Rate Everton's Transfer Window

[MikeH72]

You will likely be disappointed then

Unless we sell someone, there's nothing significant happening in January

I imagined so to be honest.

 

[Exeter_Gently]

Ultimately we'll all have an opinion on how the window went but the true optics of it will be where we finish in the League.

You live and die by your recruitment so the proof will be in the pudding.

 

[jazzy]

Ultimately we'll all have an opinion on how the window went but the true optics of it will be where we finish in the League.

You live and die by your recruitment so the proof will be in the pudding.

True but that presupposes that the manager uses them correctly and you aren't crippled by injuries.

I've no real fears on the manager but injuries scare the hell out of me.

 

[Exeter_Gently]

True but that presupposes that the manager uses them correctly and you aren't crippled by injuries.

I've no real fears on the manager but injuries scare the hell out of me.

I think we're slightly vulnerable at Centre half.

 

[smileychap]

Dibling is a right sided player.

True, but how ready, saints fans moan about application tracking back etc.

I loathe to say it but a loan for walker ( albeit I don't like the guy ), might've solved both problems better and cheaper.

 

[smileychap]

I don't think acquiring Mark Travers prevented us from getting a RB. What kind of outfield player could we get for 4 million?

Kyle walker loan ( or similar ).

I don't like guy, particularly. but I think he would contribute more before the next window than Travers.

We haven't played anyone good yet, and Dibling doesn't track back particularly. Maybe Moyes can change that, hopefully.

 

[pfim]

Kyle walker loan ( or similar ).

I don't like guy, particularly. but I think he would contribute more before the next window than Travers.

We haven't played anyone good yet, and Dibling doesn't track back particularly. Maybe Moyes can change that, hopefully.

I don't think Kyle Walker, at this point, is any better than O'Brien. Different, not better. And while I agree we desperately need an actual RB, I think that's the rub. If you look at all the RB transfers completed, I don't think there were many (Wesley, anyone else?) truly better than what we have, to the point we'd spend actual capital.

Also, if you spend that money, you still need a capable backup keeper. Virginia stood tall a few times for us, but it would have been a disaster if he had started a run of games because of injury.

 

[Neiler]

If I understood the terms correctly, we've paid a £1.7m loan fee for him which goes on the books this season. There's than an obligation to buy which will mean the deal starts adding about £4m per year on the books from next season.

Coincidentally, the PSR profit we've made on the Chermiti deal isn't far off what we've paid as the loan fee

No mate, loans with obligation the entire amortisation starts immediately on the profit and loss. Hence why I think we had a cash flow limit.

There is no delaying for PSR.

 

[Neiler]

 

[toffeeblue9]

No mate, loans with obligation the entire amortisation starts immediately on the profit and loss. Hence why I think we had a cash flow limit.

There is no delaying for PSR.

Are you absolutely certain about that? Do you have a source?

I'm sceptical because that would seem to negate the point of a loan with obligation.

 

[Neiler]

Are you absolutely certain about that? Do you have a source?

I'm sceptical because that would seem to negate the point of a loan with obligation.

Yes mate.

The source - I actually heard Ornstein and a football finance expert talk about it recently on a general Athletic transfer podcast.

They were specifically speaking of the Raya to Arsenal loan from Brentford, Arsenal had to loan him without an obligation to avoid a PSR breach to facilitate the deal, they remarked on what an incredible peice of trust that was for Brentford. They said contractually if it had been a loan with an obligation, Arsenal couldn’t have done the deal because loans and obligations attract amortisation immediately as opposed to loans with options that don’t - an obligation for Rays would have pushed them over the PSR threshold. It’s on Spotify still, if you want to listen yourself.

Essentially we pay no amortisation for Grealish with an option, but do on Rohl with an obligation.

It makes sense to be honest.

Thus I think the issue in the end was cash flow.

 

[toffeeblue9]

Yes mate.

The source - I actually heard Ornstein and a football finance expert talk about it recently on a general Athletic transfer podcast.

They were specifically speaking of the Raya to Arsenal loan from Brentford, Arsenal had to loan him without an obligation to avoid a PSR breach to facilitate the deal, they remarked on what an incredible peice of trust that was for Brentford. They said contractually if it had been a loan with an obligation, Arsenal couldn’t have done the deal because loans and obligations attract amortisation immediately as opposed to loans with options that don’t - an obligation for Rays would have pushed them over the PSR threshold. It’s on Spotify still, if you want to listen yourself.

Essentially we pay no amortisation for Grealish with an option, but do on Rohl with an obligation.

It makes sense to be honest.

Thus I think the issue in the end was cash flow.

But that's only the case for unconditional obligations

This is a conditional obligation

 

[Nyhus]

Brain says 6, cause no RB again somehow. Heart says 8, so thats obviously what i voted.

 

[Neiler]

But that's only the case for unconditional obligations

This is a conditional obligation

I don’t get your meaning mate?

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

No mate, loans with obligation the entire amortisation starts immediately on the profit and loss. Hence why I think we had a cash flow limit.

There is no delaying for PSR.

Are you sure? Wouldn't the selling club prefer a sale and deferred payment so they can book all the profit now?