Can We Succeed Next Season Without Breaking FFP?

[catcherintherye]

I haven't got a clue what he is, but right now it looks like he just gives his best mate a bit of cash to help out, no where near major investment.

The annual high interest loans against tv revenues and lack of stadium investment unannounced so far are a glaring clue about Usmanov.

What's he waiting for to show his hand, we have permission to build at BMD, FFP is obsolete for 12 months, he should be out at the front and centre now arms wide open like a Uzbek overlord billionaire Oligarch he is, Thanos style telling everyone I'm here now, I've arrived and I'm changing the landscape.

It's hard to answer most of those questions though isn't it?

My opinion would be that he is happy with the current arrangement, and wants to make decisions without any real scrutiny attached, and is happy with the current funding arrangements. The point you make is a good one though, that we do neither one thing nor another with the current status quo. We don't go out and blitz the football world as Chelsea/City did and force our way to the top, nor do we put structures in to do it in the long term through being sustainable. If we want to be successful, I do think they have to work out which route they want to go down.

 

[stretford blue]

I haven't got a clue what he is, but right now it looks like he just gives his best mate a bit of cash to help out, no where near major investment.

The annual high interest loans against tv revenues and lack of stadium investment unannounced so far are a glaring clue about Usmanov.

What's he waiting for to show his hand, we have permission to build at BMD, FFP is obsolete for 12 months, he should be out at the front and centre now arms wide open like a Uzbek overlord billionaire Oligarch he is, Thanos style telling everyone I'm here now, I've arrived and I'm changing the landscape.

Usmanov's name has been reported in the press alot over the last few months ,if he is playing a more prominent role i.e with the appointment of benitez my guess is he's had enough of the chuckle brother's moshiri and kenwrights running of the club

 

[Quadvod]

It’s the ffp part that concerns me - we’d be a good test case to throw under the bus as we’re not part of the big six cabal

 

[Zatara]

You say that like a new expensive stadium guarentees top 4 status.

Barmy delusional thinking, just like lazy replies of " we have Usmanov", if so why do we keep taking out high interest loans against our biggest revenue stream of TV revenues every season. So far he bailed us out from reporting massive losses by giving us a 30 million pre naming rights influx of cash and the measly finch farm sponsorship, it's equates to finding 10 pence down the side of his sofa, for a rich benefactor in the background he's pretty stingy.

What gets consistent top four is good recruitment, top manager and a team that consistently wins games, a shiny new stadium does not improve on the pitch fortunes, if it did then Bayern wouldn't have won 13 of the last 16 titles in Germany when all those clubs there got new stadiums for the 2006 World Cup.

Yet...i didnt write that statement.

 

[Evertondefender]

We would need a rich Owner to break FFP.

 

[BlueStevie35]

We would need a rich Owner to break FFP.

We have

 

[gwladysnight]

A lot of this is down to Covid though isnt it? I mean pretty much every club is posting a loss and it will be much worse next season (when the accounts come out). Its why football is keen to return to normality.

My own view, is there needs to be a substantial reduction in costs for football across the board and Everton are very much a part of it. While losses will be converted into debt, and debt is not the worst problem in and of itself, the levels of debt clubs will have to take on are also not going to be ideal.

From the accounts, the COVID impact was £67m. So we would still of lost £67m. The reality though is that without the one off naming rights fee of £30m we would have lost £97m. That follows on from last year's record £111m loss.

We are in the crazy position in which virtually all of our entire income goes on wages.

That is going to massively impact on the cost of borrowing money for BMD. The Club simply isn't a sustainable business at this time.

 

[catcherintherye]

I haven't got a clue what he is, but right now it looks like he just gives his best mate a bit of cash to help out, no where near major investment.

The annual high interest loans against tv revenues and lack of stadium investment unannounced so far are a glaring clue about Usmanov.

What's he waiting for to show his hand, we have permission to build at BMD, FFP is obsolete for 12 months, he should be out at the front and centre now arms wide open like a Uzbek overlord billionaire Oligarch he is, Thanos style telling everyone I'm here now, I've arrived and I'm changing the landscape.

It's hard to answer most of those questions though isn't it?

My opinion would be that he is happy with the current arrangement, and wants to make decisions without any real scrutiny attached, and is happy with the current funding arrangements. The point you make is a good one though, that we do neither one thing nor another with the current status quo. We don't go out and blitz the football world as Chelsea/City did and force our way to the top, nor do we put structures in to do it in the long term through being sustainable. If we want to be successful, I do think they have to work out which route they want to go down.

 

[catcherintherye]

From the accounts, the COVID impact was £67m. So we would still of lost £67m. The reality though is that without the one off naming rights fee of £30m we would have lost £97m. That follows on from last year's record £111m loss.

We are in the crazy position in which virtually all of our entire income goes on wages.

That is going to massively impact on the cost of borrowing money for BMD. The Club simply isn't a sustainable business at this time.

Yes all true. I suppose the point is that the 67m losses to covid make it a somewhat exceptional year, but yes there are also underlying problems that shouldn't be masked by that. I don't read too much into the initial 30m sponsorship for the stadium, as I think we will secure a sponsorship at least in line with that for the new stadium, possibly at the point of prior to construction.

Our issue is really that we don't use the losses for any reason. That would be my concern if I was evaluating the club. Lots of business pile up debt, or lose money in the short term for a longer term benefit. A lot of electric car makers are piling up debts now, that theoretically will be paid back as the shift to electric cars happens (or so the theory goes). My concern is, we are piling up losses for the most part on depreciating assets.

Like if we went that we are going to blitz spending on players under 21 and also on academy spend, run up a huge debt/losses in the short term, but know 2/3 years down the line the dividends will be paid when we can sell players on at a profit I'd be more sanguine about it. We are not doing that though.

Likewise, we are also not spending enough to guarantee CL football (and put ourselves in a position to kick up sponsor agreements). So we are stuck in this awful no mans land.

I'll be honest I'm not the Benitez appointment solves any of the contradictions either.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

More Reds than Blues in this thread.

Sad gets - be ever more sadder when work begins on the imaginary stadium and Usmanov "who has no connection to the club" drops a £200-300 million naming rights deal into the club and helps sort FFP out lol

Dry yer eyes and get back to hoping FSG can flog Salah for a few quid so you can sign someone.

 

[Aries]

Very interesting thread this one on Twitter, and could explain why we’re being very careful this summer…

 

[Tipp blue]

Our problem is not FFP it's buying crap players.

It's worse than that, we are spending so much on crap players that we could end up breaking FFP anyway.

 

[Bebeto]

When you see Halland linked to Chelsea, Kane and Grealish to city...dont want to even imagine what the reds are going to sign, Sancho and Varane to united...with ffp we have no chance to ever be capable of challenge any of those teams in the league...perhaps in a one off cup match but that's it. Our only chance would be to have 4 or 5 top youngster coming through at once but again that's not going to happen...sad to say it, but with ffp we'll be in this position for many years...

 

[TonyT65]

Very interesting thread this one on Twitter, and could explain why we’re being very careful this summer…

Looking at stuff on twitter just confuses me !
Are you / they saying City could still have ffp trouble heading their way ?

 

[Timbucktoo]

When you see Halland linked to Chelsea, Kane and Grealish to city...dont want to even imagine what the reds are going to sign, Sancho and Varane to united...with ffp we have no chance to ever be capable of challenge any of those teams in the league...perhaps in a one off cup match but that's it. Our only chance would be to have 4 or 5 top youngster coming through at once but again that's not going to happen...sad to say it, but with ffp we'll be in this position for many years...

FFP was brought in because there were too many teams spending huge money to get to the top of the gravy train in a hurry. Its aim was to cut off new teams from feeding off the millions from the ECL and make it a closed shop at the top. We should have invested in the team around 2008/2009 when Moyes was at his height. Instead we continued to sell to buy, had a chairman telling everyone we didn't have the money to compete with the top teams despite teams getting promoted outspending us, Moyes lost motivation, and we were over taken by clubs who took a risk and invested big, on and off the pitch.

If we said to hell with FFP and spent big on signing that worked out and propelled us up the league, we'd feel the full wrath of UEFA, get stuck with every santion they could, be made an example of, because we're not part of the "in clubs". We've become one of many clubs that are there just to make up the numbers.