Everton Transfer Thread 2016

[Dymak]

Hang on @Saint Domingo (The Gaffer) said it was nothing go to do with TV MONEY and I'm sure someone else said its wasn't either..

I certainly haven't been trying to take the TV money out of the equation at all. But we just would not have been able to sign Lukaku without the sale of Fellaini, and people should stop pretending to be ignorant when it comes to acknowledging that Everton's progress over the past 12 years has come about through selling our best players and then replacing them with the money received.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

I certainly haven't been trying to take the TV money out of the equation at all. But we just would not have been able to sign Lukaku without the sale of Fellaini, and people should stop pretending to be ignorant when it comes to acknowledging that Everton's progress over the past 12 years had come about through selling our best players.

But your figures don't add up do they. I've just shown you this.

Anyway this isn't the right thread for this discussion so I'll end it here because you've got nowhere left to go with it.

 

[bluestevon]

Once again @Dymak preaching the common sense some of you just don't want to hear.

How was the recruitment of Stones, the integration of Barkley, the loaning of Deulofeu anything to do with the TV money? Equally Cleverley and Besic for minimal funds? It wasn't.

We have our best squad (apparently) through the culmination of two managers long term work in player trading and youth acquisition and development. The bulk of it was brought in before the new to deal anyway. All the tv deal has done has removed the financial necessity to sell to service the debt. It has not, as of yet allowed us to pull out huge transfers from our own capital without player trading. If you think it will prevent the sales of Stones and Lukaku you are most probably mistaken.

Martinez sold Anichebe Jelavic Fellaini and Heitinga in his first season to free up funds for the players he wanted. No sales, no McCarthy or Lukaku on a perm deal.

Sensible player trading, youth acquisition and development will be just as important as ever in growing the value of the squad and hopefully seeing that translated into points.

So Martinez sold 5 players he didn't actually want to help purchase 2 player he really wanted, hmmm how does that tally with Dymak saying we should sell stones and you supporting his position about strengthening the team by that method being our strategy - when it clearly would mean Martinez sells someone he has stated is integral to the way he sees us developing as a team?

btw, have we actually sold any player since Rooney besides for Lescott who at the time they were sold was really an integral part of the managers plans for the team

Some people act like every season we sell our best player which is i suppose a way of driving whatever agenda they are pursuing

 

[TheFinnFan]

Rom and stones aren't going anywhere in jan

nor will barkley, nor will any of our important players.

 

[bluestevon]

I certainly haven't been trying to take the TV money out of the equation at all. But we just would not have been able to sign Lukaku without the sale of Fellaini, and people should stop pretending to be ignorant when it comes to acknowledging that Everton's progress over the past 12 years has come about through selling our best players and then replacing them with the money received.

So your comparing selling Fellaini a player who the manager was pretty ok with letting go as he wasn't suited to his style of play - to buy Lukaku and McCarthy as the same situation as the manager selling one of the best young players in his position in the world who is perfectly suited to the style of play the manager is trying to implement so we could buy two late 20's grock defenders - mate obvious WUM is obvious WUM

 

[Dymak]

Correct mate. But that doesn't seem to register.

If you could explain how not having to pay 28 million pound upfront prevents you from having to pay 28 million pound eventually, then maybe us plums may be able to register what your point is? I doubt the money we received for Fellaini was paid in one go, but we still receive the money, and without being in receipt of such income we wouldn't have been able to afford Lukaku.

 

[bluestevon]

At risk of reopening old news, the Rom fee was not £28m up front anyrate. Over quite a few years IIRC

and the 28m fee quoted in the press included the already paid 5m loan fee from what i recall, which was already paid the year before and should never have been factored into the purchase fee

 

[Dymak]

So your comparing selling Fellaini a player who the manager was pretty ok with letting go as he wasn't suited to his style of play - to buy Lukaku and McCarthy as the same situation as the manager selling one of the best young players in his position in the world who is perfectly suited to the style of play the manager is trying to implement so we could buy two late 20's grock defenders - mate obvious WUM is obvious WUM

I think our team would improve if we had defenders that were capable of dealing with crosses into the box. This really isn't an outlandish opinion, and having defenders that can deal with crosses may actually make the difference between a 7th or an 11th placed finish.

 

[ijjysmith]

If you could explain how not having to pay 28 million pound upfront prevents you from having to pay 28 million pound eventually, then maybe us plums may be able to register what your point is? I doubt the money we received for Fellaini was paid in one go, but we still receive the money, and without being in receipt of such income we wouldn't have been able to afford Lukaku.

I really can't be arsed mate. X

 

[Dymak]

But your figures don't add up do they. I've just shown you this.

Anyway this isn't the right thread for this discussion so I'll end it here because you've got nowhere left to go with it.

Lol. Nobody on here is able to do an itemised breakdown of Everton's income and expenditure, and I'm certainly not trying to do so. But without the 28 million pound cash injection from the sale of Fellaini, we wouldn't have been able to meet anywhere near our recent expenditure on players, with Lukaku being the biggest purchase within that expenditure. You know this this is true, stop pretending to be ignorant.

 

[bluestevon]

I think our team would improve if we had defenders that were capable of dealing with crosses into the box. This really isn't an outlandish opinion, and having defenders that can deal with crosses may actually make the difference between a 7th or an 11th placed finish.

so Barca should have brought in a grock then for the past 10 years or more to help them at the back i guess rather than constantly having ball playing centre halfs, anyway won't happen so no point bothering discussing it really

 

[Dymak]

I really can't be arsed mate. X

OK mate.

 

[roydo]

If you could explain how not having to pay 28 million pound upfront prevents you from having to pay 28 million pound eventually, then maybe us plums may be able to register what your point is? I doubt the money we received for Fellaini was paid in one go, but we still receive the money, and without being in receipt of such income we wouldn't have been able to afford Lukaku.

Because, I guess, that the only substantial money we get in one go is the TV money. Maybe some sponsors as well I guess, but they will almost certainly be annual deals.

The Fellaini deal was important to RM because it gave him the leverage to get JM from Wigan; it is also why they, United, paid an extra 3 or 4 million at the 11th hour to pay Wigan the inflated price Whelan quoted late in the day. And maybe they wanted it up front as they had been relegated and perhaps needed the cash. No idea about that though.

I take your point that it all balances out over a few years, but the Rom deal was not contingent on the Fellaini one.

 

[Dymak]

so Barca should have brought in a grock then for the past 10 years or more to help them at the back i guess rather than constantly having ball playing centre halfs, anyway won't happen so no point bothering discussing it really

I haven't mentioned anything about grocks, I've been discussing a defenders ability to manage a ball that has been crossed into the box.

 

[roydo]

and the 28m fee quoted in the press included the already paid 5m loan fee from what i recall, which was already paid the year before and should never have been factored into the purchase fee

There were all sorts of bits and bobs lobbed on IIRC, but the actual cash outlay was nowhere near the quoted full price. And with one eye on next years TV cash, the repayments are pretty insignificant.