Think people over rate him. His set pieces are excellent but he contributes much less than Ross in open play.
It's a myth Gylfi isn't good from open play though.
Ideally - and I think this is what Koeman wants - we'll have both of them.
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.
Think people over rate him. His set pieces are excellent but he contributes much less than Ross in open play.
It was how and why City got the big players in originally, we have to accept it is what we will have to do.But it shouldn't be the main reason players want to join us
This is what Everton have done to us, quivering wrecks happy to lash £100k+ per week at a slightly above average footballer. I liked him when he was at Spurs but I don't want us to throw a huge sum of money at him or pay what Swansea would want.
Definitely need a player for that role.
Whether he's the right one... I'm not sure.
I wouldn't be against the signing but ultimately if we didn't get him I wouldn't be devastated.
Me either , but I'm afraid to come out of the closet on it
I'd prefer Mata or Fabregas or even someone of FIFA I've never heard off
Dries Martens would be boss
Think people over rate him. His set pieces are excellent but he contributes much less than Ross in open play.
Think people over rate him. His set pieces are excellent but he contributes much less than Ross in open play.
Is it just me that doesn't want Sigurdsson?
Definitely agree that we need a player in that role, I'm just not keen on it being him. I think I maybe dislike him more because he is talked about like he'd drag us into the champions league on his own.
This is a safe place mate, we'll protect you.
Yeah that's where I am with him, it's a lot to pay for a few decent corners and free kicks.
We struggle to beat clubs to players. Maybe our one big advantage should be that we can pay big wages.
13 assists say otherwise (Ross 9)
9 goals ross 5
MOTM 4 times last season, Ross once
He must be doing something right.
I appreciate we'd all like a transfer target to say they were boyhood Evertonians and dreamed of playing here but it's not going to happen . We saw in the summer the players we are targeting are also on the radar of those above us and champions league clubs around Europe , those clubs are all more attractive propositions.
As a result we have to make ourselves appealing in whatever way we can , we can offering champions league footy so money is a weapon we can use. I'm not saying we should be stupid and squander money like Leeds United but we should be using wages to compete , to make players take note. We're concerned about big wages and the likes of Loveren is on a £100k a week.
No offence but your wrong on nearly everything you've just said there mate
STCC is not effected at all by the SKY deal, it has zero effect and cannot be used for wages
FPP and STCC are completely unrelated
STCC you have left out the massive effect of player trading upon it
You have omitted the yearly increase of 7m allowed under the regulations
Yearly allowable increase, Increase in sponsorship & new sponsorship deals, already agreed player sales (Cleverley), Future almost certain player sales (Deulofueu and others)
We will be able to increase the wages by a very low estimate of 50m this season, a much more probable figure would be around 75m, neither of these factors in a sale of either Ross or Rom orboth.
so minimum of 1m per week, more likley around about 1.5m per week will be well within our limits allowed by the regulations
and that is an increase of that amount, we will also have a huge amount of wages available from players who leave this summer going into that pot
So yeah Moshiri's big pockets will be the limiting factor, we will be able to pay wages for as many players as we can attract/should want, STCC is NOT any form of limit upon us this season, the limiting factor is what the owner decides he is willing to bankroll
Probably.Is it just me that doesn't want Sigurdsson?
I've omitted all of the stuff you mentioned as I didn't want to turn it into an essay, but you're right. Also, I shouldn't have referenced the Sky deal as again you're right, it's about non-broadcast revenues.
Other than the Sky bit, I'm not sure what I've said there which is incorrect.