Louis Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 http://www.evertonfc...-the-money-goes This bit sticks out: "So how have we paid [for players]? It's a simple answer - Bellefield and more borrowing. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Although, I was disappointed that he didn't explain why Finch Farm costs £9m more per year to run than Bellefield did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzp7zy Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) What Elstone fails to observe is that the only question isn't 'where has the Arteta money gone'? The real question for 2011 is 'Where has the Arteta, Pienaar, Vaughan, Yakubu, Beckford and Yobo money gone?' because that amounts to about £19m rather than £10m. So come on Robert, where's the other £9m? Edited January 13, 2012 by SharpysVolley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noble Savage Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 What Elstone fails to observe is that the only question isn't 'where has the Arteta money gone'? The real question for 2011 is 'Where has the Arteta, Pienaar, Vaughan, Yakubu, Beckford and Yobo money gone?' because that amounts to about £19m rather than £10m. So come on Robert, where's the other £9m? I was actually rethinking my stance while reading smugman's blog but then I read this and had to rethink it all again. Where is the other money from player sales? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonButtle Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) This is where it becomes very difficult to believe that certain individuals are not taking a wage from the club 9m just does not vanish into thin air Edited January 13, 2012 by theprisoner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Instalments for previous players and signing on bonuses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzp7zy Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Prentice has clearly got to Elstone. ' This is not an ageing, threadbare squad' Average age of the the starting 11 against Spurs was 29.2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzp7zy Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Instalments for previous players and signing on bonuses This is true but only Fellaini and Barkley have had significant improvements on their contracts this year. And we haven't paid a fee for a player (until today) for more than 2 years, so instalments must be dwindling. Remember too, that we have reduced the wage bill by about 6m/year net with the players out versus players in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 This is true but only Fellaini and Barkley have had significant improvements on their contracts this year. And we haven't paid a fee for a player (until today) for more than 2 years, so instalments must be dwindling. Remember too, that we have reduced the wage bill by about 6m/year net with the players out versus players in. we bought Vellios last year. We havent spent big money for a long time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzp7zy Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 we bought Vellios last year. We havent spent big money for a long time You're right Matt. Vellios & Gueye were nominal fee, probably about less than we've paid for loan arrangements for Drenthe and Donovan. That said, we still must be nearly thru instalment payments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 You're right Matt. Vellios & Gueye were nominal fee, probably about less than we've paid for loan arrangements for Drenthe and Donovan. That said, we still must be nearly thru instalment payments? if we havent paid the 50k for Velios off already id be really worried! Still not good enough that weve only spent this much though. But i just wanted to point out that this 'Everton Clock' thing was nonsense, designed to get frustrated and fickle fans on the side of the rebellion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 From The Peoples' Forum: First, lets deal with the spin. Fair Comment: this is the most comprehensive analysis I have ever seen from EFC or any other club Left Unanswered: the implication that it answers all the questions...in fact it raises some new ones and actually totally corroborates some points the likes of Blue Union (and today even Prentice) have recently been trying to bring to wider fan attention. Now lets deal with any concerns over 'hands in the till' Fair Comment: there is not, and never has been, any evidence or justifiable basis for suggesting any financial irregularity Unanswered: given the clear evidence of financial strain and the obvious need for new funding sources how can so little have been achieved to grow commercial revenues (the revenue growth Robert highlights has been almost entirely tv related, supported by consistently good league placing) or bring in investment? What should fans understand from the numbers? Fair Comment: The club pushes the limits of affordability supporting the facilities, squad and academy as it stands. He has avoided providing more breakdown of the operating costs because it would highlight commercially sensitive aspects of e.g. the Finch Farm contract and possibly expose 'non-salary' elements of player contracts (image rights etc.) to more scrutiny at a time when this is sensitive to UK tax authorities (I would hope such payments are included in wage costs but GAAP gives some leeway and there are presentational concerns with tax authorities so...). I'd have done the same in his position. Unanswered: the squad is clearly weaker than it was last season...or the season before...or... The evidence of that is on the pitch every game. If our financial best simply isn't good enough what are the implications for the team and consequently the support, attendance, commercial revenue streams, tv appearance money, league placement money going forwards? What does the worrying financial trend imply for the future? Fair Comment: the club cannot afford the decline in attendance, league position and tv revenue that it is experiencing as the club loses competitiveness on the pitch. Unanswered: Given that by Elstone's own analysis there is certainly evidence to suggest that we have entered a downward financial and performance spiral that poses a significant risk to the immediate financial and football stability of the club what the hell are the club doing about it? The micro picture is that Elstone has provided as much transparecy here as can be reasonably expected in such a public forum. The macro picture is that in doing so he has essentially confirmed that the club is in a poor financial position and one that is deteriorating. A position that, despite the reassuring tone, must cause him significant concern. A position that is quite clearly worse than many fans believe it to be. The elephant in the room is that it is completely obvious that with the current ownership being unwilling/unable to invest Everton's relative fortunes on and off the pitch will continue to decline. Furthermore the stadium/matchday revenue issue becomes bigger with each season that passes. Unless David Moyes (or any new/future manager) can perform a minor miracle and somehow pick up young superstars for peanuts and achieve at least 2 back-to-back Champions League qualifications (the minimum required to fund the unfunded interest/finance costs, support enhanced commercial opportunities and provide some funds to the management). None of this is new to most on here but if the true implications of Elstone's (very good) blog are properly explained to and understood by the average Evertonian I think there will a significant increase in the general levels of worry and concern. I don't think that will automatically lead to many of those fans losing faith in Kenwright et al but it may increase scrutiny even more and, more worryingly from Elstone's perspective, potentially accelerate the slow but steady decline in support as fans lose hope in the future of the team and the club. Elstone does deserve some credit for his relative honesty. He's a good CEO for a financially constrained business but he badly needs help from the Board and others to enhance the commercial future of the club. May you live in interesting times... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcopaulo Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/12/01/13/SOCCER_Everton_Elstone.html&TEAMHD=soccer&BID=165&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter not sure if anythin different is said here but thought i'd pop it in anyways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 It's a copy and paste job.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcopaulo Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 didn't read it if i'm honest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowensda Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Sorry, this was from Andy at GOT.... http://www.grandoldteam.com/news/fans-view/2012/jan/19/explaining-the-confusing-world-of-evertons-cash-transfer-spend Warning: This is slightly dweeby analysis of Everton´s transfer spending that attempts to explain why the figures quoted by EFC Chief Executive Robert Elstone and published in the club accounts do tie in with reality. Hopefully it casts some light on the complex cash flows involved in many transfers, but it may be a bit dull! Andy --------- The problem After Everton announced the purchase of Darron Gibson last week I tweeted: "Little known fact. Everton have been net spenders on transfers every year since Rooney left (cash figs from accounts)." Along with this graph: *click to enlarge This was met by some understandable scepticism from Evertonians pointing out that in 2010/11 "we didn´t sign anyone". Then by happy coincidence, Everton Chief Executive Robert Elstone published an extraordinary blog on the club´s official website entitled "Where The Money Goes", which said exactly the same thing I had said. The dichotomy between the honest opinion of Everton fans that the club has been more about selling than buying and the numbers in the club´s cash flow statements in the accounts showing net spend over each of the last six years needs explaining. The problem arises with the phasing of payments for players and receipts from their sale and from the fact that the only information we have are headline figures for deals, what you might call "the Sky Sports News number", and two numbers in a club´s cash flow statement, one for purchases and one for sales. The details Elstone gave on transfers This is what Robert Elstone has to say about Everton´s transfer activity since 2006/07 (emphasis as in original): "[2006/07] We spent £4m net on new players (money we paid out on signing including Kroldrup, Davies, Johnson and Lescott less money banked on the likes of Rooney, Bent, Kilbane and Davies). [2007/08] A net spend of £15m (further money we paid out for Kroldrup, Johnson and Lescott and new spending on the likes of Howard, Jagielka, Yakubu, Baines and Pienaar, less the money banked for Davies, Kroldrup, Beattie, McFadden and Naysmith). [2008/09] We spent £6m net on players(payments for Yakubu, Baines, Howard, Kroldrup, Lescott and Fellaini, less monies in for McFadden, Kroldrup, Beattie and Johnson). [2009/10] We spent £3m net on players (payments out on Yakubu, Fellaini, Bilyaletdinov, Distin and Heitinga, less monies in for Johnson, Rooney and Lescott). [2010/11] We spent a further £7m net on players (money spent on Fellaini, Heitinga and Gueye, less cash in for Lescott and Pienaar)." Modelling Everton´s cash transfer spend We can look at Elstone´s long list of purchases and sales in more detail in the table below, along with the actual cash flows from the Everton report and accounts. *click to enlarge We can then apply some estimates of transfer prices, I have used figures from transfermarkt.co.uk except for Tim Howard for whom no figure was available on the site and I have estimated £3m, the sale of Simon Davies (est £2m) and for Rooney where the relevant stage payments for 2007 and 2010 are estimated from note 11 of MUFC´s 2005 accounts. Except in the case of the Rooney stage payments and the payments for Lescott, I have assumed that where cash is received or paid over multiple seasons all payments are equal (a modelling simplification I concede), so we can get to an estimated payment/receipt per season: *click to enlarge We can then apply the payment/receipt per annum estimated to the sequence of payments given by Elstone and compare the calculated figures to the actual cash flows in the report and accounts: *click to enlarge As can be seen from the table above, this model matches the actual numbers from the accounts pretty well, with an error of only £1-2m per annum. Conclusion I am not claiming the above model is perfect, but hopefully it shows why Everton´s published numbers are correct. The issue of phased payments creates significant confusion when people examine football club accounts, something we will no doubt see with Chelsea and Liverpool´s next few results in which the £50m paid for Torres will be spread over 5 years.... It´s worth noting that for two years in 2003/4 and 2004/5, Manchester United, under pressure from the club´s major Irish shareholders Magnier and McManus published detailed player by player analysis of all transfers. The example below from 2004/05 (apologies for the low quality) shows the complexity of the cash flows and conditional payments: *click to enlarge Only £1.4m of the £23m cash United received that year was from player sales in that season and only 58% of cash spent related to deals signed in that year. I can see no logical reason why UEFA, FIFA or national associations shouldn´t insist on this level of disclosure, prices paid are hardly commercially confidential, and then everyone could see how much their club does or does not spend and on whom. Andy Read more: http://www.grandoldteam.com/news/fans-view/2012/jan/19/explaining-the-confusing-world-of-evertons-cash-transfer-spend#ixzz1k0uwKGBF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Well I'm glad that's cleared up . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 http://www.sos1878.co.uk/everton-news/blue-union-respond-to-elstone-blog/? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.