|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 31, 2014 6:42:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 31, 2014 7:24:08 GMT
BBC 31 October 2014 Last updated at 00:10 GMT Share Facebook Twitter print Everton report record profit of £28.2m for 2013-14 Everton made a club-record profit of £28.2m for the year ending 31 May 2014. The £120.5m turnover was the highest in their history, helped by the lucrative new Premier League TV deal and rises in sponsorship income and gate receipts, plus profits on player sales. Everton have also reduced net debt to £28.1m from £45.3m, according to their latest accounts, published on Friday. "We are moving forward on so many fronts off the field as well as on it," Everton chairman Bill Kenwright said. The club returned a profit for the second successive year, having made £1.6m in 2012-13. Everton's accounts in brief 2012-13 2013-14 Total profit £1.6m £28.2m Operating profit £0.7m £23.0m Turnover £86.5m £120.5m Gate receipts £17.4m £19.3m Broadcast revenue £55.7m £88.5m Sponsorship revenue £7.6m £8.4m Total operating expenses £96.2m £115.3m Net debt £45.3m £28.1m They were helped by a significant increase in broadcast revenue from the first season of a three-year Premier League television deal with Sky and BT Sport, which began in 2013. It rose from £55.7m to £88.5m - a figure higher than Everton's entire turnover for the previous year. The club made a profit of £28.2m profit on player trading, helped by the sale of midfielder Marouane Fellaini to Manchester United for £27.5m in September 2013, as well as deals to sell Victor Anichebe to West Brom at the same time and fellow striker Nikica Jelavic to Hull City in January 2014. Sponsorship, advertising and merchandising revenue increased slightly, while gate receipts went up along with attendances at Everton finished fifth in the Premier League and reached the FA Cup quarter-finals. But staff costs also went up - largely as a result of squad strengthening - by 10%, from £63m to £69.3m. The £28m club-record signing of striker Romelu Lukaku from Chelsea is not included in the latest accounts, as he was not brought in until July this year. That deal, along with new contracts for manager Roberto Martinez, midfielder Ross Barkley and defenders Seamus Coleman and John Stones, will be recorded in the 2014-15 accounts. Chief executive Robert Elstone said: "Our financial results highlight growing revenues, costs remaining under control and debt reducing. "When we combine that solid financial base with a playing squad that continues to improve and increase in value, we have every right to be confident and positive on future prospects." www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29843746
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Oct 31, 2014 15:59:25 GMT
QPR figures out soon?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 31, 2014 20:19:20 GMT
I'm not 100% but I believe it has to be by the end of the year.
Not sure if it's the same time period as in the past (end of May)...
PResumably will be another big loss.
Hopefully significantly less than 60 Million. (BBut if it's a different from till, might be harder to evaluate
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Oct 31, 2014 20:28:27 GMT
Hard to put together a coherent picture of what is supposed to be going on at Clubs in the English game. A business model - keeping costs and wages low, striving for profit - doesn't make sense at all, given what actually happens.
What Clubs earn seems to be limited by their size. They borrow to ease themselves up to a higher level, but what they can borrow, by and large, is also limited by their size. They need better players to compete with bigger Clubs, but the better players - the very much better players - have no reason to join a smaller Club. And the better - but more ordinary - players don't make enough difference to change a Club's fortunes long-term.
Supporters are a distorting factor too. On the one hand, they don't switch to the best 'brand'. Certainly not in terms of attendance at matches. QPR supporters haven't deserted in droves to Chelsea or United or Arsenal. And United's or Liverpool's successes didn't empty Goodison or White Hart Lane or Arsenal's place.
But that cuts both ways. It keeps Clubs like ours afloat despite what the people running the Club do to it, but it keeps us in our place, by and large. The same inertia that keeps us from haemorrhaging support keeps us from picking it up from other Clubs.
Most Clubs of our size seem to try spending to improve, but the shortage of places which count as any kind of REAL improvement for Championship/lower Premiership Clubs is tiny. One could almost argue that those places don't actually exist.
If you're below the top 8 or 10 places, some or most of which will be taken up by much bigger Clubs, you're too close to the dogfight at the bottom for success to add up to much more than very short-term improvement.
It makes far less sense below the top seven than it does close to the top. There, there is considerable stability, because there are very few Clubs and, for the most part, they manage to squeeze into the top seven places.
Beneath the top seven, there must be anything up to 25 or 30 Clubs which can finish in mid-table for a few years, but that makes no difference at all to their long-term punching power.
And everyone knows which Clubs those are.
They must generate excitement by claiming that what they're doing will transform the Club, and by and large, they seem to be able to persuade the supporters, however briefly, that things will improve significantly.
But the failure of any Club to increase its support by a big enough margin to turn a much smaller Club into a much bigger one suggests that the spending sprees and big futures the 'investors' rely on don't convince anyone except those who are already convinced.
And as we know from QPR, that doesn't last. Managers come and go, and regimes come and go, with near enough monotonous regularity. Saying the same things, doing the same things, and with the same outcome.
|
|