In the financial results released today ahead of next month's AGM, Everton posted a turnover north of £120 million but announced a post-tax loss of £24.3m.
Turnover was £121.5m, down from £125.6m, while commercial income fell £4.6m to £21.4m.
The club's expenditure in the transfer market and on players' contracts, combined with a failure to qualify for Europe, have been cited as reasons for the increased deficit. A loss in television revenue, performance bonuses and gate receipts from not participating in European competition contributed to the decline in commercial revenue, although that was partially offset by an £0.8m increase in domestic broadcast revenue as a result of 18 live Premier League TV games and the club's two cup runs to the semi-finals last season.
Transfers totalled a net spend of £24.7m, with Everton's wages as percentage of turnover amounting to 65%.
The accounts revealed, however, that Moshiri, who purchased a 49.9% stake in the Blues last February, has provided an interest-free £80 million loan with no agreed repayment date. That has been used to repay £54.8m worth of loans and other exceptional items.
“I'm more positive now about the future of our great club than I've been during my time as chairman," said Bill Kenwright.
"Those who know me will appreciate how hard I've been looking for the right person to take our beloved Club forward. I have absolutely no doubt that in Farhad Moshiri we have found someone not only with the wherewithal — and we all know how important that is these days — but also with a deep understanding of the game and a growing appreciation of all things Everton.”
CEO Robert Elstone, meanwhile, said: “The results reflect a challenging year for the Club. Performance on the pitch directly impacted commercial income with key deals reduced as a result of the Club's finishing position.
"We also lost out on European revenues, directly from Uefa, from our partners by way of performance bonuses and, of course, gate receipts. Despite the challenges, we are pleased to be able to report the second highest level of turnover in the Club's history.
“Looking forward, for the first time in as long as we can remember, in 2016-17, there is a good chance that Goodison Park will be full for every game. We are also benefiting from the increased revenues under the significant new broadcast deal.
"And, as we always do, we will also continue to look for growth in all areas, in particular, as we approach the mid-point of the final year of the current Chang partnership, with a clear focus on our main sponsor opportunity.”
Reader Comments (100)
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
1 Posted 17/12/2016 at 14:59:14
2 Posted 17/12/2016 at 15:36:18
A much improved stable plan for investment.
3 Posted 17/12/2016 at 15:40:59
It's not a 3rd party loan, which helps.
5 Posted 17/12/2016 at 15:47:19
6 Posted 17/12/2016 at 15:53:28
7 Posted 17/12/2016 at 15:54:12
When you purchase a business, the debts are usually part of the equation, aren't they.
8 Posted 17/12/2016 at 15:54:51
9 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:00:33
And no, you don't pay the debts off when you buy the club, you just become liable for them, although it's possible to wind a club up and not pay them.
10 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:07:14
I thought he was about to fork out for a new stadium. I want to see news of a new ground not this negative revenue headline. This story is probably good news but I want to see a spade in the ground. That's what I want for Christmas.
Seeing his face does remind me though of Christmas's past. I used to look forward to the Christmas Morecambe & Wise show...
11 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:17:57
Club income isn't increasing so to step up to the next level he'll need to find or borrow £200m to invest in players. That's over half of his net worth getting sunk into Everton, so is Moshiri being backed by someone with much deeper pockets?
12 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:25:57
13 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:27:27
14 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:34:24
15 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:48:38
Ultimately, if he wants a return on his investment, that will be predicated on two things:- TV revenue projected to continue to rise, and a new stadium to increase commercial and matchday income.
Delivering the new stadium will mean he can flip the club, make a tidy some, and we'll still be left with Bill as Chairman.
16 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:51:15
A shareholder loan (interest free) is almost as good as equity and should be seen in a positive light. In the future, if he wants to take more ownership, he can convert that loan into actual equity without injecting more cash.
17 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:57:52
Moshiri certainly looks like one half of a popular British comedy double-act but surely it's this feller Link
18 Posted 17/12/2016 at 16:59:18
There's some wild theories about Moshiri and, let's be honest, the man owns 49.9% not the full club so he's well within his rights to only put in what the other shareholders put in.
I don't see a stadium coming in the next 5 years to be honest, so counting money that hasn't been spent seems pointless.
19 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:14:37
20 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:15:18
21 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:19:32
We must unload some non producing players immediately if not sooner. Players like Gibson, Kone, McGeady, Niasse and even others must be released. Any player who does not want to stay and fight for his place ie; McCarthy can be sold to boost the transfer kitty.
We do have some young talent who may be worth a place next season (they cannot be worse than those mentioned above). Personally I would add Cleverley to the list who need to be moved on. We really are crying out for a creative diamond in midfield who can get the best out of Lukaku, Barkley, Mirallas and Bolasie when the lad gets himself back from his horrendous injury.
22 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:19:53
The first being How on earth did we lose £24 million last season with two long cup runs???
The second is I don't believe any person or company lends £80 million without a detailed formal loan agreement which would include terms dealing with its repayment, however flexible and generous those terms might be.
This new loan will also impact on the Club's ability to raise further funds in the future.
23 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:23:55
24 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:28:38
Paying off and installing new managers isn't cheap but you'd think the John Stones deal would have helped... assumedly that money is in instalments.
25 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:34:15
I think we spent on players (Lennon, Deulofeu, Funes Mori, Niasse).
27 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:37:33
Hopefully we'll now see a big reduction in unexplained operating costs.
A lot of the stadium costs will be covered by naming rights, sponsorship and commercial deals.
28 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:40:26
Maybe someone else can word that better but the common and incorrect view is that Moores just gave us cash.
29 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:44:53
We just need to get Kenwright out of the club now to have a more professional board.
30 Posted 17/12/2016 at 18:12:05
The next step is to increase revenues, in all areas, because the Financial Fair Play transfer spend rules are directly linked to income.
Like many I'm hoping for a busy January with any incoming transfer fees, hopefully, being offset by getting rid of some of the under achievers. Also hoping for some positive news on the stadium issue!
31 Posted 17/12/2016 at 18:15:44
Hence it did not make up for the loss of revenue from the Europa League in 14-15, including the TV money for 10 matches televised and all the associated sponsorship rights.
32 Posted 17/12/2016 at 19:08:40
33 Posted 17/12/2016 at 19:26:24
Key info for me next month is the docks stadium. It's huge for our future.
34 Posted 17/12/2016 at 19:36:27
35 Posted 17/12/2016 at 19:39:47
We need a shrewd and professional board going forward. Those two are certainly not part of those plans.
36 Posted 17/12/2016 at 19:45:05
37 Posted 17/12/2016 at 19:48:03
The other 50.1% owners are going to have to match Moshiri's future investments, we cant expect him to put in all the funds we need, without equal investment from the other party or parties.
38 Posted 17/12/2016 at 20:08:28
39 Posted 17/12/2016 at 20:19:13
It's a matter of timing, for whatever reason.
40 Posted 17/12/2016 at 20:20:46
41 Posted 17/12/2016 at 20:52:55
I can only assume that's wishful thinking on your part -- I don't think it's a set rule, expectation or cast in stone.
Buying the shares in question is actually the prime investment itself. Look how that paid off for Kenwright. But it did not involve putting any money into the club itself – same with Moshiri. Indeed, taking over the debts is not directly dumping money into the club, although it should reduce operating costs.
I guess these new investors could pony up interest-free loans in the same way. But they are under no compunction to do so, unless they commit to do so as part of some agreement. (Guess I should read the fine print in that document at Companies House!)
What this shows to me is that – just as we saw in the last window – the injection of cash so many fans are expecting to see to finance Ronald Koeman's player rollover project may not actually be that forthcoming.
42 Posted 17/12/2016 at 21:23:01
43 Posted 17/12/2016 at 21:30:30
I don't believe that Moshiri is going to inject extra money from his own wealth unless he is matched by new money from the other owners.
Now high finance is a strange beast, so who knows what arrangements can be made!
44 Posted 17/12/2016 at 22:05:02
It's hard to see how we would return to profitability under anything like our current model, even with a good footballing performance. I guess that's not really the aim, or no-one would ever invest in football. It's about the growth in the value of the club, inflated by turnover pumped up by TV deals. It's only ever turnover as the increased deals just result in greater costs (wages).
Can the TV deals really keep inflating the bubble?
45 Posted 17/12/2016 at 22:31:23
This remunerated the individuals not the club. If he has loaned the club a sum of money, interest free, to pay off debts, then, again, as far as I can recall, he is following the actions of John Moores.
I suppose it depends on which debts he has paid off what effect it will have on the operation of the company. But if it was the debts that we have had in BVI, which are soon to be non-compliant under revised rules then a bloody good thing too.
He is not a director of the company, so he must leave the day to day running of the company in the hands of the Board, which leaves a lot of power in the hands of Kenwright as Chairman and Elstone as a director. If he interferes directly he could be deemed a shadow director, which is against the rules. Philip Green for example was accused of being a shadow director of EFC in a recent Parliamentary committee.
Nothing of course was done about this.
Sorry about all this stuff and it's getting late now, but a lot of this has already been covered on here and elsewhere.
46 Posted 17/12/2016 at 22:33:15
Fair comment but it doesn't add up to £24 million!
47 Posted 17/12/2016 at 22:56:44
That's the problem, right there, and it's not disappearing any time soon.
Can't wait for the new stadium. Site visits, whizzy American architects, promises. Must be true.
48 Posted 18/12/2016 at 00:17:07
Raymond, I don't honestly know what you are talking about. There is no way to get equal investment from other shareholders in the way you describe. I won't be stumping up for sure!
49 Posted 18/12/2016 at 01:35:49
Would you pay all the cost of the work that is done while the other 50% owner pays nothing.
You have increased the value of the property but the other owner has benefitted at your expense without risking his money at all.
Its the reason just as Micheal in post 41 is assuming like myself, that under the current shareholding Moshiri wont be a sugar daddy many are hoping for.
50 Posted 18/12/2016 at 02:30:01
51 Posted 18/12/2016 at 03:04:05
52 Posted 18/12/2016 at 04:44:05
If the expectation was free money, well, people were well off the mark.
53 Posted 18/12/2016 at 06:04:05
Surely you will then owe the same as before but with the added cost of the new consolidating loan. Or, there really are Roos loose in my top paddock?
54 Posted 18/12/2016 at 07:10:14
The new loan is Interest free, with no set repayment date. No doubt replacing many various long standing loans made when Interest rates were much higher. Freeing up god knows how many millions of none productive wasted cash per year.
£80M £54.8M = £25.2M...now we'll never know just what (and where it went to) that £25.2M 'Other Operating Expenses' were... be interesting to see if it appears on next years Accounts.
Off topic, I know Dick, but do you and any other local born readers of more mature years (194?) have any recollection of an underground arcade of shops that went under Bold Sreet? My vague memory, from the early '50s (most of them tbh) has it with an entrance via Central Station and maybe via a shop in Bold Sreet as well??
55 Posted 18/12/2016 at 08:29:40
That is similar to what Abramovich did at Chelsea though I think he was sole owner at the time?
56 Posted 18/12/2016 at 08:37:37
57 Posted 18/12/2016 at 08:52:26
58 Posted 18/12/2016 at 08:56:17
59 Posted 18/12/2016 at 09:02:29
An analogy would be he's just moved in with a girl who's got £54.8k to pay off her mortgage. He's agreed to pay it off as he has the money in the bank and the interest he's getting on it there is far less than the interest she's being charged on the mortgage; so it makes sense for him to clear it and save them both some money.
He's not a fool, or a complete romantic, though he's a pragmatist and has explained should the relationship go belly up / they sell the house / he needs the cash then he wants the money back. All part of the recent pre-nup.....
The big question is why has he given her £80k? What's the rest for? (Pay off a trouble making ex? Buy a new car...? Put towards a down-payment on a plot of land for a new place...?)
61 Posted 18/12/2016 at 09:15:09
Moshiri won't let the tears flow while talking about his days in the Boys Pen with his feet soaked in piss, getting in through the holes in his shoes.
He won't tell us about going to the match on his Uncle Cyril's bike crossbar. He won't tell us "the money is in the bank"... Maybe Moshiri is not the man for us.
62 Posted 18/12/2016 at 10:28:25
They have all walked away with tens of millions, and he has managed to stay on as chairman of the club after cashing in for £46m!! (He's already banked £23m.) He also brought on board that slimy toad, Green, and the absolutely useless major bullshitter, Earl.
"Soft old Bill..." I don't think so ,somehow. Oh, he never used to charge his mobile phone bill to the club... sorry.
63 Posted 18/12/2016 at 10:37:55
64 Posted 18/12/2016 at 10:48:04
65 Posted 18/12/2016 at 11:03:30
A loan means that, in the event of a sale, Moshiri gets his loan repaid and the sale proceeds are then allocated according to the share holdings based on the value attributed to the club whilst it owes £80m to Moshiri.
This is bog standard stuff when money is injected by one individual who doesn't own all of the shares and is sensible financing.
66 Posted 18/12/2016 at 11:11:09
67 Posted 18/12/2016 at 11:15:09
You may very well not invest and see someone else benefit but with respect that is not businesslike and is very small minded thinking. "If I invest 10 and get 15 back it doesn't matter if someone else also gets 5 without risk to them, I've still made profit." That will be Moshiri's mindset, not envy or spite that someone also benefits and he doesn't get every single penny of benefit.
It's as I have pointed out on here before, some people are far are far more obsessed with whether people make a profit from Everton rather than whether Everton benefit overall. Both are possible at the same time.
But hey, you don't have to listen to me, I have proof. The proof is Moshiri has invested and no-one has tried to force me, as a shareholder, to proportionately match his investment, nor have I heard of any sort of ultimatum to the other holders, which is unenforceable. You're saying it doesn't make sense to you and it won't happen like that, but meanwhile, it has.
68 Posted 18/12/2016 at 11:37:11
Club for sale, relegation looming fast and no takers partly because there were no funds and top class players were desperately needed. Debt out of control with expensive permanently injured players to be paid for years to come. We were a very unattractive risk for anyone to take on. Make no mistake, we were staring into the abyss after 120 years.
Times were very bleak for those who remember it and remember this was after 15 years of decline. There was a bit more of that to come but that was the watershed moment that led here, debt free and seriously building for the future for the first time in decades.
Kenwright was the force that achieved this. Not on his own and with no ability to inject funding but he is the man our history will look kindly on. Things often did not go to plan but here we are and that is no coincidence.
69 Posted 18/12/2016 at 11:48:46
70 Posted 18/12/2016 at 12:01:04
Pissed myself laughing there.... At least my shoes have got no holes in so my socks are dry.
71 Posted 18/12/2016 at 12:04:36
I'm talking about Moshiri providing extra money from his other assets, personal or business to, say, buy players or provide extra funds for a new stadium.
When you say he would still make a profit in the house example I used, you are right, but he is investing twice the amount he would be if the other owner paid his share of the renovation.
When I say he will want to be matched by the other shareholders, I don't mean small shareholders but the others who hold the great majority of the remaining 50.1%.
As Chris (#45) says, it does make more sense if Mr Moshiri has a prearrangement to buy out all the other major shareholders, but who knows what the financial arrangements may be!
72 Posted 18/12/2016 at 12:06:07
73 Posted 18/12/2016 at 12:18:53
Under the former board, the banks wouldn't lend Everton any money for transfers or a new stadium hence why we had so many offshore loan deals and had to go cap in hand to Sir Terry Leahy to ask Tesco to help fund a new stadium. Now Moshiri has underwritten the debt like Abramovich did at Chelsea, he has already earmarked a new stadium and had a top architect visit the site.
But, despite all of this, the sceptics are still there sniping away. Why can't we accept for a change that Moshiri is serious about moving the club forward? Surely he has shown enough so far for us to trust him.
I know the sceptics will say "We didn't buy the players we should..." Well, as far as I understand, it wasn't the lack of money that stopped the transfers being more than there were. So, just for a change, can I urge my fellow Evertonians to stop looking for faults and be grateful, for the first time since Sir John stopped being Chairman, that we have got somebody with the wherewithal to help us achieve what we all want?
74 Posted 18/12/2016 at 13:11:18
"There was a bit more of that to come but that was the watershed moment that led here, debt free and seriously building for the future for the first time in decades."
When the debt has been transferred from one lender to another lender, it does not mean you are debt free.
75 Posted 18/12/2016 at 13:19:42
76 Posted 18/12/2016 at 13:28:28
Post-tax losses of £23.3 million erm, not so good. In fact, as a business, it's pretty scary.
We 'owe' £80 million holy shit.
We've all got to start writing to Santa now!
77 Posted 18/12/2016 at 13:29:41
78 Posted 18/12/2016 at 13:39:00
I hope they have no involvement this time around other than organising the Xmas doo and arranging the seating for the next AGM.
79 Posted 18/12/2016 at 13:46:15
80 Posted 18/12/2016 at 14:11:17
Exactly! Now we just have to hope Moshiri doesn't get run over, or something, because if he does, the debt comes bouncing back.
81 Posted 18/12/2016 at 17:01:35
Like you, I do not believe there is any requirement or imperative for other major shareholders, existing or future, to match Moshiri's financial initiatives. They are welcome to, of course, but the logic he lays out is fundamentally flawed, whereas yours is spot on.
I was warning against (in #41) expectations that Moshiri is set to fund the kind of transfer bonanza so many fans have set their hearts on in January. I think it's controlled by FFP which dictates the much maligned sell-to-buy approach that we saw back in August.
It remains to be seen how creative they can be with financing new acquisitions that are not paid for by fees received for departing assets.
"People moaning about the wording." it's a bit more than that, Damian (#69). "Moshiri clears Everton debts" is yet another myth about Everton finances that becomes defacto post-truth because that's what the headline says. But the reality is the debt remains... or has actually increased by £25.2M... WTF!!!
Of course, it all depends what truth you want to believe. "Moshiri clears Everton debts" sounds a lot better to our "hope that kills" optimists.
82 Posted 18/12/2016 at 18:31:50
83 Posted 18/12/2016 at 18:32:51
85 Posted 18/12/2016 at 19:06:29
86 Posted 18/12/2016 at 19:37:42
87 Posted 18/12/2016 at 20:19:11
Of course he could pour all his other money/assets into the club if he wanted or was allowed to by the FFP rules. I'm saying he wont because he only owns 49.9% of the club.
If he wants to help the club money wise, why is he not just gifting us the £80m to pay off the club's debts instead of loaning us the money?
I hope he does inject more of his other assets into the club, of course I do, I just don't think he will while he only holds 49.9% of the shares.
Only time will tell.
88 Posted 18/12/2016 at 21:26:53
Unfortunately and due to international datelines my responses to topics raised here are often outdated before they are printed.
Thank you for your explanation of the financial aspects of the deal. My ignorance of such matters has been laid bare. I will in future avoid dipping my toe into that particular puddle.
As for your query about an underground arcade linking Central Station and Bold Street, my memories go back to pre 1950s and I cannot recall anything like it.
89 Posted 18/12/2016 at 21:43:50
90 Posted 18/12/2016 at 21:53:07
Head and shoulders above the rest is Niasse at £13m. Add on paying Martinez £10.5m to go away and the money we had to lay out to get Koeman and Walsh (reportedly another £7m ) not to mention new contracts for many players and it's been an expensive year.
And we won't be seeing much of a return on Bolassie and his wages (probably close to another £30m) in the next 12 months either.
I know all that won't have hit the Accounts yet, but it just indicates how spending can run out of control. Just as well Sissoko went to Spurs...
91 Posted 18/12/2016 at 22:16:25
I don't believe that Moshiri is going to inject extra money from his own wealth unless he is matched by new money from the other owners. – You at #43.
Yet, we are told he has already 'invested' £80M in 'extra' money, buying off the debts – without any such matching funds from the other owners... the very same owners who incurred those debts in the first place!!!
Whatever twisted logic you have that supports the quoted fallacy would surely apply to this, the one known injection of extra money from Moshiri, over and above the purchase of shares we have been told about. The idea that he would not want other investors to profit on the back of his investment is known as "cutting off your nose..."
That's the whole idea of having "shares" – they are sharing in the potential risks and benefits of ownership. Any monies provided above and beyond that will come with conditions and provisos to those investments, that may in themselves provide additional proportionate returns to Moshiri down the road. But to suggest that he would not put extra money in until others pony up is blatant nonsense.
In fact, I could argue exactly the opposite by employing the same fantasy logic as you: in buying their shares at fabulous rates of return for those other owners, he has gifted them massive windfalls on the portion of EFC ownership they have surrendered to him.
Surely if there was any expectation along the lines of what you suggest, Farhad would have tied their hands and said "Look, I'm shelling out 80 big ones here, as well as giving each of you a fantastic retirement package... I wanna see at least half of that ploughed back into the club – or I ain't giving a red cent more!"
92 Posted 18/12/2016 at 22:32:41
There's never been an underground shopping arcade under Bold Street. The low-level railway is underneath, though, and the '50s layout was different to today.
Maybe you're thinking of the underground station exit into Lewis's. To a child, this may have seemed like an arcade.
93 Posted 18/12/2016 at 23:06:06
Kenwright will be remembered for the worst period in Everton's history, and for being a lying incompetent buffoon.
95 Posted 19/12/2016 at 10:09:18
Kenwright may not be everyone's cup of tea but he stepped up when the club was facing the abyss when nobody else was prepared to. There wasn't exactly a queue waiting to rescue us!
He appears to have done OK out of it but that's the nature of modern football. He's also brought Moshiri in so cut the guy a bit of slack.
96 Posted 19/12/2016 at 11:29:27
I've been watching since the '60s and the Christmas of 1999 was the worst period I can remember there seemed no way out of a steady decline.
I agree that there have been many downs since under the watch of Kenwright but the certainty of relegation only reared its head once after that, and financial ruin was fought off at the same time just. But 'just' is enough when there is little hope.
I don't recall anyone else stepping up to challenge for the job and I certainly don't think everything will be champagne & chocolates in the future but, as 'Bones' once said to Scotty after Captain Kirk had crashed his entire burning starship into a planet, when asked why Kirk had done it "He gave us a chance of survival."
We survived... you could say we improved too and that achievement is massive ask any Geordie/Mackem. We are a million miles away from the top but a lot further away from the bottom. I am happy to see him go too if a new professional team can get us closer to the top and sweep away the "Gentleman's club" but credit is due just.
97 Posted 19/12/2016 at 12:28:05
98 Posted 19/12/2016 at 12:44:01
99 Posted 19/12/2016 at 12:48:22
Those things are not announced in the accounts usually. In fact they are commercially sensitive. The accounts are for the last financial year as stated.
There will be such projections and strategies for sure and I suspect they will be a lot more robust than in previous years, and will cover such things as sponsorship, commercial partnerships, new stadium, naming rights and other matters. But It would be commercially unwise as well as going against any confidentiality agreements to reveal them.
Maybe the AGM will teach us something but we'll see in due course.
100 Posted 19/12/2016 at 13:07:39
In terms of his extra investment (clearing the debt and providing cashflow):
1. I'd imagine the interest-free loan (and any other loans made in the future) will be on a 'first-out' scenario thus, in the future when the club is sold Moshiri takes his £80mil back first and the remainder is split proportionately between the shareholders.
If Moshiri buys out the other majority shareholders the £80mil is taken into account in the share price for those remaining shares.
2. Repaying the debts also makes sense from a cashflow point of view as we no longer need to make repayments of interest throughout the course of the season.
3. Clearing the debts and being in an improved position (in relation to cashflow and external liabilities) may also improve our position in terms of obtaining financial packages to fund the build of a new stadium.
The only worry I have is that the changes we have made financially may take a season (and a half possibly) to filter through into actual funds for players (as opposed to sell-to-buy) when we need funds next month this may be the reason we are looking to off-load fringe players, so as to reduce our wage bill and free up some funds to top-up what funds we may already have due to the new TV money filtering through this season (which we have not spent yet, as we only spent the Stones money).
101 Posted 19/12/2016 at 13:18:43
102 Posted 20/12/2016 at 05:03:29
When Kenwright bought the Club from Johnson there were 2 other consortia interested in buying.
Plus the fact that Paul Gregg was willing to step into the Chairman's role until Kenwright invented the Fortress Sports Fund lies to maintain control.
103 Posted 28/12/2016 at 20:04:25
104 Posted 29/12/2016 at 11:33:26
105 Posted 29/12/2016 at 16:10:47
I finally got my copy of the Annual Report and Accounts, skimming through to see how are favourite category was doing...
Other Operating Costs: £30.428M -- up from £28.885M.
But wait! There's a whole new category!
Other Operating Costs - exceptional costs: £11.335M
At least that portion is explained as "amounts payable to former employees" (ie, Martinez).
I was going to enter numbers into a comparative spreadsheet I have from previous years, but I just noticed a whole slew of pages (71-78) – the heart of the accounts section – are missing from my copy!!!