The latest Forbes Rich List, published today, shows Manchester United as the richest club on the planet with Liverpool in 8th spot, Spurs at 11th and Manchester City at 13th.
Not altogether surprising, perhaps... but, unlike Deloittes, who use only turnover in compiling their lists, Forbes also factor in fixed assets, debts, and a whole bag of other criteria to determine a club's 'richness'.
It's the figures attributed to the clubs' value that surprise me. Man Utd are deemed to be worth £1,396M; Liverpool £385M; Spurs £351M; and Man City a mere £275M.
On that basis, it seems to me that the value of EFC must be very much a minus figure, so how could Kenwright & Co possibly hope to get 'their' money back?
Any views on this one?
Richard Dodd, Posted 19/04/2012 at 18:30:39
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
619 Posted 19/04/2012 at 21:14:37
622 Posted 19/04/2012 at 21:17:56
So would Hampton & Richmond be higher than us?
623 Posted 19/04/2012 at 21:22:36
625 Posted 19/04/2012 at 21:28:18
629 Posted 19/04/2012 at 21:31:55
631 Posted 19/04/2012 at 21:36:00
640 Posted 19/04/2012 at 21:46:52
The list is endless of PL chairmen with who bring commercial expertise, money to the table, and a vision for the future.
We have got a ham actor, who bums money off any soft fucker he can find to keep his seat at the top table. Kenwright & his cronies refuse to invest a penny into the club they own. Why is that? Because they have made it into a basket case, they know all too well the club is not worth investing in, there is nothing left to pawn.
They are all still looking for a massive payday though, with new TV deals due, they may make millions for each other and their silent partners if they find a sucker.
Meanwhile, we are left in limbo, with no funds for player transfers or stadium investment. Most blues believe the board have the club's best interests at heart, I say you have fallen for the best con-man in football since Michael Knightley was doing keepy-uppies in front of the Stretford End.
We are all being taken for mugs, and we are lapping it up, every time he appears on TV with his stories and interested parties line.
644 Posted 19/04/2012 at 22:20:59
Ed's Note! No it doesn't!!! See #675 below
645 Posted 19/04/2012 at 22:20:13
647 Posted 19/04/2012 at 22:25:14
648 Posted 19/04/2012 at 22:27:50
649 Posted 19/04/2012 at 22:27:57
I haven't looked into how Forbes calculate it as I'm sure it's arbitrary, but they do place a lot of the value in terms of income, and for the English clubs a lot of that is in broadcast revenue, hence why English clubs tend to dominate.
In Spain, Real and Barca negotiate their own deals via MediaPro, and they're worth about 20 x more what the rest of the Primera Liga get.
In Germany, clubs depend a lot more on commercial sponsorship, to the point were matchday revenue is less important and as such tickets can be had for around £15-20.
I think Germany is going for a higher value TV model, so expect the list to include the top 4-5 German clubs in the next couple of years.
650 Posted 19/04/2012 at 22:25:19
Really, any football club is only worth what some sucker will pay for it and BK ain`t found a sucker yet!
651 Posted 19/04/2012 at 22:40:36
656 Posted 19/04/2012 at 23:15:11
657 Posted 19/04/2012 at 23:20:06
659 Posted 19/04/2012 at 23:17:57
why do uou guess that? Why would Delloite not take into account debt?
Any figure that is arrived at includes debt. Only a dope would not include debt in any deal; and we don't want dopes.
We may have a mental block when nearing glory or playing Liverpool, re the shambles of last week, but Everton is to go anywhere, I'm afraid we need them. I'm talking shared ground, cos Everton alone have failed three times in 15 years.
FFS, how much did we need for KD? It was pathetic, and the biggest nail in our coffin in decades.
661 Posted 19/04/2012 at 23:25:38
I don't know how either Forbes or Deloittes arrive at their figures, but I think both would be easy to argue with.
Further to my post above, just looked it up, and Forbes figure for us in 2009 was £207m (not £270m) but we were ranked 24th.
Now I'm an economist, and can make assumptions with the best of them, but I'd like some of what they were smoking.
663 Posted 19/04/2012 at 23:40:50
And if Jelavic got injured for a few months.. Not worth a sausage !
669 Posted 20/04/2012 at 00:08:54
672 Posted 20/04/2012 at 00:14:45
"Being taken for mugs and lapping it up" is the most bang-on line ever said about Kenwright's Everton.
675 Posted 20/04/2012 at 00:52:54
Phil (#650) Deloitte's number is NOT a valuation and it is NOT £90M, FFS!!!
It clearly states Everton's REVENUE = ?90.8M (That's Euros)
Forbes use this as a starting point but then do their our own research, "which includes reviewing financial documents and speaking to sports bankers, to derive operating income, debt and values for each team".
Anyone able to use these numbers to come up with anything close to their methodology?
686 Posted 20/04/2012 at 06:20:29
691 Posted 20/04/2012 at 07:40:25
The speculation (emphasise) is that during Trevor Birch's 6 week stint as CEO he felt that the finances were such that Rooney should be sacrificed immediately. He left, word leaked about his recommendations, and Blues celebrated. Meanwhile 6 weeks later Rooney was in fact sold.
Rumours and speculation have it that Kenwright is looking for anything from £100m-£180m for the sale of the club, many think it is only worth the value of the debt.
Whatever the true story, the fact that no serious buyer has emerged would suggest that any serious enquiries are not getting beyond the price being asked. Why such a high price is being allegedly sought is anyone's guess ? trying to make a massive profit, or to pay off loans to well known figures in the background that weren't secured on the club, or maybe both.
Last figures suggest that Everton as a business are losing £5-10m per annum net of player trading, and therefore in future will have to continue to sell players and/or reduce costs (few players, lower average wage) to keep the banks happy ? ASSUMING the banks are happy to maintain current debt levels.
So, if Administration did happen, the best time to do it would be towards the end of a season when safety is certain allowing for a 10 point deduction ? the FA can apply that to the following season (as happened with Leeds) but there must be a cut off point. Second best time to face it is before the season, but this never happens as clubs have season ticket money, first tranche of broadcast money etc).
If many believe that Everton is not worth anything now, I can only imagine that administration would mean it really was offered for £0 to someone who had the funds to take over the operation. That would be a personal disaster for BK, and risky for us as it may attract a carpet-bagger investor looking to shore up the club and sell on in a year for a profit ? though the experience of Hicks and Gillette suggests that it would be too risky, even for a risk-taker. For these reasons, and the fact that BK would never be able to pay back any loans that are rumoured to exist, I doubt the decision to enter administration would be on our agenda anytime soon.
707 Posted 20/04/2012 at 09:14:49
I can`t believe that his liability is much beyond £30M which,when added to published Club debt would need a bidder to come up with something like £100M to see him set free.As for making a profit,he seems to have no hope whatsoever.
Administration would obviously be a tradegy for the Club but an absolute disaster for him personally!
709 Posted 20/04/2012 at 09:35:45
We also know that the man he appointed to find a buyer, Keith Harris, has quoted ((I believe) a figure in the region of £150 million, presumably for Kenwright?s shares, which he bought (using someone else?s money) for £20 million about 12 years ago.
So how much is the club worth? Well the value of a business can take several forms. The book value is the total of all the assets minus to the total of the liabilities. Players are assets, the ground is an asset (even if it is in an area with the lowest property values in the UK). However we no longer own many of these assets: as the debacle of the Park End development showed, much of our property is mortgaged to the hilt and cannot be counted as an asset; we sold off our training ground and we sold off season ticket money to Bear Stearns at one point. In addition we know we have loans out to various finances houses such as Barclays and someone in the British Virgin Islands. Player contracts are also a liability. On the plus side we have an income from tv money.
Then we have market capitalisation: the total number of shares multiplied by the value of a share. Now share value will reflect book value but many other intangible factors too, and the difference between basic book value and the total market capitalisation, goodwill, can have several drivers. In our case there will be an emotional cost for shareholders wanting to own a small part of the club. Critically there will also be a premium in the value of the club because of the prestige of it being an established brand and a member of the English Premier League. This is one of the few aces Kenwright holds. Value can be driven up because other businesses in the same sector are doing well.
Enterprise value is the total cost of the club, plus any debt liabilities: in other words, if I were to buy the business how much would I actually need to purchase and put it right again? My guess is that this value is heavily skewed towards the debt end.
Finally, when buying a business, a deal will often be struck on the basis of a multiple the turnover or profit of the business, ie, it makes £20 million a year so I will pay three times that amount ? the actual sale cost is therefore £60 million. Everton does make money but our costs outweigh this turnover and our debt liabilities drag us down even further so this would not, in my view, be a realistic valuation basis.
None of these factors lead me ? as an amateur I add ? to understand how a valuation of £150 million could be reached. If my view is correct then it will by shared by other people with more money than me who have considered buying the club and have been deterred by the price. So that leads to the next question of how and why the club is priced over value.
712 Posted 20/04/2012 at 09:34:25
As I stressed in the posting - it is subjective, conjecture, rumour, supposition - call it what you will - that has been expressed by many different sources over time.
You know the story, signings backed by someone like Earl or Green, with the expectation that they would get their earner from the DK proposal. Consider also the theory that has been put forward that when BK et al took over, the debt of the club jumped by around the same amount as the buyout, leading to suggestions from some quarters that it was a leveraged buy-out (not on the same scale as Man U or RS, but leveraged all the same).
If you think of it laterally, if BK really wants shot of the club and there is a buyer willing to pony up the required investment in the club (big if I know), why would he be holding out for a high price and ultimately a big pay day? By his own admission he's not put any money in (doesn't take any out), so why not just cut his "losses" and get out and go back to being a celebrity fan?
713 Posted 20/04/2012 at 09:39:32
You sign a player for £15m on a 5 year, £3m a year contract. What's his asset value? The wages now see players as liabilities as much as assets. (Cue snarky comments about certain players in particular).
719 Posted 20/04/2012 at 10:13:17
720 Posted 20/04/2012 at 10:03:26
I saw yesterday that Sir John Madejeski values his newly promoted Reading at £40M-and it comes free of debt and includes a modern stadium.
The Car Mart magnate considers he has insufficient funds to bankroll the club further but I find his valuation modest in the extreme.
And as for his choice of buyers.....apparently the Football League are finding it difficult to see the infamous Samuelson amd Zingarevichs as `fit and proper persons`!
Now there`s a surprise!
723 Posted 20/04/2012 at 10:29:11
Well isn't that the scenario we've had for the last 10 years, BK clinging on to the status quo? And all the soundbites that come out of the Club PR machine are all along the same lines of maintaining the status quo.
724 Posted 20/04/2012 at 10:38:36
727 Posted 20/04/2012 at 10:49:45
And wonders why nobody wants to give him £180 million for his shares???
728 Posted 20/04/2012 at 10:49:25
734 Posted 20/04/2012 at 10:54:43
744 Posted 20/04/2012 at 11:19:33
In October,2006,Earl became a partner of a British Premier League soccer club and as a shareholder in Everton FC,he is turning his love of sport INTO A BUSINESS VENTURE.
BCR Sports is an investment vehicle for Robert Earl.The company is registered in the British Virgin Islands AND OWNS 23% OF EVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB. (my caps).
So now you know!
747 Posted 20/04/2012 at 11:43:15
And who was it that Paul Gregg said paid him for the shares?
748 Posted 20/04/2012 at 11:46:18
750 Posted 20/04/2012 at 11:48:33
"if,as you suggest, (Kenwright) has personally secured loans from mystery backers and is unwilling/unable to repay them on demand,he has the very greatest incentive to cling on to the status quo for as long as possible."
756 Posted 20/04/2012 at 11:59:37
759 Posted 20/04/2012 at 11:46:03
I would love to see the actual wage bill as it is today with what it was when we had Arteta, Yak, Beckford Yobo and Vaughan.
By my reckoning our wage bill must be considerably less now and yet we still cry poverty ???????
Each season we lend out far more players than we loan in and yet we still cry poverty ????
None of our youngsters seem to be coming through otherwise we would not have Macfadden on the bench ???? So why do we strengthen our backroom staff ie; Weir ???????
We are a very poorly run business and the football club in reality consists of loyal thousands of fans who are taken the P..S out of and fobbed off with stories of trying to get investment without any substance.
With our present squad we are shortly going into decine as at least five need speedy replacement due to age and injury and NONE of our kids are deemed good enough by our manager.
NEV, CAHILL, DISTIN, MACFADDEN, OSMAN AND HIBBO are all in their twilight years.
The only assets playerwise at the club are indispensable in the present climate eg; BAINES,JAGS AND RODDERS...I take a bit back on my previous comments about Heitinga, he has improved a lot but Fellaini has never been fully worth the money spent on him. He is definitely not top class.
Drenthe and Pienaar are both on loan so cannot be counted for the future....Now BAINES is out for the rest of the season and he has never really had adequate cover in his position since Lescott left and NEVILLE is certainly not adequate cover except defensively.
DM said he will bring down the average age of the team and has failed due to lack of funds and poor development of our youngsters.
We are back to all the old familiar faces who every club in the league know what to expect from.
We are without doubt awful to watch on a regular basis and I just hope we can stave off relegation next season as money for new decent players seems to be off the agenda.
773 Posted 20/04/2012 at 12:25:06
When the Premier League was established we were assured it was gong to be based on the American NFL but the reality is that its role model has increasingly been F1. Worldwide tv coverage, sponsorships, advertising pushed along by a media machine with an insatiable appetite for glamour, scandal and gossip have rocketed the value of a few clubs but left the majority clutching at tv money and the corporate scraps. Everton are not on this gravy train and it seems highly unlikely that they ever will be. In order to just stay in the EPL the club has had to borrow and mortgage itself to the hilt. There is no money to be made by buying the club - even for £1. There is the carrot of a new tv deal on the horizon with heavy involvement from the middle and far east, hence the cash input from Fenway for the RS. All this will do is fuel the 'arms race' that is players wages and the club will have their credit limit raised by their creditors and the extra cash will flow into the offshore accounts of players. What would I value Everton at - nothing.
774 Posted 20/04/2012 at 12:39:52
And that`s why I keep saying regretably, NOW is as good as it`s gonna get!
795 Posted 20/04/2012 at 13:38:05
'Can't sell wont sell', totally agree.
'Now is as good as it's gonna get' doesn't have to be.
I'd take administration if it meant getting rid of Bill and his board. The club would then be sold for its true value as the decision would no longer be his.
Fucking depressing, but at least it's progress. Anything that removes him is progress.
Even if it means taken a backward step first.
815 Posted 20/04/2012 at 14:54:40
WHY SHOULD THEY??
Now let me be clear on my views... they are a useless sack of shitheads and should be potted as soon as possible.
They have made mistake after mistake with the assets of the club so by all means slate them for that... but not to put their own money into a black hole? Do me a favour.. very few chairman do that... I know I wouldn't.
818 Posted 20/04/2012 at 14:58:30
If BK has almost sold the club to someone operating out of their bedroom before it can't be that hard!
820 Posted 20/04/2012 at 15:04:57
822 Posted 20/04/2012 at 15:09:00
824 Posted 20/04/2012 at 15:19:58
I think you have got that one arse about face.
I don't think you could could find a P.L. chairman or company who has NOT invested in their club through one vehicle or another.
That may be investment into the infrastructure, loans, right issues, etc.
856 Posted 20/04/2012 at 16:38:04
I don?t believe Man City would be in the lofty position they find themselves in now if they hadn?t had the good fortune of the City of Manchester Stadium falling into their laps after the Commonwealth Games. Investors are looking for teams where an infrastructure and strong commercial value is already in place and can be built on, not to start from scratch. In my opinion, if West Ham get their act together with the Olympic Stadium, they will be the next club to have billions poured into them by wealthy investors looking to play the real life version of fantasy football. I even see Southampton becoming a big club in the years to come due to their financial backing. Again this is another example of investors pouring money into a club where a new stadium was in place in St Mary?s.
Unfortunately all this really highlights is what a grave, grave error the club made with regards to Kings Dock. A depressing tale of what might have been.
925 Posted 20/04/2012 at 18:28:29
I agree that investors are circling clubs that have potential regarding commercial potential and ready built infrastructure, but West Ham and the Olympic Stadium? Can you trust the motives of pornographers and a convicted brothel keeper?
973 Posted 20/04/2012 at 21:31:33
All of the assets at Everton have been re mortgaged.
Season tickets, the ground, the land.
Does anyone on here know if it is possible for Bill or any of the other major shareholders to re mortgage the value of their shares.
If this can be done, it could be possible that the major shareholders don't actually own the club.
If so, who does? I don't think anyone on Toffeeweb has mentioned this possibility before. It may also explain why there hasn't been a sale.
976 Posted 20/04/2012 at 21:47:22
A similar situation was in place at Chelsea when Abramovitch took over. Chelsea were valued at around £200m but Abramovitch actually paid around £30m - but took over the outstanding debt.
It would be wonderful if someone could blow the smoke away from this so we could actually see how the land lies. Can't see it happening though.
982 Posted 20/04/2012 at 21:56:03
If it has happened ? and there seems every likelihood that Green may have lent money to Kenwright and/or Earl to facilitate their share ownership, I can't see a "re-mortgaging" rather than simply taking a loan.
I guess there could be motivation for a mortgager to presumably charge a fixed interest rate on the money loaned to the shareholder... presumably without assuming the risk that comes with ownership of shares that could fall in value ? but at the same time missing out (presumably) on the upside if the shares do increase in value.
021 Posted 21/04/2012 at 02:17:32
A new stadium for Everton within the city limits would be cool. Could happen in the future, since the city seems to favor new construction. We all know this will not happen under current ownership for the now obvious reasons.
But Henry and them have proven beyond a doubt that an old structure can be given appropriate improvements right where it stands.
Nothing wrong with the Old Girl. She's more pretty and attractive as Fenway Park will ever be. We just need the ownership to spruce her up.
023 Posted 21/04/2012 at 02:36:24
I've seen all the business valuations based on turnover etc., but there's also a valuation to be placed on potential. Look at it like this, imagine we're not talking about a football club but an old an well established gold mine. OK so the thing is producing just enough of the precious metal required to keep it ticking over, and the infrastructure is run down and in need of fresh investment, and there are debts around the company's neck too, but there's a skilled workforce and willing helpers, and who knows, as long as the mine stays open there's every chance another rich seam will be struck some time, and riches will flow.
As long as we're in the Prem (and there's every reason to think we can hang on in for another 20 years) then there's potential. There are big debts but we're worth a punt. Some clubs splurge £100m on players in a single season (and that's without wages), so is finding someone with £100m to buy and £100m to invest in the short term so outlandish a prospect? I don't rule it out.
FFS, if someone's willing to pay £35m for Andy Carroll, we have to be 'worth' a lot more!
026 Posted 21/04/2012 at 04:43:43
048 Posted 21/04/2012 at 10:56:02
Now, if the lad has got the textbook right, that means the lack of would-be purchasers of EFC (although nine were showing interest as season tickets went early bird!) is either because no-one thinks it`s worth a light or that there is no real desire to sell.
Which can it be, I wonder?
056 Posted 21/04/2012 at 11:42:35
Not saying your kid has got it wrong but surely the price also has something to do with the figure at which you can afford to let it go.
After all,if the best offer I get for my pad is £100K and I`m mortgaged for £150K, I`m not going to rush through the sale ,am I?
Perhaps Matt Traynor can enlighten us?
058 Posted 21/04/2012 at 11:53:40
So if Green lent him the money based on the value of the shares and this value drops to zero. Green still wants his money.
Bill hasn't got it unless he sells the club at an inflated price. Hence no sale.
For Green it's like, heads I win tails you lose. Although I suspect 'our friend' Green is more interested in his retail development than the value of the shares.
069 Posted 21/04/2012 at 11:56:29
I saw elsewhere that someone stated that as EFC has the potential to be a cash cow, that should be reflected in the price. This is utter shite, to use the technical term, suggesting someone should pay a premium for the incumbents failure.
As it happens, I do think that the right owners could turn it around, and it's all about the opportunities that the overseas TV deal brought in. I have looked at sponsorship deals for 2 EPL clubs, both mid-table. One would be compared with us, one would be seen as a lesser club. Both are now pulling in substantially more for shirt sponsorship than we are.
I know the RS, Man U have £20m p/a deals, and Man U get £4m p/a for their training kit, and I'm not suggesting that we should be at the same level, but I am saying we should be higher. Asia and Middle East corporates are only after success. Those that are more global will appreciate history/tradition more, and if you are a "safe" EPL team they will pay. It used to be more about how many times you were on TV in UK for the domestic sponsor (10/11 - Man U 26, EFC 14) but a lot of overseas territories are now moving towards broadcast of all EPL games across multiple channels, as the deal allows them to.
I don't know what Sky/ESPN have in UK in terms of subscribers, but in Asia alone, ESPN (just one regional broadcaster) counts 310m subscribers in 26 countries.
I've seen the monitoring reports for sponsors, and in terms of media exposure etc. a main sponsor can get up to £300k back in just one game for the UK broadcast, and multiples of that on overseas. Whether you "believe" in the value of brand exposure or not is irrelevant, the VP Communications in his budget shows a positive return on marketing investment, and that's all that matters to these guys.
To my mind EFC would represent an opportunity (with risk) for the right investors, the main areas to focus on being
- Stadium development (redevelop or relocate). Personally I think an integrated development at Central Docks in partnership with Peel, LCC etc would offer the chance to get a stadium fit for the next 100 years. I just don't think that Goodison can be developed to maximise the revenue streams
- Sort out the commercial operations, particularly overseas. Employ or appoint a representative in overseas markets like Asia (missed the chance to benefit from Cahill at his prime down under), include India, North America
- Cost control. We don't compete for the top players anyway, but a club should always now "own" the image rights for players, and these could be "sold back" to a lot of them for their own marketing deals given some of these are now celebrities in their own right, to partly offset their wage-take.
- Matchday revenue. The new stadium would allow for greater matchday revenue, and with better corporate facilities would dovetail with the increased focus on corporate sponsors. I'd also use increased capacity with a strategy of reduced match tickets for the "ordinary fan", in part offset by the increased yield/seat from corporates.
I've not talked about investment in the team, as I'm only looking at the general infrastructure and commercial side. But if an investor had a plan for that, with the stadium and commercial development, I reckon they could make a case for a 5 year investment plan to turn Everton from the toxic asset is now to the trophy asset Kenwright claims it is. (I love the irony he used the word trophy).
But no buyer with such a plan will darken his door if the asking price is too much, or the terms too onerous (seat on board etc) so it's not going to happen.
079 Posted 21/04/2012 at 13:37:48
By the bye, I've just been reading a Rangers focussed site and see that their American 'bidder of the day' is suggesting that if he 'does a CVA', he can get rid of Ticketus to whom the season ticket income is mortgaged for a few pence in the pound and the rights to the ST proceeds will then revert to his New Rangers.
It can`t be as easy as that to screw your creditors, surely?
080 Posted 21/04/2012 at 14:05:04
At Portsmouth, I understand that the only people to get their money were the Chairman, other 'secured football creditors' and the CEO who was retained by the Administrators as 'a special adviser'!
The Revenue got pence in the pound, as did the local suppliers, eg, printers, coach companies, laundry, caterers, some of whom went bust. Even St John's Ambulance had to get their recompence from the Football League.
I just so hope that our great club never sinks to those depths!
086 Posted 21/04/2012 at 15:12:34
This obsesive idiot will not completely let go which makes an almost impossible selling job probably impossible.
191 Posted 21/04/2012 at 20:25:22
Let's be honest, would you buy anything this lot had been running for 10 years?
239 Posted 22/04/2012 at 03:38:25
As far as, "The problem is the club has a number of Fixed Liabilities... namely: Kenwright, Earl, Green, Elstone"?
739 Posted 23/04/2012 at 05:28:59
Review the Comments section where Mike Ozanian from Forbes Staff answers questions.
There is one from a chap called Michael Kenrick that has an interesting answer.
740 Posted 23/04/2012 at 05:36:58
So the conversion from Revenue to Valuation is a multiplier... and Everton gets 1.8. Interesting that further down the thread, the range of multiplier values used is from 1.7 to 4.0. Everton's 1.8 multiplier is right near the bottom of the range.
So there we have it: in the Queen's money, Everton Football Club is valued at ($237M =) £148M. But no mention of the debt which would surely be subtracted from that...???
863 Posted 23/04/2012 at 15:56:09
868 Posted 23/04/2012 at 16:21:33
Sadly, back in the real world, what with the debt, and how effed up the whole financing "model" is, others may put forward a different valuation of an exact integer somewhere between +1 and -1.
031 Posted 24/04/2012 at 08:45:23
Revenue multiples are normally used on young tech companies which might have a sound business idea but haven't generated profits due to their infancy and the level of up-front cost.
As I've said before, ultimately the value of any asset is going to be the present value of its future cash flows i.e., how much money am I going to win (or lose) by investing in this asset?
With that in mind, any sensible acquirer is going to adjust the gross valuation (enterprise value) for: the level of debt and the historical underpsend on capex i.e., the amount that should have been invested in the squad and stadium that has been absent.
All this leads me to believe that any positive valuation ascribed to Everton's shares is purely goodwill i.e., an acquirer is paying a premium for the benefit of having a ready-made Premier league member and founder of the Football league.
How much is someone willing to pay for this? Well, that's anyone's guess but I'd be surprised if it was more than £50m.
The fact that Everton's shares have been for sale for 10 years and counting without being sold suggests that the market agrees with me.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.