Everton Summer 2024 Transfer Thread

[flibbyflob]

I'm confused that we are being linked with lots of different players but according to some people we need to sell everyone or go under.

I'm not going to worry about it. I hope that it is basically sell Onana this summer and possibly Branthwaite next and then the extra income from the new ground solves the issue long term.

Whatever happens I am a blue, come hell or high water and that wont change. You can change your partner but you can't change your team.

 

[JimmyK]

Assuming it's a choice between PSR compliance and keeping key players (as opposed to a choice between administration and keeping key players), this has to be something the club is considering.

You could even argue that our 2 point second deduction is a better template than Forest's 4 point deduction, because of the overlapping periods we've already been punished for.

Essentially, how many points do we lose without Branthwaite and is that more than 2 or 4?

If we deliberately ignore the regulations to breach for a third consecutive year we deserve the book throwing at us it would be deliberate cheating and I can't imagine they'd let us get away with a 2 point deduction for that. It would also probably really wind up all the teams who are actually trying to comply and so mean nobody wanted to do business with us or side with us on any issue we tried to raise. In short I think it would be a terrible plan and tarnish the clubs name for a long time all so we could finish 12th instead of 14th.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

Sell Onana for c.50-55m and I reckon that instantly gives us some wiggle room. Would mean that we wouldn't be as desperate to sell Jarred for anything other than top dollar either.

 

[allen]

If we deliberately ignore the regulations to breach for a third consecutive year we deserve the book throwing at us it would be deliberate cheating and I can't imagine they'd let us get away with a 2 point deduction for that. It would also probably really wind up all the teams who are actually trying to comply and so mean nobody wanted to do business with us or side with us on any issue we tried to raise. In short I think it would be a terrible plan and tarnish the clubs name for a long time all so we could finish 12th instead of 14th.

I'm sure the club wouldn't present it as a flagrant act. They could use the Forest approach of saying they tried to make a sale at a fair value / the value they need to clear PSR and couldn't achieve it.

As long as they are cap in hand and apologetic, we've seen that work to lower the sanction.

I'm not saying they should do that, but it'll have been considered.

 

[ToffeeScot]

Understand we need to sell, and it may come down to having to do something we really don't want to do but I really do think the fanbase will be fuming if Brantwaite is sold for 40m. I'd be interested to see how many would be willing to risk what Forest did with Johnson if it came down to it.

 

[Evertonthat]

If we deliberately ignore the regulations to breach for a third consecutive year we deserve the book throwing at us it would be deliberate cheating and I can't imagine they'd let us get away with a 2 point deduction for that. It would also probably really wind up all the teams who are actually trying to comply and so mean nobody wanted to do business with us or side with us on any issue we tried to raise. In short I think it would be a terrible plan and tarnish the clubs name for a long time all so we could finish 12th instead of 14th.

We could sell all our best players and get relegated.

We've sold players on the cheap to meet psr in the past and still have had points deducted.

Maybe we should sell some assets to ourselves like Chelsea have to falsely meet psr? I'm sure that will please other teams.

 

[MikeH72]

If we deliberately ignore the regulations to breach for a third consecutive year we deserve the book throwing at us it would be deliberate cheating and I can't imagine they'd let us get away with a 2 point deduction for that. It would also probably really wind up all the teams who are actually trying to comply and so mean nobody wanted to do business with us or side with us on any issue we tried to raise. In short I think it would be a terrible plan and tarnish the clubs name for a long time all so we could finish 12th instead of 14th.

Where in the rule book does it state that you get a bigger punishment for consecutive years of “cheating” James? Also our second breach was less than our first so what rationale are you using to come to this very bizarre and odd conclusion?

 

[ToffeeScot]

Just looking at the Richy fee and we managed to squeeze out 50m + 10m even with a deadline.

 

[SLAVEN BILIC]

If we deliberately ignore the regulations to breach for a third consecutive year we deserve the book throwing at us it would be deliberate cheating and I can't imagine they'd let us get away with a 2 point deduction for that. It would also probably really wind up all the teams who are actually trying to comply and so mean nobody wanted to do business with us or side with us on any issue we tried to raise. In short I think it would be a terrible plan and tarnish the clubs name for a long time all so we could finish 12th instead of 14th.

We complied with the rules by accepting Spurs’ lowball offer for Richarlison and still got punished.

 

[Exeter_Gently]

The club proactively briefing their preferred journos that we don't need to sell, makes me think we desperately need to sell to be compliant.

The club just might not want people chatting wham about Adminstration and give other teams the idea they can low ball us for players.

 

[MikeH72]

We complied with the rules by accepting Spurs’ lowball offer for Richarlison and still got punished.

No mate. We ChEaTeD

 

[GrandOldTeam]

The club just might not want people chatting wham about Adminstration and give other teams the idea they can low ball us for players.

Too late for that - as I bored everyone with earlier, the club DOF shared an update the other week saying to expect sales and it's not like the rest of football hasn't seen the chaos around the club the past few years.

Unless the rumours that we've already sold Calvert-Lewin are true - then I think we desperately need to sell.

 

[Sean Ashley]

@JimmyK post makes sense Mike, he saying why would the independent panel accept any of our mitigating circumstances if we are in constant breach of the rules.

That would have major implications if the premier league again try like last season, recommended a punishment of 17 points across the two breaches.

Where in the rule book does it state that you get a bigger punishment for consecutive years of “cheating” James? Also our second breach was less than our first so what rationale are you using to come to this very bizarre and odd conclusion?

If we deliberately ignore the regulations to breach for a third consecutive year we deserve the book throwing at us it would be deliberate cheating and I can't imagine they'd let us get away with a 2 point deduction for that. It would also probably really wind up all the teams who are actually trying to comply and so mean nobody wanted to do business with us or side with us on any issue we tried to raise. In short I think it would be a terrible plan and tarnish the clubs name for a long time all so we could finish 12th instead of 14th.

 

[JimmyK]

I'm sure the club wouldn't present it as a flagrant act. They could use the Forest approach of saying they tried to make a sale at a fair value / the value they need to clear PSR and couldn't achieve it.

As long as they are cap in hand and apologetic, we've seen that work to lower the sanction.

I'm not saying they should do that, but it'll have been considered.

Thats a much easier defence if its your first offence rather than your third.

Where in the rule book does it state that you get a bigger punishment for consecutive years of “cheating” James? Also our second breach was less than our first so what rationale are you using to come to this very bizarre and odd conclusion?

I know you find reading (and most things actually) very very difficult but I didn't mention the rulebook at all I said we would deserve the book throwing at us because we would. Ignoring the rules is cheating we've argued that there was mitigation for the others which is fine but what people are suggesting is outright cheating - knowing full well that we won't comply and ignoring all the ways we could comply in order to keep our team together is not the same as messing up the calculations. Maybe we should start playing with 12 as well who cares.

 

[MikeH72]

Thats a much easier defence if its your first offence rather than your third.

I know you find reading (and most things actually) very very difficult but I didn't mention the rulebook at all I said we would deserve the book throwing at us because we would. Ignoring the rules is cheating we've argued that there was mitigation for the others which is fine but what people are suggesting is outright cheating - knowing full well that we won't comply and ignoring all the ways we could comply in order to keep our team together is not the same as messing up the calculations. Maybe we should start playing with 12 as well who cares.

I’m sorry, how is refusing to sell a player for below their market value “ignoring the rules” or “cheating”? In what way does that make sense from a profit and sustainability point of view? We have already been punished for two of the three years you believe that we’ve “cheated” also, which is a mitigating factor for which a precedent has been set.

No idea what the relevance of your playing with 12 men comment is, but clearly it sounded good in your head. It sounds like you believe fielding 12 men and selling a player on July 2nd rather than June 30th are equivalent levels of “cheating”.