Changing Perceptions

[Gwladys St. Glory]

We have been in discussions with Lukaku's agent and I don't believe we will allow Stones to leave.

If we're also trying to offload Kone and Niasse then that leaves us with...quite a few forward options to fill.

 

[Axlswhk]

I'm pretty sure we will keep Barkley, and one of Stones or Lukaku (most likely Stones).

I agree we have other options but if we retained all three we would be restrained in our ability to acquire new players unless we significantly increase our commercial or sponsorship revenues this year.

I am not sure whether we will see big increases in those revenue sources until financial year 2017/18 with Chang finishing their contract and the possibility of the old Kitbag deal being unwound.

The point is though we have a lot of headroom to acquire new players should Stones or Lukaku be sold this summer. I don't believe that is an amateurish approach given both have apparently expressed a desire to leave.

We have been in discussions with Lukaku's agent and I don't believe we will allow Stones to leave.

You get rid of fringe players instead of your best players to make it work. Sponsorship is a grey area that can be exploited to the full extent. Player purchase can be paid by installment.
At the current situation, anyone knows what's the max we can spend without getting foul of ffp?

 

[The Esk]

Would be amazeballs if we make a profit on Kone or Niasse!

Clearly we won't, in fact we will show a trading loss which will be offset against profits from the sale of a Lukaku or Stones for example.

There will be the reduction in their wages though!

 

[bobbydigital]

I'm pretty sure we will keep Barkley, and one of Stones or Lukaku (most likely Stones).

I agree we have other options but if we retained all three we would be restrained in our ability to acquire new players unless we significantly increase our commercial or sponsorship revenues this year.

I am not sure whether we will see big increases in those revenue sources until financial year 2017/18 with Chang finishing their contract and the possibility of the old Kitbag deal being unwound.

The point is though we have a lot of headroom to acquire new players should Stones or Lukaku be sold this summer. I don't believe that is an amateurish approach given both have apparently expressed a desire to leave.

We have been in discussions with Lukaku's agent and I don't believe we will allow Stones to leave.

So we have the additional 7m.
Plus savings from Piennar, Osman and Hibbert's wages estimated at 7.5m

That would give us the opportunity to bring in 3 players on 100k a week who if we got the right players for the right positions would realistically bring so much quality to the 1st X1 and the squad if we could keep Stones and Lukaku. I guess the problem is to keep Stones and Lukaku, we will probably have to give them improved contracts which will eat into the available money.

Maybe the answer lies in our ability to bin Kone and Niasse to get there wages off the books and use that money to upgrade Stones and Lukaku's contracts?

 

[AndyC]

I'm pretty sure we will keep Barkley, and one of Stones or Lukaku (most likely Stones).

I agree we have other options but if we retained all three we would be restrained in our ability to acquire new players unless we significantly increase our commercial or sponsorship revenues this year.

I am not sure whether we will see big increases in those revenue sources until financial year 2017/18 with Chang finishing their contract and the possibility of the old Kitbag deal being unwound.

The point is though we have a lot of headroom to acquire new players should Stones or Lukaku be sold this summer. I don't believe that is an amateurish approach given both have apparently expressed a desire to leave.

We have been in discussions with Lukaku's agent and I don't believe we will allow Stones to leave.

Has a Stones expressed a new desire to leave or are you referring the the transfer request submitted and rejected last season ?

 

[The Esk]

You get rid of fringe players instead of your best players to make it work. Sponsorship is a grey area that can be exploited to the full extent. Player purchase can be paid by installment.
At the current situation, anyone knows what's the max we can spend without getting foul of ffp?

For FFP and accounting purposes player costs are spread over the duration of the contract.

Profit (or loss) from a player sale is included in the year of the sale.

I ran a couple of quick models a while back - which showed we could spend a net £300 million and still not have an FFP issue provided we met the increase in wages through player trading profits.

I do not expect us to spend that much!

 

[Zezti]

@The Esk
According to Wikipedia and Google (because I have no clue what sources are worth anything), Rom earns about £1.9m a year with us, while Yarmolenko earns about £700k a year with Dinamo Kiev.
So lets say we offer Yarms £1.5m salary (I doubt he would turn down double pay) and we spend £20m transfer fee and sell Lukaku for the price you suggested (£60m, of which £44m profit).
That's £24m of the Lukaku sale profit remaining, plus the excess salary? So, £24.4m total which we can do whatever we like with? We could spend any proportion of that on fees and/or wages? Such as offering more to Stonesy and Ross?

I can see why we might need to sell one then -- sell one to keep the rest.

 

[The Esk]

Has a Stones expressed a new desire to leave or are you referring the the transfer request submitted and rejected last season ?

Not that I am aware of, only the usual from the press.

 

[The Esk]

@The Esk
According to Wikipedia and Google (because I have no clue what sources are worth anything), Rom earns about £1.9m a year with us, while Yarmolenko earns about £700k a year with Dinamo Kiev.
So lets say we offer Yarms £1.5m salary (I doubt he would turn down double pay) and we spend £20m transfer fee and sell Lukaku for the price you suggested (£60m, of which £44m profit).
That's £24m of the Lukaku sale profit remaining, plus the excess salary? So, £24.4m total which we can do whatever we like with? We could spend any proportion of that on fees and/or wages? Such as offering more to Stonesy and Ross?

I can see why we might need to sell one then -- sell one to keep the rest.

We don't have to worry so much about the transfer costs of incoming players (from an FFP perspective) it is their effect on wages that is the biggest issue.

Thus we need to increase commercial & sponsorship revenues but we can fund those increases through players trading profits until those revenues increase.

 

[DownSouthBlue]

I regard Liverpool and Spurs as our peer clubs, certainly in terms of being able to make inroads between us and them in terms of turnover, commercial and sponsorship deals, and stadium comparison. The stadium issue is so, so important. West Ham, Stoke, Southampton, well what about them - let's just pass them by on the open stretch ahead.

achievement.

The thing is Spurs are who we should be trying to match and better which is more realistic than trying to catch the R/S turnover,looking at turnovers on Swiss Ramble blog between these 2 clubs is about a 120 million pound difference and Spurs will never bridge that gap,commercially the RS are on another planet to spurs and have the 3rd best commercial revenues behind United and City in the PL.

Here's an example in ours and the RS difference commercially..The 3 main sponsorships which is kit deal (NewBalance £50 mill a year) shirt sponsorship (Standard Chartered £30 million a year) and training kit sponsor (garuda airlines 17 million a year),per season that brings in £97 million a year for the RS from just THREE commercial deals...Whereas our entire commercial revenues are £23 million a season,we are light years behind just from commercial revenues.

I have to say the RS owners really know the score when it comes to commercial deals in the same way the Glazers are at United it must be an american sports team ownership background in maximising revenues to get past luxury taxes and wage caps in the NFL and MLB,and are using the RS vast worldwide appeal in getting commercial deals from all over the globe...It seems United City RS Arsenal and Chelsea will never be caught with turnovers as everyone else is too far back and they got a head start before the rest,all those clubs have worldwide fanbases (except City)which is a big factor in commercial deals as those products reach out to fans all over the world helped by the fact the EPL has grown massively in the last 3 years especially in a huge market of the USA.City are only in that group of clubs as they have a owner giving them abu dhabi owner linked commercial deals to over bloat their turnover to get past FFP.As i said predicting the turnovers in the next 24 months City Arsenal RS and Chelsea will have turnovers over 400 million with the new TV deal United will be in the 500-600 million bracket with Real Madrid and Barcelona,plus City RS and Chelsea will have stadiums in the 58000-61000k with future stadium expansion ongoing that will improve them further with increased matchday revenues.

Spurs and West Ham should be realistically the teams we should be matching with turnovers and especially commercially and yes the stadium issue needs to be sorted as Spurs and West ham will have 60k capacity brand new stadiums with increased revenues from matchday (London prices) and naming rights.

 

[AndyC]

Not that I am aware of, only the usual from the press.

Thanks, I'll treat press rumours as largely garbage then, as there is hardly any pro-Everton press

 

[Axlswhk]

For FFP and accounting purposes player costs are spread over the duration of the contract.

Profit (or loss) from a player sale is included in the year of the sale.

I ran a couple of quick models a while back - which showed we could spend a net £300 million and still not have an FFP issue provided we met the increase in wages through player trading profits.

I do not expect us to spend that much!

If that's the case then a higher sign on fees might do the trick, with an immediate re contract to increase the wages after one season(provided we improve on league placing, qualify for Europe and increase sponsorship).

There are many many ways doing things and I'm really surprise you've place selling star players on TOP of the list.

 

[The Esk]

There are many many ways doing things and I'm really surprise you've place selling star players on TOP of the list.

Given the likelihood of losing Lukaku I am suggesting this is the route we will go down.

 

[AndyC]

Given the likelihood of losing Lukaku I am suggesting this is the route we will go down.

I'm honestly not so sure we will lose him.

Two main reasons... unless a bid of monumental proportions comes in say £60 million+ or... Everton themselves encourage it... and despite his talking, I wouldn't think the club would encourage suitors until late in the season.

 

[Bud McBlokeski]

I'm honestly not so sure we will lose him.

Two main reasons... unless a bid of monumental proportions comes in say £60 million+ or... Everton themselves encourage it... and despite his talking, I wouldn't think the club would encourage suitors until late in the season.

I think a good showing in the Euros will enhance his chances of going where he wants to go - and will give us a good price.