Summer Transfer Window 2025 Thread

IMG_3334.webp
 

caliblue said:
Money transfer.

Roma have FFP concerns that restricts what they can do on the transfer market. Everton have not.

It's TFG's money that is used for buying the player. Regardless of he signs for. Whether he is registered as owned by Everton or Roma the next 12 months does not matter. Not as long as he is loaned out with an obligation of a permanent transfer next summer.

No liability for Everton. And it should not affect Everton's PSR concerns or transfer budget at all.
Click to expand...
Weird take, if Everton buy him it absolutely does impact our PSR, the budget obviously matter less as Friedkins make the money available anyway but it absolutely does have a PSR impact.

What’s not yet known is to what benefit is it to Everton and does it outweigh the initial impact it has on us.

If we got him and loaned him to Roma, with a fee and an obligation to buy at a profit next year then ok. However we carry the risk, especially if he fails in Italy over the next 12 months, the obligation would protect us from that risk.

And if we got a full back in Celik to cover an area for us that is needed then ok, but again the benefits of this transfer for Everton are not yet known.

It does however appear so far, that these owners are much more strategic than any owner we have had before, not hard I’ll concede.
 
caliblue said:
Isn't it a matter of instead of TFG transferring X amount of millions to Roma so they can buy Wesley, they make the transfer to Everton?

Any cost or liability for Everton can easily be avoided.

People in here seem to thing that the very English Premier League specific PSR rules apply to the rest of the world. It doesn't. Other clubs and other leagues have other sets of rules and concerns. I am sure there are reasons for why Roma don't buy him themselves. Loans are a much bigger thing in Serie A. Everyone do it and everyone loan players from each other.

Just this season Roma loaned players to Inter, Milan, Fiorentina, Como, Parma, Benfica, Bayer Leverkusen and Sunderland. The previous season they loaned players from Juventus, Leeds x2, Chelsea and PSG.

The Friedkins aren't football people. They are business people. They are investors. They see player trading as bets in the market. Similar to stock transactions. They expect to lose money on many of their signings. All they care about is the bottom line. To make more good signings that bad ones.

And as owners of several football clubs, they also know that when they invest their money in footballers, that will have an affect of the players they already have on their books. They invest in football clubs and football players because they firmly believe that clubs and players will be worth more money in the future that today.

Clear similarities with the ownership at Chelsea. Who has splashed the money and paid silly money for players, but now sit on a lot of attractive players ready to be sold in an inflated market.
Click to expand...
No, that ignores both sets of regulations, England's PSR and UEFA's FFP.

They're both profit and loss measures, moving cash is a balance sheet transaction.

There isn't a scenario that both clubs come out ahead financially, at least not for 25/26 when we obviously need as much room as possible to build a squad.

Having said all of that, this was a rumor started in Brazil, and quite a bit of overreaction to that.
 
caliblue said:
Exactly. And still people are concerned that we can't spend money if we sign a player and send him out on loan.
Click to expand...

Don't be facetious.

No one said we won't be able to spend any money. What they have said is we would have less money available due to PSR, which is 110% true.

Yet to see you provide any evidence for why this isn't true.
 

pfim said:
No, that ignores both sets of regulations, England's PSR and UEFA's FFP.

They're both profit and loss measures, moving cash is a balance sheet transaction.

There isn't a scenario that both clubs come out ahead financially, at least not for 25/26 when we obviously need as much room as possible to build a squad.

Having said all of that, this was a rumor started in Brazil, and quite a bit of overreaction to that.
Click to expand...
It's not really an overreaction. It's close season in a football forum, people are just talking about what there is to talk about. The way that this seems to surprise people every time it happens is a bit mad.
 
pfim said:
No, that ignores both sets of regulations, England's PSR and UEFA's FFP.

They're both profit and loss measures, moving cash is a balance sheet transaction.

There isn't a scenario that both clubs come out ahead financially, at least not for 25/26 when we obviously need as much room as possible to build a squad.

Having said all of that, this was a rumor started in Brazil, and quite a bit of overreaction to that.
Click to expand...
I think the key piece that ties this together (if any of it is true) is the potential sale of the women's team, which with the setting up of an EFCW co they do appear to be seriously contemplating.

If they inject say 70m pure profit to EFC this year buying the women's team within the group, in theory yes that's 70m of wiggle room for amortisation and wages that we could afford this FY.

In practice though we would not take on the full 70m as that is recurring expenditure covered by a one-off injection. How do you cover it in years 2-5?

So in reality we could maybe take on say 30m of extra expenditure (over and above the existing budget), and even that could be 100-150m of incomings which would be transformational in itself.

That would leave 40m of unused wiggle room in this FY. It's no skin off our nose to take on 6m of amortisation on the Wesley deal, then sell him on for the 30m we paid next year, when his book value would be 6m less. So we'd be using some unusable wiggle room this summer to gain extra wiggle room next summer.

I can see why to the financial people that would be a win-win. Tougher sell to the fans of course.
 
summerisle said:
Pinch of salt :

Sportsboom

@Sportsboomcom


The leading sports news and opinions website with a focus on bringing you exclusive interviews across the sporting world.
Joined July 2023

67 Following
90 Followers
Click to expand...
More followers than following is always a good sign. And "News and banter page" sounds respectable.
 
My understanding is we would be unlikely to do any business with Roma as a way of keeping both clubs entirely separate. Should Everton qualify for CL at some point, we may need to prove both clubs are distinctly different with no connection apart from an absent owner in order to both qualify.
 

Tony’s Carp said:
I think the key piece that ties this together (if any of it is true) is the potential sale of the women's team, which with the setting up of an EFCW co they do appear to be seriously contemplating.

If they inject say 70m pure profit to EFC this year buying the women's team within the group, in theory yes that's 70m of wiggle room for amortisation and wages that we could afford this FY.

In practice though we would not take on the full 70m as that is recurring expenditure covered by a one-off injection. How do you cover it in years 2-5?

So in reality we could maybe take on say 30m of extra expenditure (over and above the existing budget), and even that could be 100-150m of incomings which would be transformational in itself.

That would leave 40m of unused wiggle room in this FY. It's no skin off our nose to take on 6m of amortisation on the Wesley deal, then sell him on for the 30m we paid next year, when his book value would be 6m less. So we'd be using some unusable wiggle room this summer to gain extra wiggle room next summer.

I can see why to the financial people that would be a win-win. Tougher sell to the fans of course.
Click to expand...

You could accomplish the same by spending all 70m on the squad this year, and then selling 30m of the squad next year.

You don't need Roma for that. It's why Villa moves players on like Diaby, Duran etc.
 
not keen on being used by Roma, unless we get the same kind of deal bac at some point

I imagine the likelihood is that Roma want him long term, it's not that they're developing him for a year and then we get him as a more advanced player. it's just a fiddle. so either they then buy him next year (at no profit for us most likely) or they just keep loaning him off us.

we need to sign a lot of players so spending money and time on a player we wont use feels like a bad move for us.

i dont like the idea of us being a mule for their club, and getting their cast off right back in exchange. it's very small time and sets a precedent for future dealings.

not to mention the big risks, one that this kind of transfer gets outlawed or sanctioned, and as another poster pointed out what happens if he does his cruciate and roma say not our problem, then we're stuck with a crock for 5 years
 
caliblue said:
Money transfer.

Roma have FFP concerns that restricts what they can do on the transfer market. Everton have not.

It's TFG's money that is used for buying the player. Regardless of he signs for. Whether he is registered as owned by Everton or Roma the next 12 months does not matter. Not as long as he is loaned out with an obligation of a permanent transfer next summer.

No liability for Everton. And it should not affect Everton's PSR concerns or transfer budget at all.
Click to expand...

Mate, absolutely none of what you have wrote there is true.
 

Welcome

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

Register

Shop

Back
Top