What could of been

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fletch said:
I have finally accepted, and I didn't sleep last night because of this going round in my head, that the night when we failed to beat Villareal in the CL qualifiers was the turning point for us in terms of becoming a top 4 club.

Fair play to Spurs for a superb performance in the San Siro and despite being gutted by Pienaars departure, you cant really blame the lad, he wanted to play football on nights like that, and so would I.

So, in my opinion we had a second chance and we built a squad, the culmination being the FA Cup Final, once more we were again on the edge of creating something but down to poor players and shockingly bad tactics we failed to perform on the day.

I truly believe if you gave Moyes £100m now then we would still be all over the place, Ive watched some decent games but frustrated even more by negative play and the wrong players in the wrong positons etc.

Ive accepted what could have been, we failed miserably in europe and thats us done.

Sorry :(
Click to expand...

Posted a thread on these lines just after the FA cup final defeat to Chelski - can't be a*sed bumping it, but I feared at that point we had reached our Zenith (not the data systems cup btw) and was worried a serious decline was dawning.
Footballing empires are built on small desicions and luck ( Man U v's Forest Fa cup 1990, Glen Hoddle going to chelsea and convincing Guillt to join him, even Kevin Brock '84....)

Sadly at the moment I am beginning to realise Everton have missed the train twice in the last 5 years and I can't for the life of me see another coming for a good while.....
 

Great Dane said:
I think you're right. I just want to see some major changes - I have come to a point where I just don't care anymore whether Moyes stays or goes, if forced to choose then please go David you're time is up.

Somehow people think that in order to survive we need to be able to spend spend sped, however a team like Spurs have not really spent that much, the money for the sale of Berbatov, Keane and Carrick have more or less gotten them the squad they have now. Yes some of them were bought for big money, but only Modric can really be counted as a big fee.

I have suggested getting rid of most of the squad for a suitable price. Build the team around players like Baines, Rodwell, Coleman, Barkley and Duffy. Finance new players by selling some of our "high-stock" players - Arteta, Heitinga, Fellaini, Bilayletdinov, even Jagielka and Cahill(while he still has a good price) - and go for players like Dorrans (WBA), McCarthy, Moses, McArthur (Wigan), and Lewis Holtby (Mainz) - all young playes that would jump at a chance to play for us. Almost all of our best purchases have been from so-called lesser teams.
Click to expand...

Uh spurs have spent more than United recently. OK, they got 22M for Keane (made 8M when they bought him back), 30M for Berbatov (net of 18M) and 22M for Carrick. However Palacios was 14M, Crouch 9M, Bent 16M, Bentley 16M, Pavenlychenko was 11M. Those are/were players who make up the bench. Plus Spurs pay extremely high wages, more than Arse. The formentioned Bent made 90K/week.
 

I played against Kevin Brock sides a few times during the 90's, when I was player managing at Burton Park Wanderers we played Woodford United a few times, again in our league before they got some cash and got promoted a couple of times.
 
Rook said:
Uh spurs have spent more than United recently. OK, they got 22M for Keane (made 8M when they bought him back), 30M for Berbatov (net of 18M) and 22M for Carrick. However Palacios was 14M, Crouch 9M, Bent 16M, Bentley 16M, Pavenlychenko was 11M. Those are/were players who make up the bench. Plus Spurs pay extremely high wages, more than Arse. The formentioned Bent made 90K/week.
Click to expand...
But most of their start players were not expensive - it just proves that a high fee does not guarantee a high performer, hence we don't need an oilsheik in order to move forward. Just some forward thinking.
 
Brownie said:
It's the wages. If you can't afford the wages, you can't afford the top players. And when the players you've signed from below become top players, you can't afford to keep them.

I agree with your main point tho, we have missed out on a few huge opportunities over the last decade.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, vicious cycle. Cue Coleman, Rodwell and Baxter's departure in the next couple of years, unless we find significant investment.
 
Great Dane said:
Somehow people think that in order to survive we need to be able to spend spend sped, however a team like Spurs have not really spent that much, the money for the sale of Berbatov, Keane and Carrick have more or less gotten them the squad they have now. Yes some of them were bought for big money, but only Modric can really be counted as a big fee.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate but this is just completely wrong. According to Deloitte's 2010 Annual Review of Football Finance (which is as reliable a source as you are likely to find in this game), "Tottenham Hotspur had gross spending of £119m but recouped £72m through player sales." So that's 47m net. 47m. In one year. 47m.

While they haven't gone after the 30m+ individual players, when you add it all up, they have spent a huge amount of money.

But that's just one year. According to one article I read (less of a reputable source than Deloitte admittedly), "What more can Moyes do than he has already, in a position where the constraints placed upon him by a penniless board have restricted his net spending to an eighth of Tottenham’s."

Spurs wage bill this year appears to be around 87m (compared to ours at 54m). Let's not forget that Spurs won Pienaar's signature because they offered £11000-a-week more in wages than Chelsea. When you are outbidding Chelsea I find it hard to swallow the idea that they "have not spent that much."

Even ignoring the transfer fees, on wages alone Spurs spend 61% more than Everton. That is a significant advantage. Combining wages and transfers it appears they spent 80 million more than us in the past year or so (or 248% more than us). So, in conclusion, I would say they have actually spent quite a lot of money by any standard (and a great deal more than us).
 
Last edited:

njligernj said:
Sorry mate but this is just completely wrong. According to Deloitte's 2010 Annual Review of Football Finance (which is as reliable a source as you are likely to find in this game), "Tottenham Hotspur had gross spending of £119m but recouped £72m through player sales." So that's 47m net. 47m. In one year. 47m.

While they haven't gone after the 30m+ individual players, when you add it all up, they have spent a huge amount of money.

But that's just one year. According to one article I read (less of a reputable source than Deloitte admittedly), "What more can Moyes do than he has already, in a position where the constraints placed upon him by a penniless board have restricted his net spending to an eighth of Tottenham’s."

Spurs wage bill this year appears to be around 87m (compared to ours at 54m). Let's not forget that Spurs won Pienaar's signature because they offered £11000-a-week more in wages than Chelsea. When you are outbidding Chelsea I find it hard to swallow the idea that they "have not spent that much."

Even ignoring the transfer fees, on wages alone Spurs spend 61% more than Everton. That is a significant advantage. Combining wages and transfers it appears they spent 80 million more than us in the past year or so (or 248% more than us). So, in conclusion, I would say they have actually spent quite a lot of money by any standard (and a great deal more than us).
Click to expand...

... why is it that every time I bring facts into a discussion it ends the thread? ;) Sorry everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

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

Register

Shop

Back
Top