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

[Tommy Chong]

I posted this earlier, hope it helps:

Based on my own experience and thinking what is involved in running a football club, other operating costs:

Outsourcing costs
Licensing costs - FA, EUFA
Security and policing
Communication Costs
Marketing costs
Ticketing and ticketing administration
Stadium costs
Property or equipment rental charges
IT costs
Cost of raw materials and supplies that cannot be held in inventory (i.e. water, energy, small items of equipment, maintenance-related items, administrative supplies, etc.)
Maintenance and repair work
Insurance premiums
Scouting costs
External personnel charges
Fees payable to intermediaries and professional expenses
Advertising costs
Staff food and beverage costs
Transportation charges
Travel expenses
Cost of meetings, Award evenings and other receptions
Postal charges, bank charges (i.e. not interest on bank loans)

This is a good summary...
Think all expenses indirectly related to the generation of revenue and the daily running of the company (apart from employee and finance costs).

If only blue Bill could have memorized a few items and said them in that interview with the BU. Would have saved us a lot of trouble and a lot of speculation!

 

[SerenityNigh]

Mainly this thread though which is basically a giant mud slinging match between Steve wigan and various other users

No reason we can't apply this to the other thread like. It would greatly simplify everything. Can we have scripts for every time chico posts to respond, "TL/DR, what a gash preview chico you giant ted" ?

 

[Steve Wigan]

Mainly this thread though which is basically a giant mud slinging match between Steve wigan and various other users

Not slinging any mud me...trying to be cooperative..and have my dinner at the same time. I suppose some of the things I've been called on here could qualify as mud though !

 

[davek]

I posted this earlier, hope it helps:

Based on my own experience and thinking what is involved in running a football club, other operating costs:

Outsourcing costs
Licensing costs - FA, EUFA
Security and policing
Communication Costs
Marketing costs
Ticketing and ticketing administration
Stadium costs
Property or equipment rental charges
IT costs
Cost of raw materials and supplies that cannot be held in inventory (i.e. water, energy, small items of equipment, maintenance-related items, administrative supplies, etc.)
Maintenance and repair work
Insurance premiums
Scouting costs
External personnel charges
Fees payable to intermediaries and professional expenses
Advertising costs
Staff food and beverage costs
Transportation charges
Travel expenses
Cost of meetings, Award evenings and other receptions
Postal charges, bank charges (i.e. not interest on bank loans)

...giving Earl and Green their bungs costs.


TBF, the other two major source of costs (staff costs and depreciation) have explanatory notes from the accountants concerning what they relate to. The continual absence of one for the OOCs is unreasonable given the hullabaloo over the matter...one that the owners are FULLY aware of.

They're either too arrogant to address the issue or it goes beyond that possibility to something more disturbing.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Norwich City report "Other operating expenses" of £11,221,000 for 2013
Fulham report "Other external charges" of £15,714,820 for 2012*

*Fulham are the only club I've seen that reports in less than £1,000 denominations. CBA counting all those dollars myself, but I suppose their accountants have to earn their wages.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Also, Chelsea report that in 2012 their "other operating expenses" increased by £19,200,000, but I can't find anything in their report that gives a value for this category as a whole.

 

[Steve Wigan]

...giving Earl and Green their bungs costs.


TBF, the other two major source of costs (staff costs and depreciation) have explanatory notes from the accountants concerning what they relate to. The continual absence of one for the OOCs is unreasonable given the hullabaloo over the matter...one that the owners are FULLY aware of.

They're either too arrogant to address the issue or it goes beyond that possibility to something more disturbing.

The only hullabaloo is created by the usual internet conspiracy theorists. You are now suggesting that Earl and Green are in reciept of illegal payments, despite having been shown evidence that OOCs at Everton are in line with those at other clubs. So...provide contradictory evidence, or you will not be believed.

 

[The Esk]

Don't think there's going to be much contention over what the headings can be....more interest in what Everton have "allocated" against each heading.....and following on from that whether the allocations seem plausible and why the sudden jump in their overall total ?

What's your call on a fellow business owner (well circa 25% for Bill) and a chairman not having an absolute scooby what's in there ?

I agree there's not much contention, I was just demonstrating there are numerous headings which fall into the OOC category.

Why do they not disclose more? Simply, because they do not have to - I'm struggling to think of a business that discloses much more than the statutory requirements in any sector to be honest.

I'm sure Bill knows much more than he alludes to, after all he has a reputation in show business for being shrewd and ruthless, so I find it very unlikely that with a 25% shareholding in Everton he does not know a greater amount of detail than is published or required to be published.

The thing I find least unlikely though is the idea of fraud by him or any other of the Directors or other interested parties. Our accounts are audited by Deloitte's - a business with $32bn annual revenues, and frankly the idea that little old Everton or its officers can year in year out operate fraudulently and still pass the audit doesn't wash with me.

The only possible area of concern is the use of opaque offshore vehicles and the influence of people who might be considered as shadow Directors if you believe the conspiracy theorists, but again I'm not at all sure about that - there's not enough money in a business like Everton to make it worthwhile, and most crucially there is no evidence (to my knowledge) of any wrong-doing financially.

 

[davek]

The only hullabaloo is created by the usual internet conspiracy theorists. You are now suggesting that Earl and Green are in reciept of illegal payments, despite having been shown evidence that OOCs at Everton are in line with those at other clubs. So...provide contradictory evidence, or you will not be believed.

This falls into the territory of known unknowns.

 

[The Esk]

This falls into the territory of known unknowns.

It falls into the territory of libel and posters should exercise caution both for the site and their own good.

 

[SerenityNigh]

The only possible area of concern is the use of opaque offshore vehicles and the influence of people who might be considered as shadow Directors if you believe the conspiracy theorists, but again I'm not at all sure about that - there's not enough money in a business like Everton to make it worthwhile, and most crucially there is no evidence (to my knowledge) of any wrong-doing financially.

There's an adage in aviation, "The best way to make $1,000,000 flying airplanes is to start with $2,000,000."

I imagine it's much the same for football.

 

[SerenityNigh]

It falls into the territory of libel and posters should exercise caution both for the site and their own good.

Good questions are often better than direct statements, especially concerning unknowns.

 

[RaleighBlue]

I agree there's not much contention, I was just demonstrating there are numerous headings which fall into the OOC category.

Why do they not disclose more? Simply, because they do not have to - I'm struggling to think of a business that discloses much more than the statutory requirements in any sector to be honest.

I'm sure Bill knows much more than he alludes to, after all he has a reputation in show business for being shrewd and ruthless, so I find it very unlikely that with a 25% shareholding in Everton he does not know a greater amount of detail than is published or required to be published.

The thing I find least unlikely though is the idea of fraud by him or any other of the Directors or other interested parties. Our accounts are audited by Deloitte's - a business with $32bn annual revenues, and frankly the idea that little old Everton or its officers can year in year out operate fraudulently and still pass the audit doesn't wash with me.

The only possible area of concern is the use of opaque offshore vehicles and the influence of people who might be considered as shadow Directors if you believe the conspiracy theorists, but again I'm not at all sure about that - there's not enough money in a business like Everton to make it worthwhile, and most crucially there is no evidence (to my knowledge) of any wrong-doing financially.

This is crucial, I think.

Football is not a good business to be in if you are looking to make loads of money - unless you're a player or manager. Even the largest football clubs have very small profits in the grand scheme of things. The costs of running a club eat into yearly profits, and promotion/relegation create a huge risk in sell-on value.

There is big money in football - for apparel companies, cable companies, sponsors, and that sort, but the clubs themselves are not the way to make a load of money. It seems rather unlikely (although possible) that businessmen of the financial might that allows them to buy in would risk their fortunes and reputations on the relative peanuts we're talking about.

Much more likely is the theory that players like Green simply see Everton as a long term investment and will sell up when they think the footballing bubble is near bursting. The club is gaining valuation every year due to the new tv deals and insatiable sporting appetites of the public. Once that starts to turn, they will sell. That does not mean they're taking money from the club on a yearly basis, it just means they're not investing. That's not ideal, but nor is it illegal.

 

[davek]

The thing I find least unlikely though is the idea of fraud by him or any other of the Directors or other interested parties. Our accounts are audited by Deloitte's - a business with $32bn annual revenues, and frankly the idea that little old Everton or its officers can year in year out operate fraudulently and still pass the audit doesn't wash with me.

They are not lily-white either.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/03/deloittes-tax-savings-investments-in-poor-countries

only possible area of concern is the use of opaque offshore vehicles and the influence of people who might be considered as shadow Directors if you believe the conspiracy theorists, but again I'm not at all sure about that - there's not enough money in a business like Everton to make it worthwhile, and most crucially there is no evidence (to my knowledge) of any wrong-doing financially.

...they wouldn't pay capital gains tax on any sale of their shares in the club. Not small change I wouldn't have thought. As the old saying goes: "much wants more".

 

[davek]

It falls into the territory of libel and posters should exercise caution both for the site and their own good.

Oh that's me told then. Nice and considered way of handling an obvious joke.