Everton's accounts ....

B

basilrobbie3

Well-known member
..... for 22/23 are out.

Some highlights :

  • Wages 92% of turnover
  • staff severances £9.5m
  • pre-tax losses £89m
  • borrowings £341m

Historic losses are £550m at the end of the accounting period and both the accounts and audit reports highlight "material uncertainty" about the club's ability to trade as a going concern.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
..... for 22/23 are out.

Some highlights :

  • Wages 92% of turnover
  • staff severances £9.5m
  • pre-tax losses £89m
  • borrowings £341m

Historic losses are £550m at the end of the accounting period and both the accounts and audit reports highlight "material uncertainty" about the club's ability to trade as a going concern.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the red side of Liverpool have had a very good day.
 
If the contractors went bang just doing a stand upgrade at LFC how fuck is that stadium going to get finished?

It would be like working for the stains on a galactic scale.....
 
I have no gripe with EFC, but if this doesn't result in the end of their tenure in the Greed League, through an appropriate points deduction or direct demotion, then there's no justice.
 
Meliora said:
I have no gripe with EFC, but if this doesn't result in the end of their tenure in the Greed League, through an appropriate points deduction or direct demotion, then there's no justice.
Click to expand...
This is the conversation that's never raised in the media - they cannot afford the players they employ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjr
Halifax71 said:
This is the conversation that's never raised in the media - they cannot afford the players they employ.
Click to expand...
In every single league the clubs can’t afford the players they employ.

Almost every club now relies on some sugar daddy or nation state blowing eye watering amounts on an annual basis. So sad.
 
fcblackpool said:
What's the 4 league alternative?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting question, but I don't think it is necessarily germane here.

We could drastically restructure the pyramid, but if there was still one tier at the top taking 84% of the money (and giving a further 8% out in parachute payments) we would still have very similar problems to the ones we have now.

The interesting question re Everton for me - and the most immediate one - is whether the EPL can find a way of declaring 777 a fit and proper custodian for the club. I'm sure they desperately want to.
 
Meliora said:
I have no gripe with EFC, but if this doesn't result in the end of their tenure in the Greed League, through an appropriate points deduction or direct demotion, then there's no justice.
Click to expand...
If they get relegated, surely they’ll then get rewarded with parachute payments
 
basilrobbie3 said:
That's an interesting question, but I don't think it is necessarily germane here.

We could drastically restructure the pyramid, but if there was still one tier at the top taking 84% of the money (and giving a further 8% out in parachute payments) we would still have very similar problems to the ones we have now.

The interesting question re Everton for me - and the most immediate one - is whether the EPL can find a way of declaring 777 a fit and proper custodian for the club. I'm sure they desperately want to.
Click to expand...
That would mean the top tier taking a hit (probably no massive), but still a disadvantage in wider terms.
 
fcblackpool said:
There are ways round that. Just create false turnover. City, for example, could raffle 2 match tickets in hospy and the Arabs buy £1bn worth of tickets. It's turnover.
Click to expand...
Yes I know - completely.

I don’t you can stop that and as always the bigger clubs have more money and win. I suppose it’s how do you stop clubs spending over the income they have? That’s where the problems begin.

I’d love an NFL wage cap system but it’s unworkable in ‘soccer’. It’s just going to get worse and worse I guess. More clubs going under, players wages rising
 
Chunkylad said:
Yes I know - completely.

I don’t you can stop that and as always the bigger clubs have more money and win. I suppose it’s how do you stop clubs spending over the income they have? That’s where the problems begin.

I’d love an NFL wage cap system but it’s unworkable in ‘soccer’. It’s just going to get worse and worse I guess. More clubs going under, players wages rising
Click to expand...
It's the overspending that's the problem, not the actual spending. Which is why I'd like to see borrowing against the Club's assets stopped and bonds posted to protect the actual Club. Also I'd want to stop the accumulation of debt on a Clubs books for assets they might not actually own.

You'll never stop the Man City's of this world but you can stop the lower league mayhem.
 
fcblackpool said:
There are ways round that. Just create false turnover. City, for example, could raffle 2 match tickets in hospy and the Arabs buy £1bn worth of tickets. It's turnover.
Click to expand...
That's easy enough to stop if you have the will, just put rules in place and investigate anything suspicious.
 
fcblackpool said:
Point is that it is reactionary. Putting fires out rather than stopping them starting.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, the EFL requires its clubs to submit budgets in advance, I don't know if the PL does the same, but if they do, they can easily investigate a suspicious extra billion pounds before the season starts.


fcblackpool said:
There will always be ways round these things.
Click to expand...
Then keep tightening the rules until there isn't.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Not necessarily, the EFL requires its clubs to submit budgets in advance, I don't know if the PL does the same, but if they do, they can easily investigate a suspicious extra billion pounds before the season starts.



Then keep tightening the rules until there isn't.
Click to expand...
Firstly, if the money was raised by whatever means and was real then it really isn't suspicious. Might be falsely generated, but it's still real.

On rules, you can only ever be reactionary and plug what's a problem which likely is a result of changing times/circumstances. The easiest way of looking at it is Governments would never need to pass a law because everything would have been thought of donkeys years ago.
 
traffordtang said:
If they get relegated, surely they’ll then get rewarded with parachute payments
Click to expand...
Well they're getting a damn sight more every season already and are spunking it away, so giving them parachute money probably wouldn't make a lot of difference. Their only hope for the future is a new owner that isn't 777.
 
fcblackpool said:
Firstly, if the money was raised by whatever means and was real then it really isn't suspicious. Might be falsely generated, but it's still real.
Click to expand...
If the FA suspect that the money was raised by false means, or is otherwise not in accordance with FFP regulations, then the money is by definition "suspicious".


fcblackpool said:
On rules, you can only ever be reactionary and plug what's a problem which likely is a result of changing times/circumstances. The easiest way of looking at it is Governments would never need to pass a law because everything would have been thought of donkeys years ago.
Click to expand...
So react quickly, grant yourself the power to retrospectively change the regulations, invent some kind of general anti-avoidance rule, something like: "all funds must come from genuine commercial transactions, conducted on an "arms-length" basis and must be at a fair-market value, the regulator has unlimited power to disallow transactions which in its sole opinion are not in accordance with this rule"

Can you see any loopholes in that?
 
Lost Seasider said:
If the FA suspect that the money was raised by false means, or is otherwise not in accordance with FFP regulations, then the money is by definition "suspicious".



So react quickly, grant yourself the power to retrospectively change the regulations, invent some kind of general anti-avoidance rule, something like: "all funds must come from genuine commercial transactions, conducted on an "arms-length" basis and must be at a fair-market value, the regulator has unlimited power to disallow transactions which in its sole opinion are not in accordance with this rule"

Can you see any loopholes in that?
Click to expand...
Yes.

A raffle for example based in the Middle East would be beyond inspection. If the money is there, then the money is there.

I used a simplistic example, but I suspect the reality would be untouchable. Maybe not? Who knows...
 
fcblackpool said:
Yes.

A raffle for example based in the Middle East would be beyond inspection. If the money is there, then the money is there.

I used a simplistic example, but I suspect the reality would be untouchable. Maybe not? Who knows...
Click to expand...
I, the regulator, have determined that the transaction is not in accordance with the rules and have disallowed it accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top