Everton Transfer Thread 2016

[MartyMcFly]

Very reasonable question. Next year we can spend what we spent on wages this year plus £7m + increase in revenues next year.

So yes effectively it is wasted and in fact made worse by the inflated revenue figure of this year which would include the profits from both sales. So selling Rom this year is not a good idea in any sense if we want to increase 2017/18 wages on 2016/17.

Selling Rom this year is the worst of all world's. The only positive is that it would permit us to sell Niasse at a loss this year but that's no consolation.

So since we knew we were probably going to miss out on our targets selling Stones was the wrong thing to do. Even if he sulked in the reserves and we sold him for less than 47m next summer it would still have been better for us.

 

[alpha1]

The banner now only has Everton players in it, ffs show some ambition, bring Travolta back!

I want to see Mata, Bolasie and Leno on it

 

[ToffeeTim]

I'd prefer if the supposed ITKs just admitted the club have not been able to meet their targets rather than spinning everything.

Expectations are low and they should be sky high. Time the board backed the manager with high class players.

 

[PITA]

TBH nobody knows.

Finally, we've got there.

 

[efcjames]

is Steklenberg going to be first choice or backup?

Think he's first choice until we bring in a new keeper (or if we do). He played quite a few games at S'hampton last season.

 

[IllinoisBlue]

So since we knew we were probably going to miss out on our targets selling Stones was the wrong thing to do. Even if he sulked in the reserves and we sold him for less than 47m next summer it would still have been better for us.

I don't understand how having a player on wage bill who wasn't playing and therefore his value is diminishing would be better for us.

 

[ToffeeTim]

We can't make players sign.

We've can do far better. Other clubs have proved it's possible.

 

[MartyMcFly]

What's your question? I take it you've read how Witsel, Mata, The Portuguese kid have strung us along possibly. That's not the clubs fault, they just have to keep their heads and keep trying to secure deals and accept that's a product of our recent history. Let's face it the players we've bought weren't dependant on the stones money, the increase in tv money saw to that. The delay is getting the better calibre players to sign on the dotted line and and stand in front of a camera holding our shirt. That will come, mate we in the process of negotiating the construction of a new stadium. We obviously have money. The problem is to an extent till everyone else's tv money is tied up in new players and existing players bumper contracts on the back of new arrivals our new wealth won't be that apparent. Teams don't have to sell anymore, it's not like when City got took over and they could just bully teams I to selling them their better players ala Lesoctt. Even if that's not the case you can't just go from a mid table club with no recent success to a club challenging on all fronts with a world class commercial arm and new home. Perceptions have to change and that's not an instantaneous process

I'm confused. If the reason was that they all strung us along then why did everything happen once Stones was sold?

 

[windymiller]

Agree on all points.

The onus is on Everton now to boost the wage bill significantly.

To use the Stones sale to the max. As otherwise it's wasted.

That means @MoutsGoat ....

Even if it isn't 8 this summer. It certainly will be by January 2017

This could put us in quite a serious bind though. Let's say we can't get our primary targets, which is looking increasingly likely, this means we are moving down our list but have a vested interest in increasing the wage bill by the same amount as if we had attracted our main targets. We can do this in a number of ways, buy more players than originally planned at more modest wages to spread the cost, pay our secondary targets the same wages we would have paid our primary targets, or buy (or bring in on frees) older players on shorter contracts but comparatively high wages (and various other less likely scenarios). None of the scenarios I mentioned will be optimal from a sporting perspective and, although that will allow us to increase the wage bill again in a year's time, will affect, again, the quality of player we can attract next year. We don't want to get caught in a cycle of selling a big asset simply to raise the wage threshold if that doesn't result in a concomitant increase in quality on the pitch. This is why I am anxious about us selling Stones (with substantial time on a comparatively low wage contract) before we brought in any other players. We are now risking losing the player and not achieving our original goal, a better team with players attracted by higher wages, with the expanded spending available to us.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Still firmly believe that we sold stones to fund our spending. The wage increases are irrelevant cause we cant/have no intention of signing top class players.

 

[ilikecheese]

I don't understand how having a player on wage bill who wasn't playing and therefore his value is diminishing would be better for us.

After the season he had last season I think we were lucky to get what we got for him.

 

[ilikecheese]

We've can do far better. Other clubs have proved it's possible.

We have agreed a fee and terms with Witsel...but as of today he's weighing his options.

We simply can't make people sign.

 

[neil999]

Still firmly believe that we sold stones to fund our spending. The wage increases are irrelevant cause we cant/have no intention of signing top class players.

Why did we pay top dollar for koeman?

 

[bluestevon]

I don't understand how having a player on wage bill who wasn't playing and therefore his value is diminishing would be better for us.

In simple terms, stones sale allows us to increase wages from the stcc profit made by roughly 800k ow, if we don't use that or close to it then come next season should we once again go in with the ambition of raising our wages by a huge amount which given it as apparently the boards strategy to do so from the outset would make that scenario a likelihood, it would neccesitate the sale of a player who would net us a huge stcc trading profit next summer, currently only lukaku and Barkley could give us that.

See the concern now?

 

[roydo]

Still firmly believe that we sold stones to fund our spending. The wage increases are irrelevant cause we cant/have no intention of signing top class players.

That just is not correct mate, as frustrating as things are.