Everton, our summer transfers and short term cost control regulations

[bobbydigital]

If it came down to it is rather sell Barkley than Stones. For me Barkley seems to have taken a step back. Whether it was Martinez that was the cause of this or not we will see this season if he is still here. Like Stones his decision making has been a bit poor this season and I lost track of how many times he ballooned the ball over the bar when shooting. I just feel that Stones at this moment in time can live up to the potential more than Ross.
Also why do people always say sell Cleverley. We've just given him a new contract so I think he's off the table unless someone offers stupid money for him (which won't happen)

Because we need to increase player trading profits so that we are able to increase the wages we can pay in order to bring in top players. Cleverly cost nothing so anything he goes for is profit. Cleverly is also easily replaceable.

Both Stones and Barkley are very talented and potentially great players. They are not easily replaceable.

 

[JimEFC]

From the UEFA site:
....
In order to promote investment in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women’s football (from 2015), all such costs are excluded from the break-even calculation.

Found a loophole here...since Niasse spends so little time on the pitch, we classify him as a stadium improvement and write off his wages against that.

 

[tirion]

His representatives have recently informed the club he's wanting to go to City.

This whole article is more about the esk gently breaking it to us that Stones will be sold, well has been sold. well Moshiri wanted to make a statement in the transfer market.............

 

[jceverton]

Also thinking about how the transfer value depreciation over the course of the contract my original assumptions about the likes of McCarthy etc not being easy to shift and not making much dent into that figure are way way wrong.

McCarthy cost roughly 14m, 3/5ths of the way through the contract now, so his actual value re player trading figures would now be less than 6m, sell him for 15-16 and thats a nice 10m of the figure we aim to reach sorted ... hmmm

Didn't McCarthy sign a new contract? If so how does that affect things?

 

[JimEFC]

Two things really mate, as a prolific goal scorer he's much more difficult to replace and secondly he wouldn't generate as much profit in a sale as Stones (I don't believe he'd go for £60 plus million)

I kind of agree but then Stones was bought for £3m while Lukaku was bought for £28m. So the opportunity for profit is higher with Stones I think.
A £65m Lukaku (as rumoured) would be £37m profit, and a £40m Stones (again as rumoured) would be the same. That'd be the starting price for any negotiations I reckon.
I think I'd rather sell Rom than Stones because English players have a default higher value as they get older. Plus Koeman + Stones = Boss. I reckon Koeman is relishing the chance of moulding Stones into a legendary CB.

 

[bluestevon]

Didn't McCarthy sign a new contract? If so how does that affect things?

Think the value of the transgfre depreciates over the lenght of the original contract mate unless i'm understanding things wrong

 

[jceverton]

Think the value of the transgfre depreciates over the lenght of the original contract mate unless i'm understanding things wrong

Okay thanks for the explanation - complicated stuff to get your head round!

 

[Darth Toffeeman]

This whole article is more about the esk gently breaking it to us that Stones will be sold, well has been sold. well Moshiri wanted to make a statement in the transfer market.............

I kind of read it that way too. But then again as shown with the chase of Koeman, nothing is final in the murky world of football and finance. And if indeed Stones is to leave that will be due to it being the right move to benefit Everton rather than to pay off overdue loans as has been the case previously. I am certain if Koeman was adamant that he wanted to work with Stones he would get his wish.

 

[JimEFC]

I kind of agree but then Stones was bought for £3m while Lukaku was bought for £28m. So the opportunity for profit is higher with Stones I think
A £65m Lukaku (as rumoured) would be £37m profit, and a £40m Stones (again as rumoured) would be the same. That'd be the starting price for any negotiations I reckon.
I think I'd rather sell Rom than Stones because English players have a default higher value as they get older. Plus Koeman + Stones = Boss. I reckon Koeman is relishing the chance of moulding Stones into a legendary CB.

Just thought of something else actually. Unless they're daft, Barnsley probably have a sell-on clause for Stones for 10-20% of any fee. That would change things a lot.

 

[JimEFC]

Think the value of the transgfre depreciates over the lenght of the original contract mate unless i'm understanding things wrong

Yeah there is depreciation. I read about it somewhere once but can't remember where!
Basically if you sign a £20m player on a 4 year contract his value drops to £15m, £10m, £5m, Zero as each year passes.
It's more complicated than that but that's the gist I think.

 

[bluestevon]

Just thought of something else actually. Unless they're daft, Barnsley probably have a sell-on clause for Stones for 10-20% of any fee. That would change things a lot.

Thing that changes it back though, is the fact i honestly don't think we will have any buyer willing to go to 65m or much above 50m really

 

[bobbydigital]

Didn't McCarthy sign a new contract? If so how does that affect things?

Think the value of the transgfre depreciates over the lenght of the original contract mate unless i'm understanding things wrong

I think the transfer originally depreciates over the duration of the initial contract. When he resigns, the value at this time is used as the basis for future depreciation.

i.e he signs for 14m transfer fee on 4 year contract in 2013. Then resigns for 5 year contract in 2015 (I think this is what happened)

His initial depreciation per year is 3.5m (14m divided by 4 years of contract) so when he resigns in 2015 his value is 7m. The 7m is then depreciated over the 5 years of the new contract so his depreciation for the year that has just finished is 1.4m (7m divided by the 5 years of contract) leaving a current value of 5.6m.

 

[The Esk]

Think the value of the transgfre depreciates over the length of the original contract mate unless i'm understanding things wrong

So a player is bought for £20 million on a 5 year contract. End yr 1 he's worth £16m as his book value depreciates by £4m a year (20 divided by 5).

At the end of year 3 his book value is now £8 million, but we extend his contract by two years meaning he has 4 years to run. The £8 million is then depreciated over the 4 years ie by £2 million a year for the remaining 4 years of the contract.

 

[bluestevon]

I think the transfer originally depreciates over the duration of the initial contract. When he resigns, the value at this time is used as the basis for future depreciation.

i.e he signs for 14m transfer fee on 4 year contract in 2013. Then resigns for 5 year contract in 2015 (I think this is what happened)

His initial depreciation per year is 3.5m (14m divided by 4 years of contract) so when he resigns in 2015 his value is 7m. The 7m is then depreciated over the 5 years of the new contract so his depreciation for the year that has just finished is 1.4m (7m divided by the 5 years of contract) leaving a current value of 5.6m.

So a player is bought for £20 million on a 5 year contract. End yr 1 he's worth £16m as his book value depreciates by £4m a year (20 divided by 5).

At the end of year 3 his book value is now £8 million, but we extend his contract by two years meaning he has 4 years to run. The £8 million is then depreciated over the 4 years ie by £2 million a year for the remaining 4 years of the contract.

Cheers guys, i was slightly out on my thinking, but that makes more sense now then, would alter several of the contracts and values of players as i had calculated them on the original contract details solely, so effectively unless a player is left to go out of contract - like say Gibson and then resigned, their transfer value for these purposes will always have some remaining for all intents and purposes (however small in certain cases)

 

[russiandog]

Cheers guys, i was slightly out on my thinking, but that makes more sense now then, would alter several of the contracts and values of players as i had calculated them on the original contract details solely, so effectively unless a player is left to go out of contract - like say Gibson and then resigned, their transfer value for these purposes will always have some remaining for all intents and purposes (however small in certain cases)

Just like half-life