Everton improve in the Deloitte rankings to 27th

It’s a crazy football world…

I’m sure many have seen the Deloittes Football Money League table in terms of Revenue. We are so far off Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd, but also well behind many of our rivals and some we would regard as smaller clubs.

The new stadium and a fresh income stream can’t come soon enough, just to give us a fighting chance. Especially if as suggested the new PSR regime will be set around total salary capped on a percentage of Revenue basis.

There is no chance of a more level playing field any time soon.

I see Man City are thus far the only real January spenders of note having spent £135M on a couple of players. Makes a complete mockery of their PSR 115 charges. It is clear they expect no significant punishment other than a rebuke and a probable fine for non-compliance in providing information.

After 50 years of attending Goodison Park, it will be heart-wrenching to leave, but BMD, and hopefully success on the field, is our only chance of bridging any gap.

Ian, it really does show how important the new stadium is going to be when we have fallen behind the likes of Brighton and Crystal Palace! Hopefully next season we can get back into the Top 20.

One point re Man City, I don't believe any of the charges are PSR related. My understanding is they are around things like illegal payments, eg, whilst Mancini was manager, he was also getting paid by a club in Abu Dhabi that the City owner/chairman owned, not providing the Premier League with accurate financial information etc.

In my eyes, these are much worse than PSR as, certainly in our case, these are generally due to incompetence whilst City were actively breaking the rules.

John, whilst the Man City charges might not be directly PSR-related, surely the impact of acknowledging the payments and aligning them correctly, financially could have an impact on prior PSR calculations?

Could this result in legality claims as well as revised financial reporting?

The other key thing will be naming rights for the new stadium… assuming TFG have the wherewithal to secure a really massive deal for us.

But I'm guessing that's unlikely to be sorted until the end of the season and our fate is known...

This is not a 'I've heard that', but don't TFG have holdings in the Gulf arm of Toyota?

The Toyota Stadium??

Thanks for posting this up, Michael, it is very illuminating, but at the same time a little soul-destroying too.

I guess this is what I was discussing with Rob H elsewhere.

Considering we managed to generate €217.6M, whilst at the same time, finishing a construction build, servicing debt, and having to maintain strict financial controls due to our previous PSR situation, it does bode well for the future, especially with the financial expertise, and backing, from TFG.

Rank Club Revenue

18 Aston Villa €310.2M
21 Brighton & Hove Albion €256.8M
23 AS Roma €249.0M (Purely for comparison to EFC)
26 Crystal Palace €218.9M
27 Everton €217.6M

It shows that we still have a way to go to get back into the Top 20, but, with maybe Stadium naming rights, stadium events, new commercial and sponsorship deals, and improved footballing performances and player trading; hopefully it wouldn't take too long to move up the table?

Deloitte Football Money League

Good job finding that link, Simon – and coding it up so nicely!

I initially wrote that we were continuing to slide — I'd forgotten how awful this looked last year when we went from 19th to 30th — so this really is good news... even if it really doesn't feel like it.

Simon the Roma comparison is interesting. They finished 6th in Series A and got to the semi final of the Europa League but only had an income of €32m more than ours. It shows how with the increased revenue from BMD, any sort of success, i.e. improved premier league performance, qualification for Europe we will be the financially largest of the Friedkin group of clubs so would hopefully be their main focus

That connection has been noted by some, Danny.

I wouldn't want to tempt fate. But I really have to wonder about how they justify the naming rights deals — squillions of mullah just to have your name in lights? Do you really see anything like a comparable rise in profits as a result of, let's say, selling X more Toyota's??? Exactky hoow do you calculate the value of 'name recognition'? Especially if it's a household name everyone already knows?

Man City's Etihad is understandable because they are the owners... not sure of the rationale for The Emirates. They just seem to have far too much money.

Then there's Spurs, Man Utd, Chelsea... even Liverpool — all big clubs with no naming rights deals on their stadiums.

Michael apparently a 30 second advert at half time of the Super Bowl costs $7m. I appreciate that is a huge audience but if you think of how often the Etihad and Emirates etc get mentioned in a year to a worldwide TV audience watching the Premier League the brand names associated with these stadiums get huge publicity. The Etihad deal is, obviously, dubious but in 2011 Arsenal signed up a 15 year deal worth £90m so in comparison to the Super Bowl £6m per year seems cheap to me.
I suspect it is easier for a new stadium, for example Anfield would probably always take precedence over any sponsor. Obviously the Tottenham Stadium is new but reportedly Levy is looking for £500m over 20 years. I don't think we could hope for anything at that level but hopefully we could get a decent deal