New Everton Owners: The Friedkin Group

[Daytripper]

Well we had the stability narrative without the actual stability.

It was one of Chairman Bills go to’s mate. After “agent Johnson “ etc etc.

 

[Daytripper]

We've had the "narrative" because it was something we desperately wanted and didn't have.

We now do. We've had three months of it - that's all.

One thing at a time.

We did have it, it caused the club to stagnate and complacent because the supposed custodians at the time were incapable of truly pushing the club on, yet they stayed in their roles for years.

All I want is history not repeating itself.

 

[Drico]

It was one of Chairman Bills go to’s mate. After “agent Johnson “ etc etc.

These new owners are hardly here for stability.

They've already made an off-field impact. I fully expect to see them make an on-field impact from July.

I suspect they'll be demanding a top half finish next season of Moyes or whoever is manager come August. That's about as much "stability" as competent, ambitious people will stomach. Positions can be made up quickly enough in this mediocre league.

 

[allen]

We did have it, it caused the club to stagnate and complacent because the supposed custodians at the time were incapable of truly pushing the club on, yet they stayed in their roles for years.

All I want is history not repeating itself.

I take it you missed the latter Moshiri years, then?

The club nearly collapsed under the weight of its debt.

That's the chaotic baseline we're moving away from. Not stagnation - that came earlier - but near outright failure.

 

[Neiler]

generally good and no surprises.

One interesting thing (to me) in the notes, which if I understand it correctly is that as at 30th June 2024, for everyone we had under contract there were potential contract clauses that could be met that would have cost us £67m in total (if met).

Contingent Appearance Fees
As per the terms of some transfer agreements entered into there are fees contingent on future appearances of certain players. At 30 June 2024 there is £67,338,000 (2023: £78,007,000) of contingent fees which are not considered probable based on management’s best estimates.

Seems a lot, but given none of them were "probable" It could be that we just had a standard win bonus clause for Europe or a cup.

I took it to mean delayed payment fees on the likes of Beto, Chermiti etc.

 

[Daytripper]

These new owners are hardly here for stability.

They've already made an off-field impact. I fully expect to see them make an on-field impact from July.

I suspect they'll be demanding a top half finish next season of Moyes or whoever is manager come August. That's about as much "stability" as competent, ambitious people will stomach. Positions can be made up quickly enough in this mediocre league.

Exactly , what you said there is actual progress.

The stability thing is what kept the wrong people for the club in place for too long. It was used as excuse because it wasn’t a Wimbledon or Coventry situation and I don’t want to see the same behaviour patterns repeating themselves once again.

If we can be smart with our summer transfer activity i don’t see why we can’t aim to finish in the top ten and then look to build on that the following season. Progress.

 

[Daytripper]

I take it you missed the latter Moshiri years, then?

The club nearly collapsed under the weight of its debt.

That's the chaotic baseline we're moving away from. Not stagnation - that came earlier - but near outright failure.

No I didn’t miss it , you know I didn’t , none of us did. It had been coming for years.

 

[Drico]

Exactly , what you said there is actual progress.

The stability thing is what kept the wrong people for the club in place for too long. It was used as excuse because it wasn’t a Wimbledon or Coventry situation and I don’t want to see the same behaviour patterns repeating themselves once again.

If we can be smart with our summer transfer activity i don’t see why we can’t aim to finish in the top ten and then look to build on that the following season. Progress.

Oh, top ten is non-negotiable as far as I am concerned. This assumes the Friedkins do what is needed for starters come summer, but I expect they will. We were 12th on points won on the field of play last term and won't be too far off the top 10 even this. We have huge scope for improvement.

"Stability" in the Kenwright era was really code for "status quo", where Bill was taking us "down down, deeper and down" by remaining in situ despite being financially and competently unfit for the job. Our fans are actually lagging reality, right now, because many - especially anybody under 40 - is used to seeing us as how people over 40 used to see Coventry City in the 90s. Plucky underdogs.

We're Everton. The very definition of sleeping giants. Wakey wakey, Evertonians!

 

[catcherintherye]

They are and they arent mate. If you look at the trend of the last two sets of accounts - we very much had to sell players to make a £89 mill loss and £53 mill loss today - thats not great. When you take out the player trading profits both years - its not a healthy run business. Essentially selling you're best players to still make the two afore mentioned losses.

That said we've had high capital calls, high debt fees and exceptional draws on our revenue given the points deduction and legal fees.

Our costs are still very high for our spending and need to come down more. The fundamentals of the business are still very poor.

That said a couple of things are about to change, the stadium coming on stream - means its likely we will see our revenue get very close £250 mill. That's a £60 mill bump - you also have to remember this isnt a once of bump - its annual - so it increases the broad base of the business going forward. Secondly with the take over our debt position has improved and been restructured, which will reduce some of the day to day costs. The other thing that has changed is our cash flow situation - as someone else said it doesn't matter if you loose money once there is someone who is prepared to write a cheuqe or borrow to cover the losses and provide cash - we have that now in the TFG. In that scenario you just have to make sure you are PSR compliant.

In these accounts the business is still being run badly - having to sell assets you'd rather not have to - to reduce your losses. Its likely we will get one more set of accounts like this - up to June this year.

The business still needs a lot of work from competent people to improve it and the TFG and new leadership team have a big job ahead of them.

This is a fair analysis. Pre player trading losses I think it's around 100m (or circa 70m) loss. However in the medium term (from next year) we will have as you say circa 50m added to turnover (before any potential league place increase revenues) and circa 50m off debt repayments so around 100m swing.

Next year's results (i.e this year) I think sponsorships will be up circa 15m, and debt repayments maybe save us 25m too, so around 40m. Very crude maths gets us from -70m PSR loss to circa -30m which puts up just over 3 years 105 limit.

They are and they arent mate. If you look at the trend of the last two sets of accounts - we very much had to sell players to make a £89 mill loss and £53 mill loss today - thats not great. When you take out the player trading profits both years - its not a healthy run business. Essentially selling you're best players to still make the two afore mentioned losses.

That said we've had high capital calls, high debt fees and exceptional draws on our revenue given the points deduction and legal fees.

Our costs are still very high for our spending and need to come down more. The fundamentals of the business are still very poor.

That said a couple of things are about to change, the stadium coming on stream - means its likely we will see our revenue get very close £250 mill. That's a £60 mill bump - you also have to remember this isnt a once of bump - its annual - so it increases the broad base of the business going forward. Secondly with the take over our debt position has improved and been restructured, which will reduce some of the day to day costs. The other thing that has changed is our cash flow situation - as someone else said it doesn't matter if you loose money once there is someone who is prepared to write a cheuqe or borrow to cover the losses and provide cash - we have that now in the TFG. In that scenario you just have to make sure you are PSR compliant.

In these accounts the business is still being run badly - having to sell assets you'd rather not have to - to reduce your losses. Its likely we will get one more set of accounts like this - up to June this year.

The business still needs a lot of work from competent people to improve it and the TFG and new leadership team have a big job ahead of them.

A big thing for us will also be the debt repaymente savings of also 50m ish a year. At a base case, that's around 100m or essentially being profitable pre player trading (or showing a circa 30m profit).

 

[Neiler]

This is a fair analysis. Pre player trading losses I think it's around 100m (or circa 70m) loss. However in the medium term (from next year) we will have as you say circa 50m added to turnover (before any potential league place increase revenues) and circa 50m off debt repayments so around 100m swing.

Next year's results (i.e this year) I think sponsorships will be up circa 15m, and debt repayments maybe save us 25m too, so around 40m. Very crude maths gets us from -70m PSR loss to circa -30m which puts up just over 3 years 105 limit.


A big thing for us will also be the debt repaymente savings of also 50m ish a year. At a base case, that's around 100m or essentially being profitable pre player trading (or showing a circa 30m profit).

Where are you getting the debt repayment saving of 50 mill mate - relief on interest on the multiple loans i.e. MSP, 777 R&M?

I heard the interest was costing us 5 mill a week.........

 

[allen]

No I didn’t miss it , you know I didn’t , none of us did. It had been coming for years.

So you would agree, then, that defining the period we've just exited as one of "stability" is incorrect?

 

[Jokerdan]

Exactly , what you said there is actual progress.

The stability thing is what kept the wrong people for the club in place for too long. It was used as excuse because it wasn’t a Wimbledon or Coventry situation and I don’t want to see the same behaviour patterns repeating themselves once again.

If we can be smart with our summer transfer activity i don’t see why we can’t aim to finish in the top ten and then look to build on that the following season. Progress.

Moyes is in charge. He doesn't have a bad history when it comes to scouting and buying 'quality' players - yes, of course, there have been a few exceptions but which top managers haven't - but, in general, he knows how to pick players who can fit in and not be the 'square pegs into round holes' that we've been buying for so long.

As George Michael sang 'I've gotta have faith'.

You can thank me later when you go to bed and can't get sleep for humming this song

 

[Lanolin]

I took it to mean delayed payment fees on the likes of Beto, Chermiti etc.

That wouldn't be dependent on them playing though. The payment was just deferred, it isn't optional, so we'll still have to pay it regardless.

 

[pfim]

It was one of Chairman Bills go to’s mate. After “agent Johnson “ etc etc.

Stability with billions is different than stability with a few theater ticket stubs.

 

[Daytripper]

So you would agree, then, that defining the period we've just exited as one of "stability" is incorrect?

I was responding to the notion that stability is the way forward when it should be progress instead. As I said to another poster if we can be smart about our business in the transfer market we can look to finish in the top half of the table hopefully and then the following season improve on that. That is a positive thing isn’t it?