Changing Perceptions

[Dymak]

In effect this is why I wrote the OP with a hint of a self mocking tone (at least i attempted that!).

Of course its impossible to sign anyone we wish evwn if we did have unlimitwd funds etc etc

I find that this is a bit of a parody really....were apparently after a superstar/top class manager but get Ronald Koeman....were apparently in for amazing players and some people have seen a list of the targets....then we extend Gibson. There as also a big song and dance made for Tim Howard who inaulted the fans not only at the geound but in the press as well, yet Osman and Hibbert as evertonians werent given any opportunity for a farewell.

These are all negative poimts (in my opinion) but were now receiving an onslaught of ITK and press comments that we can sign who we want as we have massive funds.

Well, if thats truly the case then id sign those 4 players....lets see what happens. As far as im concerned all this talk of huge changes etc has been all negative so far compared to the huge expectations which were suggested...

Im looking forward to seeing this supposed ambition..

I think it's all very positive news. It's just that some people are going into over the top premature hysteria mode as usual. Just like we did over Martinez and a whole host of players in recent years.

 

[Zatara]

@catcherintherye @brieverton

I think the key priority (as i always say!) are the young players:

Lukaku +Barkley + Deulofeu + Stones (possibly also besic) i see almost as a first wave of players who are potentially extremely good players.

If Lukaku etc all stayed then thats 4 positions in the team taken. We can then look at the youth and personally i think its fair to say that Davies, Connolly, Kenny, Pennington etc etc etc are all able squad players....

We can then 'make do' with some other 1st team regulars (such as Coleman and Baines) but are massively lacking in the spine of the team (mourinho for example has said that when he joins a club he builds the spine).

GK -- CB -- CM -- CF are all needed as 1st choice players, meaning real quality e.g Butland, Leno or Rico for the GK not an above average one like Cillissen. I will be very interested in these positions as with £100mil you can really do alot of damage.

We also need a LW of course but i imagine we will see (hopefully) some dross moved on to create funds for this player.

Not a revolution by any stretch but a new spine which simply must include top quality. This will provide a stable platform for not only the team but also for the youth to grow into...

 

[Zatara]

I think it's all very positive news. It's just that some people are going into over the top premature hysteria mode as usual. Just like we did over Martinez and a whole host of players in recent years.

Putting my dislike of koeman to one side.

Weve resigned Gibson who cant play more than 15 times a season and is basically a wasted squad place if we do really have funds for top CMs and wish to bring through the youth. If he wasnt our playerbit available on a free i would hope we wouldnt sign him.

At the same time releasing Osman and Hibbert who are one club men without a farewell yet making a song and dance about Howard (who slated us in the press several times) is another negative.

I think its not been very positive so far.

 

[roydo]

Chin up Zat.

 

[Tramps_mate]

Because Moshiri doesn't have an endless supply of cash, and doesn't even make the top 10 in terms of wealthy premier league club owners. The owners of United, City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Newcastle, Sunderland, Leicester, Stoke and Southampton are all richer than him. Even these clubs cannot just go out and buy whoever they want, they have to adhere to FFP, and factors other than money come into play when trying to sign a player. FFP allows us to make losses of about 100 million over three years, that's the maximum we can invest without contravening FFP, which clearly is not enough to go out and buy whoever we want.

If the 100 million transfer budget figure is correct (and not just tabloid and fanzone hysteria) then a significant portion of that is going to be TV money, about 50% I would guess. Which is nothing to moan about at all, it's still a massive transfer budget in which Moshiri is putting a lot of money where his mouth is, but it in no way allows us to go out and buy whoever we want. Anyone who thinks we can do that is massively deluded.

So you are guessing then?

 

[bicycleheader]

This thread is a zatastrophe

Cover it in manure and set fire to it

 

[Dymak]

So you are guessing then?

lol

I'm stating facts relating to FFP and Moshiri's limited wealth, and then coming to a conclusion based on these facts.

People are very welcome to delude themselves into thinking we now have unlimited amounts of cash and that we could attract absolutely any player in the world, but it will remain a delusion nonetheless.

 

[The Esk]

I'm stating facts based on FFP

Just out of interest, how much do you think FFP will allow us to spend over the next 3 years?

 

[Dymak]

Just out of interest, how much do you think FFP will allow us to spend over the next 3 years?

I don't know, but I'd be interested to find out, as the FFP limits I referred to did come to an end this season. Do you know what the FFP spending limitations are for the next three seasons?

 

[ham2]

Just out of interest, how much do you think FFP will allow us to spend over the next 3 years?

Guessing it will be more than we've spent in the last 10 years

 

[The Esk]

I don't know, but I'd be interested to find out, as the FFP limits I referred to did come to an end this season. Do you know what the FFP spending limitations are for the next three seasons?

For the next three years, clubs cannot increase their player wage bills by more than £7m compared to the previous year unless they can demonstrate that any excess is due to individual club revenue sources (Short term cost control rules).

So for Everton any excess in player wages above £7 million will have to come out of an increase in commercial revenues, sponsorship, matchday revenues or profits from player sales.

I mentioned a while ago that this means we will likely sell at least one player at a significant profit this summer to fund increase in wages.

So for example if we sell Lukaku for £60 million (for arguments sake) that would produce a profit of £44m (£60m - {£26.52 m (cost)- £10.6 m (depreciation)})

If we sold Stones for £50 million that would produce a profit of £48.4 m (£50m - {£2.63m - £1 m approx depreciation)

We could continue this process but the hopes would be that other revenues continue to increase, however player trading profits are the enabler for massive increases in wages.

Therefore this summer assuming we sell either Lukaku or Stones we can increase our wage bill this season by £50 - 55 million based on achieving the above player sale profit.

In addition to the above the current Premier League Profit and Sustainability rules are still in place - these rules sit alongside the Short Term Cost Control rules and ensure clubs don't lose more than £105m over three rolling seasons.

However this is not going to be an issue because of the way player transfer costs are spread over the term of their contracts. The only real limit is our ability to fund, and that really is not going to be a problem going forward.

 

[AndyC]

For the next three years, clubs cannot increase their player wage bills by more than £7m compared to the previous year unless they can demonstrate that any excess is due to individual club revenue sources (Short term cost control rules).

So for Everton any excess in player wages above £7 million will have to come out of an increase in commercial revenues, sponsorship, matchday revenues or profits from player sales.

I mentioned a while ago that this means we will likely sell at least one player at a significant profit this summer to fund increase in wages.

So for example if we sell Lukaku for £60 million (for arguments sake) that would produce a profit of £44m (£60m - {£26.52 m (cost)- £10.6 m (depreciation)})

If we sold Stones for £50 million that would produce a profit of £48.4 m (£50m - {£2.63m - £1 m approx depreciation)

We could continue this process but the hopes would be that other revenues continue to increase, however player trading profits are the enabler for massive increases in wages.

Therefore this summer assuming we sell either Lukaku or Stones we can increase our wage bill this season by £50 - 55 million based on achieving the above player sale profit.

In addition to the above the current Premier League Profit and Sustainability rules are still in place - these rules sit alongside the Short Term Cost Control rules and ensure clubs don't lose more than £105m over three rolling seasons.

However this is not going to be an issue because of the way player transfer costs are spread over the term of their contracts. The only real limit is our ability to fund, and that really is not going to be a problem going forward.

So if RK/FM talk with and convince the likes of Rom and Stones that the future is rosy and staying is in everyone's collective interests, then the commercial/sponsorship/marketing departments had better get their act in gear and quickly, and match day revenue streams need to increase too somehow ?

 

[Zatara]

For the next three years, clubs cannot increase their player wage bills by more than £7m compared to the previous year unless they can demonstrate that any excess is due to individual club revenue sources (Short term cost control rules).

So for Everton any excess in player wages above £7 million will have to come out of an increase in commercial revenues, sponsorship, matchday revenues or profits from player sales.

I mentioned a while ago that this means we will likely sell at least one player at a significant profit this summer to fund increase in wages.

So for example if we sell Lukaku for £60 million (for arguments sake) that would produce a profit of £44m (£60m - {£26.52 m (cost)- £10.6 m (depreciation)})

If we sold Stones for £50 million that would produce a profit of £48.4 m (£50m - {£2.63m - £1 m approx depreciation)

We could continue this process but the hopes would be that other revenues continue to increase, however player trading profits are the enabler for massive increases in wages.

Therefore this summer assuming we sell either Lukaku or Stones we can increase our wage bill this season by £50 - 55 million based on achieving the above player sale profit.

In addition to the above the current Premier League Profit and Sustainability rules are still in place - these rules sit alongside the Short Term Cost Control rules and ensure clubs don't lose more than £105m over three rolling seasons.

However this is not going to be an issue because of the way player transfer costs are spread over the term of their contracts. The only real limit is our ability to fund, and that really is not going to be a problem going forward.

Arent wages classex separately to transfers so if we sold lukaku we would just add his annual wage to the £7mil?

 

[Steve Wigan]

So, all the fanfair and we've ended up with Koeman and Gibson. Not exactly the statement i was hoping for (so far).

If we are looking to make a splash then rather than taking a manager off Southampton why dont we go after Spurs' top players?

The teams that usually win the league over the premier league era have always had English players and Man City immediately signed Milner, Barry and others before making pushes for the title.

We currently have 2 marketable stars (excluding lukaku) in Stones and Barkley. Its clear to me that we will be improving our marketing and seeking to improve our "Global Brand" with these two and other players.

What we've seen with Koeman is that money talks. For me, Spurs are in the same boat as Leicester just with better individuals and more money BUT can they compete consistently with Utd,Chelsea or City who can throw hundreds of millions around?

We apparently have a fortune to spend (in fact an ITK posted we could actually afford Messi if we wanted) so why not move on players who could raise our profile but also improve us as a team and massively weaken a couple of other teams?

A big statement for me would be to move for Jack Butland to go alongside Stones and Barkley as England Internationals.

At that point people start to take notice and we then put big money down for Eric Dier and Delle Alli. Additionally when Lukaku is sold we add some money and move for Kane.

That to me is massive ambition. The players all have at least 10 seasons in them and with Butland signed we would have 3 England Internationals + 3 more with the Spurs players. Perhaps they wouldnt (all) come but it would be an attraction to add up to 4 England players not only for branding, improving the team but also surely they would buy into this if the money and ambition were there?

So, if we do have massive money and want to change the clubs perception to become a global brand as well as achieving success then why not make huge moves like this and our money down to attract them?

Your posts continually make me wish there was a 'don't like' button.

 

[Dymak]

For the next three years, clubs cannot increase their player wage bills by more than £7m compared to the previous year unless they can demonstrate that any excess is due to individual club revenue sources (Short term cost control rules).

So for Everton any excess in player wages above £7 million will have to come out of an increase in commercial revenues, sponsorship, matchday revenues or profits from player sales.

I mentioned a while ago that this means we will likely sell at least one player at a significant profit this summer to fund increase in wages.

So for example if we sell Lukaku for £60 million (for arguments sake) that would produce a profit of £44m (£60m - {£26.52 m (cost)- £10.6 m (depreciation)})

If we sold Stones for £50 million that would produce a profit of £48.4 m (£50m - {£2.63m - £1 m approx depreciation)

We could continue this process but the hopes would be that other revenues continue to increase, however player trading profits are the enabler for massive increases in wages.

Therefore this summer assuming we sell either Lukaku or Stones we can increase our wage bill this season by £50 - 55 million based on achieving the above player sale profit.

In addition to the above the current Premier League Profit and Sustainability rules are still in place - these rules sit alongside the Short Term Cost Control rules and ensure clubs don't lose more than £105m over three rolling seasons.

However this is not going to be an issue because of the way player transfer costs are spread over the term of their contracts. The only real limit is our ability to fund, and that really is not going to be a problem going forward.

Thanks. Very interesting. But for clarification, do you agree that the FFP rules do place limitations on spending, and that we cannot go out and buy anyone we want even if Moshiri had the capacity to so, which he doesn't?