Net Spend

[Eggs]

There were a lot of people on here, me included, who thought we were only spending what we brought in. However, we spent over £40m in January and brought in less than £20m, so where did the rest of the money come from?

..yep, those who go on about having to sell to buy have been mainly quiet.

 

[davek]

Player sales + hike in tv cash = increased net spend.

Nothing to see here.

Kenwright era plate spinning alive and kicking.

 

[Frang]

..yep, those who go on about having to sell to buy have been mainly quiet.

to be fair eggs, we have spent £47m and got back £15m for barkley, possibly £3m for lennon and we got a loan off Santander at the end of December for £13.5m..

so we have probably splashed out £17m from our internal revenue streams.

everyone seems to think Moshiri literally draws the cash out of his own current account. he doesn't and never will.

all the money we have spent on transfers comes from within the club.

theres nothing to see here, we still have to make significant sales and get loans in order to bring in more faces, to keep the books somewhat balanced.

 

[Eggs]

to be fair eggs, we have spent £47m and got back £15m for barkley, possibly £3m for lennon and we got a loan off Santander at the end of December for £13.5m..

so we have probably splashed out £17m from our internal revenue streams.

everyone seems to think Moshiri literally draws the cash out of his own current account. he doesn't and never will.

all the money we have spent on transfers comes from within the club.

theres nothing to see here, we still have to make significant sales and get loans in order to bring in more faces, to keep the books somewhat balanced.

..i’m sure that’s the case and we need to be sensible but it’s not exactly a hand to mouth existence.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Player sales + hike in tv cash = increased net spend.

Nothing to see here.

Kenwright era plate spinning alive and kicking.

to be fair eggs, we have spent £47m and got back £15m for barkley, possibly £3m for lennon and we got a loan off Santander at the end of December for £13.5m..

so we have probably splashed out £17m from our internal revenue streams.

everyone seems to think Moshiri literally draws the cash out of his own current account. he doesn't and never will.

all the money we have spent on transfers comes from within the club.

theres nothing to see here, we still have to make significant sales and get loans in order to bring in more faces, to keep the books somewhat balanced.

Before Moshiri bought us, before the TV cash hike, our highest earner was on around 80k. Now we have at least 5 (was 6 but Sandro has now been temporarily sorted) that are above 100k, a few of those are on or around the 150 mark. We used to pay around 3 million a year for our mangers it is now 6 million. Forgetting the true cost of our managers/back room staff over the last few years is going to be greater than 30 million alone.

We have a massive squad, everyone knows this. Take Walcotts salary alone, 150k a week, 7.5 million a year. It doesn't take long to see where the majority of the extra TV money goes when you think about it.

 

[Frang]

Before Moshiri bought us, before the TV cash hike, our highest earner was on around 80k. Now we have at least 5 (was 6 but Sandro has now been temporarily sorted) that are above 100k, a few of those are on or around the 150 mark. We used to pay around 3 million a year for our mangers it is now 6 million. Forgetting the true cost of our managers/back room staff over the last few years is going to be greater than 30 million alone.

We have a massive squad, everyone knows this. Take Walcotts salary alone, 150k a week, 7.5 million a year. It doesn't take long to see where the majority of the extra TV money goes when you think about it.

moshiri rocking up has coincided with the new huge TV monies.

we would still be much much much better off if moshiri hadn't turned up.

we managed to spend 28m on lukaku 3 or 4 years ago .. its not like we weren't able to spend before he came.

in fact we spent more on a striker 4 years ago than we do in todays over inflated market.

make of that what you will

 

[The binman chronicles]

moshiri rocking up has coincided with the new huge TV monies.

we would still be much much much better off if moshiri hadn't turned up.

we managed to spend 28m on lukaku 3 or 4 years ago .. its not like we weren't able to spend before he came.

in fact we spent more on a striker 4 years ago than we do in todays over inflated market.

make of that what you will

You are missing the point, it's not all about the the headline fee. Compare wages from the squad we had before he came to now and see how much of the extra TV money covers that. That then will give you what we can net spend on players if we are just being bank rolled via the increase from TV rights.

 

[msb]

What does it really matter what our net spend is? Lose players that don't want to be here, buy players that do - so Lukaku went for big wedge and distorts our spend, so what.

It's just another useless and meaningless way to beat a certain drum to meet a certain agenda.

The only question to answer is the one about our squad getting better, we can argue all day about that, but because Moshiri is a better businessman than the FIFA warriors is entirely academic.

 

[Seathestars]

Usmanov’s arse pocket.

 

[GwladysBlue]

Player sales + hike in tv cash = increased net spend.

Nothing to see here.

Kenwright era plate spinning alive and kicking.

Only Man Utd and Man City are spending more than Everton. You keep avoiding this fact. Not like you to only read into something you want to see, though.

 

[davek]

Before Moshiri bought us, before the TV cash hike, our highest earner was on around 80k. Now we have at least 5 (was 6 but Sandro has now been temporarily sorted) that are above 100k, a few of those are on or around the 150 mark. We used to pay around 3 million a year for our mangers it is now 6 million. Forgetting the true cost of our managers/back room staff over the last few years is going to be greater than 30 million alone.

We have a massive squad, everyone knows this. Take Walcotts salary alone, 150k a week, 7.5 million a year. It doesn't take long to see where the majority of the extra TV money goes when you think about it.

Staff costs rose by £20M in the last accounts but as a % of turnover has fallen from 69% to 61%.

 

[davek]

Only Man Utd and Man City are spending more than Everton. You keep avoiding this fact. Not like you to only read into something you want to see, though.

There's no avoidance of the total spend figure, it's just noted that it coincides with our two biggest ever receipt of fees £140/150M off two players alone.

That hasn't happened in the past and likely wont again for many years to come.

Basically we sold the family silver and bought a load of tat with it.

 

[GwladysBlue]

There's no avoidance of the total spend figure, it's just noted that it coincides with our two biggest ever receipt of fees £140/150M off two players alone.

That hasn't happened in the past and likely wont again for many years to come.

Basically we sold the family silver and bought a load of tat with it.

But you're saying it's sell to buy + the tv deal. Chelsea and Liverpool have took in huge fees for players and haven't spent as much as we have. No club has invested more than Everton outside the two Manchester clubs.

 

[Brisan123]

Spending what you earn. Why would a sustainable business want to do that anyway?

We can’t spend what we earn
We have a carpetbagger as an owner
Or so I’ve been told

 

[The binman chronicles]

Staff costs rose by £20M in the last accounts but as a % of turnover has fallen from 69% to 61%.

This is for the period before we bought Rooney, Sigurdsson, Klaasson, Sandro, Walcott etc. We have to wait till next Jan and even then Walcott's/Tosun and whatever else we buy won't be in the released accounting year. It's fairly simple economics to see our wages have massively increased over the last few years and the TV deal drives this.