Marcel Brands

[BillBrasky]

Raiola’s fluffer needs to go

 

[gonetomorrow]

It's quite outrageous that our squad is so poor.

 

[Martin Alvito]

When we changed out transfer approach, we started to see negative effects.

Look at some of the players who were available this season alone, who would have instantly improved our side, and didn’t cost the world. Just emphasises the terrible business we’ve done from Walcott and Tosun, to Schneiderlin, to Iwobi.

Gallagher loan
Olise £10m
Livramento £3m
Cornet £12m
Normann loan

Like they’re not world wide names, but they’re all high upside, and if we’d have got all 5, would have cost £25m… which is less than Iwobi.

It’s fine margins, but what is Brands doing? These were available, and exactly the type of player we need.

He chased a Dutch right back who made it clear he didn’t want to come. The previous summer he chased a centre half all year only go get caught at the end.

He’s a joke.

I wonder whether interest from us would have driven up those prices, given that everyone knew we had pounds to spend.

I agree that we've been chasing after the wrong players, in that we've bought a lot of established, quick-fix solutions where we were unlikely to ever recoup much of the fee due to player age. That has effects several years later, when it's time to replace those players. It's like paying old Messi big wages on a free, except you don't get old Messi.

That said, one of the interesting things about the market for players is that if you lack the prestige and media exposure of the Champions League but have the money, you get soaked on every deal. It's part of why United has spent all of that money and has so little to show for it, though Woodward is also a large part of that.

 

[barneygumble]

I wonder whether interest from us would have driven up those prices, given that everyone knew we had pounds to spend.

I agree that we've been chasing after the wrong players, in that we've bought a lot of established, quick-fix solutions where we were unlikely to ever recoup much of the fee due to player age. That has effects several years later, when it's time to replace those players. It's like paying old Messi big wages on a free, except you don't get old Messi.

That said, one of the interesting things about the market for players is that if you lack the prestige and media exposure of the Champions League but have the money, you get soaked on every deal. It's part of why United has spent all of that money and has so little to show for it, though Woodward is also a large part of that.

I mean, at the time, I have absolutely no doubt. Not necessarily cause it's Everton, but because at the time it was the wealthy TV deal we had meant everything went up. Schneiderlin etc... they just weren't what we needed at the time, it was just terrible business.

This summer, I don't think we'd have had a problem, off the Pandemic etc, we'd have had a great chance at those names, sadly we couldn't spend, would we have even targeted those?

United are in the exact same mould as us. Throw enough dirt at the wall and hope it will stick. United instead of recruiting players who are fighters, signed big names, to high money and they didn't respond.

It's frustrating mate, I can't emphasise enough, the reason why I'm so annoyed is because we had it all ready to go, and we've just done everything imaginable to blow it.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I mean, at the time, I have absolutely no doubt. Not necessarily cause it's Everton, but because at the time it was the wealthy TV deal we had meant everything went up. Schneiderlin etc... they just weren't what we needed at the time, it was just terrible business.

This summer, I don't think we'd have had a problem, off the Pandemic etc, we'd have had a great chance at those names, sadly we couldn't spend, would we have even targeted those?

United are in the exact same mould as us. Throw enough dirt at the wall and hope it will stick. United instead of recruiting players who are fighters, signed big names, to high money and they didn't respond.

It's frustrating mate, I can't emphasise enough, the reason why I'm so annoyed is because we had it all ready to go, and we've just done everything imaginable to blow it.

We bought some good players after frittering away the first cash influx. We're just not building for the future.

Brands had the one catastrophic summer, but has otherwise done OK with the owner's remit. I really don't think that it's so much a lack of fight on the players' part as it is that we can't replace the first XI. When we're healthy, we look good and we win. When we're not, mistakes get made and players look bad. Often times, the player that sets off the whole cascade isn't the one that gets noticed, in much the same way that DMs and defenders pick up the cynical yellows prompted by mistakes made in front of them. Similarly, any defense will eventually get ground down if the side cannot muster even the threat of counter-attacking intent when lacking possession. If your opponents can get away with using their CBs as a pair of #5s in attack, you're screwed.

It is definitely frustrating that we haven't built for the future while buying some depth. I just don't know that it's on Brands. We've spent to try and keep players like Richarlison and DCL from signing elsewhere, when it may well be that the best strategy was to cash in and rebuild, at least in Richarlison's case.

 

[barneygumble]

We bought some good players after frittering away the first cash influx. We're just not building for the future.

Brands had the one catastrophic summer, but has otherwise done OK with the owner's remit. I really don't think that it's so much a lack of fight on the players' part as it is that we can't replace the first XI. When we're healthy, we look good and we win. When we're not, mistakes get made and players look bad. Often times, the player that sets off the whole cascade isn't the one that gets noticed, in much the same way that DMs and defenders pick up the cynical yellows prompted by mistakes made in front of them. Similarly, any defense will eventually get ground down if the side cannot muster even the threat of counter-attacking intent when lacking possession. If your opponents can get away with using their CBs as a pair of #5s in attack, you're screwed.

It is definitely frustrating that we haven't built for the future while buying some depth. I just don't know that it's on Brands. We've spent to try and keep players like Richarlison and DCL from signing elsewhere, when it may well be that the best strategy was to cash in and rebuild, at least in Richarlison's case.

That first summer should have been the catalyst for something great. What gets me, for all the wrong that Walsh/Koeman/Moshiri did, they missed the glaringly obvious thing they did right, which was buying younger players with huge upside.

They watched DCL develop, Stones had left, and we'd just signed Lookman and Vlasic. The Walsh signings sold for profit. I just don't understand how the penny didn't drop that this was the most effective way of handling transfers.

I think I have to disagree with the players fight. It's our job to build a squad who can fight, and for whatever reason, we've build a side with no identity, who seem terrified at most games and don't have the quality to take it on. The players aren't at fault for lacking quality, but can be accountable for lack of fight, and togetherness. I watch Everton and I see eleven individuals.

You're right, when we're good, we look very good. But the problem is, we only have 5-6 players who actually are game changers, and when they're missing, we struggle.

It's a culmination. For me, I have to point fingers at the board and at Brands. Brands came from PSV, where he oversaw the signings of so many younger players to sell at profit. It is the perfect business model for Everton Football Club, and for whatever reason, he's not done that here. If the owner is trying to influence it, then he needs to show why we've invested so much in him, and show authority, which ironically is something the players lack.

Can't see a scenario where Richarlison stays, which i can not blame, but question is, do you trust us to spend it well?

 

[toffee-L]

I cannot fathom how he was given a new contract. Moshiri has sacked every manager who was failing way past the point of what was deemed acceptable and he took Walsh out too once the scale of his failure became glaringly obvious too.

How on earth did the board come to the decision when reviewing Brands' performance over three years that he was deserving of a THREE YEAR contract extension on improved terms?!

It's just completely out of character for Moshiri to suffer fools who hemorrhage his money and that's exactly what Brands has done to an absolutely monstrous degree.

 

[Simon Buttle]

I cannot fathom how he was given a new contract. Moshiri has sacked every manager who was failing way past the point of what was deemed acceptable and he took Walsh out too once the scale of his failure became glaringly obvious too.

How on earth did the board come to the decision when reviewing Brands' performance over three years that he was deserving of a THREE YEAR contract extension on improved terms?!

It's just completely out of character for Moshiri to suffer fools who hemorrhage his money and that's exactly what Brands has done to an absolutely monstrous degree.

Does that not tell you that it's probably not Brands in control of the money/transfers then.

 

[toffee-L]

Does that not tell you that it's probably not Brands in control of the money/transfers then.

Why would we pay a director £3-£4 million per annum and give him no control at all, especially with our financial difficulties?

I have not, for one moment, ever believed that Brands doesn't have control over transfers. The first thing Moshiri did when he bought the club was identify DoFs, showing an instant willingness to delegate football matters to people who had more expertise than he did. He wanted Brands in from the very beginning but we had to settle for Walsh in the first summer since we were taken over.

My belief is that Brands is happy to be led by high profile managers. Compare the players that we bought when Silva was in charge to who we got for Ancellotti and Benitez. There is a clear difference that I don't believe is any coincidence at all. I think the second summer that Brands was here, which was entirely his own work (Gbamin, Kean, Gomes, Iwobi), has completely stung his self belief. He knows he bought a load of crap and I think he has been very content ever since then to operate as little more than a liaison between the manager and owner, happy to green light any suggestions as long as he doesn't have to make any himself.

 

[Martin Alvito]

That first summer should have been the catalyst for something great. What gets me, for all the wrong that Walsh/Koeman/Moshiri did, they missed the glaringly obvious thing they did right, which was buying younger players with huge upside.

They watched DCL develop, Stones had left, and we'd just signed Lookman and Vlasic. The Walsh signings sold for profit. I just don't understand how the penny didn't drop that this was the most effective way of handling transfers.

I think I have to disagree with the players fight. It's our job to build a squad who can fight, and for whatever reason, we've build a side with no identity, who seem terrified at most games and don't have the quality to take it on. The players aren't at fault for lacking quality, but can be accountable for lack of fight, and togetherness. I watch Everton and I see eleven individuals.

You're right, when we're good, we look very good. But the problem is, we only have 5-6 players who actually are game changers, and when they're missing, we struggle.

It's a culmination. For me, I have to point fingers at the board and at Brands. Brands came from PSV, where he oversaw the signings of so many younger players to sell at profit. It is the perfect business model for Everton Football Club, and for whatever reason, he's not done that here. If the owner is trying to influence it, then he needs to show why we've invested so much in him, and show authority, which ironically is something the players lack.

Can't see a scenario where Richarlison stays, which i can not blame, but question is, do you trust us to spend it well?

Again, I think this history is a bit revisionist. We got shut of Vlasic and Klaasen quickly, and the two were more or less a wash. We were always losing on He Who Shall Not Be Named. Pickford turned out to be a decent, if expensive buy for a GK at the time. Keane was always an overpay, but was hardly the worst buy.

If the game-changers are out, it shouldn't be a surprise when we struggle. As an example, Doucoure and Allan complement one another well. They're both flawed players who cover for one another's shortcomings. We don't have players on the bench that can step in and replace that, so when one is out we struggle in the middle third.

Brands and the board only have as much power as Moshiri chooses to delegate. It's important to remember that Moshiri is a majority owner. His word is as law. Brands can stand up to that, but not to the point that he depletes all of his political capital and loses his influence or is terminated. He has to choose his battles and pick the hills to die on carefully.

I agree that Richarlison is gone, and that it's time to start planning for that.

 

[Simon Buttle]

Why would we pay a director £3-£4 million per annum and give him no control at all, especially with our financial difficulties?

I have not, for one moment, ever believed that Brands doesn't have control over transfers. The first thing Moshiri did when he bought the club was identify DoFs, showing an instant willingness to delegate football matters to people who had more expertise than he did. He wanted Brands in from the very beginning but we had to settle for Walsh in the first summer since we were taken over.

My belief is that Brands is happy to be led by high profile managers. Compare the players that we bought when Silva was in charge to who we got for Ancellotti and Benitez. There is a clear difference that I don't believe is any coincidence at all. I think the second summer that Brands was here, which was entirely his own work (Gbamin, Kean, Gomes, Iwobi), has completely stung his self belief. He knows he bought a load of crap and I think he has been very content ever since then to operate as little more than a liaison between the manager and owner, happy to green light any suggestions as long as he doesn't have to make any himself.

Brands himself has said he does'nt have the final say on transfers so how can he implement any kind of plan? He is little more than a glorified contract negotiator. You say he is happy to be led by high profile managers, well that just confirms he is not suitable for the role. A DoF needs to be strong individual who can stand up to the manager and the board, most of all they need a plan, a strategy if they can't do that or implement that then it's pointless. The whole role of DoF is redundant at EFC due to the fact there are too many individuals involved in the decision making process. Just remember that quote from a well known agent about how clubs don't like dealing with us because you need to speak to 3 different people to get an answer on a player, hence we can never sell anyone. It's a role that will never work unless Moshiri backs off.

 

[Joey66]

Sack him & do not replace him as DOF - the rubbish signed by DOF is nearly 1/2 a billion spent since that appointment - if he is tied to the board leave him there we do not need a DOF - as its a failed position - Moshiri needs to act his idea.... it has cost him & the club a fortune ....

 

[ForeverEverton]

Sack him & do not replace him as DOF - the rubbish signed by DOF is nearly 1/2 a billion spent since that appointment - if he is tied to the board leave him there we do not need a DOF - as its a failed position - Moshiri needs to act his idea.... it has cost him & the club a fortune ....

I agree with this, the DoF model in this country rarely works, even when a new manager goes in to a new football club and claim they `are not players` but isnt that the idea? They are the clubs players....

I think we should ditch the DoF model OR get a DoF combo which is proven a bit like what Spurs have done with Paratici/Conte, Sevilla with Monchi/Emery and Overmars/Ten Hag. None of them are really likely are they?

 

[Sadken]

Brands will have to do some good deals in Jan window to get some credibility back.

 

[toffee-L]

Brands himself has said he does'nt have the final say on transfers so how can he implement any kind of plan? He is little more than a glorified contract negotiator. You say he is happy to be led by high profile managers, well that just confirms he is not suitable for the role. A DoF needs to be strong individual who can stand up to the manager and the board, most of all they need a plan, a strategy if they can't do that or implement that then it's pointless. The whole role of DoF is redundant at EFC due to the fact there are too many individuals involved in the decision making process. Just remember that quote from a well known agent about how clubs don't like dealing with us because you need to speak to 3 different people to get an answer on a player, hence we can never sell anyone. It's a role that will never work unless Moshiri backs off.

There is nothing wrong with a collaborative approach to recruitment, Liverpool got laughed at for having a "transfer committee" which involved their DoF, manager and Chief Exec and possibly some others and they have an excellent record over the last few years for transfers being successful.

There aren't many examples of any DOFs that don't have to answer to anyone, perhaps Monchi but his style didn't translate well to Roma showing that such methods won't work everywhere. I am completely baffled that people think Moshiri (or indeed any owner) shouldn't have an interest in who we are signing, as if he is just going to sign every cheque that Brands shoves under his nose. Moshiri's biggest mistakes at Everton are generally who he has appointed as managers and DoFs.

There are far too many conspiracies on this forum surrounding Brands. I think the answer is simply, just like Walsh was before him, Brands is a turkey and needs to be removed. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.