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

[davek]

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.

I disagree with the premise here. You seem to be suggesting that the OOC issue is something's completely unrelated to poor commercial performance. It isn't. The same people who have seen fit to run the club like a whelk stall for 15 years can be seen to take a similar not arsed attitude for accounting properly when certain costs go through the roof and stay there.

There's no free pass to be had on on the matter of OOC, just as there's no free passes to be had on no stadium development, no investment and shocking Del Boy Trotter amateurism concerning business plans.

 

[pat the boxer]

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.

dont forget rodwell to city.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I'm glad you posted this. It's a perfect example of the hysterical scalded cat response by those seeking to throw a protective cloak around this board of directors and their mismanagement of the club. What's being asked for is a FULL audit to everyone's satisfaction. You're illicitly smuggling in the matter of skulduggery to deflect from that reasonable request. The club employ the auditors (our external auditors are practically internal ones given the Elstone/Deloitte connection...which I find disturbing, tbh) and they will have dialogue on how to present - if they so chose to they could request them to provide a note that refers to what costs are incurred, their key remit is to make sure that the club's top line financial claims no misstatements are made. That's it. But regardless of that the club can choose to do that if they wish to. Elstone has established the principle of this with his list of examples. They know it's a contentious issue but refuse to deal with it fully. It's their look out if people draw their own conclusions because they have neglected to inform them.

Who's decided that?

What right does anyone here have in terms of dictating the format of the audited accounts of EFC or any other company for that matter?

If they gave you a breakdown of the next level headings, you'd question the content of each of them, demanding yet further detail, as you've already decided that there's something amiss, so I doubt you'd be satisfied until you'd gone through the individual invoices....

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Excellent post, we as a club look for short term solutions for long term problems. It's only the tv money that keeps us afloat, if that goes pop so do we ( True for the majority of other clubs as well )

It's the commercial side we need to grow organically. I now for a fact, we have a commercial partner in place who has the same deal in place with another club who has been a yoyo club during the premiership years. Same 3 year deal, but we get paid a considerable amount less than them.

That's kind of a natural consequence of having certain clubs who have no real commercial restraints at all. Everyone else has to squeeze just that bit harder to try and keep up and the whole thing gets distorted.

 

[SerenityNigh]

The sad thing is that the club don't pull all that info together to show where the money goes. If they did, it'd save a lot of arguments about what is really a side issue. The major issue is whether or not the BoD repeat previous mistakes on a new stadium and whether they can get their commerical act together and generate more non-TV revenue

Do you really believe this? Maybe it would quell the discussion on one side issue, but surely another would grow in its place.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Do you really believe this? Maybe it would quell the discussion on one side issue, but surely another would grow in its place.

I'd want to know why we aren't buying players instead of spending money on auditors!

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

I disagree with the premise here. You seem to be suggesting that the OOC issue is something's completely unrelated to poor commercial performance. It isn't. The same people who have seen fit to run the club like a whelk stall for 15 years can be seen to take a similar not arsed attitude for accounting properly when certain costs go through the roof and stay there.

There's no free pass to be had on on the matter of OOC, just as there's no free passes to be had on no stadium development, no investment and shocking Del Boy Trotter amateurism concerning business plans.

I'm with Raleigh on this one

Sometimes Dave you seem so determined to have a pop that you can't view this issue in a balanced way

It's an emotive issue I grant you, but Raleigh gave a very balanced, and dare I say fair, overview of the situation and you've just dismissed it out of hand

 

[SerenityNigh]

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...

Something's not right here, but I think it's the link between correlation and supposed cause. I could tell you a nice story about how American high schoolers that live in houses with more bathrooms get into better colleges, but you wouldn't take that and add a bathroom to your house to improve the educational outcomes of your children, would you?

 

[SerenityNigh]

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

Does this help?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Does this help?

Outstanding. Good work that man.

 

[SerenityNigh]

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.

@RaleighBlue's entire argument is that Tottenham are better at generating commercial income, which they invest in players. Their OOC/total costs is roughly the same as Everton's, which suggests that both teams have very similar cost structures. If you want better investment, you need better turnover. Are player sales funding operating costs? Probably so, but not because operating costs are illegitimate. Instead, there isn't enough turnover.

 

[Neiler]

Does this help?

Absolutely fantastic, rep the man!

 

[meagher94]

What if I told you that there wasnt any money there?

Then my head would explode.

iv heard the same things for the past 8 seasons mate. You'll say the same thing next season as the clappers will find a way to back blue bill and the failing board.

Not from me. I've never been particularly for or against our board.

But what I mean is that the TV deal is clearly much, much more lucrative this year and there is no excuses for not spending on players.

If our net spend this summer is <£20M then I will be asking serious questions, but for now I'm going to wait and see.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Outstanding. Good work that man.

It actually doesn't segregate player salaries from other staff wages, but it does show useful information. I've never heard anyone argue that non-player wages are rising faster than player wages, but at this point I'n not sure I'd not be surprised by any argument.

 

[davek]

Who's decided that?

What right does anyone here have in terms of dictating the format of the audited accounts of EFC or any other company for that matter?

If they gave you a breakdown of the next level headings, you'd question the content of each of them, demanding yet further detail, as you've already decided that there's something amiss, so I doubt you'd be satisfied until you'd gone through the individual invoices....

That's just a circular argument that gets no one anywhere. There's a quite simple equation here as I see it:

club is upset at constant OOC references - club decides to be frank and detailed in explaining OOC = job done.