New Everton Owners: The Friedkin Group

What do we reckon?

  • 👍

    Votes: 961 70.0%

  • 🤷 | 🧀🥪

    Votes: 326 23.8%

  • 👎

    Votes: 85 6.2%
  • Total voters
    1,372

davek said:
It was a very decent spend. However....

...the Rohl cash is not up front, it's next season. There's a loan deal for Grealish. We bought a player we already had on loan. We got two GKs in for £3M.

IMO we didn't spend well enough with the Barry money. And I'm not entirely convinced on the Dibling signing. That cash should have gone to RB + another (and different) strikers - either loan deals or fee payment.

They did ok in terms of backing us. Not 'unprecedented' by any means. And they recruited people to spend a lot of that cash on strange signings. So they're responsible ultimately for that too.
Click to expand...

Drico said:
Yeah, full marks for beginning the overhaul (albeit slowly), but I share your concern over Dibling, in particular, and Barry, to a lesser extent. Of course, one or both of these signings could be masterstrokes, but for now they have it all to prove and come with elevated risk (especially Dibling).

Grealish is a sensible signing and allows the Friedkins to say we brought glamour. Full marks there for seizing that opportunity. They will need luck now with injuries here. A fit Jack is a catalyst to the whole project, in PR terms. Travers is also a sensible signing - a good back-up who, hopefully, won't play too often but can do a good job if he has to. Aznou can only work if the manager gives him a chance. For what he cost, that's just a punt. Dewsbury-Hall looks to be a really smart move. He's done enough already to show that he is a level above what we had in that part of the pitch last year.

Röhl is the deal that could swing this window either way. Potentially, this could be the best deal of the lot. He brings ability, physical presence, and versatility. He'll give the manager options. Let's see if he can settle.

The failure to sign a right back is a dereliction of duty. It's really inexplicable. Coleman's retention is linked to this, in my view. I'm convinced Moyes still sees an on-pitch role for him which, in my view, is madness. Therefore, he didn't prioritise this position.

If Branthwaite can get and stay fit and we have a bit of luck injury-wise with our new signings, I think we can get top 10 and position ourselves as the up-and-coming club for next summer's window. Many people are saying this was an 8/10 or better window. If that's the case, Moyes has no excuse. We have an interesting season ahead...
Click to expand...
Dibling has literally done nothing to suggest we should be concerned about him making the grade here.
Not worried about him at all. Might need bedding in but for a 19 year old kid his quality is very obvious.

Categorically came out on top in the negotiations as well when Southampton were trying to squeeze everything they could out of us.

If we get lucky with injuries we're getting Europe.
 
davek said:
No, that's not what's spent yet. £100M at most has been spent and you can knock off the £10M secured for the player who left for Sevco.

Circa £90M.

Roma have spent circa £50M - but they needed to spend less on a team that finished 5th...and also Serie A clubs spend much less for players than the idiot PL are forced to pay.
Click to expand...
Nobody mentioned net spend though Dave did they? You've had a mare on this window, I've never known anybody enjoy so much having something to whinge about in my life. It's an utter nonsense to try to say that they have not invested heavily in all aspects of the club since taking over. I'm not totally convinced by them as owners yet, but, I give them the benefit of the doubt and they're doing ok thus far.
 

Blue83 said:
Perhaps it was the future fee that turned them away rather than wages
Click to expand...
I doubt it. That future fee will be up for negotiation when the time comes. I think it's more that Villa didn't have the money at that time and that Grealish wanted to stay local. They had to wait until the very end of the window to see what they could cobble together. And panic had set in by then.

They look like a club that has now hit its wall. The sliding doors moment of Old Trafford in May will be the turning point.
 
davek said:
No, that's not what's spent yet. £100M at most has been spent and you can knock off the £10M secured for the player who left for Sevco.

Circa £90M.

Roma have spent circa £50M - but they needed to spend less on a team that finished 5th...and also Serie A clubs spend much less for players than the idiot PL are forced to pay.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about your maths here Dave. Alcaraz £12 mill, Dibling £35 mill, Dewsbury Hall £28 mill, Barry £27.5 mill, Aznou £8 mill, back up keeper £4 mill. So, even if you don't count the £21 mill obligation for Rohl or the £12 mill loan fee for Grealish,which they have had to finance that is still well over £110 mill. Stop digging yourself deeper in..
 
Blue83 said:
Perhaps it was the future fee that turned them away rather than wages
Click to expand...

City won’t want to incur a book price loss, Everton won’t want to pay his book price, Grealish won’t want to sit on City’s bench after playing all season with us.

It all points to probably another loan for another year of his contract and then a discussion the window afterwards when his fee will be much reduced
 
Saint Domingo said:
City won’t want to incur a book price loss, Everton won’t want to pay his book price, Grealish won’t want to sit on City’s bench after playing all season with us.

It all points to probably another loan for another year of his contract and then a discussion the window afterwards when his fee will be much reduced
Click to expand...
I also think the player will want to stay with us. But it's still very early days let's just hope he keeps going the way he is.
 

Saint Domingo said:
City won’t want to incur a book price loss, Everton won’t want to pay his book price, Grealish won’t want to sit on City’s bench after playing all season with us.

It all points to probably another loan for another year of his contract and then a discussion the window afterwards when his fee will be much reduced
Click to expand...
He only has two years left on his deal, including this season. He'll be sold next summer to us or someone else. He'll have 16.5M left on his amortization after this season, that's not really the concern, more his wages and how that is settled.
 
roy vernon said:
Nobody mentioned net spend though Dave did they? You've had a mare on this window, I've never known anybody enjoy so much having something to whinge about in my life. It's an utter nonsense to try to say that they have not invested heavily in all aspects of the club since taking over. I'm not totally convinced by them as owners yet, but, I give them the benefit of the doubt and they're doing ok thus far.
Click to expand...

Dave doesn't so much move the goalposts as much as he moves the whole pitch.

Can never be proved wrong as he just changes the argument - Politics 101.
 
pfim said:
He only has two years left on his deal, including this season. He'll be sold next summer to us or someone else. He'll have 16.5M left on his amortization after this season, that's not really the concern, more his wages and how that is settled.
Click to expand...

He’ll probably need to accept at that point that he can either have the wages at City but not play, or transfer permanently on reduced wages. Even then we could probably offer a very competitive wage. He’ll surely realise his days of being a 300k a week footballer would be over at 30, no one outside of Saudi would be offering that type of deal. That’s why the loan could still happen late on again, he could stay still, have not takers on a permanent deal and City faced with having to pay him the full amount each week would agree late on to getting the player out the door and some of the wages recouped.
 
roy vernon said:
Nobody mentioned net spend though Dave did they? You've had a mare on this window, I've never known anybody enjoy so much having something to whinge about in my life. It's an utter nonsense to try to say that they have not invested heavily in all aspects of the club since taking over. I'm not totally convinced by them as owners yet, but, I give them the benefit of the doubt and they're doing ok thus far.
Click to expand...
When you consider we lost a number of players for no fee whatsoever then our spend has been (for us) considerable. It has also not been madness and I am sure will be sustainable. Although not perfect, we now have a team that looks like it can score goals and win a few games rather than nicking results after camping in our own half. After the last few years I don't know how anyone can be complaining about anything.
 
Rob17896 said:
When you consider we lost a number of players for no fee whatsoever then our spend has been (for us) considerable. It has also not been madness and I am sure will be sustainable. Although not perfect, we now have a team that looks like it can score goals and win a few games rather than nicking results after camping in our own half. After the last few years I don't know how anyone can be complaining about anything.
Click to expand...

£122m spent with a net spend of £114m according to Sky earlier (but this includes the Rohl obligation fee, which likely comes out of next year (?) so £95/96m net this window).

Very considerable to where we were 12 months ago.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top