Reading today the statements made by Kenwright, I had a look at Everton's 2010 financial report. In terms of match-day revenue alone, the disparity in comparitive figures with other clubs really are quite staggering.
In the 2009-10 season (which the financial report relates to), Everton played 26 homes games in all competitions, with an average attendance of 34276.5. The total attendance for the season was 891,189, and the club made £19,206,000 in gate receipts and programme sales, plus £916,000 from catering.
Which effectively means that the average spend for every single supporter on match-day revenue for the 2009-10 season was £22.58.
In the same season, Chelsea (for example) earned 82.1m euros in matchday-revenue. Converting this into pounds (using an average exchange rate in 2010) equates to £70.3m.
Meaning that for Everton to compete with, say, Chelsea in terms of match-day revenue alone, it would require Everton to either
a) raise the average match-day spending of each fan from £22.58 per game to £78.96 (a rise of over 300%).
or
b) freeze prices, build a brand new stadium, and increase the number of fans in a season from 891,189 to just over 3.1 million. Or in other words, an average attendance per game of 119,000 (based on 26 home games).
Kenwright's statement effectively states something you all know - that Everton need investment. Yet with the FFP regulations being introduced, clubs will only be allowed to rely on revenue that is generated by the club itself. Yet the figures in both options above highlight how impossible it is for Everton to be able to compete on a level financial footing. Even if Everton matched Chelsea's average attendance, their match-day revenue would still be £45m lower than Chelsea's. Which, for me at least, means that if the FFP regulations really are to be fair, then regulations have to be imposed on the cost of tickets right across the board. Something that we all know will never happen.
Everton's financial predicament
posted on 18/8/11
the problem with increasing the ticket prices is that Everton's fanbase demographic doesn't have the same amount of disposable income as Tottenham's. it's that simple. this is probably a reason why potential investors/buyers look to other clubs rather than Everton. the return on investment just isn't there at Everton, well not in the short/medium term. just to go off topic for a minute, but if we are in this bad a financial position with the club being run as close to within it's means as possible, where would we be if we had spent money we didn't have on transfers??? as bad as they are, the current board deserve a little praise for at least keeping the club going.
posted on 18/8/11
Ripley. If your premise is correct, why don't we all give up now, resign from the F.A. Go back to our Amateur roots and enjoy football as it used to be played, without the Oligarchs, Multi Billionaires and 18 year old Prima Donna's who infest the game that we all love.
The clubs pay the wages, the sponsors pay the money, we pay the majority of a clubs income. How different do you see it under your own ideals?
posted on 18/8/11
the problem with increasing the ticket prices is that Everton's fanbase demographic doesn't have the same amount of disposable income as Tottenham's
------------------------------------
That's actually my point. A club's ability to make money isn't based off the number of supporters it has, but by an arbitrary notion that sees one club benefit over another because of the location of each respective club.
For me, the FFP (with all it's good intentions for the game) needs to take this into account. Another poster suggested that clubs that reside in less affluent areas should be allowed to have match-revenue income subsidised by their owners, so that they are not hampered by a club's (good and indeed necessary) intent to keep ticket prices down. The only alternative to that (to make it really fair) is to either cap ticket prices right across the board (fair market value), or to allow clubs to charge what they want, but only allow a percentage limit to be included in the annual reports that they submit to UEFA. After all, a player's wages, or transfer fee, isn't affected by the location of a particular club. To use an analogy, go watch a comedy show in London and go and watch a comedy show in Liverpool. Is the price that each venue in each city charge for a ticket as different as it is for people when it comes to watching football in each respective city?
You are right - Everton do deserve credit. They are fighting to all intents and purposes a losing battle off the field, while remaining by and large competitive on it. I admire Everton for what they have achieved in the face of such financial adversity, and it really should be applauded.
posted on 18/8/11
Silky. Watching a 90-minute game in London costs a lot more than watching a 90-minute game in Liverpool. People in London can afford to pay more because the average wage down there is higher than it is in Liverpool. But the expenses to a club in Liverpool and London are relatively similar. It will cost a club in Liverpool the same amount for a player that it will cost a club in London. The player will command exactly the same amount in wages. So based off an external factor (average wages of supporters in different locations), which club has an advantage?
My ideals are to see a fair, more equal ideal within football. Not one based off location, but rather one that is based off the size (predominantly fan-base) of each club. Are Spurs are bigger club than Everton? I wouldn't say so. They are certainly not as successful a club as Everton. Yet they are able to generate more money because they can charge a hell of a lot more than Everton can when it comes to match-day revenue.
It's all well and good (and in principle it is correct) to say that a club should only spend what it earns. But when a club can charge x-amount more for watching a game over another club (of similar or even higher standard), then that is where the whole idea of a club only being able to spend what it generates falls on its backside for me.
This isn't about "giving up". It's about making it all fairer. If expenses are generally the same for every club, then the ability to generate income equally has to be on a level footing. That way, a club like Everton may actually stand a chance. With or without a mega rich owner.
posted on 18/8/11
Firstly can I say, what a good debative article this is!
from me!
Whilst I don't think you can tell a club what to charge for tickets, I do think that a certain number of all clubs tickets should be kept at a comparable price (like in the Bundsliga) so all fans have the chance to attend the game no matter how well of they are. Secondly (and not a dig) the reason that Everton don't make as much as other clubs, is simply because the demand for tickets is not there. Your ground is only ever sold out for big games and (as stated above) the corporate side of Everton is poor!
Good article Ripley!
posted on 18/8/11
An excellent article. I pose the question however, just what are we doing differently than say the likes of Wigan who supposedly are equally skint and yet appear to be able to dabble in the market.
posted on 18/8/11
comment by (U5282) posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
An excellent article. I pose the question however, just what are we doing differently than say the likes of Wigan who supposedly are equally skint and yet appear to be able to dabble in the market.
------------------------
I dont know the exact figures but i presume Baines, Arteta, Cahill and a few other top earners are on 20-30k per week more than any other Wigan player?
posted on 19/8/11
For once a proper debate on here.
Ignoring the corporate side and focusing just on normal fans, I think part of the problem could also be linked to the outsourcing of all food and drink to Sodexo.
We only get a small percentage back on in match sales in return for outsourcing.
The range provided is also not great. All blues I go with would rather eat and drink outside the ground on matchday simply because of queues and tradition.
Biggest issue though is County Road traditions. The club is so close to so many pubs a lot of match going blues only leave 15 mins before kick off.
We all have our same pubs we go to before and after. The only way to change this is obviously move. Not feasible.
I do have an idea for increasing match day revenue that to my knowledge has never been tried. I am actually looking for a way of getting this info to the club. Anyone have a way of contacting the relevant department.
posted on 19/8/11
I do have an idea for increasing match day revenue that to my knowledge has never been tried.
-------------------------------------
You probably don't want to disclose it on here, and I completely understand and respect that, but I would nevertheless love to hear what your ideas are.
"I think part of the problem could also be linked to the outsourcing of all food and drink to Sodexo".
One thing that was noted in Everton's 2009-10 financial report was that the club's annual wage bill represented 69% of the club's turnover. It then states that "if the full revenue from the outsourced catering and retail operations were included in the Club's turnover figure the wage bill as a proportion of turnover would have been 64%".
Not quite sure what to make of that in all honesty - that is, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Sure, the lower percentage figure makes it sound like a good thing, but it does nevertheless beg the question, what would that percentage figure be if catering and retail wasn't outsourced?
posted on 19/8/11
It is linked to season ticket holders in first part then second part would be linked to advertising.
At moment only a concept but would like to know clubs thoughts on it.