2025/26 Jack Grealish

f.t.r.s said:
15 mill completion fee, 125k a week. 3 year deal...

All parties happy....

Doesn't rely on pace so dont have to worry about his legs going....

Good egg and seems great for morale.....

Ideal player to mentor dibling
Click to expand...
Can’t see it for those numbers imo.
His book value to city at the end of the season is £16.6m (£100m / 6 years)
He’s owed £15.6m in wages for the final year of his contract (apparently £300k/w)
So City need to see at least £16m PLUS the difference between wages we offer him and what he’s due to balance the remainder of his contract. So at £125k/w he’s going to expect city to weigh out the balance of £175k x 52 / £9.1m.
So unless someone is willing to take a multi million pound ‘hair cut’ City will need £25m or so just to break even.
Throw in competition from other teams the figures go even more squewiff.
 

Neiler said:
At his age id fancy a return on the £30 mill so the fee is academic thats an investment, while 300k - to sign him no, would i give him 300k now to sign a new deal also no - because hed sign on for much less. If someone else wants to give 300k id shake his hand and say he can go for £120 mill.

Its actually a good comparison because if i was Illy and i was looking at my wage and productively and output comparatively to the other side of the pitch i wouldn't be happy.

With Jack its the finances but also footballing side id be hesitant about.
Click to expand...

I've always argued that sometimes you've got to let numbers and metrics slide because they can also be flawed if relied on to make a decision.

We've had players like Mina and Gomes on £100k+ a week each and never played. We've paid £30mill for a striker who could easily be a waste of development with no return. There has to be a balance.

Only issue for me is if the club can't afford it and they can't reach an agreement. Has zero to do with the ability or age of the player
 

kenada_blue said:
I've always argued that sometimes you've got to let numbers and metrics slide because they can also be flawed if relied on to make a decision.

We've had players like Mina and Gomes on £100k+ a week each and never played. We've paid £30mill for a striker who could easily be a waste of development with no return. There has to be a balance.

Only issue for me is if the club can't afford it and they can't reach an agreement. Has zero to do with the ability or age of the player
Click to expand...

Cost is one consideration and it’s significant to value, it’s the value that justifies the cost in my opinion as opposed to the actual cost. Hypothetically if Jack empowers us to the Champions League then the cost is irrelevent to the value. But cost isn't the only consideration there is also longevity and cohesion.

By cohesion I mean connectedness and how it influences the attacking unit and the lack of variance.

For example practically both Illy and Grealish stand on the ball and try and beat a man. Which is nice and all but it means we are slow or both doing that takes the pace and directness out of our game, it also allows your opposition defence to pick up your striker. Thats a problem.

Thus I don’t think it’s actually that mad, to vary it and have pace and directness on the opposite wing to Illy. We are slowing the game down too much standing on the ball when the rest of the league is going for pace, directness and getting the ball up the pitch and as close to the goal as fast as possible.

We’ve scored 15 goals this season, same as Burnley, less then Leeds and in the bottom four in the league.

For all the talk of creativity etc we’re actually not at all that productive or meaningfully creative.

Thats one aspect, were my uncertainty comes from in signing him permanently, I’ve others.

To be clear, I think he’s a brilliant player, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he is in the long term what we need.
 
Last edited:
Neiler said:
Cost is one consideration and it’s significant to value, it’s the value that justifies the cost in my opinion as opposed to the actual cost. Hypothetically if Jack empowers us to the Champions League then the cost is irrelevent to the value. But cost isn't the only consideration there is also longevity and cohesion.

By cohesion I mean connectedness and how it influences the attacking unit and the lack of variance.

For example practically both Illy and Grealish stand on the ball and try and beat a man. Which is nice and all but it means we are slow or both doing that takes the pace and directness out of our game, it also allows your opposition defence to pick up your striker. Thats a problem.

Thus I don’t think it’s actually that mad, to vary it and have pace and directness on the opposite wing to Illy. We are slowing the game down too much standing on the ball when the rest of the league is going for pace, directness and getting the ball up the pitch and as close to the goal as fast as possible.

We’ve scored 15 goals this season, same as Burnley, less then Leeds and in the bottom four in the league.

For all the talk of creativity etc we’re actually not at all that productive or meaningfully creative.

Thats one aspect, were my uncertainty comes from in signing him permanently, I’ve others.

To be clear, I think he’s a brilliant player, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he is in the long term what we need.
Click to expand...

Thats not their issue for me. The issue is spending £70mill on 2 players around them who don't have the things you've mentioned.

If we'd have bought a Delap for example (yes he turned us down), hed compliment the two more than Barry. If we'd have brought in some actual pace instead of £40mill on Dibbling, we'd offer someone who got behind defences.

Illy and Jack get us into fantastic positions in the final 3rd. They scare other teams. The other elements to finish that play off is the problem.
 
kenada_blue said:
Thats not their issue for me. The issue is spending £70mill on 2 players around them who don't have the things you've mentioned.

If we'd have bought a Delap for example (yes he turned us down), hed compliment the two more than Barry. If we'd have brought in some actual pace instead of £40mill on Dibbling, we'd offer someone who got behind defences.

Illy and Jack get us into fantastic positions in the final 3rd. They scare other teams. The other elements to finish that play off is the problem.
Click to expand...

Disagree to be honest. I’m happy with both Barry and Dibling both I’d back as more then sound investments in the long term. I think part of the problem with our strikers is Illy and Grealish liking to stand on the ball, beat a man, then maybe get a cross in, by which time the game has slowed down, the opposition defense has set up, and as a striker you are trying to get in between two centre half’s or a centre half and a full back in a packed congested box - think about it we see it every game, Barry and Beto. There’s no space, just crosses coming in or second balls.

The only way it’s conceivably feasible in my opinion, is you get two overlapping full backs and allow Illy and Jack to come inside, if the fullbacks then stretch the play by going wide. That then creates the space. Difficulty there is your paying big money for Jack and two full backs.

If I’m also being very honest, I’ve followed Jack closely watching him as a teenager even before his first team debut for Villa as he was underage with Ireland. He’s lost a yard in my opinion to what he was, he very rarely goes outside or to the by line now at pace or those inside inverted runs, like you’d see when he was at Villa. The Jack we have now is different to the one that played for Villa, he’s lost that extra yard of pace in my opinion and he was never that pacy anyway - more quick feet and technique. He's actually become more wise and savvy though, watch him - he never looses possession now, that wasn’t always the case when he was younger.

He’s a brilliant player, I’m just explaining my hesitation, I don’t think it’s actually the slam dunk most seem to or a decision certainly worth scrutiny and I’d also go back to our total goals scored, we aren’t that productive or meaningful creative, we’re in the bottom 4 in the league.
 
Last edited:
2 overlapping fullbacks is not a problem you really hear being used as a pintoint issue.

But God has it hindered us this season.

Yes, Barry isn't wowing the world yet. But he is atleast a work in progress.

FB's - No excuses.
 

Evertonthat said:
It would certainly b a popular deal if we could. I'd expect the likes of Newcastle and Spurs would be circling if we weren't up for paying what City want though.
Click to expand...
I think it will happen and would be surprised if it isn’t being negotiated already. Maybe reading too much into it but I took Grealish kissing the badge on Tuesday as a very positive indication of a player who would push for the move.
 
Armaghtoffee said:
I think it will happen and would be surprised if it isn’t being negotiated already. Maybe reading too much into it but I took Grealish kissing the badge on Tuesday as a very positive indication of a player who would push for the move.
Click to expand...
There's no doubt he's enjoying his time here. At his stage of his career I'd guess he has final word on any move, so that's definitely in our favour.
 
Swartzy said:
2 overlapping fullbacks is not a problem you really hear being used as a pintoint issue.

But God has it hindered us this season.

Yes, Barry isn't wowing the world yet. But he is atleast a work in progress.

FB's - No excuses.
Click to expand...

It’s absolutely transformative mate, look at Newcastle since Hall and Livramento returned, completely different team, both destroyed us last week.

They are a different team with them.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top