Christian Atsu

[SpurtingLesbian]

I'm sure we'll use all four of our loans again.
I expect we're waiting until the big teams have all finished buying then it should be evident about who's unhappy or dropped down the pecking order at their club. They are the ones to go for, the recently depressed who are desperate for the game time. A quick hug from Bobby and a few runs out and they'll be well up for anything.

 

[Kev The Rat]

We haven't avoided the loan market, and we certainly were not held to randsom over the Lukaku fee. We knew from May what it'd be and we were willing to pay it.

The reason we haven't loaned anyone yet is because we literally haven't needed to. But we will get one or two in.

That highlighted sentence could very well mean we were held to ransom tbh.

 

[marty mcfly]

I don't think loaning is good business and perhaps Bill is seeing that. Transfer trading is one of the ways Everton make decent money or at least don't loose money. With loans due to their fees it always guarantees you'll loose. It is a bit of "short term gain for long term pain".

 

[AaronTheBlue]

That highlighted sentence could very well mean we were held to ransom tbh.

No, we we're always willing to pay the money and it wasn't really that big of a deal for it, being held to ransom is like they were trying to get every last penny out of us / make us feel uncomfortable paying the fee, which we weren't.

 

[Kev The Rat]

I don't think loaning is good business and perhaps Bill is seeing that. Transfer trading is one of the ways Everton make decent money or at least don't loose money. With loans due to their fees it always guarantees you'll loose. It is a bit of "short term gain for long term pain".

yes, in reality if you add Lukaku's loan fee (rumoured at 5m) you could say he's cost us 33m.

 

[Kev The Rat]

No, we we're always willing to pay the money and it wasn't really that big of a deal for it, being held to ransom is like they were trying to get every last penny out of us / make us feel uncomfortable paying the fee, which we weren't.

Held to ransom is someone naming a price confident that you will pay it, regardless of your feelings on the matter.

there was clearly no negotiating down on the fee.

Look basically I think we overpaid for Lukaku, so do a lot of people, not that I think he will not be a very good player for us, because I think he very well could be, its just that the price was optimal for Chelsea, and not for Everton, and I believe that price came about due to his success with us last sesaon.

 

[mill]

We haven't avoided the loan market, and we certainly were not held to randsom over the Lukaku fee. We knew from May what it'd be and we were willing to pay it.

The reason we haven't loaned anyone yet is because we literally haven't needed to. But we will get one or two in.

I thjnk loans are much more likely late on in the window when people have had a chance to assess squads.

 

[AaronTheBlue]

Held to ransom is someone naming a price confident that you will pay it, regardless of your feelings on the matter.

Ransom to me now'a'days seems to be more of naming a price that isn't really fair but you know the other person will pay it, where as in the situation the fee was fair and we had agreed to it without being forced to. If that makes sense.

 

[Tubey]

I don't think loaning is good business and perhaps Bill is seeing that. Transfer trading is one of the ways Everton make decent money or at least don't loose money. With loans due to their fees it always guarantees you'll loose. It is a bit of "short term gain for long term pain".

Baffled how you can think that, given we've just effectively trialled two players for 12 months before signing them knowing the job they can do in our system.

When used correctly, it's a fantastic tool. Take Atsu for example - this is a guy we couldn't afford now and we don't know for sure how he'd fit in, but if he did the business then 12 months from now we can seriously look at taking him permanently if the opportunity arose. If not, we look elsewhere, but the loan gave us the short term depth and breathing space.

 

[ijjysmith]

Baffled how you can think that, given we've just effectively trialled two players for 12 months before signing them knowing the job they can do in our system.

When used correctly, it's a fantastic tool. Take Atsu for example - this is a guy we couldn't afford now and we don't know for sure how he'd fit in, but if he did the business then 12 months from now we can seriously look at taking him permanently if the opportunity arose. If not, we look elsewhere, but the loan gave us the short term depth and breathing space.

Definitely agree.

Especially in the past. We aren't a club who has loads of cash, where do people expect us to get players from without cash?

 

[Kev The Rat]

Baffled how you can think that, given we've just effectively trialled two players for 12 months before signing them knowing the job they can do in our system.

When used correctly, it's a fantastic tool. Take Atsu for example - this is a guy we couldn't afford now and we don't know for sure how he'd fit in, but if he did the business then 12 months from now we can seriously look at taking him permanently if the opportunity arose. If not, we look elsewhere, but the loan gave us the short term depth and breathing space.

But would Atsu then be a lot more expensive if he played really well for us? I would think he would, I could see Chelsea demanding 18m if he became a focal point of the team and chipped in with goals an assists, whereas now he's still an unknown quantity and could be bought outright for less.

You'd have to be crazy to think he would not become more expensive if he did well for us, yet you say we cant afford him now, so we couldnt afford him at all then??

 

[Tubey]

Definitely agree.

Especially in the past. We aren't a club who has loads of cash, where do people expect us to get players from without cash?

You can go even further back - we loaned Arteta prior to signing, wouldn't call that "bad business" either!

 

[ijjysmith]

But would Atsu then be a lot more expensive if he played really well for us? I would think he would, I could see Chelsea demanding 18m if he became a focal point of the team and chipped in with goals an assists, whereas now he's still an unknown quantity and could be bought outright for less.

That's why you agree the fee before mate, which i've heard we're trying to do with Atsu.

 

[ijjysmith]

You can go even further back - we loaned Arteta prior to signing, wouldn't call that "bad business" either!

Exactly. And Pienaar.

I wish i'd loaned my first two cars before I bought them to be honest.

 

[zirc]

I don't think loaning is good business and perhaps Bill is seeing that. Transfer trading is one of the ways Everton make decent money or at least don't loose money. With loans due to their fees it always guarantees you'll loose. It is a bit of "short term gain for long term pain".

I think it's alright for getting supplemental pieces, but obviously you don't want to build your squad around loanees.

Loans with an option to buy at the end of the loan term are brilliant, so if that's how the Atsu deal is structured I'd be more than happy.