Jump to content

MTK

Members
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Nation
    England

MTK's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. It's a good gesture and not every club would do it - I do think it's part of a PR drive though. The proof of purchase seems unnecessary in the circumstances - it wouldn't surprise me if they actually refund without it. The alternative could be a load of angry fans saying that the gesture is meaningless
  2. I'm pretty convinced that the increase in income equals the operating cost. It may not directly state it but I don't believe that it is an unreasonable inference. This would deliver a generous 30% margin & I don't see it being higher than that.
  3. Ok Currently we receive £3m from Kitbag but we have no expenses to get that £3m. We do not run the megastores, website or other distribution channels. So the £3m is profit however we do not see the whole income from the operation. If we did run the operation then we would have costs of £7m to get that £3m. Hence our income would be £10m consisting of £7m operating costs plus the £3m profit. Spurs & Villa run their own inhouse operation, therefore they have the cost of sale included in both their income & operating costs. We outsource so we do not have that line in our income & costs. Therefore to make a direct comparison between our operating costs & their operating costs, we need to take this into account. We can do this by adding the supposed £7m into our operating costs. This gives us a fairer comparison in how we manage our cost base. In essence, our operating costs are even worse than they initially look
  4. As politely as possible, no. Elstone refers constantly to the fact that the outsourcing cash is pure profit & that if we ran it in-house our income would be higher because it would reflect expenditure plus profit. This is how he defends our lower income. Swiss Ramble estimates that the expenditure would be £7m and that is how much our income would increase by. However it would also increase our other operating costs by the same amount. My point was that we would need to add this back in to compare with similar clubs who run in-house operations, thereby our operating costs are even more horrific than it initially appears. This is why I believe we can save a bit of cash here
  5. I'm presuming that £7m was an estimate but probably not so far off. If you look at Kitbag alone, we get £3m pure profit so adding £7m in costs would result in a 30% margin - about right Does that make sense?
  6. Arsenal always bid low so unless they are the only interested team, then we can get more. Plus, their wage structure is not that great so Fellaini might think he can do better elsewhere
  7. On a slightly brighter note, there may be another way to make a few savings. Our other operating costs at £24m are extremely high. Swiss Ramble says However he also mentions So to be directably comparable to Spurs & Villa we would need to add £7m to our expenditure to account for the costs we save by outsourcing certain functions. This makes our comparable operating costs £31m &, although we do not know what's in it, I refuse to believe that a significant portion of the savings we need could not come from here rather than the squad
  8. It's not a direct answer but he does say that we need to knock £15m off the wage bill plus sell £10m of players every year without buying anyone
  9. No, but they are streets ahead on commercial revenue, particularly sponsorship. Of 60m euros commercial income received by Dortmund, 40m is sponsorship although interestingly they only get 7m euros a year for their shirt sponsorship (not that much more than our current £4m). So their CEO has found 33m euros of sponsorship money every year, seemingly for things that we haven't even thought of Time for Mr Elstone to step up
  10. GoodisonRoad - I'm not the best person to explain this but it's an accounting technicality. Money received from player sales is counted as one big payment in the year received. Money spent on players is amortised over the life of the contract (i.e. divided by the number of years of the contract and then put into the books gradually). Therefore we made a profit on players sales The spending of the Lescott money is reflected in the cashflow which shows that the money we received for Lescott immediately left the club. Err - like I said, I'm not the best person to explain
  11. Their management have done a great job in fending off the banks but I suspect that owning the best stadium in Europe may have been a big part of this. You have to admire Klopp though
  12. New article from Swiss Ramble. Worth reading if you want an independent view from a financial expert. Values the equity at £75m (taken from an unnamed investment bank). Depressingly he's not optimistic on finding a new owner as he estimates they would need about half a billion to turn us around. He is positive about the youth policy though http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/09/everton-no-blue-skies.html
  13. Any bloke who risks his life to save his dog is sound by me
  14. If you want to value the club by adding up the price of assets (particularly intangible assets that have no guaranteed re-sale value) then the club is worth -£29.8m according to the net liabilities in the balance sheet
×
×
  • Create New...