The Everton Board Thread (Inc. Bill Kenwright / Blue Union)

[Moomin]

Our TV revenue has increased by £34m this season. That's all unaccounted for, incremental revenue.

We could spend £25m net this summer - and providing the players were all on 4 year contracts, the amortisation would equate to an additional £6.25m per annum cost.

There's no excuse if we don't invest heavily (by our standards) this summer.

It's this that Evertonians should be focussed on and not searching for some imaginary gremlin in a line of the accounts.

This summer is totally different to recent years, let's get that clear. If Kenwright and Co. don't deliver this summer then we all have every right to be asking why not, as paying down debt will only benefit the stakeholders in the medium / long term.

Maybe this answers what we will do with the extra 34 million this year

http://www.theguardian.com/football...000-seater-stadium-scheme-goodison?CMP=twt_gu

Everton also projected a healthier financial position at the general meeting, largely on the back of the new record-breaking broadcasting deal. Unaudited figures for the current financial year forecast a turnover of £117m compared to £86m in 2012/13, with wages falling to 55% of turnover compared to a Premier League average of 72%, and predict that net liabilities will drop from £42.7m in 2012/13 to £12.9m in 2013/14.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Thats not the accounts bro, thats a breakdown of costs over a number of years.

Its the 5 year totals, that came from the accounts ffs.

You were wrong, get over it.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Maybe this answers what we will do with the extra 34 million this year

http://www.theguardian.com/football...000-seater-stadium-scheme-goodison?CMP=twt_gu

Everton also projected a healthier financial position at the general meeting, largely on the back of the new record-breaking broadcasting deal. Unaudited figures for the current financial year forecast a turnover of £117m compared to £86m in 2012/13, with wages falling to 55% of turnover compared to a Premier League average of 72%, and predict that net liabilities will drop from £42.7m in 2012/13 to £12.9m in 2013/14.

Net liabilities being reduced doesn't necessarily mean that the debt is paid down. It merely means that the balance sheet is healthier.

 

[RaleighBlue]

If our wages really are down to 55% thats quite remarkable.

Total Staff Costs are 65% of our Expenditure. I could see non-playing staff taking up 10% easily enough.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Im not wrong, you are just too dumb to understand.

LMAO, as if you're some sort of big hitting financial whizz.

Get a grip. You were wrong - end of.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I know lets spend the next 5 pages saying your wrong, no your wrong.

Or I can just put you on ignore and not have to suffer my IQ being lowered by reading what you have to say.

Toodles.

You haven't got a scoob on the subject and your faux superiority here is hilarious.

Stick to calling chico a melon head mate, it's safer ground for you

 

[RaleighBlue]

@MoutsGoat

How do you respond to the fact that every Premier League club has Other Operating Costs that are similar, as a percentage of their turnover, to our own?

 

[RaleighBlue]

With that fact that every other Premier League club has spent more on players than us for the last 20 years.

How is that relevant to my point though? The other operating costs are clearly something every club has and deals with in proportion to their income. They have no bearing on what is spent on players. Everton have decided on a different fiscal policy in relation to transfers than most clubs, namely buy low, sell high, hope for the best. While I agree (it's all over this thread now) that Everton's ownership is failing the club, I fail to see how other operating costs (once again, something every club has in a similar proportion to ours) factors into our transfer budget.

It seems more likely that the board is using player sales to boost revenues to prevent us from getting into debt. This is because revenues are too low, not because costs are too high. Lowering our costs would put us on par with clubs like Norwich, which I think you'll agree, is not where we want to be.

 

[Brennan]

With that fact that every other Premier League club has spent more on players than us for the last 20 years.

And their accounts show this, which has nothing to do with Other Operating Costs.

You're in way over your head.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

So buying more players doesnt increase operating costs?

Ok mate.

Im done with this thread until people get even close to my level, ive put a lot of people on ignore, so I wont be replying to anything those people say.

No, as amortisation and players wages aren't included in the OOC's.

 

[bluemangroup]

So buying more players doesnt increase operating costs?

Ok mate.

Im done with this thread until people get even close to my level, ive put a lot of people on ignore, so I wont be replying to anything those people say.

I don't think people want to lower themselves to your level mate.

 

[Woolly Blue]

So buying more players doesnt increase operating costs?

Ok mate.

Im done with this thread until people get even close to my level, ive put a lot of people on ignore, so I wont be replying to anything those people say.

It does a bit mate, but most of the OOC is fixed overhead. If we buy more players and increase what the squad's worth then it has a small knock on effect on things like insuring players against injury ( if they're worth more, it costs more to insure ).

Bottom line, none of us know the detail of the OOC. If you trawl other clubs forums, you'll find similar arguments come up from time to time. Football clubs are run for the shareholders, not the fans, so very few of them take the time to explain things in any detail and the fans ( and the small shareholders ) just get a pat on the head and told they wouldn't understand.

Given what we've outsourced, our OOC look a bit high to me ( say by 2 or 3 million ) , but that doesn't mean there's some dodgy deals going on. I'd say it means that the club hasn't been managed very well. To be fair to the club, they finally seem to be getting to grips with the costs. Shaving another 2 or 3 million off the OOC isn't going to make a huge difference though. To be able to "afford" to buy more players we either need more revenue, take more debt on or find a sugar-daddy willing to swap debt for equity.

I'm not holding my breath on this transfer window. We've been here so many times before that I'll be amazed if we have a net spend of 20m + and suspect that we'll be told that we're reducing our debt burden. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Maybe this answers what we will do with the extra 34 million this year

http://www.theguardian.com/football...000-seater-stadium-scheme-goodison?CMP=twt_gu

Everton also projected a healthier financial position at the general meeting, largely on the back of the new record-breaking broadcasting deal. Unaudited figures for the current financial year forecast a turnover of £117m compared to £86m in 2012/13, with wages falling to 55% of turnover compared to a Premier League average of 72%, and predict that net liabilities will drop from £42.7m in 2012/13 to £12.9m in 2013/14.

Agree with others, that's retrospective look and doesn't necessarily identify what will occur moving forward.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

We've opened a new Everton Board thread here: http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/the-everton-board-thread-2014-15.67767/