Everton Transfer Thread 2016

[TheKr0w]

I'll reserve judgement until I see proof.
All this alleged movement after selling a 47.5m player when the window has been open for weeks.

But how many weeks has Walsh had as DoF? Needed to assess and highlight targets. We would only ever agree to Stones as long as we had confirmed replacements in place!

Of course you're right to reserve judgement, we all are! But the sale wouldn't have happened if we didn't have agreements in represents...

 

[matty1878]

That's interesting. I assumed it was the other way around - has this always been the case Esk?

That was my thinking

 

[The Esk]

That's interesting. I assumed it was the other way around - has this always been the case Esk?

Always club terms first, I was contrasting the range of information received

 

[suey_11]

Or they counted on him being a controversial signing and leaked an inflated price above the actual to increase the attention and speculation regarding him.

*Readjusts tin hat*

Now that's just nuts.

Sorry it just is.

 

[Callum_efc]

So we needed to sell before we could buy.... Will this mean that another player will need to go ie lukaku for more significant money to be spent?

 

[ijjysmith]

So we needed to sell before we could buy.... Will this mean that another player will need to go ie lukaku for more significant money to be spent?

Something about wage allowance. Or something.

 

[The Esk]

He willing to take a huge paycut then mate or we willing to scrap the value of the Lukaku new contract offer as our wage ceiling?

It's a good point mate, he was on £40k more a week than what we have offered Lukaku so some negotiating will have had to have taken place

 

[Goat]

So we needed to sell before we could buy.... Will this mean that another player will need to go ie lukaku for more significant money to be spent?

If we spend more than 47m on wages in the next 3 weeks, yes.

 

[suey_11]

So we needed to sell before we could buy.... Will this mean that another player will need to go ie lukaku for more significant money to be spent?

I sincerely hope not but looking at all the sudden activity after the Stones sale we may not be admitted as we were led to believe.

 

[Deco]

Always club terms first, I was contrasting the range of information received

This summer (and your info so far) has really shown how quickly player/club demands can change so quickly lol

We're targeting the right players but we need to get the likes of Mata and Witsel signed up as soon as possible. Have you had any info on Indi or Kone at all mate?

 

[MartSlinger]

So we needed to sell before we could buy.... Will this mean that another player will need to go ie lukaku for more significant money to be spent?

Bet you we spend more than what we sold Stones for without selling Lukaku.

 

[The Esk]

So we needed to sell before we could buy.... Will this mean that another player will need to go ie lukaku for more significant money to be spent?

No mate, we didn't need to sell to raise cash, just to allow future increases in total wages because of STCC

 

[Callum_efc]

Something about wage allowance. Or something.

Surely stones sale won't set a mass fenzy and buy 5/6 first team players.... Stones sale to buy 3 any more would need another sale?

 

[tadao]

I'll reserve judgement until I see proof.
All this alleged movement after selling a 47.5m player when the window has been open for weeks.

Seriously? There's been so many threads where this has been discussed about the need for the sale, wages...can't even be bothered really, click this -
https://www.grandoldteam.com/2016/0...ransfers-short-term-cost-control-regulations/

 

[Connor]

Surely stones sale won't set a mass fenzy and buy 5/6 first team players.... Stones sale to buy 3 any more would need another sale?

No, it was about wages, not transfer funds.