November 17, 2018, 04:03:03 AM

Author Topic: Should we sack Steve Walsh?  (Read 52138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 08, 2018, 01:52:29 AM
Reply #15
Offline

Ridge


The club, for their size, have been largely static commercially, I lack confidence in our abilities to negotiate the best possible sponsorship deals, and there are existing concerns over the suitability of the Kitbag deal and his part in it.

Commercial revenue went up 66% last year.

Kitbag deal turned an area we lost money, into several million profit,it expires in a couple of years. They now have deals with 50% of PL, 70% of La Liga etc. Instead of fighting for retail space, we went for online sales and it worked out much better financially. Being in retail shops reduced profit margin for club, even though retail price was similar.


February 08, 2018, 02:27:41 AM
Reply #16
Offline

Ridge


He likes rugby.

I think the rugby job is largely why he gets the grassroots, importance of community projects and engaging with fans. He's a suit, but on the numbers he's always been good, and on the fan interaction I'd say he was always considerate and professional. Fanbase was so used to scratching their eyes out at the job BK was doing before him, that Elstone's early deals were treated more suspiciously.

He might just be the last competent senior member of staff, his days are probably numbered.

February 08, 2018, 05:20:04 AM
Reply #17
Offline

Ridge


@Ridge can I ask where your figures are from re: last years commercial performance btw? Would be interested in having a look if they’re available somewhere

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/2017/12/22/everton-posts-record-turnover-and-30m-post-tax-profit


February 08, 2018, 05:15:54 PM
Reply #18
Offline

Ridge


Thank you, but sponsorship & advertising =/= commercial performance. And that was the year we signed our new shirt sponsors and introduced a sleeve sponsor, so you would expect a big jump in spon. Would be interested to see other clubs % growth for each new sponsor.

For commercial to have grown 66% last year would represent a stunning turnaround, as since 2013 commercial has grown by just £8m (as of 2016 accounts), and by those accounts profit from commercial had dropped between 15-16.

In fact, if you look at our EBITDA for that account period, the only clubs worse than Everton at proftiable revenue generation are Swansea, Sunderland, Stoke, and Villa.

You're only likely to get a major increase when you sign new deals, deals are never going to increase like that over duration of agreement. I wouldn't expect many clubs to post increases of that size, Leicester maybe? But you normally expect improved financial results to follow improved on pitch performances, in part because commercial agreements reward based on performance.

SportPesa is included and shows the increase of about double on previous year and supposedly will show 3 fold increase on Chang deal in due course. Was about £10m, puts us about 7th/8th overall on main sponsor, behind who you'd expect. It tends to make up around 20%-40% of commercial revenue, so key element to get right. It's not the best deal, but it's not the worst and it's a big improvement.

Sleeve sponsor is earning United about £10m, average in PL is probably closer to £1m and probably accounts for something like 5% increase in most cases, only started this season didn't it? not sure that would be included or for full year. In the scheme of things Angry Birds is a sponsor I quite like the profile of. Innovative, engages young fans, digital content, global reach. I can't help but feel we might have got more content, potential, if things hadn't been so shit on the field.

Would assume USM deal for training ground is also included, but again not sure how many months. That is worth a similar amount over a year as the increase in value of the shirt sponsor, supposedly about £5m. Obviously that's tied to board connections, but that's not something a CEO can control.

It's not the entire commercial profit, but then Goodison has limitations with regard to corporate facilities and commercial space. Essentially there is very little room to increase profitability without increasing prices or flogging us more tat or treating us more as consumers.

There's only so much work you can do on marketing and actually I think the comedy decisions are not in our commercial operation anymore. Elstone can't control managerial appointments, DoF, transfers or performances on the field. But off the field the poor choices are in boardroom Elstone is a part of. But he's not calling the shots, he's dealing with the fallout and poor decisions, his job could be much easier if we had a manager who managed the club with pride and ambition, which company would want to be associated with us this season?

February 08, 2018, 08:23:53 PM
Reply #19
Offline

Ridge


Relative measures like the 66% aren't very helpful really because they lack context. How did that £8m increase compare to the clubs above us or to clubs like Leicester, West Ham and Southampton?

If a £1 bet returned you £1.66 that's a 66% increase too, but it's also nothing to write home about.

If you have commercial activities overall, then you end up saying about how West Ham have new stadium, Leicester have recent success, they are not comparable situations. 66% was just to highlight stagnant is not an accurate summary. Feel free to pick the bones out of the new deals.

On shirt sponsor, Leicester are getting around £4m a year because it's the owner's brand and old deal. West Ham £8m, Southampton about £6m. But would expect similar or better results from commercial operations at stadiums due to locations and facilities.

Elstone doesn't control every aspect, under his control things tend to run smoothly. Everyone wants a CEO to be a negotiating goliath with corporates, sensitive about ticket and product prices and not sell that sort of tacky stuff. Maybe the best endorsement for him, is he probably used to be more heavily involved in negotiations for players before it became Walsh's remit.

CEO's tend to be unpopular, Brady is on 650k at West Ham, Scholes 750k at Stoke, Peace 1m at West Brom, Levy £2m, Woodward £2.5m. Elstone is on 400k, been at the club a decade, vast improvement on Wyness and if anyone finds a direct problem with him let me know. He's always seemed to solve far more problems than he's caused, seemed a good negotiator and communicator.

When you consider we spent £10m getting rid of Koeman, and similar getting Allardyce, Walsh cost £2m to get from Leicester will likely have incentives and a bigger salary. I really see Elstone as the remaining bit of continuity among senior staff and only one providing value for money. I understand it's all gone to shit, but that's not an issue with marketing, we are shit.

February 09, 2018, 05:23:13 AM
Reply #20
Offline

Ridge


Again 66% was sponsorship, commercial was static, losing profit between 15 and 16 and largely static since 2013

Presume you're comparing matchday revenue from a european year.


March 30, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
Reply #21
Offline

Ridge


I completely forget that Craig Shakespere works for us.

Any tips?