroy Fer for £7m 18 months earlier?
Click to expand...
images


Before this fella went we signed Kone, Robles, Delofeu (Loan Fee) and Alcaraz (free) Nowhere near 30million
 
I am sorry, but I don't get it. We made 28 million profit and on the top of that, we paid off 17 million of our debts?

Then we bought Lukaku with these money of 28 million profit? So we should still have all these extra TV money in our pocket for 14/15 season minus wages of Etoo and Besic transfer fee, right?
 

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.

Register

Shop

Back
Top