Jerome, congrats on this - you must have lots of spare time !. ?
Talk of extractions and parting with cash only reminds me of my last 5 years dental history !

I can identify with that over this past five years as well.Looking at Everton's Owner intentions history can be painful for much longer.

Philip#1

I don't have any spare time at the moment,and don't spend all my time on Everton.. The above article is actually condensed research and I don't expect everyone to get it, but I will explain what I can.It is better to establish the facts if possible and discuss to find out more information.and gain greater understanding. Evertonians have had alot people trying to take the hand out of them over the years, but alot know and try to understand.

jerome it's a well researched & well written article. once again everton's future is uncertain. tfg saved us from bankruptcy but we continue to lurch from one crisis to another ! I have richard buxtons excellent book ' the worst run club in the country' on kindle I think there may be enough material for a second volume, could anyone truthfully say this current squad is better than our squad that started the 24-25 season ?

Pholip#4

The Premier League's success is its vulnerability.High valuations make clubs attractive collateral, and deep buyer pools make exit fast. Ownership rules have tested fitness—not capital adequacy or leverage. So owners can realise equity while the club keeps the debt.

That leaves little for the football side—infrastructure, squad. The emphasis falls on player trading and squad-financing deals, which the SCR rules count as a liquid asset. Borrowing against players not yet sold is rewarded.

Unless you have huge sponsorship—like Manchester City's £1bn deal, allowed in September 2025 after the Premier League lost twice on the APT rules it introduced in 2021. And yes, Philip before you ask—that relates to the 80 sponsorship breaches found by the Independent Commission in Sept 2026

Everton's history in my article fits this pattern precisely. Through this lens, it all fits together.Including your squad evaluation.

Thank you for your reply.

Philip#4

Your reference to Buxton is important. Buxton concentrates on the symptoms, like most do, but he does not look at the structural explanation. My rule that Capital extraction reduces money for squad development.

Spend well and the club funds itself. Spend badly and the club becomes the funding.In Moshiri's case he did provide funds for transfers.But what happened was:

· Gross spend was high, net investment was negative. The club bought badly and sold to cover—Richarlison, Gordon, Onana—so the squad degraded despite the outlay.

· Wages absorbed the budget. Big fees came with big salaries; wage-to-turnover hit 81%, leaving no headroom for renewal or infrastructure.

· Amortisation piled up. Long contracts on depreciating assets meant the cost hit the accounts for years after the player had gone.

· Every wasted pound had to be financed. The deficit was covered by Rights & Media at base+5%, 777/A-CAP near 20%, and capitalised stadium interest.

This is where the extraction actually happened.The Rule holds even when a huge Transfer Budget is provided.

Jerome, this is a really good article. Thank you for the research and the time taken. I am sure it is going to generate a lot of comments.

Without going to the trouble of verifying any of this, I’ve always seen Everton’s recent history along these lines:

Kenwright: Unable to raise the funds needed to make us competitive, and unwilling to sell to someone who could. In it solely for the personal prestige and making a bob or two while we stagnated / declined.

Moshiri: a front for Usmanov – who was in it for vanity, reputation washing and steel / construction contracts associated with the stadium / docks etc development. Pulled the plug financially very abruptly when Usmanov’s sanctions struck – leaving us very severely in the shit from 2020/21.

TFG: Boring but potentially sensible commercial owners, looking to sort out the mess they inherited, build a sustainable business and ultimately make a return on their investment.

Your central point is an important one: a club can survive financially without necessarily becoming a sustainable, competitive business. Totally logical. We saw that with Kenwright in particular.

However, you seem to be conflating a return on investment with extraction of value from the football club. These are two very different things.

If they were the same thing - the only viable model would be something along the lines of the sovereign states behind City, Newcastle and PSG or the Abramovich model at Chelsea. These sorts of owners need take nothing financial in return, because they seem to be in it for global reputation washing etc (and not money).

However, expecting a financial return out of ownership is not necessarily detrimental to footballing success (or relative success) - as you can see at the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and the much lauded three Bs clubs of Brighton, Brentford and Bournemouth.

For me, the real question isn’t whether an owner expects a return. It’s whether that return comes at the expense of the club's progress.

The TFG acquisition was along the lines of a rescue - since we couldn't last much longer at all under Moshiri without getting relegated and / or going bust (it was a miracle that we lasted so long). Some of the more credible alternatives to TFG were pretty dire.

Since the expected sale by TFG hasn't actually happened yet, it is certainly premature to talk of them as extractors of value.

To my mind they have done a lot of the boring foundation building that any long term owner would need to have done in the first 18 months or so - and with our revenue fast increasing, we are positioned pretty well to sit alongside clubs like Villa and Newcastle on the fringes of the Rich 6 within 2 or 3 seasons (with contention for Champions League runs, trophies and certainly European qualification as a natural consequence).

But it looks like that will be for new investors / owners to oversee.

Watching the game today is like getting my teeth extracted, Jerome, and gives me the same type of thoughts as your final sentence, mate.

TFG’s acquisition, debt restructure, modest commercial uptick and rapid sale is straight out of the private equity playbook. They get lauded for restructuring the debt using a brand new £1 billion stadium as securitisation; frankly a trained chimp could have done that deal.

£250 million - £350 million profit plus a £45 million dividend, not bad for 20 months of ownership. They must be really pleased. Unfortunately for them, the collapse of results on the field means they may struggle to achieve their valuation.

As the club and its supporters, they have given us absolutely nothing.

interesting stuff Jerome as ever. I don't though think we can talk about clubs operating in the PL in terms of models. cos the whole thing is a stacked deck. The people making the most money are the ones in charge of th e rules, and the first thing they've done is change the rules to penalise everyone else.

other than last year when we spent the princely sum of 80m, we've not been able to spend now for seven years. And given what happened over the summer, it seems that' s not likely to change anytime soon. Apparently if we'd have brought in balogun we'd have been right up to our limit. the whole thing is a stacked deck.

I don't want to be a gloom bucket, but I think it's over. Criminals are in charge, and they don't want anyone moving out of their station to wreck their golden goose. Our place is 12th, that's it. Even if geniuses take over, the only possible route upwards seems to be the /brighton model, buy well for ten years, having your best players taken every year but then replenishing with talented kids.

But who wants even that? it's insulting, why should we invest our time in such a model. The offer is not compelling, in fact it's derisory.

Steve # 9, I'll leave Mike Gaynes to weigh in (again) and debunk your take on the financials. You two can fight it out over who is right and who is wrong.

Kevin # 10, you're right, our spending over a long period now has been extremely low. I made the point on another thread that Ipswich have spent more than we have assembling their squad. Only Hull, Coventry, Leeds and Sunderland have spent less. This goes a long way to explaining our tiny squad (and why too many of our tiny squad aren't very good).

But that is a legacy of what Moshiri did when he pulled the plug in 2020/21. That legacy still bites but it won't go on forever. The revenues are increasing, and that enables us to spend more and more each summer window. Our place might well be 12th this season unfortunately (I expect somewhere between 9th and 14th), but that isn't our ceiling longer term.

Within about 2 to 3 seasons, it seems reasonable and realistic to expect us to sit alongside Newcastle and Villa on the fringes of the Rich 6. Both clubs have enjoyed seeing world class players, Champions League runs etc etc in recent seasons and there's no reason why that can't happen to us. But you are going to have a wait a bit.

I can’t see us finishing outside the bottom six, Robert, unless there are some reinforcements and a change in attitude from the manager.

I hope I’m wrong, but something just feels terribly wrong, at this moment in time, mate.

Apologies for not getting back sooner to all, but I had given up on anyone posting.

Robert#7

As for Kenwright I have done more research.It was speculated that his purchase was funded by a part mortgage of his house and loan from Fellow director Gregg's Wife. Bellefield was used to fund working capital in the short term,I have proved that in another article. and Finch Farm.was a lease back.There was a purchase agreement at market value, no buy back Clause with the Developer. The lease with Liverpool Council who purchased from the liquidator, at Everyone's request, has no buyback clause.Greggs Share came into the ownership of Earls,,after the Kings Dock plan sabotage by Kenwright, but it was Philip Green who paid Gregg for the Shares and I speculate that Green took over the Gregg Wife Loan.So effectively Green controlled Everton.Kenwright was his ultimately well paid puppet.I must state this is my opinion, but I have evidence that Green paid Gregg for the share.

Moshiri was introduced by Green as was Tabor of Rights and Media funding. Both Kenwright and Green profited from the same of share to Moshiri.Kenwright management of the Club after that was diabolical and Everton Director renumeration was the third highest in the League.

I think I acknowledged your point on another thread regarding the £331m that was paid by TFG.More up to date figures by Paul the Esk show that selling at £1 billion will give TFG minimum return. I think that the sale is dressing for a partial sale to realise a European Premium and give them a better Capital return and maintain a smaller shareholding in the Club..They did brought in outside investors at Roma and already have to some extent at Everton, who could increase their shareholding.

Your right regarding the Soft power model of Sovereign States. I did not include that in relation to Everton.Aryivle.I have done extensive research on the Abudabi Ecosystem and the offshore shadow structure in relation to Man City.

TFG have sorted out the finances, but their expertise has not transferred onto the football side, other than recruitment and players trading.

Steve #8

PE Playbook framing is fair, but Paul the Esk has recent figures, I was going by reports

The dividend wasn't £45m on top of the profit — it was £20 a share, roughly £44m, funded by the internal sale of Everton Women to Roundhouse. It's a PSR balance-sheet move, not cash out of the club. If your profit already counts it, you're double-counting.

TFG finished the stadium, refinanced £480m of short-term debt, and lifted revenue to £196.7m.

Where I agree is the football. £1m a week losses, a net profit in the summer window, Finch Farm and Nelson Dock paused. They stopped funding the growth story they're asking a buyer to pay for.

Paul's numbers make the profit tighter than £250m–£350m too. £401.3m in against £750–800m before debt — if the £600m debt figure is right, equity at £800m is around £200m. The profit only exists if a buyer pays a stadium premium TFG haven't funded themselves.I think a part sale to realise a European Premium is a better way to get Capital out, maintaining shares that will increase in value as the Stadium income flows in.

If I am reading your comments right Jerome - TFG’s actions don’t really smack of extraction. The dividend Steve talks of seems to be illusory (a point Mike G keeps making).

Had they spent the £45m they clearly intended to with minutes left of the summer window, the financials look more growth orientated than owners preparing for sale. Indeed all the financial press reports were of TFG seeking external investment (as per the RS owners) rather than a sale. Sale is only now on the cards because they couldn’t secure Plan A of more external investment

I might very well be reading far too much into things — but I’ve said elsewhere it wouldnt surprise me if the sudden willingness to sell might have something to do with the EU lifting sanctions on Usmanov. He might operate from the shadows again but our new owner could end up being our old owner.

Kevin#10

In an extraction model. Money comes in and leaves — to debt service, the stadium, owners, refinancing — before it reaches the football side.Paul the Esk £1m a week isn't a spending problem, it's a circulation problem.

As for the Bigger Clubs. It's not that they spend more on football, it's that their commercial base is worldwide, so the football side gets headroom without breaking the rules. They don't need to extract because the engine keeps feeding the squad. Ours is local and matchday-led, so every pound for football comes out of something else.Commercially Everton has been dead for years

Brighton is not a model you choose.It's what an extraction-constrained club looks like when it's run well. The insult is that it's the best available option..

The real question isn't who buys us, it's whether they break the extraction cycle by putting commercial capital in, or just take over the extraction. TFG couldn't be that buyer because their own portfolio blocked the commercial unlock. The next one might.

As for the Bigger Clubs. It's not that they spend more on football, it's that their commercial base is worldwide, so the football side gets headroom without breaking the rules. They don't need to extract because the engine keeps feeding the squad. Ours is local and matchday-led, so every pound for football comes out of something else.Commercially Everton has been dead for years

That reframes Brighton too. It's not a model you choose.It's what an extraction-constrained club looks like when it's run well. The insult is that it's the best available option..

The real question isn't who buys us, it's whether they break the extraction cycle by putting commercial capital in, or just take over the extraction. TFG couldn't be that buyer because their own portfolio blocked the commercial unlock. The next one might.

Robert#16

The £45 million is illusory as I explain in reply to Steve's post.

Everton sold players and had cash to spend, but the new signings' wages and fees already used up most of their spending allowance under the rules. So even though they have money £45 million, the rules say they can't spend much more without breaking the limit.Rising Stadium revenue has no impact on this in the January Transfer window.

Selling there stake for £1 billion will give them little return.It is not they have bit off more than they can chew,it is they are having to chew more than they expected.The better return is selling a stake that takes Multi Club Rules out of the equation.This would give them a premium on the shares they sell,greater than selling the whole lot and their remaining shares would Benifit from increased Stadium income.

At Roma they did the same bringing in Outside Investors. Toffee Investments LLC is the sole registered shareholder of Roundhouse Capital Holdings Limited, the entity through which The Friedkin Group (TFG) owns Everton. The Shareholders in Toffee Investments LLD are undisclosed. I think that the Investors are already on place.

Tony# 4

TFG have done the part that's financial engineering: clean the balance sheet, refinance the debt, open the stadium. What's left is the part that's operational and structural — a business that loses £1m a week, a squad needing ~£400m of forward investment, Finch Farm and Nelson Dock stalled, no long-term manager contract. That's not a refinancing job. That's a rebuild of how the club is run.

And the evidence fits "on hold":

· Finch Farm and Nelson Dock paused, left for the next owner.

· Net player-trading profit in the summer rather than squad investment.

· Moyes' contract in a lull, no long-term commitment.

· "Exploring options including the sale of a controlling interest" — deliberately open.

So they've stabilised the asset and are holding the operating side steady while a buyer takes on the structural fix. The balance sheet was their job; the business model is being handed over.

The catch: the buyer pays for the stadium premium and inherits the £1m a week. TFG's exit price depends on someone believing they can do the operational rebuild TFG chose not to.

It’s just a game to these money people, imo, Jerome.

Why are Everton, losing £1 million a week? Is it because of our existential debt, or our operational costs? Is it the wages, or is it a combination of everything?

My own view is it goes back to what a politician said the other day, when the national debt reached £3 trillion. Everyone is living beyond their means, financing and refinancing, even though they are multi- fucking billionaire’s.

Maybe that’s why Burnham, said he didn’t want to lose the Manchester City owners? They have spent a lot of money, helping to redevelop a part of Manchester, although I’m not sure how they operate with regards financing?

Kevin apologies for repeating twice, I must have been trying to get details and lost my place.

Robert #11

In my reply I did not make clear it is extraction..It is more that they are set up to go in the direction of the Extraction Model.Kevin is right in his Private equity framework, but it is again at the start of the process, but they are heading in that direction.

They are chewing more than they expected and Paul the Esk points out their due diligence had gaps.Bit they are sticking to their timetable and do have the resources and scenario to continue till they get where they want to be.

But as ever the football side is a problem, which I am sure they are thinking about.IMO they have already told Ueafa they are reducing their stake.I must go throught Paul the Esk analysis of the competing Club, who are managing the constraints better on the football side. I still think their is a Culture problem at Everton, that TFG have stayed clear off, as their Head of Technology said they would.

The wider issue that Kevin talks about is another problem and Everton is the test case now in the USA PE world, on whether a Midtable Club can progress to the next tier realising the necessary and justifiable returns.

The Sovereign States are not in the market at the moment to buy a Premier League Club, watching the Man City situation.All the action is in the USA Private Equity Market that TFG are embedded in.

Tony#20

The £1m a week isn't the debt anymore. TFG refinanced the stadium borrowing into 30-year notes, saving up to £50m a year in interest. What's left is operational: the 2024/25 accounts show £196.7m revenue against £210.5m operating costs, wages at 74% of turnover. They spend more running the club than they bring in. Even after the Ndiaye sale they were losing money — player sales are plugging a hole, not fixing the leak.

On everyone living beyond their means — there's something in it, but for these owners the club isn't the business, it's the asset. They can fund a deficit indefinitely if the asset appreciates. The £1m a week only becomes a crisis if the owner stops funding it, which is exactly what a sale tests.

Burnham's concern is Manchester regeneration, not football finance. City's owners have put hundreds of millions into the Etihad Campus and the wider area. He's worried about losing an investor in his city, not shielding them from PSR. His office said nobody's above the rules. It's about urban investment, not Man City'd Accounts.

210.5 minus 196.7 = £13.8 million. It’s why I often get lost when all this other stuff starts getting brought into the equation.

Jerome, I've found all of this really interesting. Thanks again for explaining.

My understanding (from other posters) is that our current revenues are up from £196m (the 2024/25 figures) and going in the right direction too.

I expect we can logically expect to reach revenue levels of Newcastle circa €400m before too long because our stadium revenue and global commercial appeal will be about the same. Not unlike Villa, too.

At a fairly simplistic level, those revenue figures seem to allow the same sort of recruitment spending as Newcastle and Villa. Newcastle have spent €789m putting together their squad, compared to the €333m we have spent on ours.

This isn't quite a place at the top table - but it is an end to poor, plucky Everton, pretending to compete with the other big clubs, when we're not even competing financially with the likes of Brentford.

Your'e right that revenues are heading up.

Everton's £196.7m was a record, and the new stadium should add around £40-60m a year. The direction is real.

But Newcastle's £335.3m came from a 44% commercial jump, and Villa's £378.1m was 37% up on their Champions League run — not organic figures you can replicate without the same triggers. And those squad-spend numbers are total purchase value, not annual budget: Villa's cost less than Newcastle's yet they finished above them.

On Europe — Everton aren't blocked out entirely, but they're locked out of some competitions, and that hits valuation. UEFA warned TFG in August 2026 that their "structural solution" wouldn't work if both Everton and Roma qualified for the same competition. Preference goes to the higher league finish, which would likely favour Roma. That conditional exclusion is exactly what a buyer would discount for, and clearing it is the trigger that closes the gap to Newcastle and Villa.

Everton out-earn Brentford but lose more money doing it.Brentford are better run.The Stadium will create a gap,but only if Everton are better run.

Your core point stands: the stadium gives us a platform to stop being plucky.

Tony#28

£13.8m = the day-to-day gap between running costs and revenue. That's the core operational problem.It actually is a real figure,well done.

· ~£52m = the total loss once you add player trading, amortisation, interest and everything else.

The latter is the cash the owner has to cover

It's like Robert and the £45m seemily available in the Transfer Window, but the SCR calculation means it is eaten up somewhere and can't be used. Similarly a increase in Stadium revenue cannot be used in the January Transfer Window.

I get caught out with figures as well.Paul the Esk recently came out with up to date accurate figures that caught alot out, including myself.

The above is his recent figures.You may even find a old report backing your interpretation.

I see Moyes is furious there is no money available for the January Transfer window.He must have been following this thread.Maybe you could explain it to him.

Only one of those terrible websites Jerome, but if this is the case then I genuinely think the owners are playing Russian-Roulette with our future, mate.

Thanks for explaining the other things Jerome. These billionaires love paying interest, even if it’s not in the best interests of the club!

Jerome #27

Here's my problem·

"~£52m = the total loss once you add player trading, amortisation, interest and everything else.

The latter is the cash the owner has to cover"

(My added emphasis}

But amortisation is an accounting convention...it isn't real cash.

You post a lot of finance stuff on here but there's a lot of schoolboy errors like that in many of your posts.

Brendan#29

Fair point on the wording, Brendan, amortisation is non-cash, I shouldn't have called the £52m "cash the owner has to cover." The £13.8m operating gap is the real cash shortfall; the £52m is the accounting/SCR loss.

That said, you're quick to flag "schoolboy errors".What are your own figures? Genuine question. If you've got a better breakdown of the operating gap vs. total loss vs. what the owner actually funds, I'd rather read that than trade one-liners.

Tony#28

Unfortunately that seems to be the case