- Status
WestStandLower
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Chelsea did indeed loose hundreds of millions but can you point me in the direction of wher3 the PL has said that Everton, that Chelsea than any club has said any club had complied ?
Furey1878
Player Valuation: £70m
But any hint that Moshiri is a front for Usmanov and Everton are the villains of modern football
WestStandLower
Player Valuation: £1.5m
I know some on her dismiss the Swiss Rambler but you may find todays article re FFP interesting
The calculation above is based on the £90m of “crystallised” COVID losses in Everton’s accounts, split between £67m in 2019/20, £15m in 2020/21 and £8m in 2021/22.
Based on Everton’s strategic report, we can further analyse the £90m COVID impact between £56m revenue loss and £34m additional expenses (net off £23m cost savings for staging games without fans). The additional expenses include £42m player impairment and £12m onerous contracts.
However, it does not stop there, as these figures do not include what the club described as “uncrystallised” losses, arising from the significant deterioration in the player trading market, which “impacted the ability of the club to generate material profits on player trading and yield significant wage and amortisation savings”.
Everton’s 2021 annual report mentioned a 2-year total of £170m losses, including £103m in 2020/21, which implied that the player trading impact was £88m (£103m less £15m crystallised losses).
If we include the additional £88m player trading losses mentioned in last year’s strategic report, Everton’s situation looks much better, though they would still be £25m above the maximum loss.
It is only when we include the additional £50m of player trading losses from Everton’s “further market analysis” that they manage to meet the target, though it has required some fancy financial footwork to get there.
For example, no other club has claimed anything like Everton’s £88m for player trading COVID losses (even if we ignore the additional £50m advised by the club). Most clubs have not reported anything at all (though it might be implicit an some net losses), while the next highest is Aston Villa with only £13m.
Moreover, Everton have included £42m player impairment to reflect lower values in a COVID-impacted transfer market. This was twice as much as the next highest club in the Premier League, not to mention a strong indication of their poor recruitment.
If we look at the total COVID losses claimed, we can see that Everton are a major outlier with their £228m (using the full player trading impact) being 50% (£76m) more than the next highest club, which is Manchester United £152m. Considering the huge gate receipts lost by United, this does indeed look a bit strange, to say the least.
Not all Premier League clubs have advised how much money they lost to COVID, but of those that did the next highest were significantly lower than Everton’s £228m, namely Arsenal £122m and West Ham £53m.
This is even without considering whether Everton should be allowed to include the innovative commercial deal in 2019 where Alisher Usmanov’s USM paid £30m for an option on the new stadium rights. Not the naming rights themselves, but just an option, which would raise eyebrows from a “fair value” perspective.
It is therefore not a major surprise that the Premier League belatedly referred Everton to an independent commission for an alleged breach of FFP rules, as it does look like they have a case to answer, even though the club said that it would “robustly defend” its position.
If they are eventually found guilty, the penalties could involve a fine, restrictions on transfer spend or even a points deduction, while there have also been reports that the clubs relegated this season believe that they would be entitled to compensation
Everton Case Study
Everton are a bit of a special case, so it bears looking at their FFP situation in a bit more detail. |
 |
However, it does not stop there, as these figures do not include what the club described as “uncrystallised” losses, arising from the significant deterioration in the player trading market, which “impacted the ability of the club to generate material profits on player trading and yield significant wage and amortisation savings”.
Everton’s 2021 annual report mentioned a 2-year total of £170m losses, including £103m in 2020/21, which implied that the player trading impact was £88m (£103m less £15m crystallised losses).
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
It is therefore not a major surprise that the Premier League belatedly referred Everton to an independent commission for an alleged breach of FFP rules, as it does look like they have a case to answer, even though the club said that it would “robustly defend” its position.
If they are eventually found guilty, the penalties could involve a fine, restrictions on transfer spend or even a points deduction, while there have also been reports that the clubs relegated this season believe that they would be entitled to compensation
trueblue84
Player Valuation: £50m
Everton's ffp breach refers to tax on loans for the stadium, so all the above is just speculation.I know some on her dismiss the Swiss Rambler but you may find todays article re FFP interesting
Everton Case Study
Everton are a bit of a special case, so it bears looking at their FFP situation in a bit more detail.
The calculation above is based on the £90m of “crystallised” COVID losses in Everton’s accounts, split between £67m in 2019/20, £15m in 2020/21 and £8m in 2021/22.
Based on Everton’s strategic report, we can further analyse the £90m COVID impact between £56m revenue loss and £34m additional expenses (net off £23m cost savings for staging games without fans). The additional expenses include £42m player impairment and £12m onerous contracts.
However, it does not stop there, as these figures do not include what the club described as “uncrystallised” losses, arising from the significant deterioration in the player trading market, which “impacted the ability of the club to generate material profits on player trading and yield significant wage and amortisation savings”.
Everton’s 2021 annual report mentioned a 2-year total of £170m losses, including £103m in 2020/21, which implied that the player trading impact was £88m (£103m less £15m crystallised losses).
If we include the additional £88m player trading losses mentioned in last year’s strategic report, Everton’s situation looks much better, though they would still be £25m above the maximum loss.
It is only when we include the additional £50m of player trading losses from Everton’s “further market analysis” that they manage to meet the target, though it has required some fancy financial footwork to get there.
For example, no other club has claimed anything like Everton’s £88m for player trading COVID losses (even if we ignore the additional £50m advised by the club). Most clubs have not reported anything at all (though it might be implicit an some net losses), while the next highest is Aston Villa with only £13m.
Moreover, Everton have included £42m player impairment to reflect lower values in a COVID-impacted transfer market. This was twice as much as the next highest club in the Premier League, not to mention a strong indication of their poor recruitment.
If we look at the total COVID losses claimed, we can see that Everton are a major outlier with their £228m (using the full player trading impact) being 50% (£76m) more than the next highest club, which is Manchester United £152m. Considering the huge gate receipts lost by United, this does indeed look a bit strange, to say the least.
Not all Premier League clubs have advised how much money they lost to COVID, but of those that did the next highest were significantly lower than Everton’s £228m, namely Arsenal £122m and West Ham £53m.
This is even without considering whether Everton should be allowed to include the innovative commercial deal in 2019 where Alisher Usmanov’s USM paid £30m for an option on the new stadium rights. Not the naming rights themselves, but just an option, which would raise eyebrows from a “fair value” perspective.
It is therefore not a major surprise that the Premier League belatedly referred Everton to an independent commission for an alleged breach of FFP rules, as it does look like they have a case to answer, even though the club said that it would “robustly defend” its position.
If they are eventually found guilty, the penalties could involve a fine, restrictions on transfer spend or even a points deduction, while there have also been reports that the clubs relegated this season believe that they would be entitled to compensation
everton1953
Player Valuation: £40m
Some very clever folks on here. You should be on the Everton board. I am frankly clueless on this issue.
Isn't the breach being related to tax on loans for the stadium just speculation at this stage too?
The only thing we know for sure is that our finances are an utter mess and because they're such an utter mess they're being investigated.
trueblue84
Player Valuation: £50m
The times and BBC saying it relates to stadium loans.
Houghty19
Player Valuation: £20m
I thought it was profit and sustainability charges rather than FFP which I believe is a European measure. Plus it just looks from those figures that we've applied extremely creative accounting that no other clubs had the nouse to do.
Yes I thought that’s right. Happy to be corrected but I think FFP is an umbrella term used as shorthand to cover both European and PL financial rules. I thought FFP only applies to teams playing in European competition but profit and sustainability applies to all PL teams.
kenada_blue
Welcome to Barcelonaton FC
Couple of things...
The club was cooperative with the League for 2 seasons. Anything we did was agreed and signed off by the league.
We've not been given specific rule breaches for eg City have. Ours is very much a referral based on our last set of accounts that's showed another loss...so according to the rules we have to automatically be referred to an independent enquiry.
What that enquiry is looking at...no one knows. It's not been released as to what the specific breaches (because I don't believe there is anything specific).
There's also no way they're going to dismantle the past 3 years of accounts as that would take years to come with a report...then another couple of years to present evidence to answer for.
To me...it's a tick box for the league...
"Did you take Everton to an independent review according to your rules?"
"Yes"
"Did they answer the questions raised sufficiently"
"Yes with the cravats of x y z"
brieverton
Player Valuation: £40m
They are a mess, however, and assuming the reporting is correct, the issue is an isolated one and the commissions remit is to hear submissions on the specified charge only.
You could say "where there's smoke there's fire" but that applies in a more general sense. It does no good for the club to have its accounts poured over in detail like this and the negative publicity that goes with it. I wouldn't think reputational damage has been done to any extent though.
Come the day when there is new ownership, it's a fresh start. This episode just shows, yet again, that we have, or had, an amateur and inept board completely unfit for purpose and the new broom can't come in soon enough.
Yarrgh
Player Valuation: £70m
Looks like the Swiss Ramble site made an article based on supposition and decided to publish it anyway even given the reports about the investigation being into the loan.
Shoddy journalism if it is trying to pass itself off as that.
HalfTimeSayers
Player Valuation: £30m
It’s an amazing trick really. Most basic fact is that if someone is a football finance expert, they’d be earning a substantial salary as CFO/FD of a football club (which apart from the mega/clubs have fairly simple accounts) not giving half a dozen speculative quotes a season to rabid journalists.
Media love a scapegoat we are it
- Status