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

[D410]

No ****, but the main annually repayable one that you're referring to, that is currently with Vibrac, dates back about 4 years.

Nice avoidance of my actual point btw.

Their are 8 separate outstanding charges with multiple names that go back to 2003.

The "open" Vibrac loan was created in Aug 2012 and is outstanding and no Vibrac loan ever taken out went back 4 years.

Lets, leave at that eh.

 

[davek]

I'm conscious that statistics can be made to look a certain way but whilst having my lunch I googled a few facts about the club and its debts, turnovers etc. I haven't got time to do a thorough analysis or check the sources but what I was trying to do was establish whether our present debt (as a percentage of turnover) is bigger now than when Kenwright took over. Ideally I'd have found the original accounts but I'm lazy and instead used these two pages. I'm not trying to play any games so happy to be corrected etc:

http://www.toffeeweb.com/club/business/finances_99.asp
http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/12-13/news/23366.html

From that the club was clearly in a desparate position off the pitch as well as on it when Kenwright took over.

Turnover was £22.6m and debt was either £15m or £18m depending which figure you choose. As a percentage of turnover that is 80% or 66%. The page from the year before Kenwright does not explicitly identify net debt but it does talk about an overdraft figure of that much. Whether there were other debts I can only guess at without digging deeper.

The latest accounts just released have turnover at £80.5m and net debt of £46m. This time, as a percentage of turnover, it is 57%. With turnover set to increase significantly next year thanks to the new Sky deal that to me at least says the club today is in a healthier position debt wise than it was when Kenwright took over. If true that contradicts a lot of the statements on this thread that Kenwright has just loaded the club with more and more record debts.

Of course the figures are better post Johnson...the tv deals in the Kenwright era ensure that would be the case.

There's nothing to be gained with that approach other than to, ironically, flag up the reliant, parasitical nature of the present owners and their clueless commercial handling of the club.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

I'm conscious that statistics can be made to look a certain way but

The latest accounts just released have turnover at £80.5m and net debt of £46m. This time, as a percentage of turnover, it is 57%. With turnover set to increase significantly next year thanks to the new Sky deal that to me at least says the club today is in a healthier position debt wise than it was when Kenwright took over. If true that contradicts a lot of the statements on this thread that Kenwright has just loaded the club with more and more record debts.

Just

 

[steken1]

I'm conscious that statistics can be made to look a certain way but whilst having my lunch I googled a few facts about the club and its debts, turnovers etc. I haven't got time to do a thorough analysis or check the sources but what I was trying to do was establish whether our present debt (as a percentage of turnover) is bigger now than when Kenwright took over. Ideally I'd have found the original accounts but I'm lazy and instead used these two pages. I'm not trying to play any games so happy to be corrected etc:

http://www.toffeeweb.com/club/business/finances_99.asp
http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/12-13/news/23366.html

From that the club was clearly in a desparate position off the pitch as well as on it when Kenwright took over.

Turnover was £22.6m and debt was either £15m or £18m depending which figure you choose. As a percentage of turnover that is 80% or 66%. The page from the year before Kenwright does not explicitly identify net debt but it does talk about an overdraft figure of that much. Whether there were other debts I can only guess at without digging deeper.

The latest accounts just released have turnover at £80.5m and net debt of £46m. This time, as a percentage of turnover, it is 57%. With turnover set to increase significantly next year thanks to the new Sky deal that to me at least says the club today is in a healthier position debt wise than it was when Kenwright took over. If true that contradicts a lot of the statements on this thread that Kenwright has just loaded the club with more and more record debts.

Don't disagree with you though one long time minor shareholder I know is adamant that debt was £5m when Bill took over and jumped to £20m almost immediately after. I'm not sure it's possible to do that or if it happened but he isn't in the same boat as me with regards to his views on the board so I can't see a motive from him to lie?

Also while debt as a percentage of turnover may be lower. when we look at all other sources of income bar TV they have all dropped as a percentage of turnover markedly, again can be explained away in some fashion by the rise in TV revenues. In real terms though the growths are quite insignificant.

Also net asset position would look markedly different at the point when TBH took over than now. Something worth considering in relation to our debt/turnover%.

 

[steken1]

Their are 8 separate outstanding charges with multiple names that go back to 2003.

The "open" Vibrac loan was created in Aug 2012 and is outstanding and no Vibrac loan ever taken out went back 4 years.

Lets, leave at that eh.

The Vibrac loans is usually taken out early summer and paid when we recieve a tranche of TV money in August. When you take this loan into account and the annual loss we will be a break even club when we recieve the new TV deal. That's assuming all things stay as they are with regards to outgoings.

 

[Dell Boy]

There's nothing to be gained with that approach.

Sorry, what's that "approach"? Trying to use facts and figures you mean?

Various statements on this thread are trotted out time and time again. One of the most popular is to talk about record debts and how Kenwright has put the club on the brink.

I've tried to use those quick facts and figures to prove that does not appear to be the case unless you can prove otherwise?

 

[davek]

Don't disagree with you though one long time minor shareholder I know is adamant that debt was £5m when Bill took over and jumped to £20m almost immediately after. I'm not sure it's possible to do that or if it happened but he isn't in the same boat as me with regards to his views on the board so I can't see a motive from him to lie?

Also while debt as a percentage of turnover may be lower. when we look at all other sources of income bar TV they have all dropped as a percentage of turnover markedly, again can be expalined away in some fashion by the rise in TV revenues. In real terms though the growths are quite insignificant.

Also net asset position would look markedly different at the point when TBH took over than now. Something worth considering in relation to our debt/turnover%.

Exactly. The real mark of the performance of the club as a business lies outside the enormous revenues taken in from tv (and taken in by ALL clubs). This lot are quite obviously useless. Let's just call them what they are: parasites.

 

[davek]

Sorry, what's that "approach"? Trying to use facts and figures you mean?

Various statements on this thread are trotted out time and time again. One of the most popular is to talk about record debts and how Kenwright has put the club on the brink.

I've tried to use those quick facts and figures to prove that does not appear to be the case unless you can prove otherwise?

They ARE record debts. Lol!

 

[Dell Boy]

Don't disagree with you though one long time minor shareholder I know is adamant that debt was £5m when Bill took over and jumped to £20m almost immediately after. I'm not sure it's possible to do that or if it happened but he isn't in the same boat as me with regards to his views on the board so I can't see a motive from him to lie?

I'm just going with what was reported in that article. If its wrong I'm happy to be corrected.

Also while debt as a percentage of turnover may be lower. when we look at all other sources of income bar TV they have all dropped as a percentage of turnover markedly, again can be explained away in some fashion by the rise in TV revenues. In real terms though the growths are quite insignificant.

Completely agree. The board's performance on raising other sources of income has been poor. No disagreing with that and one of the reasons I don't classify myself as an outright Kenwright supporter. I've never said they've done a great job in this respect.

Also net asset position would look markedly different at the point when TBH took over than now. Something worth considering in relation to our debt/turnover%.

Agreed. Would be happy to see the figures.

 

[steken1]

They ARE record debts. Lol!

When you consider we had assets worth at least the debt itself plus Goodison was nowhere near as mortaged as it is now then it's impossible to suggest we are in a better position now IMO.

 

[davek]

When you consider we had assets worth at least the debt itself plus Goodison was nowhere near as mortaged as it is now then it's impossible to suggest we are in a better position now IMO.

Absolutely. It's been carnage off-field and the only thing masking that is the team's consistency. How anyone would even have the brass neck to put a defence up for this board's performance is beyond me.

 

[Dell Boy]

They ARE record debts. Lol!

Don't you think that's a very simplistic way of looking at it? It has no context. The debt could be £100m but if the turnover was a couple of billion it would be irrelevant.

It's like a mortgage on your house. If your mortgage 10 years ago was £100K and your house was worth £120K are you saying you're really better off than if your mortgage is now £200K but your house is worth £350K?

 

[steken1]

I'm just going with what was reported in that article. If its wrong I'm happy to be corrected.



Completely agree. The board's performance on raising other sources of income has been poor. No disagreing with that and one of the reasons I don't classify myself as an outright Kenwright supporter. I've never said they've done a great job in this respect.



Agreed. Would be happy to see the figures.

I'm trying to avoid stating that as anything like fact because I can't verify that in any way.

Re performance. I'm hyper critical of outsourcing in football as it's not that complicated a business and you have a large, stupidly loyal customer base to work from. In our case it may well be for the best while these buffoons are in charge. Though quite what advice Phil, Terry and Robert have offered to us is a mystery considering thier performance in thier worlds. Perhaps they aren't as friendly as we thought?

Bellefield, Netherton and GP itself as well as various smaller plots around GP where all assets at the point we were taken over. I can't offer a value on those at the time of the takeover though I think it's fair to say they would come up to or around the stated debt?

 

[D410]

The Vibrac loans is usually taken out early summer and paid when we recieve a tranche of TV money in August. When you take this loan into account and the annual loss we will be a break even club when we recieve the new TV deal. That's assuming all things stay as they are with regards to outgoings.

We take out a bridging loan is your point. We have only ever taken out 2 loans with Vibrac as credit sources have dried up for the club due to it,s credit condition. We pay through the nose for the loans and will continue you to do based on the latest credit score. We still have 8 separate charges on the books which are outstanding.

 

[Dell Boy]

When you consider we had assets worth at least the debt itself plus Goodison was nowhere near as mortaged as it is now then it's impossible to suggest we are in a better position now IMO.

I might be wrong but I was under the impression that Goodison is mortgaged to the Pru and we're steadily paying it back? If that's right then the remaining mortgage will be included within the debt.