Sell to Buy

[mahermi1]

I love how @Bungle is able to make a serious point on a serious subject but somehow you know he’s not being serious.

Absolute genius.

Haha think it's called "stoking the flames" or similar.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Officially selling to buy.

Nothing will be the same they said.

Kenwright out.

 

[AsiaAsia82]

Whose going to loan a striker who has scored zero goals in almost two years?

Mmmm, where’s Walsh working at the moment?

 

[radiostar]

is anyone genuinely surprised? Brands hinted at the fact it was going to be sell to buy mid way through last season, when i picked up on it i was "just being negative" and people were making out it was a clever ploy to keep prices down on players.

In truth its not the most unsensible thing in the world to sell to buy, indeed probably 90% of football clubs have that structure. It just strengthens opinion against this current everton set up and owner, for me.

Being massively ambitious in building a stadium on water might be a contributing factor as well, of course.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

We aint sell to buy.

Just because we are selling crap players who were out on loan last season makes zero difference.

I guarantee we'll spend about £90-100 million this summer and we'll be lucky to recoup about £40-45 million of that from sales therefore we aint sell to buy.

Sell to buy was selling Lescott for £24 million under Kenwright and spending just £20 million in the window.

Or Southampton selling Van Dijk for £75 million and not spending half of that.

 

[magicjuan]

It's more than just transfer fees, wage bill is more important, so too having players in a huge squad losing the drive to break through knowing they're 4th or 5th in line and losing value, direction and potential.
I'm happy enough to get rid of the deadwood first, if that then means selling before buying then so be it, I've got faith in Brands to handle that side of managing things.

 

[Yarrgh]

Need to trim the wage bill. Gomes coming in for Vlasic will grow our wage bill in the region of 100k per week.

Why? Didn't we pay Gomes last year?

 

[SiEdmo]

Might not be as simple as that. I doubt we would get a huge loan fee or a monthly figure that will even cover 1/3 off his wages, so if we say he isn't going on loan and he won't play he may take a settlement fee. Pay him one year upfront and he becomes a free agent to sign up with a lower division team back home and start to rebuild his confidence and career.

with how this STCC rules work though mate if we pay up a contract and release on a free its a massive hit to the accounts and limits what other money you can spend

if we paid 5mil on a 5 year contract, his book value decreases 1mil per year, if you let him go for free now, that's a operating loss of 3mil, which comes off what you can spend, so as long as we get some of his wages covered, that's technically 3million quid plus the bit of wages we get covered that we can use on buying someone

if we have lots of money, but cant spend it because we are taking losses left and right, that's no good, when we can absorb the costs because we have lots of money, and then spend what we aren't 'losing' if you get me

that's why you never really see people released on frees anymore with years left on deals, and mad 2 year loans that don't seem to make sense, unless you know how STCC works

 

[Efcjake]

It's not that we don't have money to buy it's that we don't have much room to grow the wage bill so we need to get the wasters off of it to buy new players

 

[alvinh]

with how this STCC rules work though mate if we pay up a contract and release on a free its a massive hit to the accounts and limits what other money you can spend

if we paid 5mil on a 5 year contract, his book value decreases 1mil per year, if you let him go for free now, that's a operating loss of 3mil, which comes off what you can spend, so as long as we get some of his wages covered, that's technically 3million quid plus the bit of wages we get covered that we can use on buying someone

if we have lots of money, but cant spend it because we are taking losses left and right, that's no good, when we can absorb the costs because we have lots of money, and then spend what we aren't 'losing' if you get me

that's why you never really see people released on frees anymore with years left on deals, and mad 2 year loans that don't seem to make sense, unless you know how STCC works

Sorry for what may be a daft question but what does STCC stand for?

 

[Steve Wigan]

is anyone genuinely surprised? Brands hinted at the fact it was going to be sell to buy mid way through last season, when i picked up on it i was "just being negative" and people were making out it was a clever ploy to keep prices down on players.

In truth its not the most unsensible thing in the world to sell to buy, indeed probably 90% of football clubs have that structure. It just strengthens opinion against this current everton set up and owner, for me.

Being massively ambitious in building a stadium on water might be a contributing factor as well, of course.

So are you suggesting we shouldn't sell or get rid of Mirallas, Cuco, Vladic,Bolassie, and Scheiderfraud, and we should just buy more players and keep paying wages to the deadwood? If it was called 'buying to sell' would you be happier?
In fact reading your post again why should it strengthen your opinion against the current owner. We are buy ing players and we are selling players. That's what the transfer market is for. As someone else said..if we never sold anyone we'd very quickly have hundreds of players. Is that what you want?

 

[Bungle]

Sorry for what may be a daft question but what does STCC stand for?

Sell the complete crap

 

[malfosse]

Disgusting, we have the poorest billionaire in the world. He's nothing but a 'kin fraud.
Moshiri out.
NSNO. This is sarcasm by the way.

 

[The binman chronicles]

with how this STCC rules work though mate if we pay up a contract and release on a free its a massive hit to the accounts and limits what other money you can spend

if we paid 5mil on a 5 year contract, his book value decreases 1mil per year, if you let him go for free now, that's a operating loss of 3mil, which comes off what you can spend, so as long as we get some of his wages covered, that's technically 3million quid plus the bit of wages we get covered that we can use on buying someone

if we have lots of money, but cant spend it because we are taking losses left and right, that's no good, when we can absorb the costs because we have lots of money, and then spend what we aren't 'losing' if you get me

that's why you never really see people released on frees anymore with years left on deals, and mad 2 year loans that don't seem to make sense, unless you know how STCC works

That might be one factor to consider but I doubt we are going to spend spend spend in this window, more likely our wage bill will decrease this season by offloading more than what comes in.

To that effect why wouldn't the club want to save themselves 5 million over the course of 2 seasons if they can.

 

[OneTrueLegend]

I don't think it's quite as straightforward as a "sell to buy" policy. But I think in an ideal world we would get players lined up to go out either permanently or on loan, before we bring too many new players in. Given that we have released Williams, sent Kenny on loan and sold Vlasic, I don't think this is linked to Gomes coming in. But I think Moshiri will be pleased with Brands because it will look a bit better on the balance sheet