Nothing has changed.

[nsno-chris]

Lukaku has already been sold, just not announced.

The spending is completely reliant on him leaving. It's just easier for us to not announce anything until we've brought in replacements so as we don't get held to ransom on fees. You'll see

Not it's not

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

Here's the bottom line - let's say here's our business - Pickford, Keane, Klaasen, Sandro, Onyekuru PLUS Sigurdsson and then we make a couple other shrewd pickups, if we sell Rom and Ross, is this really even the end of the world? Old Everton wouldn't have been able to make the first six transfers above in the first place. if we sell Rom and Ross it's because they want to go, so we're making smart purchases regardless.

 

[d4kyxx]

Not it's not

FFP

It is

 

[nsno-chris]

FFP

It is

So not reliant on Lukaku then

 

[Goat]

You'll see how much it's changed at the end of the window when player sales cover these upfront incomings. We sell to buy. That's the model. The model is still in play.

The reason I started from that first season is cos that was the last season we had a negative net spend, every season since then we have had a net spend of between 20-40m, so I agree, the model is still in play, the model is allowing players who want to leave, to leave and improving the squad.

We are very much on track.

 

[Stuartisitc1878]

What about Ramirez, and Henry? What if they break their legs? Are we paying their wages?

Ha

not if the deal isn't signed. They break their legs we pull out of the deal simple as that. Until that contract has fresh ink on it nothing is official they are still owned by their current clubs and anything can happen.

 

[msb]

It has changed.

It hasn't changed.

Lock it.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Lukaku has already been sold, just not announced.

The spending is completely reliant on him leaving. It's just easier for us to not announce anything until we've brought in replacements so as we don't get held to ransom on fees. You'll see

Even if you're right on that (and you're not) until it's actually signed there's no money changed hands, so where's the cash come from?

 

[davek]

I'm sure that's just playing by the FFP rules. We seem to be trying to increase the commercial side of things which hopefully will allow us to buy without selling, oh and BTW Lukaku hasn't been sold.

That doesn't answer why, in all likelihood, we'll get rid of three of our best existing 'assets' in Moshiri's first 18 months at the club.

 

[Goat]

That doesn't answer why, in all likelihood, we'll get rid of three of our best existing 'assets' in Moshiri's first 18 months at the club.

Cos they want to leave.

DUH.

 

[davek]

Our current spending is not reliant on Rom being sold. It can't be – That would be far too risky. The lads on holiday and kicking balls around Chelsea crested football pitches, playing basketball with Pogba, it only takes one injury or an accident whilst jogging or cycling for any deal to fall through and then what?

When Lukaku is sold and like you I believe it will happen it’s not because we have to sell him it’s because he wants to leave and we begrudgingly accept a bid that meets our valuation.

I love your passion Dave – you stand your ground but things are clearly improving! I’m not sure what has to happen for you to lighten up.

I wonder whether the deal is done and unannounced. It'd fit with the way things like Lukaku being at Chelsea charity sponsorship events and Conte and Abramovic seemingly at loggerheads over transfers.

Maybe there's a need to wait until Comte is pacified and signs his new contract before the announcement. That would suit Everton too in the sense that it allows the club to look like we are consolidating with existing stars and building on top of their presence.

I'm not arguing that is the case, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. He will defo be in Chelsea blue next season.

 

[davek]

Nicely swerved.

The salient point (as you well know) is that our business in previous years has been restricted until either a) the Sky cheque landed in August or b ) we've sold players to fund replacements

This year we'll have likely shelled out over £90m by the 4th of July.......

That is not in any way standard behaviour for EFC.

What does it matter if by the end of the window we have brought in as much or more than spent out? How would that rebuff my claim that we are still operating a historical model in the transfer market?

 

[maccavennie]

Cos they want to leave.

DUH.

That's the top, middle and bottom of it isn't it mate, these players want to leave ( I'm assuming Ross does hence he hasn't signed his deal ).

 

[Wizard]

What does it matter if by the end of the window we have brought in as much or more than spent out? How would that rebuff my claim that we are still operating a historical model in the transfer market?

Why don't you just wait and see what happens rather than relentlessly banging this drum? You've made more than enough posts that you can vault us all with and tell us "told you so" if/when this happens.

 

[davek]

The reason I started from that first season is cos that was the last season we had a negative net spend, every season since then we have had a net spend of between 20-40m, so I agree, the model is still in play, the model is allowing players who want to leave, to leave and improving the squad.

We are very much on track.

Net spend


Under Kenwright:
2012/13 -£16.5M
2014/15 £36.5M
2015/16 £27M

Under Moshiri:
2016/17 £21M

...basically what you see there (when you take that big negative net spend in the first year and view it as cash invested in season two) are net season spending of low to medium £20+M.

This season as it stands looks like a step change only because we haven't sold yet.

As said, let's see what the balance looks like at the end of the window. I'm of the opinion we'll still be in the £20M-£25M net spend category.