Moyes pre Stoke Presser

Status
Not open for further replies.
chrismanduk said:
Is this not a sign of a well run club tho'?
Click to expand...

No, this is a sign of having a great manager.

It's clearly not a sign of a well run club - a well run club would still have assets, and not have liabilities and debt of £44m.
A well run club would be able to sign players without selling players.
A well run club would have directors who are visible and who invest in the club.
A well run club would attract much more lucrative shirt sponsorships.
A well run club would have a plan to tackle the stadium issue, other than hoping the city's other team do a u-turn on groundsharing.

I could go on.
 
paulbefc said:
Have I missed something here? Fox has said he thinks Moyes will stay and Moyes himself has said in the effing video at the top of this thread that the meeting with Kenwright have been moving the talks along bit by bit. You must have some pretty concrete and damning evidence to suggest Moyes is definitely gone to be saying that, really.
Click to expand...

So you have nothing, BoysInBlue. Sound.
 
BoysInBlue said:
No, this is a sign of having a great manager.

It's clearly not a sign of a well run club - a well run club would still have assets, and not have liabilities and debt of £44m.
A well run club would be able to sign players without selling players.
A well run club would have directors who are visible and who invest in the club.
A well run club would attract much more lucrative shirt sponsorships.
A well run club would have a plan to tackle the stadium issue, other than hoping the city's other team do a u-turn on groundsharing.

I could go on.
Click to expand...

I agree Moyes is a great manager but no one man can run a club alone.
On the above criteria can you give me a better run and more succesful club than Everton, that doesn't have loads of cash to play with.
 
BoysInBlue said:
It is true. Check their figures.
Click to expand...

I have done. I posted a link last page. According to transfer league they've spent 8 million more than they've bought in from transfers over the last three years.

It's not quite as extravegent as the 40 million net transfers they spend under oneill, but it's still more than the money they've earned in sales. And that's ignoring the wage bill of 80 million (according to both the guardian and the telegraph), which accounts for 90% of their income by itself.
 
Artetafan said:
I have done. I posted a link last page. According to transfer league they've spent 8 million more than they've bought in from transfers over the last three years.

It's not quite as extravegent as the 40 million net transfers they spend under oneill, but it's still more than the money they've earned in sales. And that's ignoring the wage bill of 80 million (according to both the guardian and the telegraph), which accounts for 90% of their income by itself.
Click to expand...

It is true. Check their figures.

Milner sold (£20m)
Barry sold (£12m)
Young sold (£20m)
Downing sold (£20m)

There's £72m right there.

Lambert has spent £24m and recouped £3m since he went there, so that's £21m he's spent.
Bent cost £24m (bought by Houllier). So that brings outgoings to £45m.

They've made no other significant signings - McLeish bought no-one of note, and other than Bent, neither did Houllier.

So that's £72m received and £45m spent - that's £27m in Lerner's pocket. I know some Villa fans and it's a major bug bear for them.

That's why Villa are where they are, and why they've made a big thing of relying on their youth - because they systemically dismantled and sold off all their star players, and really didn't replace like for like, and certainly the money outgoings haven't matched what they received.
 
Last edited:
Artetafan said:
I have done. I posted a link last page. According to transfer league they've spent 8 million more than they've bought in from transfers over the last three years.

It's not quite as extravegent as the 40 million net transfers they spend under oneill, but it's still more than the money they've earned in sales. And that's ignoring the wage bill of 80 million (according to both the guardian and the telegraph), which accounts for 90% of their income by itself.
Click to expand...
whats villas net spend since learner took over mate.
 
BoysInBlue said:
It is true. Check their figures.

Milner sold (£20m)
Barry sold (£12m)
Young sold (£20m)
Downing sold (£20m)

There's £72m right there.

Lambert has spent £24m and recouped £3m since he went there, so that's £21m he's spent.
Bent cost £24m (bought by Houllier). So that brings outgoings to £45m.

They've made no other significant signings - McLeish bought no-one of note, and other than Bent, neither did Houllier.

So that's £72m received and £45m spent - that's £27m in Lerner's pocket. I know some Villa fans and it's a major bug bear for them.

That's why Villa are where they are, and why they've made a big thing of relying on their youth - because they systemically dismantled and sold off all their star players, and really didn't replace like for like, and certainly the money outgoings haven't matched what they received.
Click to expand...

Given cost 2.5, nzogbia 9.5, Hutton 4, Jean Makoun 6.2, Beye 2.5 and Milner cost 18 and ireland so theres another 2 on him to make the 20. So theres the 27 you're claiming lerner pocketed.
 
BoysInBlue said:
No, this is a sign of having a great manager.

It's clearly not a sign of a well run club - a well run club would still have assets, and not have liabilities and debt of £44m.
A well run club would be able to sign players without selling players.
A well run club would have directors who are visible and who invest in the club.
A well run club would attract much more lucrative shirt sponsorships.
A well run club would have a plan to tackle the stadium issue, other than hoping the city's other team do a u-turn on groundsharing.

I could go on.
Click to expand...

Correct.

The Board is an absolute shambles in terms of ability, capability and every measurable criteria you could suggest. How on earth can anyone suggest that Moyes is the problem and not the Board? If we brought Mourhino in or Ferguson they'd fail because everything around them would continue to stagnate or regress.....Paul Daniels or Dynamo need to be on the "potentials" list if the Board stay around.

Smell the coffee Blues.

For what it's worth I'm convinced DM will stay, and for the right reasons.
 
Just fed up of people blaming Lerner for the state of villa in order to excuse our board by comparision, their current squad cost 100 million in transfer fees and is on wages of 80 million after 100 milion net spend over ten years to assemble it, ours cost 65 million, is on 53 million on wages and was assembled for 5 million over the last ten years.

If they got market value for their players they'd be better than us comfortably, the fact they didn't is no reflection of Lerner's financial generosity but rather the ability of the managers he picks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top