OK back from the pub! Wasn't going to continue on this, but in some ways this thread is a benchmark for internet debates. To look at some of the arguments that came back:
You know the drill, 5 page essay Inc now about "increase in turnover, something about wages", but not a single answer will be given.
Step one on reading accounts. Turnover didn't come into it, wages were specifically not a factor. Essentially what we have here is Mouts not reading the first elements of the figure he wants to understand. In all honesty was there a point to this post? Other operating expenses is anything that isn't amortisation of contracts, wages or depreciation of fixed assets. That really is not complicated. The assumption from here is that you can't have read anything else in the thread if there was a possibility of it contradicting you.
So why bother?
That tells me nothing.
Other Operating costs...five fold increase in seven years. Why?
Cheers.
At the point that this was posted, I'd already pointed out that the figure you were looking at was completely irrelevant. If you want to analyse accounts, you need to have at least a passing ability to read them, otherwise its a bit like trying to discuss football without understanding what a goalkeeper is.
Or in this case a football.
The answer to your entire question comes down to, there wasn't a five fold increase. Simply and unambivalently that. If you want to come back and discuss the actual increase then fine, but I'm not having a debate on facts that exist purely in your misinterpretation of a set of accounts.
I'm sure you will come back with some comment about not answering the question, but to be fair, you have asked are they reasonable, I have pointed out what similar clubs are reporting, you have asked if they are consistent, I've pointed out that the only really unexplained figure was a drop from 17 to 11m, you've asked what the increase in 2006 is, I've pointed out that if you exclude a drop in 2005 it fits reasonable well with the training ground going from a depreciating fixed asset (and as pointed out above not included in OOC) to a external other expense and massively increased in size. You can of course continue to say I haven't given you answers, I have no control over what you do or do not read.
This is just spin Mike. You're trying to play the consensus middle ground card when there isn't one.
The board are the prime cause of the limited resources.
Other operating costs is a definite issue to be concerned about, whether or not it's a real issue depends on proof and disclosure.
Ceasing AGM's after 100 years is disgraceful.
Stating that certain scare stories discredit other stories/views is a propaganda tool.
This is just spin. How are you defining spin here? Where I can, I say this effect appears to be caused by this situation. Where I don't know the answer I say so. What is spin in this context? I have yet to see an accurate figure of any sort from those arguing with me. Maybe they are right, but there is nothing I could hang my hat on here (cue people commenting on hats randomly and with misleading significance)
You say OOC is "a definite issue to be concerned about". Why? They are consistent with approximate clubs, when they spike to any degree there is at least a reasonable excuse, in fact as I say above, from what I can see the only figure without any apparent cause is a drop in 2005.
AGMs. A separate issue, but admittedly one I brought up. At that infamous EGM Kenwright was asked what he valued the club at. He declined to say. You may disagree with him but he wasn't obliged to say. He made it clear he wasn't going to answer. He was then asked the same question three more times at which point he snapped at the person asking the question. Today that narky answer is presented as if it was the reply to the first question. After the EGM on several forums a number of people made comments to the effect that they would continue calling EGMs until the question was answered. If they had a bit of wit they would have check ahead of time
that the club was obliged to hold them. They didn't, and the club took the easy way out. Was anyone blameless in this? No. Did the protesters shoot themselves and the rest of the Everton shareholders in the foot? Yes.
As for you last point, scare stories are used to substantiate scare stories. Equally they can be used to discredit them. Propaganda? Not sure how that works. Essentially I tend to look askance at "the board did xy and z" stories, because anything that is checkable seems to have holes in it. If I'm happy that a tale appears to have at least some legs I'll accept it. Just because someone says it is, no.
I'll be honest, I can't see how anyone can defend or support this board, it beggars belief
Cena, was actually surprised at this one. I mean I'm used to Dave and Mout, but your stuff is usually a bit more reasoned. Basically I don't think there is anything to this urban legend. Should I just take it at face value because its against the board? Why? This is so simplistic that I don't even know where to start.
There is another thread about Kenwrights gambling losses costing the club 3mil. I can't see how thats even possible in the face of modern audits. Should I just go "Oh thats shocking" and move on?
Mikewex, you've said the cost have gone up from 12 mill (your figure) to 24 mill because the place has more fields and is modern.
Not good enough really, which you tacitly admit, adding it doesn't raise red flags!!
Given our threadbare cupboard where the banks appear to be say "If not Baines then Heitinga" or equivalent each year that is remarkably casual.
One's tempted to summise Kenwright has people of your mindset around all the time.
I actually sighed when I read this one (well I was in the pub). The first line is the thread distilled down to the point where it loses all meaning. No I didn't say that the full 12m was due to it having more fields and being more modern. I said that a part of the increase (probably circa 4-5m) had to be attributed to Finch Farm as it happened in the year it came on line. I noted that at a very basic level the lease was an extra 1.5m a year. Further as Bellefield was a fixed asset, it didn't appear in OOC as a capital expense (though its running did), whereas FF does. I then pointed out that it was a bigger and much more state of the art setup then Bellefeild, and that isn't free. Can I see FF costing 2-3m more to operate then Bellefeild? Yes quite easily.
As for everything else, as I noted before, Everton pays approximately the same as Villa or Sunderland (actually probably less) in OOC, unless either club is depreciating anything massive, and even then there is still a £10m cushion in the rough calculations.
Do I know what every penny is? No of course I don't. Nor do you. But from what data I can garner there doesn't seem to be may large discrepancies.
Could the board be siphoning off a couple of million? Sure, but they would have to get it past the auditors who have a much more detailed breakout. I didn't look at every Auditor report, but don't think Everton have had any qualified accounts over the last few years.
Threadbare cupboards? Yes it would seem so. But not sure how that changes the argument. Either the accounts are being manipulated and we have more money then we should, or they are reasonable and accurate and that is what we have left over, or they are either unreasonable and accurate/unreasonable and inaccurate in which case the auditors have questions to answer. We work on the basis that the Auditors are handed all this detailed data and the accounts and asked do they tally. Occasionally they get it wrong or are mislead, but that is actually very hard to do (and I get lists of data that auditors want regularly).
As a rule of thumb, unless you have good reason to doubt them, audited reports are pretty accurate, and they do test for reasonableness. Last time an auditing company actively hid major gammy data, Arthur Anderson collapsed (Enron).
I find it hard to believe that 'other operating costs' doesn't roughly translate to 'lined pockets'.
Why? Just why?
OK thats my tuppence-worth. I know at the end of it, Mout will think I said something about wages and Dave will ask me to do a line by line inventory of OOC, but I can't help that, there is no changing some minds. Hopefully others will at least think about the logistics of the great OOC scandal that never was though!
