Everton (and other EPL teams) financials

[patfan1]

Very interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt) by David Conn of the Guardian, which for the first time shows (for me anyway) the salaries spent by each of the EPL teams. It really is amazing to think of how much more money some teams spend (Chelsea over 3 times more than us) on their players, as well as revenue, etc.


Everton

Accounts for the year to 31 May 2008
Ownership Shares in the Everton Football Club Company Limited are owned by:

Bill Kenwright 25%
Jon Woods 19%
Robert Earl (resident of Florida) 23%

Turnover £76m (up from £51m the previous year, an increase of 50.1%)

Gate and match-day £20.5m

TV and broadcasting £46.6m

Other commercial activities £8.9m

Wage bill £44.5m (up from £38.4m the previous year, an increase of 16%)

Wages as proportion of turnover 59%

Profit before tax £26,000

Debts £39m

Interest payable £3.9m

Highest paid director Keith Wyness: £470,000

State they're in Two remarkable seasons for David Moyes' team, finishing fifth twice in succession, and a significantly improved financial picture, put fresh doubt on the need for Everton to move to the new stadium being controversially planned at Kirkby. The club ensured that players' wages did not gobble up the booming increase in TV money, and Everton turned over £76m, a £25m increase. Kirkby, which many fans oppose, is projected optimistically to be worth only another £6m annually, and even within the club, some may be quietly relieved if the government ultimately refuses permission for the scheme.

Thoughts?

[paulinespens]

They need to put the club up for Sale.

[The Old Lady Hertha]

They don't need to put the entire club up for sale, they just need investment.

Kenwright and the other shareholders can stay as long as they give up some part of the club to an investor so that we can push forward. I think it would be insane to think that we DON'T need investment to continue on up.

[fifa_bobbyjoe]

What Everton, Liverpool and others (there are many) who are facing financial ruin through mismanagement shouldd do is to take a step back and take a long look at themselves and the clubs first.

Each of the teams in European and British soccer need to consider the performance and the capabilities of each payer they spend squillions recruiting to their sides at club expense without getting the returns at the end for their investment. A similar exercise needs to be considered for management and their boards.

Once contracted in and paid for, life for many in soccer becomes too comfortable and secure and complacency sets in. Renegotiate contracts mid stream and compel a player into a performer and do not encourage the creation of a pop star out of them. Their remuneration has to match their performance and not their image, their excesses or the 'flash in the pan' many become.

There are no guarantees in life and certainly none in soccer. Liverpool, Everton and others languishing in financial purgatory wondering if a white knight will come along and bail them out of their financial mess are admitting to their lack of managerial merit or ability.

These are large financial entities where public money and public confidence in them are material and which require responsible imaginative financial and legal managers with solutions and not the poker mentality of jackpot dreams.

There is a way out, and ‘jumping from the frying pan into the fire is not it. Debt has to be re negotiated, sold and the entire structure of the club and its finances re structured. Not by the Big 5 accounting or law firms either. There is too much conflicting interests and they were in themselves party to the structures that are now responsible for the current financial crisis.

No American or Arab or anyone else regardless of race or religion is going to get things right for these clubs. They need to seek out, listen and formulate workable solutions. It can be done. It has been done and it will not be done unless these jokers get their act together. Much of the problem lies with them wanting quick fixes so as not to expose the obscene perks they gave themselves and the benefits from player transfers not always or altogether paid to the club or its responsible entity.

A people's game has no place in the glass and brass boardrooms of merchant banks, large accounting firms that cook books or creatively account in an exercise where the truth is always the casualty.

If they want to they can. There are those who will seek and will find. The nexus with big accounting and legal firms and corporate failures is the stuff legends (nightmares) are made of. There needs to be an inquiry as these are public funds and the type of ‘fit and proper’ characters who are allowed into the boards and ownership of the game needs to be spotlighted in a public inquiry or Royal Commission.

Fifa_bobby joe

[arkanian215]

i'm liking moyes' approach. he is targeting young players with upside. these guys will either work their way through the academy or leave. but for the small millions moyes is spending on these kids, some of them can be future stars. everton is increasingly popular and since the first team isn't terribly static yet, there is a lot of room for advancement. this is especially true since the club currently has very little to invest in a proven player.

[Abracadabra]

...Liverpool, Everton and others languishing in financial purgatory wondering if a white knight will come along and bail them out of their financial mess are admitting to their lack of managerial merit or ability.

Except that the numbers bear out Everton as one of only 2 or 3 fiscally responsible clubs in the Premiership. The problem is that certain clubs can borrow without any fear of consequences from default. You just can't compete with that.

[fifa_bobbyjoe]

Except that the numbers bear out Everton as one of only 2 or 3 fiscally responsible clubs in the Premiership. The problem is that certain clubs can borrow without any fear of consequences from default. You just can't compete with that.

What numbers do you speak of that Bear them out? the fact is that they are deeply enmeshed in unnecessary debt and that disclosures are not contained in the accounts as to who really benefits. Accounts can be read in a number of ways. All I am suggesting is that the financial structure of these clubs is the reflection of incompetence and mismanagement.

@import "http://diacache.daylife.com/_static/release-46080/v2/css/daylife/thickbox.css";

[Abracadabra]

I stand corrected, there were 6 clubs with positive EBITDA (or "profit before tax"--I'm not sure if that's an informal term or if they mean that literally), but one of those was West Brom, which was using data from the 2nd division, so it really doesn't count. Those clubs were:

Gunners +36.7 million
Fulham +3.2 million
Blackburn +3 million
Spurs +3 million
Everton +30,000
(Liverpool did not specify, but it is possible they had positive operating income)

That means (assuming I'm interpreting their terminology correctly) that those clubs make enough revenue from operations that they do not need to borrow more to keep operating as they are. That doesn't exactly equate to fiscal responsibility I suppose, because you do want to service the debt as well, but they are not in a vicious debt spiral like the rest of the Premiership, either.

Unfortunately there are some clubs operating outside the normal boundaries of the free market. Something is wrong when "certain clubs" can borrow with impunity with no expectation that they will ever be required to repay it, while other clubs have to observe the normal rules of finance.

[Tony Dellbird]

Aren't Real Madrid in 800mil debt? How is a club being allowed to function owing that much to credit?

[Abracadabra]

Aren't Real Madrid in 800mil debt? How is a club being allowed to function owing that much to credit?

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. They owe more than they can dream of repaying, yet if they went to the bank today and asked for 200mil more, they would get it. Apparently lenders can't say no to these clubs for some reason. Perhaps it's fear of the fans making a run on the bank or something, but whatever it is they are not behaving like rational lenders in the free market.

In Chelsea's case, much of the debt is down to personal loans from Abramovich himself, but that isn't exactly kosher either. If he's running the business with his personal funds, so be it, but the club's liabilities should then be placed on Roman Abramovich personally. He shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

[arkanian215]

i guess he didnt read the article.