I calculate that Everton will receive (thanks to the information below) around £89 million in prize money this season; truly the Premier League is the gift that keeps on giving!

We know that part of the money is going on Finch Farm Training Centre... let’s say £30 million as a ballpark figure.

However, how the rest is spent will be pivotal to the future success of Everton. What really concerns me is that someone will say, the rest is for the new stadium.

Yes, we need to get more room for fans, but surely we need to invest in players? A good exciting team challenging for honours will have fans queuing to get in; improvement on the field has already led to more supporters coming through the gate, a rush to buy season tickets, and real optimism for the future.

Roberto must be given the funds to build his squad with the seven or eight players he needs for next season; success on the field will then allow all the other stadium dreams come true.

The English Premier League is by far the most watched league in the world, with the highest TV rights sales in any professional sport league around the world. The latest TV rights deal, which came into effect from 2013-14 season and for the next 3 seasons until 2016-17 will bring in around £5.5 billion in just TV rights deals, both domestic and overseas; with that, all 20 clubs will benefit hugely in terms of end-of-season payouts which are set to become the highest ever in Premier League history.

Premier League Current TV Rights Deals Worth – £5.5


1. Domestic Rights (SkySports & BT Sports) – £3.018 billion

2. Oversees TV rights deals – £2 Billion

3. BBC MotD, Sun Goals, EA game rights etc – £500 million

How is the TV money & Prize Money distributed amongst Premier League clubs?

Unlike other major leagues around the world, Premier League clubs get a portion of the TV money distributed equally among 20 teams:

1. 50% of Domestic TV Money is distributed equally between 20 clubs

2. 25% is distributed according to league table finish

3. 25% is kept for payments to clubs each time their match is shown live, called a “facility fee” (£750,000 for every match shown live on TV or £7.5 million minimum for a season whichever is higher.)

4. Overseas TV money is distributed equally among 20 clubs.

How each Premier League Club’s Payout Will Be Calculated

Merit money: £1.2 million for every place each club finishes up the table (up to £24 million for the Champions).

Facility fees  £750,000 for every live match of a club, or £7.5 million for season, whichever is higher.

Domestic TV Deals: Equal share of domestic TV deals (£23 million for every club)

Overseas TV deals: Equal share of foreign TV deals (£32 million for every club)

Share this article

Reader Comments (73)

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

Chris Wilson
1 Posted 07/05/2014 at 21:55:35
Is this true? Did anybody foresee this, because it is news to me. Or do we get £89 million with £79 million going toward debt and overhead?
Chris Jones
2 Posted 07/05/2014 at 22:13:19
Chris - plus £10 million for "miscellaneous expenses"!

£89 million would be wonderful, but that doesn’t mean £89 million over and above what we get now? Anyone know how much better off we would possibly be than under the existing deal?

Rob Halligan
3 Posted 07/05/2014 at 22:17:06
I read today that whoever finishes bottom this year will receive more from the TV deals than what Man Utd received last season as Champions.
Si Cooper
4 Posted 07/05/2014 at 22:14:59
Well that is part of (one side of) the equation, but I don’t think it amounts to more than a potential £20+ million transfer budget when all is said and done in case you are thinking it is ALL available to splurge.
Chris Wilson
5 Posted 07/05/2014 at 22:29:22
Oh I didn’t think ALL was available for transfers, but it would be interesting to know where the club steers this cash-if it’s accurate. I know Roberto wanted to create some sort of living quarters situation at Finch Farm so the players could recover (still not sure how that all functions), does some of this money go into that? Does this go toward taking out debt? Is this (dare I say it) initial funding toward (whisper) a stadium? I know, I know, I’m opening up Pandora’s Box with that one.
Peter Z Jones
6 Posted 07/05/2014 at 22:41:33
I think people are losing sight of just how much money the TV deal makes premier league clubs. RELEGATED FULHAM made more money than Manchester United did last year as champions. We are supposedly in line to make £89 million total after merit payments for finishing 5th.

When you consider that Martinez makes half of what Moyes made, finished up £20 million (or thereabouts) in player trading this year, and significantly reduced the wage bill by getting rid of some veteran earners (Fellaini, Neville, Anichebe, Heitinga, Mucha), it’s hard for me to be skeptical of our spending power.

I know some of the old heads on here will be fearing the same old excuses for not spending, but if this year is any indication of what is to come, this version of Everton will make the progressive move. I think we will surprise the shit out of people with our spending power. If our own fans underestimate us, the outside world won’t see a £40-50M sneak attack to bolster the team. Sounds like something Roberto would do to me!!!

Jamie Carroll
7 Posted 07/05/2014 at 23:58:26
Does anyone else agree that this Board does not want Champions League football? The lack of support – again! – in the January window cost Everton valuable points against Spurs and Chelsea away... Osman was up front against Spurs, ffs! Not to mention the draws at the start of the season when Bill was waiting till the last day to get reinforcements. It’s not the first time, is it? The board don’t want to spend millions as it will raise expectations.
Patrick Murphy
8 Posted 08/05/2014 at 00:22:24
I didn’t realise that TV Money doesn’t count in the FFP rules so that is why the TV companies have had our neighbours on so much to help them make up the shortfall from the last two seasons - it really is a racket this football. How can BK even argue that Everton can’t find the money required for a new stadium? I bet Bobby still only gets around £10m tops to spend
Si Cooper
9 Posted 08/05/2014 at 00:35:49
Yeah Patrick, it’ll have nothing to do with them being pretty much the form team since Christmas, regularly scoring a hat-full and actually challenging strongly for the title.

By the way, this does not make me pro-RS in any way shape or form, just anti-conspiracy theory when there are plausible reasons for something beyond the ’establishment looking out for their favourites’ idea.

People may be cueing up to jump on their bandwagon, but that doesn’t mean that everything is being manipulated for a specific reason.

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
10 Posted 08/05/2014 at 14:27:48
That’s pretty impressive, Wayne. And it continues to make the traditional funding source, tickets sold to the faithful matchgoing fan, less and less significant...

I hope you’ve got the figures right... no doubt someone will do a cross-check for us. Cheers.

Craig Bellew
11 Posted 08/05/2014 at 14:38:47
Nice article Wayne, I wasn’t aware we were receiving so much if I’m honest.

I tell you what would be impressive is if Roberto see’s more than the anticipated £20 million we are all believing will be given to him to bring in new additions.

I honestly think to make any significant progress and to increase the calibre of players we bring in the minimum RM should be given is £30 million as a quality striker is going to take up at least half (£15 million) of that amount.

As already said and I’m sure it will again, its going to be a very interesting Summer. I just hope beyond hope that Bill pulls his finger out and actually gives our manager funding to break that top 4. I won’t be holding my breath though!

James Marshall
12 Posted 08/05/2014 at 14:54:31
As a slight footnote, in reference to Michael’s comment:

"And it continues to make the traditional funding source, tickets sold to the faithful matchgoing fan, less and less significant..."

Absolutely. In days of old, there were less games shown on TV because they were always so worried about the gate, and takings being down due to people watching the game on TV. Now they don’t care because they earn more money from a game being televised than they would on the gate anyway.

Nick Entwistle
13 Posted 08/05/2014 at 15:02:55
The exact figure is news, but surely we all knew about the new Sky deal over a year ago? There was no way Martinez would have spent £9.5m +Del months before any sales had been made were it normal service.

Surely there will be money, and pots of it. But the cost of EPL based players will escalate hugely. Cheaper imports more likely!

Les Fitzpatrick
14 Posted 08/05/2014 at 15:25:55
Kick BK’s door down, Roberto... demand at least £50 million for new players.
Brian Denton
15 Posted 08/05/2014 at 15:45:44
Yes, unfortunately the football experience is no longer about going to the match. It is a television experience.
Nick Entwistle
16 Posted 08/05/2014 at 15:50:19
And will ticket prices be reduced? No way.
Kevin Tully
17 Posted 08/05/2014 at 16:00:49
Nick, I think the £99 season ticket for kids was a brilliant incentive. Let them get the Everton bug while they’re young and all that.
Denis Richardson
18 Posted 08/05/2014 at 15:50:00
I am surprised by the £89M number tbh, I thought we would get around £20M more TV money this season compared to last season, taking us up to about £75M in total (total TV money for us last year was about £55M out of total income of £85M odd). The £89M would imply we would get an extra £34M this season from the new TV deal (a 60% increase!), which would be great but seems a bit high to me.

If indeed we do ’only’ need £30M to start the new stadium (ahem!) then the added TV money would cover most if not all of it. Nevermind the extra cash RM generated with transfers last summer.

Just for reference, our total matchday gate receipts were £17.5M last season. As you can see, gate receipts are almost becoming irrelevant in comparison to TV money. In fact, with £750k TV money being paid out for every live game, this payment alone is almost as much as we take at the gate for the game itself!

Next year should be even more given we’ll be in the Europa League and would likely feature in more live games as we’re not as shite to watch anymore and can now be considered (justifiably) one of the top(ish) teams, as well as there being a new buzz about us with RM at the helm.

At some point this whole Sky money train is going to crash, I just hope the powers at Goodison Park can use this extra cash wisely to finally sort out the stadium issue before it’s too late, instead of just paying players massively increased wages (which is basically what happens every time the Sky money is increased).

Brian Harrison
19 Posted 08/05/2014 at 16:05:40
To think that with all this money being paid to Premier League clubs, then why on earth are they allowed to loan players?

I think the Premier league needs to stop the loan system, a system that allows Chelsea to stockpile players and loan them out to other Premier League clubs while they are getting Premier League experience. As far as Everton are concerned, well – despite all the money pouring in – we still can’t afford to buy our own training ground, never mind build a new stadium.

Denis Richardson
20 Posted 08/05/2014 at 16:18:56
Wayne, sorry forgot to ask, why do you allocate £30M to Finch Farm? We don’t own it and pay about £1.2M a year to rent it (instead of just buying it for about £15m).
Jim Knightley
21 Posted 08/05/2014 at 16:21:49
I was estimating a £20M summer fund in January, but I’d be disappointed if we didn’t spend more now. Our wages are low, our squad is relatively free of chaff (unlike Spurs/United), and we’ve got a European adventure to look forward to. Roll on the summer, the World Cup, and a seldom felt genuine optimism about incoming players.

Life is good.

Patrick Murphy
22 Posted 08/05/2014 at 16:26:10
Si #9 Sky/BT et al have not jumped on your perceived title band-wagon, they have dominated the TV Schedules since last Summer’s pre-season and if you don’t agree then fair enough - but will you please stop reducing everything to a conspiracy theory and just accept that it is my opinion with more than a little evidence to support my view.
Steavey Buckley
23 Posted 08/05/2014 at 16:44:21
"We know that part of the money is going on Finch Farm Training Centre... let’s say £30 million as a ballpark figure."

Can someone explain, why so much money is going into Finch Farm since Everton don’t own it?

Linda Morrison
24 Posted 08/05/2014 at 16:41:01
Denis, Roberto has already stated that money will be spent improving Finch Farm, overnight stays for players returning from injury etc so they can train longer etc. Not sure this will cost £30 million though.

I’m not surprised by the amount as The Guardian commented yesterday that the team that finish bottom this season will receive more dosh than Man Utd last season. This explains why all season teams have been going on about not wanting to go down this year.

I’ll be surprised if Roberto does not get between £40 and £50 million of which he seems to want to spend a huge chunk on Lukaku. I know there are mixed views on the lad on this site but he is only 20 and I think he will develop and fit into our team like a glove.

What exciting times we are going to have!

James Stewart
25 Posted 08/05/2014 at 16:50:18
Figures are close but we don’t really know how much of that Martinez will see as a transfer kitty. My guess would be no more than usual.
Carl Rutherford
26 Posted 08/05/2014 at 16:59:10
From last year’s accounts, the figure for broadcasting was £55.7M meaning an increasing of £33.3M from the previous year. Hopefully this money and the net gain on transfers from this year will be invested in Finch Farm and a transfer budget.

However, as all Premier league clubs will receive an increased windfall from TV money, expect transfer fees and players wages to be inflated. I think RM will have to work hard to find value in the transfer market, especially when the budget is stretched to finding the 6 or 7 players to add depth the squad.

Philip Bunting
27 Posted 08/05/2014 at 17:03:42
Lads get real, Doubt very much that building in a few rooms etc will cost much more than £2-3M, be realistic. I would also guess that the TV money has been known as coming along into the coffers since the day the TV deal was signed and I am sure they will have planned for it to be spent, either off the overdraft or maybe already been allocated for a new stadium, its just we need another £30M on top of this money to move forward and actually build it..
Shane Corcoran
28 Posted 08/05/2014 at 17:06:32
Patrick #8, if I may, what exactly are you saying your opinion is?

That Sky/BT love Liverpool FC so much that they put them on more often than other clubs so that the club generates more money which isn’t considered with regard to the FFP rules?

I’m genuinely curious as most of the "the media loves Liverpool" posters don’t back up their cases with anything concrete.

Simon Bell
29 Posted 08/05/2014 at 17:12:13
Like all Evertonians, I would love to see Roberto handed a large sum of money for investment in new players etc, but that said, I’d also like to see a large sum of this money (if the amounts correct) go towards the money required to get the "new stadium" out of the ground. Whatever happens from now until the start of the new season, I’m sure it will be a lot more exciting than the previous 11 years.
Patrick Murphy
30 Posted 08/05/2014 at 17:35:20
I’m so glad you responded Shane as you are another of the anti-conspiracy theorist campaigners. All I am saying is that the other lot have dominated the TV schedules since last summer and seeing as they weren’t at that time considered to be title hopefuls and that they finished below Everton in two consecutive seasons prior to this,it just makes me wonder what the TV companies motives are. Anyway look at the number of TV games they have been involved in over the last few years and then compare it to the other clubs and you can decide for yourself whether I have a valid point or not.
Charlie Gibson
31 Posted 08/05/2014 at 17:31:28
£750k per live game after initial £7.5m for ten live games, is that right?

Europa could therefore indirectly be worth a few million more than the headline return, because it forces Everton games to Sundays, where Sky/BT are more likely to pick them up.

Al Reddish
32 Posted 08/05/2014 at 17:38:13
This figure seems to be correct as the press reported the team that finishes bottom will pick up at least £63m which is around £10m more than Man Utd picked up for winning the League last year.
Al Reddish
33 Posted 08/05/2014 at 17:41:15
Also we have the new Chang and Umbro deals which may be worth an extra tenner a week.
Jim Harrison
34 Posted 08/05/2014 at 17:38:05
Ring fence the debt payments for the coming seasons to relieve the pressure from the banks. Spend wisely on good value long term prospects. Dont splash it all in the hope of immediate glory. It may only be 5 points difference between us and Arsenal this season but the gulf in the overall quality of the squad can be measured in 10’s of millions. One season of reinforcement wont guarantee a place at the top table, every team above us will be taking even more in prize money and as such will be able to strengthen proportionately.
Luke O'Farrell
35 Posted 08/05/2014 at 17:44:23
These figures are right (give or take a few quid). Broadcasting revenue is expected to be around £88m for Everton this season. This new TV deal will see overall turnover rise to around £116.8m, with the club set for a pre-tax profit in the region of £29.1m for 2013-14.

The problem, however, is the same as before. Broadcasting revenue will account for 75% of our turnover this season, while commercial performance continues to languish in the gutter. We continue to rely on others for much of our revenue, which is compounded by having to listen to Robert Elstone tell us how great Kitbag and Chang are.

The teams around us in the league earn more per season than we do in three years with Chang.

Jamie Crowley
36 Posted 08/05/2014 at 18:03:34
I agree 100% with Jim Harrison @ 34. Get our financial house in order first. It will benefit us greatly in the long run.
Raymond Fox
37 Posted 08/05/2014 at 18:01:37
Not a clue if the figures are correct or not but every club’s wage bill keeps spiralling ever upwards. How many of our players recently have had their contracts improved? Players’ transfers keep going the same way, ever upwards.

I’ve run my own business all my life, it’s not all about how much you have coming in, it’s just as important to control how much you have going out in the costs to operate. Bleeding obvious really!

Most of the extra money will end up in the players and agents bank accounts as per usual. The agents will be rubbing their hands together in anticipation.

A great deal of it will siphoned abroad by the legions of foreign players.

Matt Traynor
38 Posted 08/05/2014 at 18:37:24
It’s all well and good paying down the debt at the expense of team building / infrastructure development, but all that will do really is help BK and chums realise the substantial profits he is looking for having paid next to nothing for the club, and investing less than that over the years (bearing in mind the club had a net positive asset position before he took over). So really for a decade and a half of stagnation, he’s truly earned all the millions he and the others will make.
Colin Glassar
39 Posted 08/05/2014 at 18:54:10
Roberto, when talking about Lukaku, said something along the lines of, "the fee wouldn’t be a problem". Does this mean he has the £20m for Lukaku and money to spare? He has said he wants about 6 more players to compete in Europe next season.

I wonder if, as some have previously stated, our transfer kitty will be around the £40m mark?

As long as it’s not spent on lawn mowers I’m happy. Let the groundsmen push their bloody lawn mowers like we used to when we were kids. None of those fancy sit-on jobs.

Steven Telford
40 Posted 08/05/2014 at 18:49:27
I’m sure it cant be as good as that, but if it is close enough that’s still pretty cool. I think its tragedy that we don’t own Finch Farm, is it not a loosing strategy to pay for upgrades on a premises we don’t own - will we increase the value and the in turn they increase the rent in the long run?
Shane Corcoran
41 Posted 08/05/2014 at 19:20:45
Patrick, always happy to post but it’s rare I get a reply.

Calling someone an anti-conspiracy theorist suggests that you are a pro-conspiracy theorist.

Do I take it from your answer that my summary of your view is correct then?

Steve Cotton
42 Posted 08/05/2014 at 20:26:54
Patrick has a fair point, I think. From checking back, I am pretty sure that the RS appeared on one or other version of Live TV 13 times more than us over the season, so if the £750k per game is right then then they are being given just short of u10 million more. AQ lot of their extra games were earlier on too before they went on their wild blitzing everyone run.

As a side issue I believe that they get around £20 million a season from their sponsor and a similar figure from their kit manufacturer. Check our earnings and it makes us look way behind. We need a new commercial director!!!

Patrick Murphy
43 Posted 08/05/2014 at 20:35:44
Shane I thought the original critique of my post was from Si Cooper? But you then came in and continued Si’s observations - It is all a matter of opinion, My opinion is that TV Companies are in awe of our Red Friends, and for a club that hasn’t won a title for almost as long as Everton get a ridiculous amount of TV coverage especially in the last five years when they have up until this season been in decline, and as I only recently discovered that TV money doesn’t count in the FFP rules then yes I am suggesting that there is more to their TV coverage than meets the eye.

I have tried to get a list of games that have been shown live on TV for the past five years but to no avail, the closest I found was a Daily Mail article from last season which made the point that LFC had been shown an incredible number of times for season 2012-13 in comparison to their rivals, I would imagine they have featured even more this season. If I can get definitive proof of the number of occasions they and others have been featured live I will gladly post it. It won’t of course prove or disprove my theory.

Shane Corcoran
44 Posted 08/05/2014 at 22:33:52
Patrick, I did a bit of digging and if you are prepared to accept that the last few months' live games are based on a club's involvement in the title race/relegation battle then this is the summary of games shown up to and including March this season. This was done manually so it's open to closer scrutiny:

Arsenal 19
Chelsea 18
Liverpool 18
Man Utd 18
Spurs 17
So make of that what you will.

I'm not completely dismissing your point. Of course it's possible but for what reason would TV companies be in awe of Liverpool as you put it. I really want to know if there's some solid basis for it.

As it stands the position of such theories is to accept them as fact and then look for back-up rather than the reverse.

ToffeeWeb is getting more and more tiresome and I'm getting more tiresome pointing it out. This thread is about funds Everton is getting from TV and we're talking about Liverpool.

Si Cooper
45 Posted 08/05/2014 at 23:11:42
Patrick, found this information about last seasons coverage:

Television revenue for Premier League clubs 2012-13
Club / PL finish Live games (2012-13) Revenue (£m) +/- 2011-12 (£m)
Manchester United 25 60.8 0.5
Manchester City 21 58.1 -2.5
Chelsea 16 55 0.6
Arsenal 22 57.1 0.9
Tottenham Hotspur 21 55.8 -1.5
Everton 14 51.7 2.9
Liverpool 22 54.8 0.4

In case the formatting didn't survive;

Yes, they got lots of coverage (especially compared to Chelsea and ourselves who finished above them 2011-12) but it doesn't translate as a huge uplift in money (certainly not enough to compensate for not qualifying for Champions League).

They might not have won the title for almost as long as us, but in the intervening years they have hit the top four consistently enough (with their huge global following) to remain a useful tool for the broadcasters when marketing their product.

Of course, it is a BBC site I got the information from so perhaps they have lied to hide the tens of millions they have been funneling to the RS?!

Personally, I don't believe there is any concerted effort to keep the same clubs at the top of the league (if I did believe that I would stop watching the sport as what would be the point) beyond a lack of a real attempt to reign in their excesses and create a more level playing field – the free market / unfettered capitalism is god! – and I am now finding it increasingly tiresome that some people seem to be constantly trying to incite outrage at the slightest provocation.

Si Cooper
46 Posted 08/05/2014 at 23:32:00
Thanks for the 'back-up' Shane.

I hadn't read all of your last post (as I gathered the information I have just posted last night and had it ready when I logged on tonight) so sorry for echoing your 'tiresome' sentiment.

I am worried that TW is tending towards the hysterical these days. Whilst that may actually attract some people, I think it could end up causing more to look elsewhere for rational EFC-themed discussion / debate.

Paul Kelly
47 Posted 09/05/2014 at 00:06:58

Just found this, considering Man Utd, Arsenal and Man City were in Europe and Liverpool came second in live games shown. Take away the European games and they are clear winners, even last season kind of backs it up.

Paul Kelly
48 Posted 09/05/2014 at 00:16:05
Kind of backs up the point Patrick was making.
Eric Myles
49 Posted 09/05/2014 at 01:37:43
£88 million is the figure reported by the Club with a total expected income of £117 mn cf £86 mn last season gives us an increase in income of £31mn.
Eric Myles
50 Posted 09/05/2014 at 01:49:57
^Sorry, I see Luke @#35 has already explained that.
Patrick Murphy
51 Posted 09/05/2014 at 01:44:59
SI / Shane - since when has a football forum been a place for rational debate?

Do you want TW to be another bland fan site similar to the official sites of the clubs or governing bodies?

What is it that so distresses you about posts such as mine? The subject is Everton related because if another club who happen to reside close to our doors is somehow gaining an unfair competitive advantage over Everton then to my point of view it should be highlighted and discussed - feel free to object; feel free to ridicule; but never ever say that it is invalid or denigrates the forum as that is an insult to me personally and mostly to those people who work hard to put the show on the road. BTW if anything puts people off the site it is sanctimonious and condescending know-alls who dislike anything that doesn't suit their own world view. GFY

Si Cooper
52 Posted 09/05/2014 at 02:30:40
Patrick - I think all debate should be rational, otherwise it is pointless. I like to discuss and debate, but that quickly becomes impossible if logic and reason are not given the status they deserve. I also think all contributors should take care not to fall too easily to confirmation bias.

Passions running high may be a justifiable excuse for the occasional discord, but I am just not convinced any of us are best served by prejudice and a heavily skewed perception going unchallenged; extreme simply doesn't make things more interesting in my opinion. I have no fear that TW will become bland by reining in the speculation / conjecture a tad so that it doesn't appear to be simply a jerk reaction to any information.

I thought you had leapt to an unreasonable conclusion and were making unsubstantiated claims so I have provided data (very easily found) that refutes your suggestion that the RS are favoured to any significant degree. If you wish to view that as sanctimonious and condescending that is your right (and one I am sure you will cling to whenever you feel harshly done by). Personally, I would call it putting things into perspective.

David Ellis
53 Posted 09/05/2014 at 03:05:08
Si and Shane - well said.
Matt Traynor
54 Posted 09/05/2014 at 02:31:21
No conspiracy. The TV companies need to maximise ad revenue, and in their world, that means showing the teams that are most popular with neutrals. Look at the "love" for the RS shown this year because of the anniversary of Hillsborough. A lot of TV viewers will watch football, but are not not supporters of Premier League teams. A lot of these will have an affinity for the bigger teams.

Man City only recently bought their success, and now are on 22-26 times a season, so it's not beyond hope for us. Er...

Chad Schofield
55 Posted 09/05/2014 at 07:49:53
Si Cooper #52: one of the best posts I've read in here!
Andy Osborne
56 Posted 09/05/2014 at 08:28:56
The tactic would be to keep telling everyone we don't have that much to spend, get a few deals done early for an "undisclosed fee", line up a few big deals and with the aim completing them on the same day, meanwhile picking up a few loan deals to keep the "poor Everton" myth going. By the time teams realise we have money to spend it will be too late to artificially inflate their price, and we will end up with the additions we need, without being screwed like spurs were last year when everyone knew they had 100 million to spend. That's what I would, anyway. Interesting summer ahead.
Andy Osborne
57 Posted 09/05/2014 at 08:32:55
Regarding conspiracy theories, I am not, in general, a subscriber to them. Maybe it's naive of me to think that if a team plays good, exciting football, and has a sustained run of form, they will appear on the tv. I mean, that's what TV is about, isn't it. From earlier posts man Utd went from 25 appearances last year to 18 this year. Because they were playing shite. I live overseas and see every Everton game in a season live, anyway, so it makes no difference to me, but it would generate more money for the club.
Kieran Fitzgerald
58 Posted 09/05/2014 at 08:22:36
For fuck sake. What should be an interesting debate about what we should do with an increase in revenue has become people taking pot shots at each other about the RS.

Si, Patrick, Shane, just out of curiosity, read the O.P again and then post what you think we should do with the extra money.

Jim @34 and Matt @38. I would look to pay down bank debt. It would mean we're clearing the debt and not paying out good money on interest payments. Matt, while I don't like the idea of our lazy Board getting rich off their own ineptitude, having a smaller amount of debt will make the club itself stronger and more attractive to investment.

Andy Osborne
59 Posted 09/05/2014 at 08:48:44
Back the O.P. We won't get to spend the tv money. 89 million is the tv revenue that goes into the annual club figures. If an earlier post is correct, it means a pre tax profit of nearly 30 million. After tax it will be less, so it is that figure that is available to spend. Plus any surplus money RM has generated this season. And we can only spend that on players if we don't pay down any debt and don't spend money on finch park.
Still, I am sure RM can do a lot with that kind of money.
Mike Allison
60 Posted 09/05/2014 at 08:55:11
Liverpool have more armchair fans so obviously TV companies are going to show them more as they'll get more viewers. That's not a conspiracy.
Matt Traynor
61 Posted 09/05/2014 at 08:56:15
Keiran #58, whilst I agree paying down the debt is a good thing, the best thing to do is to stop the "payday" loans from Vibrac and the like - the increased revenue alone should see us not needing to do that. The rest of the debt would depend on whether there's penalties for early settlement. I suspect most of them are, certainly the securitisation deal with Bear Stearns, now with Prudential, does.

Maybe I'm wrong and they'll sell the club for a recovery of their investment, and a token profit, to owners who have the capital and know-how to move it forward. One good thing about the increased revenue, is as long as the non-sugar daddy clubs don't use it as a means of entering bidding wars for 2nd rate foreign players, then clubs should be operating sustainably. They might cut ticket prices! Or pay tax! (Both of which probably more likely than BK et al selling for a token profit).

Kieran Fitzgerald
62 Posted 09/05/2014 at 09:03:31
Matt, good point about the types of loans we have been taking out. I would rather we have the extra money put towards avoiding debts and loans than spending big on players every summer. Unless you are buying guaranteed quality every time, spending big on transfers is a false economy in my view.
Shane Corcoran
63 Posted 09/05/2014 at 09:12:01
Kieran, I had pointed out the fact that the thread had gone off in a tangent. Yet if there isn't a counter argument, and one which tries to stop such deviations happening then it will continue to happen.

In fairness to Patrick, at least he had some basis for his theory. Generally we have someone posting the likes of "the media hates us" and then run off without further comment.

Si's post #52 sums it up perfectly and it's good to see David
Ellis, Matt Traynor and Andy Osbourne giving logical responses.

Apologies for my part in hijacking the thread.

Andy Osborne
64 Posted 09/05/2014 at 09:27:20
Arsenal have just spent a few years practicing prudent fiscal policies. They are in a strong position, if you believe what you read, but have not won anything for a long time. The big difference between them, and us, is that they started with a very strong squad, so could afford to focus on debt repayment for a few years. We have a strong team, but are weak in terms of squad depth. So we have to increase our squad and pay down debt. With a relatively small annual profit, compared to other teams, this is a very difficult path for us to follow. It would be nice to think, just for one transfer window, we could focus on the squad, and just the squad. But I run a business, and know that is unlikely to happen. I can hope, though.
David Johnson
65 Posted 09/05/2014 at 10:05:06
Call me a cynic but I reckon the new stadium along with building houses at Finch Farm is just more smoke and mirrors. This board will be making sure they are in a position to profit when they finally cash in their chips. The worrying thing is others will use the extra money to strengthen, while we make the most of the loan market.
Wayne Stamps
66 Posted 09/05/2014 at 12:22:16
Dennis 20 Wayne, sorry forgot to ask, why do you allocate £30M to Finch Farm? We don't own it and pay about £1.2M a year to rent it (instead of just buying it for about £15m).

I allocated that amount as a guesstimate; Roberto sees Finch Farm has a vital asset to his future plans, housing young players there in temporary accommodation for injured and squad get together before certain games.

Si Cooper
67 Posted 09/05/2014 at 15:30:46
I expect the net cash pot that results from the figures presented in the OP would have broadly been expected so it may all depend on whether this season's 5th place was 'accounted' for or has come as a big surprise to the hierarchy.

It could easily be the case that all that was reasonably expected for this summer was consolidation following a Phil Walling 7th-ish - no need to sell important players, like-for-like replacements, with small scale squad strengthening. I am hoping that our good performance and league position approaching Christmas meant that some way was found to adjust the plans to accommodate a much greater level of squad investment in the coming transfer window.

Maybe, after checking there were no great deals to be struck, the much vaunted January transfer pot was diverted to loan repayments to allow a more substantial kitty to be put together in the summer and, providing Roberto can find some gems, we will all be surprised and excited come August.

Peter Roberts
68 Posted 09/05/2014 at 18:54:14
How about we use the £30m people have ringfenced on here to actually [i]buy[/i] Finch Farm, reduce our current liabilities by £1.2m a year by not paying rent on it year-on-year and add a fixed asset making our club more appealing to a shrewd businessman wanting to take over a stable Premier League club?

Or does that make too much business sense for our board?

Paul Hewitt
69 Posted 09/05/2014 at 19:06:31
I think I've read we can buy Finch Farm back for £12 million.
Colin Glassar
70 Posted 09/05/2014 at 19:24:16
Peter, if big bill was reading this I think he'd have switched off after the first line. Too much sense made.
Duncan McDine
71 Posted 10/05/2014 at 07:26:45
I don't want to piss on any fireworks, but it's fairly obvious that players' wages will increase substantially over the next few seasons due to this massive step-up in PL clubs' income. Dont get me wrong, it's a great deal for the clubs, but the majority of this cash will end up in the players' and agents' pockets.

I think we'd do well to get Lukaku in permanently, maybe two more permanent squad players and a couple of handy loans again to cover the Europa League. Let's not forget, we need to get Barry signed on, and improved contracts for our young stars. The above list will certainly cost the £30m and much more.

Richard Harris
72 Posted 11/05/2014 at 11:20:57
Extra money in, bigger transfer fees, bigger wages and agents fees, money to pay off debts or for owners to take out of the club, probably increased ticket prices and how much will be invested in developing young players, increasing the quality of the average squad or investing in improved facilities at grounds?
Johnny Andrew
73 Posted 12/05/2014 at 18:21:51
I'm sure it's been said a thousand times, but what you have to remember that the other clubs in the league are also getting a boost from the new deal, so in that respect we're still a "poor" club.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

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 Talking Points submissions across the site.

About these ads

© ToffeeWeb