MikeO Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 - i'm not being miserable - i'm being realistic. Realistic given your take on the situation Haf and Matt's being realistic based on his opinion. Quick search reveals that you first said we were on our way to the championship in Jan 2006. That kind of unremitting doom and gloom must grind you down in the end surely....love to have a beer with you one day and try to cheer you up a bit . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcopaulo Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 i'd like to have a pint with haf just to clock how early he gets a refill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Realistic given your take on the situation Haf and Matt's being realistic based on his opinion. Quick search reveals that you first said we were on our way to the championship in Jan 2006. That kind of unremitting doom and gloom must grind you down in the end surely....love to have a beer with you one day and try to cheer you up a bit . I've been crying it in ever since Mike! The day I say we will get top 4 is the beginning of the end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 i actually agree with both matt and haf! you both want the exact same thing, one is an optimist the other a pesimist. MTK - you got it backwards mate, he is saying we could bring in £7m more revenue if we did it ourself, not £7m more costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTK Posted September 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) 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 their reported income is around £7 million lower than it would be if these activities were still in-house he is saying if we ran it ourselves we could increase income by £7m. obvioulsy costs would increase, but i would be very surprised if costs would increase by more than £7m. if the cost of running our merchandising costs £7m i dont see kitbag being too interested in it, especially not to guarantee £3m in payments to the club, making them need £10m before they break even. its an incredibly short sighted deal elstone has got us into, hes hardly gunna slate himself is he. income does not reflect expenditure plus profit. profit is income minus expenditure. swiss ramble estimates the extra income to be £7m, he does not quote the expenditure increasing when he talks about this, so i dont see where you got that from. the last paragraph i just cant see what it means. i get the horrific operating costs, but before that just lost me, and im good at this stuff. Edited September 16, 2011 by StevO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTK Posted September 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 i swear i shouldnt even bother but im going to try. we have no costs involved in the merchandising (we do run our own website but not the store section) as kitbag run it. we dont make any money per product, but we receive £3m per year. swiss is saying if we ran it ourself the income of £3m could be increased by £7m, that would then be a £10m income, but obviously there would be in increase in costs from zero to whatever it would be. at no point in that article does swiss say it would increase out costs by £7m, he just says it would increase income by approx £7m. if you dont understand what "increase income" means then i really am at a loss. im sure we both agree the kitbag deal isnt great, but what you have read from him saying simply "increase revenue by £7m" i have no idea as he does not mention expenditure or costs or anything other than income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTK Posted September 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Allow me to use one outsourced money maker as an example - sodexo. Many of you out there may be unfortunate enough to have them on your site of work, I do. After talking to the chap that served me my £3 "subsidised" beef baguette that consisted of 3 bite sized, wafer thin pieces of beef padded out by lettuce and tomato, he informed me he was working overtime at goodison and was made up as he was a fan. It made me think as to how much money the club is missing out on. They are paid a pittance to work, yet they sell unreal amounts of cheaply produced meals at a mark up that must be 400%. If my company decided to run that side of things we would either make in my estimation £50k a week or my beef baguette would be costing just under a quid. It's not in my organisations interest to get into catering. However based on the money to be made it is definitely in evertons, outsourcing is a big own goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 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. if income equals operating costs that is called break even. here is the working out ----------- income minus operating costs equals profit. if you dont get it you dont get it. im bored now. tell you what,agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWooney Posted September 18, 2011 Report Share Posted September 18, 2011 Well it looks like income will be down more this season if attendances continue how they are. Last week was our lowest in 9 years, this week was 3,000 less than that. Let's hope we can get a couple of results out of the Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea & Man Utd run to encourage some fans back to the games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts