Transfer deadline aftermath - view and reaction.

[GhostOfDixie]

Yes and United are it, but dont even start comparing the fact that they sold Ronaldo to anything that we have done.

Cos I know thats the road you where going down.

What I am saying is there is always a bigger fish.

 

[Brownie]

Why didn't we do an Arsenal before Arsenal? Why didn't we dominate the start of the Premier League like Man United did? Why haven't we got the billions of funds that Chelsea and Manchester City have?

We could be the best club in the country, there's no reason why we shouldn't. Success shouldn't be seen as something that just happens, you have to achieve it.

 

[Goat]

Why didn't we do an Arsenal before Arsenal? Why didn't we dominate the start of the Premier League like Man United did? Why haven't we got the billions of funds that Chelsea and Manchester City have?

We could be the best club in the country, there's no reason why we shouldn't. Success shouldn't be seen as something that just happens, you have to achieve it.

Holy shiit? Browns??

Speech lerd.

 

[TX Bill]

Jo
Distin
Billy
Heitinga

Overall, I think on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give Moyes an 8. I good diverse group he's brought in.

Add Arteta, Jags, Yak, and Anichebe to the mix, and he'll have a boatload of options going forward.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

Jo
Distin
Billy
Heitinga

Overall, I think on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give Moyes an 8. I good diverse group he's brought in.

Add Arteta, Jags, Yak, and Anichebe to the mix, and he'll have a boatload of options going forward.

Thats right Bill Arteta,Jags & Yak will be like new signings. Sorry I can't say the same for Victor just yet. For the miracles he keeps coming up with I'm throwing out a 9/10 Banega loan would have him topped out.

 

[Michaelcoyb]

Just Wondering does anybody else remember a thread saying mikel tweated that he would be back hopefully on the bench for the blackburn game?

 

[faddy the blue]

I just think that its shitty that we didn't spend all the lescott money and the fact that BK didn't give a single penny to moyes is more dissapointing than anything. We did make alot of profit last season im sure.

Still the squad looks stronger but im worried about the center mid still....Rodwell and Arteta in the midfield would be immense

COYB

 

[TGV]

I agree that Moyes should have gotten more funds than the Lescott-money, mainly since it would have made it possible to make signing earlier. I don't belive that more players would have increased our chances for a good run in the league and cups, look at how Spurs usually do with half a new team every season. More money could have added extra quality but too many new signings can disrupt the squad harmony.

I yes, Rodwell and Arteta might be a very good midfield pairing. Rodders has deffo taken another step and looks much more confident on the ball this year.

 

[wakeyblue]

The only paradox is Jevons paradox esplain please why a jevons paradox??????????????????????

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Used most often in energy efficiency terms to say that despite things becoming a lot more efficient we still use more energy because we consume more.

Despite us becoming sooo much better than before we still get people complaining because their expectations have risen.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

I wondered what happened to Jevons after he left Everton!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

He had a decent career in the lower leagues I believe.

Phil Jevons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[davek]

The only paradox is Jevons paradox. We've improved from 2001 in pretty much every way imaginable, yet still people find a reason to moan. The increase in quality is futile as some will simply never be happy.

It frustrates me enormously just how devoid of reality so many appear to be. The question of where our record turnover went. FFS, it's in our annual report. It's not like Bill stashes it up his backside. If people bothered to read this report they'd realise that we don't make much profit ourselves so the only way we're gonna spend on transfers is:

a) we sell players
b) we borrow from the bank
c) AN Sugar Daddy buys us

No doubt option b) would result in another stick with which to beat the club, mortgaging our future, doing a Leeds etc. and in this climate for once they're probably right, although of course when they don't do it they're showing a lack of ambition, not taking advantage of the great opportunity we find ourselves in on the cusp of that 4th spot.

Despite what many no doubt want, c) hasn't happened. This isn't fantasy land, this is reality. The reality is that the only option we had this summer to give money to Moyes was to sell a player. I dare say initially Moyes wanted to keep Lescott and borrow to buy Naughton (and probably only him). When that didn't happen and the Lescott situation turned sour the strategy probably changed and we were left a short period of time to bring in players.

No conspiracy theories, it's all there if you're willing to open your eyes. Of course it's easier to go into Football Manager mode and start ****ging somebody, anybody, off for the 'shambles' of yet another transfer window but it would be really nice if just some would look at the reality of the situation and ask themselves how they would have done things better.

Superb the way you blithely skated past that option. It makes me laugh, you set yourself up in that post to be the voice of rationalism, bringing to bear all your objective powers to arrive at the 'only conclusion possible'. I think the use of the term 'sugar daddy' let's your subjectivity out the bag though. As for borrowing: I remember you saying you're a shareholder in Man Utd...are the £60+M annual repayments a source of concern to you with your Man Utd hat on, or do you just think borrowing is a bad thing for Everton?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Superb the way you blithely skated past that option. It makes me laugh, you set yourself up in that post to be the voice of rationalism, bringing to bear all your objective powers to arrive at the 'only conclusion possible'. I think the use of the term 'sugar daddy' let's your subjectivity out the bag though. As for borrowing: I remember you saying you're a shareholder in Man Utd...are the £60+M annual repayments a source of concern to you with your Man Utd hat on, or do you just think borrowing is a bad thing for Everton?

I fail to see how a modern investor can be anything but a sugar daddy. One and all they are relying on a sale to generate a return on their investment. Fairly sure that none are taking out huge dividends, which is just as well considering how poor clubs are at turning a profit in the first place. We're relying on someone that's happy in that scenario to lose money for several years 'investing' in the club in order to see a return should they sell it to someone presumably even richer than them. The alternative being that they're so rich they can afford to throw the money away for vanity purposes without seeking a return.

The Man Utd debt of course is a result of the Glazers purchase. Before they took over their debt was minuscule and they turned a very nice profit each year that has enabled them to invest heavily in Old Trafford, Carrington and of course the team. In purely operational terms they still do but of course they are saddled now with the debt from the Glazer family takeover. I'm not really sure you can use them as an example of a club who willingly took on debt to fund their growth because that simply isn't true. They used money from their stock market flotation together with the fortunate timing of success in the Sky era to largely self fund their growth.

 

[davek]

I fail to see how a modern investor can be anything but a sugar daddy. One and all they are relying on a sale to generate a return on their investment. Fairly sure that none are taking out huge dividends, which is just as well considering how poor clubs are at turning a profit in the first place. We're relying on someone that's happy in that scenario to lose money for several years 'investing' in the club in order to see a return should they sell it to someone presumably even richer than them. The alternative being that they're so rich they can afford to throw the money away for vanity purposes without seeking a return.

It's not the reasoning or motives of the people acquiring clubs that's the issue, it's the terminlogy you use, which is negative and underlines your ethical opposition. Was John Moores a sugar daddy, btw?

The Man Utd debt of course is a result of the Glazers purchase. Before they took over their debt was minuscule and they turned a very nice profit each year that has enabled them to invest heavily in Old Trafford, Carrington and of course the team. In purely operational terms they still do but of course they are saddled now with the debt from the Glazer family takeover. I'm not really sure you can use them as an example of a club who willingly took on debt to fund their growth because that simply isn't true. They used money from their stock market flotation together with the fortunate timing of success in the Sky era to largely self fund their growth.

They're in debt as all clubs are. Fair enough, some have regular success and a commercial arm that can handle levels of debt better than others.

You mention also the floatation of United giving them a financial boost that they built upon. There's another 'fouth option' you could have highlighted in relation to funding for players and much besides - in Everton's case a share issue. Consistently knocked back by the board.

It's come to something when player sales are seen as the appropriate response to squad-building by supporters.