Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A

Please don't tell me it's not about the money...

by   |   26/08/2014  Comments (62)  jump

With everyone feeling a tad pessimistic and frustrated after letting Arsenal off the hook, just have a think about how well we do as the money game spins further out of control.

I watched most of Man City vs Liverpool last night. Decent game with City just having too much fire power and Liverpool having lots of new players looking like they only met on the team coach before the game. Not unusual.

What really struck me was the subs. City brought on:-

  • Aguero (scored with his first touch)
  • Navas
  • Fernandinho

City paid a total of £90.8M for those three.

The reds brought on:-

  • Markovic (looked decent)
  • Can (could be called Can’t after that pathetic dive – ref bottled an easy decision)
  • Lambert.

They cost Liverpool £34M.

I dread to think about how much Man City's squad cost or what their wage bill is, but basically, they will only not win the title if they can’t be arsed, or if Chelsea pip them.

Game over? Uefa Financial Fair Play? My arse.

Meanwhile, back with Eto’o on a free... Everton’s three subs on Saturday cost £2.5M and our goal scorers were a pricey £60k.

Ho hum.

back Return to Talking Points index  :  Add your Comments back



Reader Comments (62)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Patrick Murphy
1 Posted 26/08/2014 at 13:33:07
It's been like this for the last twenty odd years no change there then. Good job we have a manager who knows what he's doing oh hang on a minute there are a few who think he is a bloke who is only good at talking and papering over the cracks unlike his illustrious counterparts at richer clubs.
Dave Lynch
2 Posted 26/08/2014 at 15:33:10
Patrick.
When all you have is BB's meager funding strategies all you can do is paper over cracks,money rules the game and players will hoar themselves out to whoever pays the most. Viva Sky Sports !

I fucking detest the way the game has developed but i'm a blue til I die and am in it for the long haul, unfortunately.

Rick Tarleton
3 Posted 26/08/2014 at 15:46:42
It was us in the sixties who started this in a small way. Clubs like Blackpool, West, Ball and Walsh, Blackburn, Vernon , Pickering, Newton, must have hated us.The controversy when Alex Scott had apparently agreed to sign for Spurs and ended up at Goodison. Now we can't compete and it's frustrating , but like Dave Lynch I detest the way money's destroyed most sports, especially football, but I started watching Everton in the second division and will be a blue forever.
Brian Hill
4 Posted 26/08/2014 at 15:53:43
These "it's all about the money" threads appear very regularly and never attract any original or insightful responses. There is a good reason for that - there are none to be made: it IS all about the money. We, under our current custodians, will never compete for the PL title. As long as Chelsea and Manchester City have good coaches they will be untouchable because of their ability to buy almost any player they want. (Imagine those two clubs in a bidding war for the same player.)

Be grateful that Brendan Rodgers wastes his massive resources on such nonentities as Balotell, Lambert, etc, otherwise our footballing world would become a very painful place.

David Harrison
5 Posted 26/08/2014 at 16:12:27
My wife, noting my mood after Saturday, said "you love Everton, don't you?" My reply was "No, I f@#*Â¥g hate them" the truth is I do love Everton but hate the game/business as it is today
Ray Roche
6 Posted 26/08/2014 at 16:07:33
Rick, I would suggest it was as a result of Jimmy Hill as Chairman of the PFA and the end of a maximum wage in 1961 that started the gold rush. Fulham, in an effort to keep Johnny Haynes, upped his wages from £20 to £100 a week, none of our stars were paid that much then. From that point on players knew that they could move for more money whereas before there would be little point in moving because no club could offer more than £20 a week. Consequently players were less likely to uproot their families for little monetary reward.

I know we made some record buys for players in particular positions i.e. a record fee for a goalie, record for a wing half etc., but the real records were broken by other clubs.

Interesting that you should mention Alex Scott and his proposed move to Spurs, I seem to recall Alan Gilzean (what a player!) was supposed to have signed for us but Spurs whisked him away at the last moment. Sort getting their own back...

Andrew Ellams
7 Posted 26/08/2014 at 16:39:00
Money has never created the huge differences in football that it does now. Sky have the power to reward certain teams with extra money, UEFA control who is successful in their competitions and we have ridculously wealthy men buying clubs as playthings.

The gulf between top and bottom of the Premier League is probably greater now than between top of division 1 and bottom of division 2 was 30 years ago. That’s why every defeat of a Sky darling is seen as some almighty cup upset from days gone by.

David Ellis
8 Posted 26/08/2014 at 16:34:48
But Ray those maximum wage years were a disgrace to the players. Those guys played for peanuts and were totally ripped off by the owners. They could be sold without their consent to another club - almost like slavery. It did make for a level playing field at club level but it was hardly fair to the players.

We were an early beneficiary of the relaxing of the rules - we were the Mersey Millionaires and backed by the Moores' family Littlewords empire. Our fall from grace coincides not with the rise of Sky but the incapacity of Sir John Moores (pre-Sky) and eventually his death in 1993 and the sale of the Moores' family interest (just post-Sky). We were one of the clubs that pushed for the Sky breakaway because we were a big club and felt we were going to be one of the beneficiaries. It lies ill in our mouth to complain about it now..... (but I hate the way the game has gone....I pray that we can produce a miracle again in my lifetime)

Ian Hollingworth
9 Posted 26/08/2014 at 16:41:54
Congratulations John I think this thread could unite opinion as I reckon all fans know this to be so in the modern world.

It is only our manager who appears to believe you can do it without money but at least his enthusiasm gives us all some hope and something to believe in.

The stats on the subs alone are depressing but imagine how it must feel for the clubs in the lower leagues?

Ray Roche
10 Posted 26/08/2014 at 16:45:18
David, I agree, clubs were able to treat players in a disgraceful manner. And when you think about it, we had pretty decent gates bringing in plenty of money but so little of it was re-invested, and very little on the players who were regarded as dispensable. A bit different today, would you say?
Ray Roche
11 Posted 26/08/2014 at 16:45:18
David, I agree, clubs were able to treat players in a disgraceful manner. And when you think about it, we had pretty decent gates bringing in plenty of money but so little of it was re-invested, and very little on the players who were regarded as dispensable. A bit different today, would you say?
Tony J Williams
12 Posted 26/08/2014 at 16:54:28
Ian, it's quite ironic that Martinez states you can do it without money and then smashes out transfer record by almost double.

It is all about the money unfortunately.

Linda Morrison
13 Posted 26/08/2014 at 17:02:50
Tony I don't think you can compare Roberto's spending with the other clubs.

M.United are likely to be looking at a transfer spend of nearly £2 million

It is highly likely that the signing of Lukaku for that amount will be a one off for Everton, unless we get a Fairy Godmother/Father to wave their magic wand.
You can achieve victory with a cohesive team but my it will be very hard.

At present we are in transition, young players coming through and older ones reaching the end of their careers.

Not easy to manage that is why the 2 successors to SAF have had problems.

Rick Tarleton
14 Posted 26/08/2014 at 17:04:43
I totally agree , Ray, that was the background and the rationale. But in those days you wanted an eleven. Most of us were perplexed when Everton paid out to sign Henry Newton as we had Ball, Kendall and Harvey and didn't understand where he'd fit in.Nowadays players are signed so that teams like Chelsea and Man City have twenty three players in their squads. The modern player rarely expects to play more than 75% of fixtures, yet Young and Vernon played every game they could. It is all about money and some players are happy to sit on the bench or even in the stands at a big club rather than take a pay cut to play more regularly. I find it sad that players can pick up £100,000 a week and play only a handful of games in a season.
Players are there to maximise their earning and other issues are secondary, even glory, no longer is football about glory as Danny Blanchflower famously said. it's about the personal economy, stupid to paraphrase some one else.
Tony J Williams
15 Posted 26/08/2014 at 17:14:00
You're right Linda, what's £28m between friends hey?
Steve Barr
16 Posted 26/08/2014 at 17:21:49
Rick @ #14, completely off topic but checking if you received a document I sent to ToffeeWeb to forward to you on your Uncle, Nel Tarleton?
Rick Tarleton
17 Posted 26/08/2014 at 17:26:15
Sorry, Steve, I didn't, I'm on Facebook or Friends Reunited and they'd work for a message.

Raymond Fox
18 Posted 26/08/2014 at 17:05:14
You cant blame the players, playing football is their job/profession and they have in most cases a shortish career.
The clubs are the culprits, nowadays its your Real Madrid, Chelsea, City, Utd + a few more who are bankrupting the game, what difference this FFP policy will make I haven't a clue.
What's Aguero worth!

Tony, as you know Roberto is giving us the promised land, a bit of hope, whether he actually believes it, I wouldn't think by100%.
A good manager is valuable but can they perform miracles?

I think I could be pretty successful managing City, ok maybe not successful enough.
Players to a great extent make good managers, poor ones make the manager seem bad.

Steve Barr
19 Posted 26/08/2014 at 18:03:58
Rick, I have quite a few articles,pdf docs, photos and even a bill of a fight staged at Anfield no less, which headlines with Nel fighting the then World Bantamwight Champion, Al Brown with my grandfather, Dick Burke, in the main supporting bout vs Kid Johns from France.

Nel and my grandfather were good friends and boxed exhibitions during the war to raise funds for the British troops.

Phil Walling
20 Posted 26/08/2014 at 17:57:03
With al these signings and enhanced contracts we're almost at the point when someone will ask if BK will allow Martinez to bankrupt the club by applying the Harry Redknapp approach to management !!!

I often wondered how Moyes would have fared had he been let off the 'spending leash' but I guess we know the answer to that question after his spell at Manu !

Mick Wrende
22 Posted 26/08/2014 at 18:38:51
Do we now have the biggest number of older players in the league? So much for Martinez's youth policy. 7 first teamers over 30 and now a 33 year old coming in. White sticks all round.
Peter Bell
23 Posted 26/08/2014 at 18:41:36
Mick, RM is in this for the long term, if we can utilse the Etos and Barrys over the next two years until the Brownings and Ledsons are ready, then its good business for me.
Andy Gray was the catalyst that turned Graeme Sharp into the top class centre forward he eventually was.
The influence these old heads have in the long term may turn out to be a master stroke by RM
Peter Bell
24 Posted 26/08/2014 at 18:46:56
James McCarthy also commented recently on how much he has learnt playing alongside Gareth Barry
Rick Tarleton
25 Posted 26/08/2014 at 18:51:58
Hi, Steve , I'd love to see your stuff . Go on Friends reunited, you don't have to join and put in my name. When it comes up send me a message and I can send you my address, email or normal address. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Raymond Fox
26 Posted 26/08/2014 at 19:51:54
Phil the enhanced contracts have been done as you well know to try and stop our best players waltzing off to new richer pastures!

He's not spent much apart from a large dollop on Lukaku.

Smiled when I read your comments about 'our Harry' I agree with you there, his method when he began at a club was to buy every half decent player in sight, and present the bill to his masters, not daft Harry.

Darren Hind
27 Posted 26/08/2014 at 20:36:42
Martinez has spent 54 million quid in liittle over a year

Patrick Murphy
28 Posted 26/08/2014 at 20:56:30
Darren and he has recouped circa 㿔m so he has spent 㾺m on replacements. Let’s see!

Lukaku better than Jelavic probably.
McCarthy better for Everton than Fellaini - just about taking MF goals into consideration.
Barry more useful to the team than Anichebe - undoubtedly.
Kone and Alcaraz still have something to prove.
Mucha versus Robles probably equal.
McGeady better than Gueye - I believe that McGeady will be better
Eto’o and Loanee Atzu new additions - unproven.

Declan Brown
29 Posted 26/08/2014 at 20:59:39
David Lynch and David Ellis are joint top for post of the week for me. Couldn't have put it better myself gentlemen.

In the immediate future we have to compete despite being the paupers of the league, Roberto worked miracles last year in my opinion, he's got my vote, but to compete in the here and now if you're not fit to play 90 minutes of football the chasm between us and the rich teams will only be bigger. The money we can't change or control (due to Bill and the inept board), but for crying out loud we should be able to send out 11 players to be fit enough for 90 minutes of football.

Roberto and the players will sort it out but it's shame to give 4 points away in the manner we did, playing catch up just got much harder. Roberto has my full support.

At the age of 35, due to money in the game I fear I won't see an Everton team win the league in my lifetime. That old goat Kenwright will probably outlive me to prove it (i'm being sarcastic and trying to be funny there).

Patrick Murphy
30 Posted 26/08/2014 at 21:06:49
Declan what about us poor blokes who are in our mid 50s we are even less likely to see the Toffees win the league but we all live in hope.
Rob Halligan
31 Posted 26/08/2014 at 21:13:48
I must be the same age as you Patrick and I always believe we will win the league, ahem!!
Dick Fearon
32 Posted 26/08/2014 at 21:00:41
The Glazers will spend 200 mil on transfers. We could buy a new stadium with that kind of money.
FSG are pouring cash into our dear neighbours, Sheik Mansoor does the same at City, Ambromovich at Chelski and the list goes on.
Here at dear old Everton what kind of investment do we get from poor old Bill and his uber rich mates.
By the way, whatever happened to that mysterious investor and talk about a site for our new stadium that appeared on the scene right in the middle of season ticket renewal time.
Derek Thomas
33 Posted 26/08/2014 at 23:02:29

Fairplay (mostly ) to all points for and against, but our real problem on Saturday, wasn't money it was Fitness and it cost pennies in modern terms to get the players running up and down the modern equivalent of sand hills at Ainsdale

I suspect that Roberto has taken the ' Gamble ' to use our first 3 or 4 games in lieu of a ' proper ' July preseason so as to prevent ' hitting the wall ' some time after Christmas when the key games arrive.

Si Cooper
34 Posted 27/08/2014 at 00:23:45
A big difference between the subs listed in the OP is that all of the RS ones are new recruits. They are trying to bridge the gap by spending the cash, but on that evidence they are failing. Markovic looked decent in patches but didn't really have enough of an input to make a real difference.

Citeh seem to have used their money to assemble a large squad of players who are all capable of delivering the goods. Pellegrini now has a settled squad who all look keen to be there and working with their team-mates. Achieved through money but apparently a job well done.

Denver Daniels
35 Posted 27/08/2014 at 01:49:17
One way we could increase our spending power is by getting a few decent advertising partners.

While the so called big clubs have huge corporates throwing money at them, we have the likes of Eto’o Jeans and Crabbies ginger beer.

No wonder no-one takes us seriously. We are a top 6 club in the world’s most watched football league with a huge global tv following. Surely we can do better than that.

Darren Hind
36 Posted 27/08/2014 at 03:16:45
Ah now Patrick you’re at it again.

You want to talk only about other managers spends but mention the 54m Martinez has spent in the short time he has been here and you cant wait to point out how much Martinez has "recouped".
Why don’t you look at the bigger picture and give a more reasoned, balanced response ?

Instead of complaining about the 80m Jose has spent this year, why not give the guy credit for pulling in around 110m for moving on Luis, Lukaku, Mata and Ba, all players he
clearly didnt fancy ? that puts him about 30m in the black this year by my reckoning.

It’s easy to moan about the 85m Brenda has spent this season, if you choose to forget the 75m he pulled in for Rat Boy and we can all whine about the 100m Spurs have spent in the past year or so, but that spree was largely funded by the sale of Bale and Moderich before him.

Pochittino has barely gone into double figures with his spendings and Wenger has spent years qualifying for the CL while operating within a negative net spend

Sure there are Still a few irresponsible clubs around ( City, PSG, Madrid ) There are also some desperate ones ( United ) but most managers are only allowed to spend big if they have sold big.

Martinez has probably spent more in the year he has been here than the last 10 Leicester managers put together, yet we still couldnt beat them - This money argument works both ways.

Most managers are expected to generate their own transfer kitty these days, but by squandering the best part of 15 million buying Robles, Kone and offering new / extending contracts to older players Martinez has blown a large chunk of his

Yes his bosses are less than useless, but lets not portray his position as hopeless

Darren Hind
37 Posted 27/08/2014 at 04:16:25
Sorry Guys. That should read Modric - Luka
Peter Z Jones
38 Posted 27/08/2014 at 06:19:55
Atletico Madrid won the La Liga last year in a league where Madrid and Barcelona receive on average 11 times the television revenue as the other clubs. The ratio in the prem from the top club to the bottom is something like 1.5 to 1. We're at an obvious disadvantage with our lack of commercial revenue, but I wouldn't view our challenge to win a title as completely impossible if a team in an even more unbalanced league can do it.

I also agree with what Darren has said regarding the real net spend of our closest rivals. They are actually cleverly balancing the books more often than not. The only thing I'd like to add is that the money isn't really what makes teams better than others. It's properly scouting talent and acquiring the right players with said money that makes a team dangerous. The money spent must actually match the player's true value on the pitch. I mean, how do you think we are even around in this rarified air given what we spend? What people view as us "punching above our weight" (which is complete bullshit since there is no such thing as perennial overachievement) is merely our players' on pitch value drastically exceeding their perceived market value.

Mike Childs
39 Posted 27/08/2014 at 07:45:23
Touché Peter Z. With the Atletico reference. Why are they where they are at? Simeone and his dogged details to defense as a team. I love free flowing football as much as anybody it's beautiful to watch but it seems to me if you can't spend 50+ million every year the best way to be consistent is defense. I enjoy watching them beat RM 1-0 as much as 3-2 victory especially when Godin frustrates the diving king so much that he throws girly slaps at him.
Mike Childs
40 Posted 27/08/2014 at 10:37:54
After watching United in their first three games this year it's obviously all about the money when you consider ADM joining them. So far 137 million pounds spent in this transfer window by United and they haven't bought what they really need. They look closer to relegation than the top 4.
Ray Roche
41 Posted 27/08/2014 at 10:49:28
Darren, I think LFC 's gross spend this season is well over a 𧴜m, not 䀁. Some interesting facts here about gross/nett spend since the Premier League's inception.

http://forums.liverpoolfc.com/threads/356950-Premier-League-teams-gross-spend-and-Net-spend-since-its-inception-(92-93)

Patrick Murphy
42 Posted 27/08/2014 at 10:45:41
Dick I didn't realise I had to justify the spending of the rest of the Premier League I thought you only mentioned Everton and RM's spending I was only making it clear that he had recouped a good proportion of the money he has spent from player sales.

It is you that is constantly trying to pick holes in whatever actions RM takes that has a problem - I am an Evertonian and support Everton FC. I prefer to base my posts on the facts in the round rather than deliberately using selected facts to support my views.

For those citing Athletico Madrid as a beacon of hope for Everton may I remind them that Madrid were a basket case and have 'cheated' with their finances along the way.

Also this idea that the rich clubs have only spent what they have recouped in transfers over the past season or two whilst it is technically correct it fails to recognise that most of those clubs have spent huge amounts over the last decade to build their power base while Everton have been living a hand-to-mouth existence for the best part of two decades.

Everton's average wage for first team players is probably around the 㿨k mark whilst those they are competing with are probably nearer 𧴜k and they have far bigger first team pools.

Patrick Murphy
43 Posted 27/08/2014 at 11:06:24
Sorry my last response was to Darren not Dick. Mind you it's easy to get mixed up with some posters as their attitudes towards Everton and RM are often so similar you could be forgiven for believing that their various posts all came from the same person.
Nicky Styles
44 Posted 27/08/2014 at 11:20:44
Talking about money is all well and good but what about Atletico Madrid? Obviously reference, I know, but it just shows, with a good manager, an injury free squad and a quality scorer (something we also have), money really isn’t the be-all and end-all.
Matt Traynor
45 Posted 27/08/2014 at 11:42:01
I think it's a bit mis-leading to look at the likes of Chelsea's recent spending in the light of FFP. Before FFP kicked in there was a 3 year period of preparation, and most clubs used this time to "clean house" with respect to their net debt position etc. Chelsea converted loans to equity, but at that point had spent around ٟ billion since Abromovich took over.

Man City claimed ludicrously valuable sponsorship deals with Etihad, and a rake of obscure Emirati companies that have no international presence. UEFA disputed it, but they still tried to claim the redevelopment of Eastlands (stadium expansion, training academy) was going to add another £ billion pounds of costs (therefore allowable expenses) over the next four years.

And our nearest and dearest buried over 𧴜 million as losses related to the new stadium - even though a brick was never laid. A figure more than our mid range stadium in Kirkby was to cost.

So yeah, hold these clubs up as bastions of frugality if you must, but at least try to show the whole picture.

Rick Tarleton
46 Posted 27/08/2014 at 15:02:57
My ambition is to see Everton win the League and be the first team to do it in three centuries. I was a season ticket holder in the old Paddock when Young and Vernon did the job in 1962-63.
Mike Childs
47 Posted 27/08/2014 at 15:33:44
Speaking of money related club expenditures for a Level 3 team the Dons have quite a nice stadium there.
Patrick Murphy
48 Posted 27/08/2014 at 15:30:24
Ray #41 If you are to take those figures as gospel and there is no evidence to suggest they are not correct. It makes interesting reading I have divided the amounts / 22 season to give a rough spend per season figure. But our Gross spend per season is much higher than our net spend per season - I assume that is because we have sold so many at massive profits such as Rooney, Jeffers et al.

Team Gross Net
Chelsea 㿗,231,773 㿉,364,727
Man City 㿐,653,636 㿅,973,955
Man U 㿇,902,273 㾹,414,091
Liverpool 㿉,559,318 㾹,083,409
Aston Villa 㾻,881,364 ٥,548,409
Spurs 㿆,238,636 ٥,169,659
Sunderland 㾹,079,318 ٣,912,045
Newcastle 㾼,992,955 ٢,169,091
Fulham ٥,570,955 ٢,180,273
Arsenal 㾿,816,591 ٠,854,136
Stoke ٢,005,227 ٠,817,500
Southampton ٤,581,227 ٠,274,659
C Palace ١,521,591 ٠,106,136
Hull ٠,799,773 ٠,198,409
WBA ٣,490,909 ٟ,882,886
Cardiff ٠,937,955 ٟ,522,500
West Ham ٧,996,909 ٟ,256,818
Everton 㾸,124,795 ٟ,007,250
Norwich ١,292,955 𨂙,182
Swansea ٠,326,250 𨂀,977

Yair Kaye
50 Posted 27/08/2014 at 18:40:18
Rick (#46),

Unfortunately, and I know I will annoy many supporters here, chances for us winning the League again are next to zero. For this to happen one of two things must happen:

1) A return to the times of more equality in the league by placing a low-enough roof on players salaries and transfer sums. Chances for this scenario: none-existent.

2) A change in our club ownership. A league title will never be achieved during the reign of BK. We must have owner(s) with much deeper pockets.

Darren Hind
51 Posted 27/08/2014 at 18:53:23
Matt

I don't think anybody is holding these clubs up as the bastions of frugality. I suspect that was the point John wanted to discuss, but from the first post Patrick changed the direction of the thread, rather than keep this about the clubs he couldnt wait to admonish the infidels for not appreciating what a shrewd operator we have.

If we are going to discuss the "disavantage " Matinez has to work under, it is inevitable somebody ( me ) would point to the fact that he has in fact spent 54m in little over a year.

It may not sit well with those who want portray his position as a hopeless one. but he is one of the privillaged few, his net spend is bigger than the overwhelming majority of other managers in the worlds top leagues.
Theres no point in comparing his spend with the former
managers of other clubs, he aint competing with them.

Everton may have been the poor relations of the premiership since its inception, but that is not a disadvantage Martinez has had to endure.


Patrick Murphy
52 Posted 27/08/2014 at 20:02:33
Darren - Seeing as my post did relate to the thread in so much as we haven't had a bucket load of money to spend during the whole of the PL era it seems that people are quick to forget it. While Roberto has had more to spend than his predecessors albeit a frugal amount compared to the other clubs - he still has achieved a great deal in a short space of time he may get it right he may not but don't be giving it the whole RM is getting backed more than previous Everton managers as it won't wash. You can't just say RM has had 㿢m to spend and expect that to stand alone without consideration to what has been recouped. You seem to forget that for most seasons in the last six or seven if not longer we have had to sell to exist never mind buy players in. Now we have players on longer term contracts who want to stay with the club and make a success of it, which to my mind is a far more appropriate way for a club of our stature to behave.

If I accept your 㿢m and divide it by 22 that gives another circa two million per season spend during the PL era which would still put us below Fulham on net spend - that proves my point I believe - but feel free to continue your polemic and ignore the evidence that has been presented on this thread.

Perhaps John would be kind enough to post his thoughts about what responses he did or didn't want this thread to contain.

Raymond Fox
53 Posted 27/08/2014 at 19:58:12
Darren, no ones arguing he's spent 㿢m BUT he's sold players for 㿔m as Patrick says.
That means in plain English that he's brought 㿢m worth of players in but he has lost the services of 㿔m worth of players also.

So in other words he's 㾺m only worth of players extra at the club since he took over.

Phil started this going when he suggested that RM was bankrupting the club, which as usual he's wrong, then you came in and also are trying to twist the real picture to suit your argument.

Ray Roche
54 Posted 27/08/2014 at 20:39:24
Patrick Murphy @48

Yes, Patrick, whichever way you look at it it's illuminating, and whichever way you look at it we're right down near the bottom. In fact, without Rooney, Jeffers, Rodwell etc., we'd probably BE bottom.

Eddie Dunn
55 Posted 27/08/2014 at 22:00:42
I too am sickened by all that Sky has brought to the people’s game. The working (or unworking) man/woman or youngster has been priced out of regularly attending football, unless they are comfortably off. There are far fewer young people at games now and Sky is overpriced.

I am just grateful that I was around in the mid-eighties and enjoyed our success. To think that in 1984 I was bemoaning 14 years of hurt since our Title in 1970, when I was 10 years old.

It was long enough to appreciate the good times, but now it’s been 19 years since we beat Man U in the FA cup final ,and I feel sad for our young fans. However, I don’t want my club bought by some Russian oligarch, or Arab oil barron. I want real financial fair play, more fan ownership like in Germany, cheaper admission to games, and cheaper TV subscriptions.

Sadly I think we will need at the very least a huge soar flare wiping out the satellites, or a 3rd World War to change things.

Eddie Dunn
56 Posted 27/08/2014 at 22:19:53
I meant to say SOLAR flare!
Peter Warren
57 Posted 27/08/2014 at 23:49:20
HELP PLEASE - Talking about money I've read loads of people saying only ٣m paid for Lukaku up front.

My understanding was when you're a Premier league team buying from another Premier league team you have to pay 75% fee up front and that is another reason why signing players from abroad attractive - I.e. Fellaini sum being paid over 5 years.

Is this instalment payment for Rom just opinion or is there any facts behind it?

Lyndon Lloyd
58 Posted 28/08/2014 at 00:19:07
Peter, apparently the terms of the deal are ~٧.5m per season for the next 3 years (with the last payment being ٧m, I suppose, to make it 㿈m if appearances-related add-ons are triggered.

And teams prefer buying from abroad because Premier League players carry such a high bloody premium. *cough* Carroll *cough* Shaw *cough* Lallana.

Darren Hind
59 Posted 28/08/2014 at 05:42:32
"... but don't be giving it the whole 'RM is getting backed more than previous Everton managers' as it wont wash"

That right there is the problem with your argument, Patrick: "it wont wash" – of course it doesn't wash – with you It doesn't matter how accurate or factual the point is, you will continue to deny the undeniable.

See that net spend table you put up? Take it from the date when Martinez was appointed and I bet you Everton will finish as close to he top as they were to the bottom before he got here.

It's not as if HE recouped anything anyway. Fellaini was gone before he had time to get his coat off and if you think he (or anybody else at GP) were in a position to say no to TGT's half-witted 㿈M offer, you really are residing in cuckoo land.

Peter Warren
60 Posted 28/08/2014 at 09:04:18
Thanks Lyndon.
Peter Warren
61 Posted 28/08/2014 at 20:39:20
John, sorry it's not all about the money! Last year RM brought in or developed the following players (who are still with us) which I am happy to see competing for starting 11 (not simply squad) and who weren't either available or weren't up to scratch for whatever reasons doing so under Moyes:

Oviedo, Barry, McCarthy, Rom, Stones, Barkley, Naismith

That's 7 first teamers - hopefully people like Kone / Alcaraz can be added but unsure yet.

We lost (my opinion) only Fellaini (perhaps Jelavic although u think he wasn't good enough and only squad)

That's net 5 or 6 quality players for little net spend.

This season already added Besic Eto - possibly Atsu who knows. If he manages to keep up rate of last season by getting another 2 or 3 genuine starting 11 players on top that will be a whole additional net starting 11 - that would be PHENOMENAL and I think give us a genuine shot of title next year

Brian Denton
62 Posted 28/08/2014 at 21:40:38
The return of football hooliganism (scaring off the middle classes and making the product unattractive to Sky) would level the playing field......

**THIS IS A JOKE BY THE WAY**


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


About these ads



© ToffeeWeb
Menu
OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.