The Everton Board Thread 2015/16 [ Not takeover related ]

[RaleighBlue]

It isn't. People confusing gross turnover with net profit.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/clubs/everton/article4539692.ece

Pulled it from the Stones thread. I'm talking about specifically commercial revenues - which indeed would be gross, however the fact that NORWICH CITY are getting more gross commercial revenue than Everton is an indictment of the board no matter how you cut it.

If the pronounced hierarchy of English football’s food chain is respected, John Stones will be a Chelsea player by the time that the transfer window closes on September 1. The London club have more money, more potential for success, pay higher wages and have Champions League football to offer. Everton, the Premier League’s 11th best team last season and a club whose commercial revenue is lower than that of Norwich City, simply cannot compete.

 

[RaleighBlue]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/clubs/everton/article4539692.ece

Pulled it from the Stones thread. I'm talking about specifically commercial revenues - which indeed would be gross, however the fact that NORWICH CITY are getting more gross commercial revenue than Everton is an indictment of the board no matter how you cut it.

All that said, it appears the times are slightly incorrect.

Norwich City report £9.2 million for commercial revenue. Everton's accounts are split differently and report £8.4 million under 'Sponsorship, merchandising and advertising' and then a further £3.3 million under 'other commercial activities'. Which would read to me that Everton made a whopping £2.5 million more than Norwich City on commercial revenues in 2014.

Also, never trust the British media, even the 'trustworthy' sources.

 

[The Esk]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/clubs/everton/article4539692.ece

Pulled it from the Stones thread. I'm talking about specifically commercial revenues - which indeed would be gross, however the fact that NORWICH CITY are getting more gross commercial revenue than Everton is an indictment of the board no matter how you cut it.

Mate I think the point is that all commercial revenues (bar minimal expenses) received by Everton flow through to the bottom line as all our commercial activities are outsourced so we are comparing apples and pears.

For example £1 million received from Kitbag is likely to equate to £4 million of gross revenues if we did it in-house.

I'm not a supporter of the Board's financial and commercial competence as I hope you know, but the commercial revenue figures quoted are not on a like-for-like basis.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Mate I think the point is that all commercial revenues (bar minimal expenses) received by Everton flow through to the bottom line as all our commercial activities are outsourced so we are comparing apples and pears.

For example £1 million received from Kitbag is likely to equate to £4 million of gross revenues if we did it in-house.

I'm not a supporter of the Board's financial and commercial competence as I hope you know, but the commercial revenue figures quoted are not on a like-for-like basis.

This is a completely fair point. We don't have expenditures that Norwich may have (I honestly have no idea how they're run).

I suppose the irritation for me (and it's becoming very irritating) is the fact that we compete commercially with clubs like Norwich, Sunderland, and the like rather than Tottenham and Newcastle. We get, what £3 million per year from Kitbag? Do we really think that it saves us money having Everton kits only available in two shops in Liverpool?

I recently moved to Seattle, which unlike Raleigh has a number of professional sports teams - including an NFL team. The NFL season is starting soon - every store I enter has Seahawks apparel, glassware, cutlery, toys, you name it, they have it. With Everton? Have fun going to one of the official stores. It doesn't allow for impulse buying (especially by tourists).

To me, more than Kirkby, more than even King's Dock, Kitbag is the single biggest mistake this board has made, and they've done nothing to mitigate it.

 

[efcfanwirral]

board have played a blinder. Bill's a hero for this stance, and even if we sign nobody but the backup defender we need then this transfer window will be seen as a success for many.

If he goes though....

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

board have played a blinder. Bill's a hero for this stance, and even if we sign nobody but the backup defender we need then this transfer window will be seen as a success for many.

If he goes though....

The clubs stance is positive but I won't consider the window a success unless we spend upwards of £15M on three players.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

This is a completely fair point. We don't have expenditures that Norwich may have (I honestly have no idea how they're run).

I suppose the irritation for me (and it's becoming very irritating) is the fact that we compete commercially with clubs like Norwich, Sunderland, and the like rather than Tottenham and Newcastle. We get, what £3 million per year from Kitbag? Do we really think that it saves us money having Everton kits only available in two shops in Liverpool?

I recently moved to Seattle, which unlike Raleigh has a number of professional sports teams - including an NFL team. The NFL season is starting soon - every store I enter has Seahawks apparel, glassware, cutlery, toys, you name it, they have it. With Everton? Have fun going to one of the official stores. It doesn't allow for impulse buying (especially by tourists).

To me, more than Kirkby, more than even King's Dock, Kitbag is the single biggest mistake this board has made, and they've done nothing to mitigate it.

With respect mate retail floor space is hugely expensive, and how many people in Seattle would impulse purchase an Everton shirt?

The merchandise is available to supporters via the net, I really don't see the issue with us not having floorspace in markets where we have no notable fanbase, it's economically unviable.

 

[The Esk]

I suppose the irritation for me (and it's becoming very irritating) is the fact that we compete commercially with clubs like Norwich, Sunderland, and the like rather than Tottenham and Newcastle. We get, what £3 million per year from Kitbag? Do we really think that it saves us money having Everton kits only available in two shops in Liverpool?

The main reason the Kitbag deal was signed was not so much revenue, but it freed up capital on the balance sheet. For example, Tottenham carried nearly £5m of stock (in their commercial activities) in their last accounts. We could not afford to carry that amount of stock nor have the potential liabilities of a loss making operation.

If we were adequately capitalised we could bring these activities in-house, the fact is we are not and will not be without significant investment in the future.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

The main reason the Kitbag deal was signed was not so much revenue, but it freed up capital on the balance sheet. For example, Tottenham carried nearly £5m of stock (in their commercial activities) in their last accounts. We could not afford to carry that amount of stock nor have the potential liabilities of a loss making operation.

If we were adequately capitalised we could bring these activities in-house, the fact is we are not and will not be without significant investment in the future.

To be fair mate, the main reason we took on kitbag was that our retail operations were a complete shambles and were actually losing money. I think the drivers were positive cashflow, balance sheet improvement and an actual return as opposed to a blow.

Elstone takes dogs abuse on here, but tbf the starting point he arrived at was truly awful from the commercial aspect. That said I do think he could have done better in the timeframe and he's certainly risk averse, but I can see why he went for the kitbag deal.

 

[RaleighBlue]

With respect mate retail floor space is hugely expensive, and how many people in Seattle would impulse purchase an Everton shirt?

The merchandise is available to supporters via the net, I really don't see the issue with us not having floorspace in markets where we have no notable fanbase, it's economically unviable.

More that my wife nearly purchased a Seahawks Mickey Mouse doll for our kid. She's not a fan of the NFL, much less the Seahawks. But she wanted to get him something, and there it was.

You're telling me that couldn't happen in Liverpool at a Tesco or something? Or in the John Lennon airport when some traveler is flying through on business and wants a souvenir?

Now, obviously I don't expect Everton merchandise in average Seattle shops, just like you don't see Seahawks gear in Liverpool. Everton/Kitbag make it a chore to buy their merchandise (which is also extremely limited in things to buy). Yes, building a good commercial arm requires investment, but it generally will pay off more than spending it on anything (possibly barring a stadium) and - much more importantly - lends to a self-sustainable business model.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...LRRpmhtE3Jvzo8uuxKSlD/mkSSummU0p1JVcg6df9rgU=

Link to a document filed at Companies House by the club. Is this an overdraft?

 

[joey_macmo]

Vibrac loan is still outstanding according to the companies house website.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00036624/charges

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

More that my wife nearly purchased a Seahawks Mickey Mouse doll for our kid. She's not a fan of the NFL, much less the Seahawks. But she wanted to get him something, and there it was.

You're telling me that couldn't happen in Liverpool at a Tesco or something? Or in the John Lennon airport when some traveler is flying through on business and wants a souvenir?

Now, obviously I don't expect Everton merchandise in average Seattle shops, just like you don't see Seahawks gear in Liverpool. Everton/Kitbag make it a chore to buy their merchandise (which is also extremely limited in things to buy). Yes, building a good commercial arm requires investment, but it generally will pay off more than spending it on anything (possibly barring a stadium) and - much more importantly - lends to a self-sustainable business model.

That's a different point mate, yes, of course I think we could be doing a better job in the local market and with some of the National retailers, but the idea that this is the key to our financial future is utter jarg I'm afraid. Even if we were performing at the top of our game in this area the net returns wouldn't make the difference between us bridging the gap between us and the peers that we're chasing. That said marginal gains are definitely possible, but people need to keep the realistic opportunity in this area in perspective.

 

[RaleighBlue]

The main reason the Kitbag deal was signed was not so much revenue, but it freed up capital on the balance sheet. For example, Tottenham carried nearly £5m of stock (in their commercial activities) in their last accounts. We could not afford to carry that amount of stock nor have the potential liabilities of a loss making operation.

If we were adequately capitalised we could bring these activities in-house, the fact is we are not and will not be without significant investment in the future.

Let me back down from my more hostile tone for a moment about Kitbag.

I'm not suggesting that we buy out the Kitbag deal, bring it all in house, and buy up a bunch of retail space tomorrow, though it may seem that way. I'm suggesting that we need to build brand recognition - then do those things when the environment is safe to do it. What concerns me nearly as much as a total lack of monetary investment is a near total negligence on the possible commercial growth of the club. People get upset over the Chang deal being rather poor, right? But the Chang deal is almost certainly tied to Kitbag - why would a company pay us a larger fee when they know that the kits will only be limitedly available?

Football clubs, indeed most sporting institutions have two ways of selling themselves. The first is being good. We're alright at that, although we've hit one hell of a glass ceiling due to finances. The second is to sell the brand itself. Sell the club beyond what is happening on the pitch. We don't do this at all. And in not doing this, we are severely limiting both our attractiveness for investment and our long term outlook. I suggest this because our only quickly growing source of income is split with every other PL club. Other clubs are catching on and catching breaks, and we will fall behind.

We need investment dearly, but I don't think that investment necessarily should be directed to our first team...at least to begin with - we need to grow the business so that we don't need big cash injections to change our fortunes - we need to generate that revenue.

 

[RaleighBlue]

That's a different point mate, yes, of course I think we could be doing a better job in the local market and with some of the National retailers, but the idea that this is the key to our financial future is utter jarg I'm afraid. Even if we were performing at the top of our game in this area the net returns wouldn't make the difference between us bridging the gap between us and the peers that we're chasing. That said marginal gains are definitely possible, but people need to keep the realistic opportunity in this area in perspective.

I am not trying to suggest that commercial gains alone will bridge the gap. I am suggesting that they are absolutely necessary to bridge the gap in the long term.

They are a very important piece of a much larger puzzle. And to me, it's the piece that sees the least movement. Everton need to sell themselves, and do a lot of other things to bridge the gap. But it is doable. We should not accept being an also-ran.