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

[RaleighBlue]

Yes but your missing the point here....

Some re talking about, City, UTD, RS, Chelsea an OOC's..

The difference is, they spend millions an millions on players..

Our money gos into a black hole. Do you think OOCs would be an issue if we at least spent the money we made on selling players, let alone money coming into the club.

I think to many people are missing the point. We're going back an forth about stuff none of us can really prove.

But where is the money going? Look at our net spend over 10 years. That's why the OOcs are so important.

They have a much higher turnover, which allows them to spend more. Their OOC's are higher than ours, but their turnover is MUCH higher than ours, and in the case of Chelsea, City, and the RS they are getting deep deep into debt.

We are operating on lower turnover (the real problem here) and being fiscally responsible, so we are not spending loads on players because there are other costs in running a football club. This summer should be enlightening however, as we are operating at a profit and have a huge increase in revenues.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

Yes but once again, look at the net spend. And look at the % of the OOCs to income. Please tell me something's not right here...

 

[Royal Blue Jersey]

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/everton-no-blue-skies.html

Good article from a few years ago.

Says it all really.

Horribly inadequate.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yes but your missing the point here....

Some re talking about, City, UTD, RS, Chelsea an OOC's..

The difference is, they spend millions an millions on players..

Our money gos into a black hole. Do you think OOCs would be an issue if we at least spent the money we made on selling players, let alone money coming into the club.

I think to many people are missing the point. We're going back an forth about stuff none of us can really prove.

But where is the money going? Look at our net spend over 10 years. That's why the OOcs are so important.

As per my reply to Dave above though, there is more than one way to spend on players. It seems to me that the majority of the Premier League spend their operating revenue on operating costs, which in playing terms = wages. For us, that I suspect means that we're spending more on wages now than in the past, with the proportion of revenue spent on wages staying largely the same.

Transfer expenditure therefore is often generated either by selling players, or by the owner spending their own cash (or borrowing). Given the sums required to buy even an average player these days I can't see option 2 ever happening. We're already pretty highly geared, so I can't see borrowing as being a good idea, and we don't generate operating profits that can be spent (unlike United and Arsenal). So we've been left with selling players.

That seems the reality as I see it.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Yes but once again, look at the net spend. And look at the % of the OOCs to income. Please tell me something's not right here...

We are operating at a profit? Albeit a tiny one.

Tottenham (a team in a similar league position) spend 19% of their non-football trading expenses on OOC. We spend 21% of our non-football trading expenses on OOC.

It doesn't seem that far off.

 

[davek]

Dave, have player wages gone up in the last 15 years? To what proportion have wages risen as a percentage of total income during that time?

The cost of ALL staff are thrown into that category, not only players. Yes, the proportion of wages has risen, but the pot of money left over from settling wages is more substantial than it's ever been.

TBH I've lost touch with all the fine detail of this argument because it's one that can never be settled. I just know that this club is pulling a lot more cash in year on year and, despite all the high hopes, we never see a substantial spend on playing staff.

Something is desperately wrong at this football club and has been for years.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The cost of ALL staff are thrown into that category, not only players. Yes, the proportion of wages has risen, but the pot of money left over from settling wages is more substantial than it's ever been.

TBH I've lost touch with all the fine detail of this argument because it's one that can never be settled. I just know that this club is pulling a lot more cash in year on year and, despite all the high hopes, we never see a substantial spend on playing staff.

Something is desperately wrong at this football club and has been for years.

Is it possible to break down the % spent on player salaries each year to see a trend?

 

[nsno-chris]

Actually mate, they do. If you see "admin costs" or "other operating costs" in a set of accounts they mean much the same. ( An accountant would probably disagree with that statement, but it's broadly right ).

I know where you're coming from with the other associated names, in general its categorised under 'misc'; there are actually only a small few who publish them seperately i.e. as a seperate reporting line (saying that last time i checked was about 11/12)

There's a massive amount of money coming into this club via a range of revenue streams but mostly through tv cash, gate receipts and player sales. The club has had a very poor record in backing managers in the transfer market and fans are rightly scratching their heads wondering where exactly all that money goes...made more frustrating when the owners of the club have been here for almost 15 years and have contributed from their own pockets zero investment toward anything. In that environment it is completely understandable that fans should demand and get a full audit of costs. The 'unimpressed' auditors can go and boil their heads, by the way. They're just bean counting monkeys who do what their told regarding what nth degree they break things down to.

So much wrong with that statement its unreal. You can tell you have never been involed in any form of audit, or in fact any business for that matter. Telling an auditor to 'boil there heads' because a group of fans don't understand accoutning is the most ridiculous statement ever. If you have any concerns that they have falsified the financial records, or that they acting inappropriate in accordance with Companies Act, or any other governing legislation, then I suggest you contact the relevant authorities and lodge a formal complaint.

But you wont, why?? Because you don't fully understand corporate finance and its just a pipe dream that you can hold onto. You're utilising basic maths of adding a subtracting and the answer is not what you (or others) expect so automatically its a conspiracy and something is wrong.

These auditors are from an external source, they go through every detail of financial transactions and if something was wrong it would be highlightled immediatley and the action would be taken (whether criminal or not). There would be no way on earth, any company would ever publish, in an annual fiscal report, a full breakdown of all transactions for OOC (or any other typoe of misc expenses), it won't happen and it never will.

Stop using the OOC to beat your pointless drum, the sounds the same and nothing is changing.

Some of stuff posted on this thread over the last couple of days is bordering on the insane; a complete lack of knowledge in all respects of business practices. This is turning into a massive conspiracy and its quite a shame that the same set of supporters are hell bent on this one article and will not let it rest; some of the stuff can be considered libel so I would be cautious on what people post, especially when referring to people having QC's and the like, it can be seen as an act of intent.

 

[RaleighBlue]

I think the end result when looking at the accounts is that the way forward is to increase turnover. It doesn't appear that our expenses are out of line with either our income or our competition - in fact, in many ways we spend less than our competition so as to not take on loads of new debt. This, I believe, is where the board is failing greatly. It seems a large portion of our income is based on things outside of Everton's direct control - tv money, league placement rewards, and the like (and league placement is outside of the business side of the board's direct control...sport is funny like that).

We are operating at a very small profit, which is good, compiling debt is a very bad business model for a club that is not blessed with rich, generous owners. After 15 years, Kenwright and co. have failed to properly leverage the growing appetite of the globe for all things English football. This is the stick to beat them with if you must. Cutting costs (such as OOC) will eventually lead to Everton competing with the relegation fodder as turnover will decrease and players will be less likely to join a club that isn't maintaining the standards and facilities that is expected of a top flight organization. Everton must improve by way of increasing controllable turnover - why the Kitbag deal is so cancerous to Everton.

The OOC argument obfuscates the real issue at hand - Everton are not successfully improving turnover of their own accord. The stadium failures have come home to roost in the sense that we simply cannot afford to buy great players in the exploding transfer market without putting the club dangerously in debt or without relying on continuously rising television deals. Everton need to improve their profitability with stable, regular income - such as improved sponsorship deals, improved merchandising, and other, more creative, means. The board appear to be doing a very good job at keeping the ship steady, but they are failing miserably at moving the ship forward. It's like the club is the corporate manifestation of David Moyes. Stable, steady, but not quite good enough for the upper echelons.

I refuse to accept that the Everton are unable to improve their turnover through modern and conventional means, and that, in the end, is the board's largest failing. And that is the message that should be delivered to Evertonians and to Everton.

 

[Neiler]

I think the end result when looking at the accounts is that the way forward is to increase turnover. It doesn't appear that our expenses are out of line with either our income or our competition - in fact, in many ways we spend less than our competition so as to not take on loads of new debt. This, I believe, is where the board is failing greatly. It seems a large portion of our income is based on things outside of Everton's direct control - tv money, league placement rewards, and the like (and league placement is outside of the business side of the board's direct control...sport is funny like that).

We are operating at a very small profit, which is good, compiling debt is a very bad business model for a club that is not blessed with rich, generous owners. After 15 years, Kenwright and co. have failed to properly leverage the growing appetite of the globe for all things English football. This is the stick to beat them with if you must. Cutting costs (such as OOC) will eventually lead to Everton competing with the relegation fodder as turnover will decrease and players will be less likely to join a club that isn't maintaining the standards and facilities that is expected of a top flight organization. Everton must improve by way of increasing controllable turnover - why the Kitbag deal is so cancerous to Everton.

The OOC argument obfuscates the real issue at hand - Everton are not successfully improving turnover of their own accord. The stadium failures have come home to roost in the sense that we simply cannot afford to buy great players in the exploding transfer market without putting the club dangerously in debt or without relying on continuously rising television deals. Everton need to improve their profitability with stable, regular income - such as improved sponsorship deals, improved merchandising, and other, more creative, means. The board appear to be doing a very good job at keeping the ship steady, but they are failing miserably at moving the ship forward. It's like the club is the corporate manifestation of David Moyes. Stable, steady, but not quite good enough for the upper echelons.

I refuse to accept that the Everton are unable to improve their turnover through modern and conventional means, and that, in the end, is the board's largest failing. And that is the message that should be delivered to Evertonians and to Everton.

This is one of the best posts ever in this thread.

 

[Goat]

Lets just stop for 1 second and imagine we really do sign Shaun Maloney.

 

[davek]

Is it possible to break down the % spent on player salaries each year to see a trend?

Probably. I haven't got the inclination to separate the two. The main thing is that, yes, labour costs have gone up, but the sum left over after taking it out of the pot is there to be spent but it's always jam tomorrow - that money will be carried forward to another wondow. Which, of course, it never is.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

We are operating at a profit? Albeit a tiny one.

Tottenham (a team in a similar league position) spend 19% of their non-football trading expenses on OOC. We spend 21% of our non-football trading expenses on OOC.

It doesn't seem that far off.

Yes, but look at the money they spend and the players they bring in.

They sold Bale for £80m but went an spent £100 on bringing new players in. So no questions asked on where money is going.

We sell e.g...Arteta, lescott, billy,anichibe,jelavic, Fellaini.....where the reinvestment. It's vey minor, ie the -net spend.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

Plus the money brought into the club through TV an sponsorship deals, but we're left with nothing.

And when the fans ask the club, what happened. AGMs cancelled, smoke an mirrors.....

What did Elstone say...90p of ever £1 goss to FF. or some bull-sh1t like that.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Yes, but look at the money they spend and the players they bring in.

They sold Bale for £80m but went an spent £100 on bringing new players in. So no questions asked on where money is going.

We sell e.g...Arteta, lescott, billy,anichibe,jelavic, Fellaini.....where the reinvestment. It's vey minor, ie the -net spend.

The also sold Huddlestone, Dempsey, Parker, Defoe and Caulker last season - leaving them with a negative net spend of nearly £10m

You do realise that in the last 3 years their net spend is minus £38m don't you?