Everton Transfer Thread 2016

[roydo]

So do you think we would have still been capable of buying Lukaku and McCarthy if we hadn't have sold Fellaini?

Already said, several times, that the McCarthy deal was indeed directly related to the Fellaini deal.

However, that might have been more down to the 11th hour nature of both transfers; RM, "I want JM but I dont want MF" Bill, "You cant have both"

 

[Dithering Dougie]

So do you think we would have still been capable of buying Lukaku and McCarthy if we hadn't have sold Fellaini?

Moving the posts now you've been proven wrong isn't good forum etiquette mate.

 

[Dymak]

No. The only player we got because of the Fellaini deal was JM.

So we would still have been able to afford Lukaku if we had only received the circa 13 million which was spent on McCarthy? The remainder of the cash from the Fellaini sale, played no part in the acquisition of Lukaku? We still would have been capable of signing Lukaku anyway?

 

[roydo]

So do you think we would have still been capable of buying Lukaku and McCarthy if we hadn't have sold Fellaini?

Just noticed the word "Capable". At the same time? Probably not. But then we didnt actually buy them at the same time anyrate, so not entirely sure what that adds really.

 

[roydo]

We still would have been capable of signing Lukaku anyway?

Yes.

 

[SerenityNigh]

No, you're chatting absolute guff through making totally irrelevant analogies about telling jokes to females. Simply put, without the sale of Fellaini, our expenditure on players over the last couple of years would be about 28 million pound less than it has been. End of. That's the truth, and it has absolutely nothing to do with telling crap jokes to females.

Honestly I thought it'd be easier for you to comprehend the analogy

 

[Dymak]

Moving the posts now you've been proven wrong isn't good forum etiquette mate.

It isn't moving the goal posts though. I've said all along that Im not stupid enough to think that we have been forwarding on the same pound notes that we received from United on to Chelsea. I've been saying that without the sale of Fellaini our expenditure on players would be 28 million pound less than it has been, and without that 28 million pound we would have been incapable of signing Lukaku.

 

[roydo]

I've been saying that without the sale of Fellaini our expenditure on players would be 28 million pound less than it has been, and without that 28 million pound we would have been incapable of signing Lukaku.

With respect mate, that is not the point you were making. You were saying we wouldnt have signed Rom unless we sold Fellaini. That is just not true.

Not sure how many times I can say this, but how about thinking about the Rom story from Chelseas POV?

WBA. Loan.
Everton. Loan.

Jose not a fan, obviously, so when Everton make a real bid, £28m in total, but, over several years, loan fees discounted, all sorts of gubbins, they are delighted. And it meant the dent in our annual cash flow will be akin to signing a mid range, (these days) player in full. Factor in the known massive increase in, that word again, CASHFLOW, and the Rom deal was not, in any way, reliant on Fellaini being sold.

I really cant see what I have missed out here.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

It isn't moving the goal posts though. I've said all along that Im not stupid enough to think that we have been forwarding on the same pound notes that we received from United on to Chelsea. I've been saying that without the sale of Fellaini our expenditure on players would be 28 million pound less than it has been, and without that 28 million pound we would have been incapable of signing Lukaku.

Right even though you've moved the posts, answer this.

Where do you think the funds to hire Martinez and his staff came from? Or the transfer fees of Kone, Robles, McCarthy? As well as the loan fees we payed out for Deulofeo, Barry and Lukaku?

I'd suggest that's at least £25m worth of recruitment there.

 

[Dymak]

Yes.

But you do concede that without the sale of Fellaini, our expenditure on transfers would be circa 28 million pound less then what it has been? Whether that would have prevented the purchase of McCarthy (like you said), Lukaku or Mcgeady nobody can say for sure, but our ability to spend a further 28 million pound would have been curtailed, and I personally think signing Lukaku without the benefit of a 28 million pound cash injection would have been highly unlikely. But people are welcome to delude themselves onto thinking it would have happened anyway, without the sale of Fellaini.

 

[SerenityNigh]

 

[Moomin]

I might have to report the last two pages for off topic.

This thread is about what tosh we are not going to sign this January, not previous years.

 

[Dymak]

Right even though you've moved the posts, answer this.

Where do you think the funds to hire Martinez and his staff came from? Or the transfer fees of Kone, Robles, McCarthy? As well as the loan fees we payed out for Deulofeo, Barry and Lukaku?

I'd suggest that's at least £25m worth of recruitment there.

Right, and some people are trying to argue that we still would have been able to afford Lukaku without the sale of Fellaini. You think you are debunking this through stating a list of costs that reach over 20 million. How could we afford all that, and the purchase of Lukaku, without the sale of Fellaini?

We are 28 million pound down in expenditure without the sale of Fellaini. It doesn't matter if the Manc £50 notes were sent to London or Russia, we are still 28 million pound down, and we would not have been able to have spent the amounts we have done, with Lukaku being our biggest purchase within that expenditure.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

Right, and some people are trying to argue that we still would have been able to afford Lukaku without the sale of Fellaini. You think you are debunking this through stating a list of costs that reach over 20 million. How could we afford all that, and the purchase of Lukaku, without the sale of Fellaini?

We are 28 million pound down in expenditure without the sale of Fellaini. It doesn't matter if the Manc £50 notes were sent to London or Russia, we are still 28 million pound down, and we would not have been able to have spent the amounts we have done, with Lukaku being our biggest purchase within that expenditure.

Sigh...You've not answered my question.

Oh well it's only you who thinks Fellaini payed for Lukaku so I guess we're all wrong and you right in a very @Adversus like strange universe.

 

[neil999]

still going lol