Summer Transfer Window 2025 Thread


MisterJ said:
Just as well you aren't then
Click to expand...
I hate this argument. By hook or by crook the fans pay for every transfer into this club. Be it season ticket revenues, Sky subscriptions, individual ticket purchases, buying merch, or being sold some crap from our official [insert random product] partner, we pay for it all. Transfers, we paid for them, new stadium, we paid for it/will pay for it, blue gravel, yep, you guessed it, us again.
 

windymiller said:
I hate this argument. By hook or by crook the fans pay for every transfer into this club. Be it season ticket revenues, Sky subscriptions, individual ticket purchases, buying merch, or being sold some crap from our official [insert random product] partner, we pay for it all. Transfers, we paid for them, new stadium, we paid for it/will pay for it, blue gravel, yep, you guessed it, us again.
Click to expand...
I think the happiest way to look at it is: Since the largest portion comes from TV revenue sharing, its from the foreign fans of the sly 6, paying for subscriptions and watching 2, maybe 3 matches a year. As they lounge their rotund selves on their sofas, eating away, vaguely remembering there is some team they "support", they pay for our transfers.
 
PeregrineT said:
I think the happiest way to look at it is: Since the largest portion comes from TV revenue sharing, its from the foreign fans of the sly 6, paying for subscriptions and watching 2, maybe 3 matches a year. As they lounge their rotund selves on their sofas, eating away, vaguely remembering there is some team they "support", they pay for our transfers.
Click to expand...
I completely understand that most of a transfer fee "isn't my money" but some of it definitely is. My point really is that the "it's not your money, why do you care argument?" is used to shut down arguments or opinions and leaves you with the type of squad built by a Mr Farhad Moshiri and a financial situation that would make Bernie Madoff blush.
 

Lanolin said:
Well no they're not, and I never suggested they were. It doesn't deflect from the point in any way at all, but yeah it's true at least.
Click to expand...
Wow, immediately spiky, OK. My point is that if you have a squad like Arsenals, full of excellent players, where maybe one or two players are transferred out, one retires and a couple have underperformed, you can afford to sign a player who doesn't immediately improve your first team and it's no big deal. However, if you have a squad like Everton's with only 14 players under contract beyond next week and only a half a dozen players you would ideally want starting in your first 11, then signing a player who doesn't immediately improve your first team is a bigger problem. I'm sure you'll take that as a personal affront judging from your reply above but it's simply an observation that what is appropriate for Arsenal might not be relevant at a different club with very different circumstances. You were seeking to use Arsenal's transfer activity as a measure of what is reasonable for Everton, not me.
 
windymiller said:
I completely understand that most of a transfer fee "isn't my money" but some of it definitely is. My point really is that the "it's not your money, why do you care argument?" is used to shut down arguments or opinions and leaves you with the type of squad built by a Mr Farhad Moshiri and a financial situation that would make Bernie Madoff blush.
Click to expand...
Right, I never got that argument. I care because a badly run organization means the squad is terrible and its miserable to watch. I SHOULD care about a horrible 50m purchase because it means they now dont have 50m to spend on actual good players, which effects my enjoyment.
 
windymiller said:
Wow, immediately spiky, OK. My point is that if you have a squad like Arsenals, full of excellent players, where maybe one or two players are transferred out, one retires and a couple have underperformed, you can afford to sign a player who doesn't immediately improve your first team and it's no big deal. However, if you have a squad like Everton's with only 14 players under contract beyond next week and only a half a dozen players you would ideally want starting in your first 11, then signing a player who doesn't immediately improve your first team is a bigger problem. I'm sure you'll take that as a personal affront judging from your reply above but it's simply an observation that what is appropriate for Arsenal might not be relevant at a different club with very different circumstances. You were seeking to use Arsenal's transfer activity as a measure of what is reasonable for Everton, not me.
Click to expand...
Haha my reply was spiky but yours is dead friendly yeah?

I was just using the post to frame the point, not comparing our situation to Arsenal's. The principle is the same whatever the club. We'd surely all agree that Forest have done well with recruitment recently? But not all their players have improved their starting XI, some of them have just given them more depth (Morato, Sosa, Jota Silva, Moreno last season for example) meaning that the overall level of the squad is better without them necessarily only signing players who go straight into their strongest team. Brighton are often held up as the kings of recruitment but the same applies to them, none of O'Riley, Rutter, Wiefer or Minteh who they brought in last summer started more than 20 games for them.

The point is just that it's totally normal to try to fill out the squad and just add players who give you more options without being game changers(especially when you've only got 14 players). Of course we need some players who go straight into our best team, I'm just saying the idea it's the only way to do it is clearly not true, as evidenced by virtually every other club in the world.
 

Welcome

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

Register

Shop

Back
Top