Ipswich: Marcus Evans, owner of Ipswich Town FC, is worth £700m according to Sunday Times Rich List

Ipswich Town owner Marcus Evans Ipswich Town owner Marcus Evans

Sunday, May 18, 2014
12:18 PM

Ipswich Town owner Marcus Evans is now worth £700 million, according to the Sunday Times Rich List.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

The authoritative magazine, published today, says that Evans has added £75 million to his fortune in the last year, and is Britain’s 143rd richest person.

The Marcus Evans Group is now a media, conference and marketing company, employing 3,000 people worldwide.

News that Evans has increased his wealth is certain to be of great interest to Ipswich Town fans, who are waiting to see if the club’s owner will give manager Mick McCarthy funds to strengthen the squad to push for a long-awaited return to the Premier League next season.

38 comments

  • His 700 Million fortune is "based on a 90 million black hole". A 90 million that he has loaned at low interest to ITFC? Ray, so you're saying it should be 610 million? What about all the magic tax savings you and the plebs say he is getting? and the 40k rent from the training ground and the whopping 1 million he got for selling it to himself?! ha ha.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Staidtastic

    Wednesday, May 21, 2014

  • blue army - point taken but I thought City settled it rather than face a worse punishment?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Tom

    Tuesday, May 20, 2014

  • Yeah I first posted about break even rules but I thought it had moved away to UEFA rules. The UEFA rules don't effect our league unless someone from our league qualified for europe through a cup win or runner up of the FA cup. UEFA do have particular rules about being able to fine clubs along with other sanctions but The Football League have restricted themselves considerably. A financial penalty would be useless in The Football League as outside the Premiership clubs can fall into a 'wound up' trap. The only penalties The Football League have given themselves is transfer embargo's and fines to those who are promoted to the prem. Scudamore imposed this on us under threat of the prem withholding payments to football league clubs and I doubt they would stand for the football league backing out of the rules. The football league have dished out loads of transfer bans before so I don't see how clubs would be able to stop it now considering they did sign the agreement. Unless they can claim they were under duress.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    redhotitfc

    Tuesday, May 20, 2014

  • Redhot - Sorry mate I must be confused because in you pr first post I thought you were talking about the break even rules (hence the comments about ME being restricted with what he can put in - part of the break even rules). If you were then Malaga's ban is irrelevant - for the simple reason that they didn't break those rules. As for City's punishment restricting them to 21 players when they used 21 the previous season is hardly draconian and even if they got 4 injuries having 17 Multi-million pound players to chose from is not much of a hardship. The truth is nobody yet knows what punishments the Football League will hand out so trying to draw comparisons with what has happened to City, PSG, Malaga or any other team punished by UEFA is at best irrelevant. It's the Football League stance which effects Town not UEFA and we won't know until December what that will be.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    bluearmy78

    Tuesday, May 20, 2014

  • The Malaga case is very relevent. They were punished under the same FFP ruling system designed by UEFA regardless of which part of rule they broke. The fines are weak but the wage cap and size limit are not. If Man City get 4 injuries or suspensions they won't have a full squad for a Champions League game. That could really effect them if they get to the later stages.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    redhotitfc

    Tuesday, May 20, 2014

  • Staidlooney you don't think that 'ME' has helped 'himself' to the training facililty and every other saleable asset from Jon Walters to Conor Wickham is part of the equation. Just because you (or an imposter) turn up in a helicopter doesnt mean you have any money.... eg 'Sir' Alan Stanford. Nor a big yacht and football club eg Robert Maxwell. I think most people grounded in the real world think the ST rich list is pure fiction - but the Marcus Evans entry is one of the more risible based as it is on ITFC now a near £90million black hole and the almost non-existent UK operation of the ME Group. The funny thing is that loonies rambling on about FFP seem to think it is aimed at mega-clubs like Man City. Wrong. It is aimed squarely at small clubs like Town, Portsmouth and Birmingham with invisible or non-existent owners hoovering money offshore. If only FFP was around before over £80million was cleaned out of Town's coffers we might have had a football club to support.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Bidwolf

    Tuesday, May 20, 2014

  • Ha Ha ray stating the obvious. Making money is the whole point of going into business Ray!! If you took a business plan to a bank to apply for a start-up loan, and you said i don't plan to make any profit but basically my whole business plan to offset the massive losses i incur, against my non existent corporation tax liability you will get laughed out the bank!! Blue and True; it probably means that ITFC has been operating at a loss over the past few years due to dwindling attendances and millions wasted on rubbish players by previous managers. Ergo ME has loaned ITFC money from his other companies, and also implemented a strategy to get ITFC as close to breaking even as they can to comply with FFP.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Staidtastic

    Tuesday, May 20, 2014

  • Tom - I don't think that FIFA don't have anything to do with FFP. Also I don't share the confidence in UEFA you have to enforce these rules, especially against the bigger names. UEFA had the chance to make a statement and ban clubs who had flouted the break even rules and show from the outset they meant business - they bottled it spectacularly and allowed Man City to effectively decide on what their own punishment should be. Of course none of this has any bearing on ITFC and it won't be until December when we see what happens to the championship clubs which have failed the leagues FFP break even model. And before anybody goes on about Malaga they were banned not for breaking these very specific "break even rules" but for entirely different financial misdemeanours - not paying £8.5m tax and other overdue payables (transfer fees etc)

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    bluearmy78

    Tuesday, May 20, 2014

  • Blue and true it IS possible to get rich by taking money out of companies.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Bidwolf

    Tuesday, May 20, 2014

  • Hello fellow blues! Is it just me that can't understand the fact that ME is wealthy by X million and ITFC is in debt by Y million? What on earth does this mean in reality?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Blue and true since 1962

    Tuesday, May 20, 2014

  • accountant, the courts have nothing to do with it - this is a regulatory issue by the governing body. It's like being in a club and breaking the rules - there is no contract, just a membership agreement. It can't be enforced by the courts - but if Man City and others don't follow the rules, FIFA will eventually ban them from competing in the competitions which they (and UEFA) run.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Tom

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • We don't need our investor to buy us Bale & Ronaldo for next season!! We only need the money to offer the likes of Williams and Cresswell a decent deal to pick us over the Readings or Wigans who will sooner or later start sniffing around our players.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Chopper Hammond

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • bluearmy78 you forgot Malaga have been banned under those rules. The fines for the UEFA fines are first stage and they have 1 season to rectify those financial issues. The fact that Man City shouted about taking UEFA on then backing down shows the clubs are scared of possible sanctions. It could have been worse for those clubs but these fines and sanctions are a warning shot.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    redhotitfc

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Accountant - You seem confused. You're right there are no laws being broken but FFP rules about breaking even have been, hence the sanctions imposed by UEFA on Man City. When a club has been found in breach (like City) they are given a sanction which they either accept or try to re-negotiate as City did in order to lessen the effect. City rather nicely negotiated a "punishment" which has no effect whatsoever on them. Had they failed to renegotiate the sanction they could have entered into a legal challenge. They didn't and naturally took the punishment they negotiated because it amounts to no punishment whatsoever !! That is why many question whether or not FFP will have any meaningful effect - UEFA have demonstrated admirably that if you stick two fingers up to FFP and don't even try to comply (City missed the break even by up to £100m - not even close) they haven't got the balls to dish out the ultimate sanction. That is also why Wenger was so scathing because the ultimate santion was expulsion from the CL - and UEFA bottled it - of course !!!! But then why would they ban teams from their Blue Ribband £1.5bn money earner - it would be like killing the goose laying the golden eggs. We will just have to see which Championship clubs also failed FFP and then the fun will begin !!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    bluearmy78

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • As long as there is STILL no other photograph of "Marcus Evans" in existence than this one shot taken from some distance with a telephoto lens, of a guy playing golf who may or may not be Marcus Evans (no one ever officially confirmed it), I continue to doubt that an individual "Marcus Evans" exists. I believe it is a cover-up name for a consortium. Why else would there not be any other photos of the man, in this age of global digital media recording everything, anywhere you go? If he really existed, someone would surely have got a picture by now and would have leakedsold it, as it would be quite some coup.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    blue&white

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Account,They say never trust an accountant.I would rather sleep at night with a clear conscience.ITFC are doing the correct thing.Only if they sell and ME.gives the money to MM will he be able to spend,other than that it will be the same as last season.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    brisie58

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Redhot, Tom and Staidtastic are 100% right in respect of FFP which now severely restricts what money can be pumped into the club by ME. It could however be argued that the punishment for Man City is soft in the extreme - a £50m fine (£32m of which is suspended) & which isn't really a fine but a withholding of UEFA money over three years making it a mere £6m of lost revenue per season, a limit on their squad for champions league (even though they have been limited to the same size squad they used last season) and a transfer limit of £40 odd million (would they have needed to have spent more ? That's debatable).....City have negotiated a fantastic deal for them which amounts to no punishment and which is why they are not appealing it !!! We don't know yet whether the football league will be equally soft but from the stance of UEFA like many experts predicted this punishment lacks teeth !!! It cannot be denied however that, regardless of FFP, spending only what you earn must be a good thing and we will all have to get used to the idea that there will be no more millions spent by ME on players and he is clearly going to go down the route of complying with FFP....Of course as money spent on the academy is exempt from FFP this means ME could throw as much money as he likes into that to ensure we have the best academy in the eastern region and I'm not sure whether this is the case or not - I guess until we see what it produces we won't know...... So forget buying players, we won't be, get used to the idea of free transfers & loans and lets see what punishments the league hand down to clubs which have failed FFP - that's when the implications of failing to comply with FFP will become much clearer.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    bluearmy78

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Accountant the concept of spending loads of money to get promoted is foolish. It's worked for Leicester but there are plenty of clubs that have gone for the same approach and they haven't gone up and will get a transfer ban. Remember we spent millions (tens of) under Keane and Jewell and it didn't work so what makes you think it will now. Your idea of taking such a risk makes clear your name is not your profession.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    redhotitfc

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Brisie, I did respond to your entry, but of course the moderator did not like it, but in short there is no law broken until the courts say so.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Accountant

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Brisie, as I understand it no rule has been broken until the courts say so, and I cannot see that any solicitor would have difficulty in proving that the ffp rules are far from FAIR, but time will tell. Stop being so honourable, if you had the chance to make 140m you would jump at it.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Accountant

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Ray: Yes i've heard of cookies; so on a sunday night the moderator just leaves the message board to its own devices. Why don't they just do that all the time? re: magical tax, you subtract corporation tax off the company profits after all expenses, so if the ME group is making no profit as you say, they wouldn't need to be paying any tax at all ergo nothing to offset in the first place. (Income-Expenses)*Corp_tax_rate = liability value. I'm sure our resident unethical account can explain it all to you mate.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Staidtastic

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Ha@Accountant. spoken like a true account, recommending clients break the rules so they can take their cut. Then when the client gets busted (Gary Barlow, Jimmey Carr etc..) they get away with it scot free!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Staidtastic

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • redhotitfc, you are right that if so called fans pack out the stadium more money could be spent. However, even so called fans want value for money a commodity you will not get with our present brand of 'football'. So which comes first the chicken or the egg ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Brian Betts

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Accountant,remind me never to let you near my accounts.You don't run a business by breaking rules,that's what they are there for.The best thing to happen to clubs breaking the FFP rules would be for the club to be relegated,far better than a fine.!!ITFC is run the correct way.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    brisie58

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Why do these people want to hide behind the ffp rules, I believe Leicester City have broken the ffp rules, but their supporters will next season be watching premiership football, and the club will have an income we understand of around 140million. If they do get fined (which is unlikely because it is easy to see the ffp rules are anything but fair) the the fine will be insignificant to the income. If they have a transfer embargo slapped on them and get relegated they will earn another 64 million, how is this bad for the club or the supporters.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Accountant

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • staidpratic surely a fruitcake has heard of cookies? And yes profit beats losses.... but you assume the Marcus Evans group in all its magnificence is capable of making a profit.... and would even want to do so in a high tax country - when it can use losses to create high (and totally unwarranted) income?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Bidwolf

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Wonderful news about Marcus' millions. A real ray of sunshine in all our lives. I wonder whether our esteemed owner will sit down with Mick and ask him which players he needs to gain promotion and their likely cost of course.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Richard Gardiner

    Monday, May 19, 2014

  • Redhotitfc said 'you can't have it both ways' my mistake. And I should have capitalised ME.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Staidtastic

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • The Marcus Evans group provides services not products ray. Get out of the dark ages. he can't invest in town due yo financial fair play how many times do myself, redhotitfc etc have to explain it? This off setting losses against tax that all the plebs have latched onto is stupid. Yes if a member of a group is making a loss it makes sense to offset the loss. But it's still far favourable to make a profit!!! Also those same plebs criticise me for lack of investment when in fact the closer to breaking even town get the less the magical offsetting of tax. As Tom says you can't have it both ways.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Staidtastic

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • OldTimer I can help you out on that onel... Ipswich Town offer guaranteed cash flow. They also offer a possible lottery win i the club gets promoted.... to an international company with no assets this is a win win situation allowing them to exploit tax loopholes.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Bidwolf

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • Hmmmm... Ipswich Town FC the only UK-based cog in this invisible machine is now (somehow)£90million in debt. Somehow it doesn't quite add up

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Bidwolf

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • Not sure if I've missed something - but was it ever explained why he took over the club ???? Chairmen usually do it either because they are supporters or to raise their own profile - & we know neither of these are the case !!!! Perhaps Ray has been right all along ??????

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Old Timer

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • It's all academic given the FFP rules now. The whole context of football is changing. Just look at Man City. Having a rich owner doesn't mean you can spend millions.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Tom

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • I am shocked, I seemed to recall that Mr Evans was in fact a billionaire at the time he took over ITFC... must be talking dollar billionaire then - which holds little relevance when talking amounts of money in pound sterling!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ipswich Entrepreneur

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • Could ITFC get an owner with some proper money? Half a hedgefunder on a good year...

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mr Shilling

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • Time after time people want more money in the transfer kitty. We will scrape past the FFP rules this season and blowing millions will just give us a transfer ban. He could only put in £5M this season and it's going to be even less next year. The only way we can start spending more money is if the so called fans pack out the stadium. That's our main source of income outside the premiership. You can't have it both ways.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    redhotitfc

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • Why would Marcus Evans want to plunge a fortune into itfc ? They may become successful and who want a company they can't use as a tax write off ! Be absolutely no use to him .

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Steve Cotterell

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

  • come on m.e 690m is not a bad amount you can surely put £10m in the itfc kitty to give them a good chance of promotion for next season

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    darren porter

    Sunday, May 18, 2014

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

loading...
iwitness24 Your news is our news Facebook Like your local paper Twitter Join the conversation Ipswich Borough Council

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT