Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well meaning, and unlike Kenwright, he actually does intend to invest greatly in the club. But grossly incompetent and too hands off.
That's my initial impression.
Saint Domingo
Player Valuation: £90m
Spurs have a negligible bet spend. Does that mean Levy is a fraud? Everyone's player trading is getting better (apart from Liverpools and United's seemingly). If we sell one of Lukaku or Ross then our net spend will be low as we're not going to sanction a 200 million spending spree. It's not as simple as net spend anyway, it's the commitment to wages over the length of a contract. Getting rid of players with little left on their contract and replacing them with new players with 5 year contracts has a cost to it even if the transfer money in and out the door is the same.
For me it won't be about net spend it will he is the first team squad better than it was and at a level to seriously challenge for the top 4? After each window so far under Moshiri the squad has improved but it's not too 4 quality yet.
rochdaleblue
Player Valuation: £50m
You only have to look at West Ham. Got EL football (even though went out in the qualifiers) virtually got given a new stadium and London based. Even then they couldn't attract anyone half decent.
Exactly. Net spend is an easy one to call now, and complain later that's it's low. If Rom goes, net spend likely won't be that high. Even if we were to replace him like for like, what strikers out there are we gonna pay £75m for, and get?
You could pay double the true value on 4 players and have a huge net spend - does that mean you've done good business? No, it means you've done bad business.
I'll be looking for signings of the quality of Schneiderlin and above, and hopefully the odd surprise like Gana, who turns out great.
Onwards Evertonians
Player Valuation: £8m
That's too sensible that approach mate, we need to go all out like Leeds did. We need to spend for the sake of it even if we can improve year on year on a small net spend. Of course I'm not serious but some people seem to have that mindset on here and it's ridiculous. It's simple, we need to be in a better position than we were at the last window until we get it right, and so far, we've achieved that.
I'm reserving judgment on bolasie till he returns from injury. Gueye exceptional. Williams is OK but an underwhelming stop gap who needs replaced.
Basically we need higher quality signings, and in higher quantity, than last summer.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
It is.
Unlike the example clubs you give, we haven't had massive spending at any point so we start at a very low level indeed. We need a MASSIVE injection of investment into this squad over an above the cash from sales.
And large net spend over time ALWAYS gives clubs the PL top spots and domestic trophies.
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
You are aware of the rule that we can only increase our wages by 7 million (possibly a bit more now due to the increased commercial deals plus what we get back from sales? (but you are saying we need a massive net spend so that becomes moot)
So basically we can add a 135k a week player next year + presumably the fact that Ross and Rom have contracts waiting to be signed that we could have added nearly the same this year, but if they don't sign them maybe we lose that.
Or it could be a reason why we signed up Mirallas/Coleman, to ensure we increase this years total ready for next year. Given the sponsorship deals hopefully we may be able to add at best another 200k.So we have around 335k extra on wages to spend, seeing most good players want at least 100k you see we are not going to be bringing in many and I can't see us blowing 70 million on one player, as they won't want to come to us yet. To get the massive net spend that you want we have to bring in lots of Bolasie type players who are expensive but their wage demands are not prohibitively expensive.
So tell me do you want lots of Bolasie's??
You are aware of the rule that we can only increase our wages by 7 million (possibly a bit more now due to the increased commercial deals plus what we get back from sales? (but you are saying we need a massive net spend so that becomes moot)
So basically we can add a 135k a week player next year + presumably the fact that Ross and Rom have contracts waiting to be signed that we could have added nearly the same this year, but if they don't sign them maybe we lose that.
So we have around 335k extra on wages to spend, seeing most good players want at least 100k you see we are not going to be bringing in many and I can't see us blowing 70 million on one player, as they won't want to come to us yet. To get the massive net spend that you want we have to bring in lots of Bolasie type players who are expensive but their wage demands are not prohibitively expensive.
So tell me do you want lots of Bolasie's??
Im almost sure that the wages in respect of STCC are taken from figures that clubs have to submit in March.
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
Interesting. So the fact that Rom and Ross haven't signed the contracts have screwed us over and by giving Seamus and Kev new contracts after that date we have shot ourselves in the foot for next year. Sounds about par for the course when it comes to us...
D
Deleted member 24970
Guest
Jesus, am I really that slow ?!
bluestevon
Player Valuation: £80m
You are aware of the rule that we can only increase our wages by 7 million (possibly a bit more now due to the increased commercial deals plus what we get back from sales? (but you are saying we need a massive net spend so that becomes moot)
So basically we can add a 135k a week player next year + presumably the fact that Ross and Rom have contracts waiting to be signed that we could have added nearly the same this year, but if they don't sign them maybe we lose that.
So we have around 335k extra on wages to spend, seeing most good players want at least 100k you see we are not going to be bringing in many and I can't see us blowing 70 million on one player, as they won't want to come to us yet. To get the massive net spend that you want we have to bring in lots of Bolasie type players who are expensive but their wage demands are not prohibitively expensive.
So tell me do you want lots of Bolasie's??
No offence mate but you don't really understand STCC if you believe next season we will onyl be able to increase wages by that amount
Little breakdown of VERY likely scenarios
7m increase allowed by STCC regulations
2m McGeady (2m trading profit)
8m Cleverley (8m trading profit) - as the deal doesn't go through until the opening of the new window
15-20m McCarthy (will give us a trading profit of roughly 12m - very low estimate)
Deulofeu 10-12m (7m trading profit)
just with those deals and not counting any additional departures, would see us allowed to raise wages by 36m per year or 692k pw
Thats not including the new sponsorship deals - as you phrase it as 'a bit more' is understanding it, the low estimate is that the new shirt deals and training ground sponsorship will net us about a 12m per season increase over the existing deals/or lack of them
that 12m counts as pure profit in terms of STCC regulations so thats another 230k pw purely allowed because of that sponsorship
So we are effectively gonna be able to increase wages under the regulations by about 920k per week minimum NOT 335k per week like you stated
Does that change your opinion on what the club can or can't do re wages and the fact STCC is in no way shape or form any form of limiting factor for Summer recruitment and spending?
kithnou
Player Valuation: £70m
Also explained by @The Esk here. Skip to the conclusion to save time...
http://www.theblueroomefc.com/2017/05/esk-ffp-mean-evertons-transfer-strategy/#
The Esk: What does FFP mean for Everton’s transfer strategy?
BlueRoomAdmin9th May 2017
UNDERSTANDING FFP: The Esk examines what Financial Fair Play means for Everton's transfer strategy.
By The Esk
It’s approaching the end of the season and for most fans the close season stretches ahead with a minimum of 2 months without competitive football.
The void can be filled somewhat by the goings on in the transfer window, and as all Evertonians are hoping we will strike early, bring in some key targets and remove those player’s surplus to requirements, out of contract and even those no longer wishing to be part of the Moshiri/Koeman project.
Transfer activity is not only determined by how much cash the club has available to spend but regulated by Premier League rules on increases in wages, and now as we re-enter European competition, Financial Fair Play regulations by everyone’s friends UEFA.
Therefore, I thought it useful to cover the various regulations relating to spending and profitability.
Let’s start with the Premier League regulations.
There’s two main regulations, Short Term Cost Control (STCC) designed to hold back the increase in player wages, and Profitability and Sustainability regulations providing a cap on the maximum losses permitted by a Premier League Club.
Short Term Cost Control:
Rules E.18, E.19 and E.20 cover the STCC. Essentially they permit clubs to increase wages year on year by a maximum of £7m p.a. covering the three seasons 2016/17 through to 2018/19. There is however scope to increase wages using “club own revenue uplift”
Club own revenue uplift (CORU) includes all increases in revenues other than broadcasting revenue, so includes match day, commercial/sponsorship and importantly player trading profits.
For Everton, this means the following increase in permitted wages:
Season 2016/17 £91 million plus CORU
Season 2017/18 £98 million plus CORU
Season 2018/19 £105 million plus CORU
So, what does that mean in terms of increase in wages for next season? We’re going to have several improved contracts, Davies and Coleman for example. We have contract offers out to Lukaku and Barkley (assuming both stay) and I’m sure there’ll be other players rewarded for their efforts this season.
In terms of reducing player costs, we are clearly going to be selling several players, and not renewing contracts for some.
We’ve also then got to look at incoming players – this summer is widely expected to be our most active for many a year.
Finally, we need to look at the level of CORU – i.e. how much does our non-broadcasting revenues increase by? Match day revenues will be flat, commercial revenues may see a small increase and we’re bound to see increases in sponsorship revenues firstly from USM’s sponsorship of Finch Farm but also the new shirt sponsorship deal.
I would therefore estimate CORU to be in the region of £10 million before player trading profits.
Looking at outgoing players there’s wage savings and potential transfer profits from the following players:
In terms of profits on outgoing players, again the figures seem to be ridiculously high, but the range would be from £45 million to £175 million depending upon who exactly leaves the club.
Therefore, the scope for meeting new player wage demands is huge, and cannot realistically be considered a barrier to transfer activity this summer.
Total wages can within regulations increase to £108 million plus any required surplus from the player trading account. Contrast this with staffing costs of £84 million in the last published accounts.
Profit and Sustainability Rules
With regards to Profitability and Sustainability, I don’t see there being any issue despite recording two successive losses of £4.6m and £24.3m as we should have a profitable year to May 2017 with the receipts from the Stones sale plus the enormous increase in broadcasting revenues for this season.
This leads nicely onto the UEFA regulations, now quite well known Financial Fair Play. Financial Fair Play looks at the profitability of clubs in European competitions.
Financial Fair Play Rules.
Essentially FPP limits the permitted losses of clubs by assessing clubs against break-even requirements. The break-even requirements require clubs to balance their spending with their revenues (excluding infra-structure, stadium and academy spending). Thus, it restricts the ability of a club to rely upon debt as a means of financing normal activities.
UEFA use an “independent” body known as the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) which looks at the previous 3 year’s financial accounts.
The regulations permit each club participating in European competition to spend up to €5m more than they earn per assessment period (year). However, this limit can be increased to €30m if the excess is covered entirely by a “direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party.
As with the Premier League rules, the two successive years of losses will not create difficulties (even though they aggregated at €35.1m) because of the return to profitability in financial year 2016/17.
Sponsorship and FFP
The issue of sponsorship, and the use of related companies to provide sponsorship to cover losses within clubs has long been a contentious subject within UEFA.
In relation to Everton and the sponsorship of Finch Farm by USM, both Moshiri’s and Usmanov’s involvement may come under scrutiny. However, neither should represent a threat or a problem. The first issue would be the fair value of the sponsorship deal, and the likely figure of £5m per year (not confirmed by the club but assumed to be the approximate value) would pass the fair value test.
Usmanov’s controlling interest in USM and 30.04% stake in Arsenal may raise an eyebrow or two in Nyon (UEFA’s headquarters) but is not believed to represent any problem.
Conclusion:
It’s difficult to see a scenario where either the Premier League’s STCC rules or UEFA’s FPP rules will significantly impact Everton’s recruitment drive this summer. Much of this of course is driven by the requirement (for footballing reasons) to make large changes to the squad.
Assuming the outgoing numbers are realistic (in terms of number of players, value of contracts and transfer values), even taking the lower figures, when included with the increase in non-broadcasting revenues and potential player trading profits, there’s room for salary increases from recruiting of anywhere from £32m upwards to over £50 million p.a.
There is no foreseeable financial reason why salary demands of incoming players should present a regulatory or commercial obstacle. The limitation (if any) can only be our ambition, our ability to close deals or the player’s desire to join Everton.
http://www.theblueroomefc.com/2017/05/esk-ffp-mean-evertons-transfer-strategy/#
The Esk: What does FFP mean for Everton’s transfer strategy?
BlueRoomAdmin9th May 2017
UNDERSTANDING FFP: The Esk examines what Financial Fair Play means for Everton's transfer strategy.
By The Esk
It’s approaching the end of the season and for most fans the close season stretches ahead with a minimum of 2 months without competitive football.
The void can be filled somewhat by the goings on in the transfer window, and as all Evertonians are hoping we will strike early, bring in some key targets and remove those player’s surplus to requirements, out of contract and even those no longer wishing to be part of the Moshiri/Koeman project.
Transfer activity is not only determined by how much cash the club has available to spend but regulated by Premier League rules on increases in wages, and now as we re-enter European competition, Financial Fair Play regulations by everyone’s friends UEFA.
Therefore, I thought it useful to cover the various regulations relating to spending and profitability.
Let’s start with the Premier League regulations.
There’s two main regulations, Short Term Cost Control (STCC) designed to hold back the increase in player wages, and Profitability and Sustainability regulations providing a cap on the maximum losses permitted by a Premier League Club.
Short Term Cost Control:
Rules E.18, E.19 and E.20 cover the STCC. Essentially they permit clubs to increase wages year on year by a maximum of £7m p.a. covering the three seasons 2016/17 through to 2018/19. There is however scope to increase wages using “club own revenue uplift”
Club own revenue uplift (CORU) includes all increases in revenues other than broadcasting revenue, so includes match day, commercial/sponsorship and importantly player trading profits.
For Everton, this means the following increase in permitted wages:
Season 2016/17 £91 million plus CORU
Season 2017/18 £98 million plus CORU
Season 2018/19 £105 million plus CORU
So, what does that mean in terms of increase in wages for next season? We’re going to have several improved contracts, Davies and Coleman for example. We have contract offers out to Lukaku and Barkley (assuming both stay) and I’m sure there’ll be other players rewarded for their efforts this season.
In terms of reducing player costs, we are clearly going to be selling several players, and not renewing contracts for some.
We’ve also then got to look at incoming players – this summer is widely expected to be our most active for many a year.
Finally, we need to look at the level of CORU – i.e. how much does our non-broadcasting revenues increase by? Match day revenues will be flat, commercial revenues may see a small increase and we’re bound to see increases in sponsorship revenues firstly from USM’s sponsorship of Finch Farm but also the new shirt sponsorship deal.
I would therefore estimate CORU to be in the region of £10 million before player trading profits.
Looking at outgoing players there’s wage savings and potential transfer profits from the following players:
- Likely/confirmed departures: Deulofeu, McGeady, Cleverly, Kone, Stekelenburg, Niasse, Valencia, McAleny and Garbutt.
- Possible departures: Mirallas, McCarthy, Funes Mori, Barry, Lukaku & Barkley
In terms of profits on outgoing players, again the figures seem to be ridiculously high, but the range would be from £45 million to £175 million depending upon who exactly leaves the club.
Therefore, the scope for meeting new player wage demands is huge, and cannot realistically be considered a barrier to transfer activity this summer.
Total wages can within regulations increase to £108 million plus any required surplus from the player trading account. Contrast this with staffing costs of £84 million in the last published accounts.
Profit and Sustainability Rules
With regards to Profitability and Sustainability, I don’t see there being any issue despite recording two successive losses of £4.6m and £24.3m as we should have a profitable year to May 2017 with the receipts from the Stones sale plus the enormous increase in broadcasting revenues for this season.
This leads nicely onto the UEFA regulations, now quite well known Financial Fair Play. Financial Fair Play looks at the profitability of clubs in European competitions.
Financial Fair Play Rules.
Essentially FPP limits the permitted losses of clubs by assessing clubs against break-even requirements. The break-even requirements require clubs to balance their spending with their revenues (excluding infra-structure, stadium and academy spending). Thus, it restricts the ability of a club to rely upon debt as a means of financing normal activities.
UEFA use an “independent” body known as the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) which looks at the previous 3 year’s financial accounts.
The regulations permit each club participating in European competition to spend up to €5m more than they earn per assessment period (year). However, this limit can be increased to €30m if the excess is covered entirely by a “direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party.
As with the Premier League rules, the two successive years of losses will not create difficulties (even though they aggregated at €35.1m) because of the return to profitability in financial year 2016/17.
Sponsorship and FFP
The issue of sponsorship, and the use of related companies to provide sponsorship to cover losses within clubs has long been a contentious subject within UEFA.
In relation to Everton and the sponsorship of Finch Farm by USM, both Moshiri’s and Usmanov’s involvement may come under scrutiny. However, neither should represent a threat or a problem. The first issue would be the fair value of the sponsorship deal, and the likely figure of £5m per year (not confirmed by the club but assumed to be the approximate value) would pass the fair value test.
Usmanov’s controlling interest in USM and 30.04% stake in Arsenal may raise an eyebrow or two in Nyon (UEFA’s headquarters) but is not believed to represent any problem.
Conclusion:
It’s difficult to see a scenario where either the Premier League’s STCC rules or UEFA’s FPP rules will significantly impact Everton’s recruitment drive this summer. Much of this of course is driven by the requirement (for footballing reasons) to make large changes to the squad.
Assuming the outgoing numbers are realistic (in terms of number of players, value of contracts and transfer values), even taking the lower figures, when included with the increase in non-broadcasting revenues and potential player trading profits, there’s room for salary increases from recruiting of anywhere from £32m upwards to over £50 million p.a.
There is no foreseeable financial reason why salary demands of incoming players should present a regulatory or commercial obstacle. The limitation (if any) can only be our ambition, our ability to close deals or the player’s desire to join Everton.