Everton May Have to Sell John Stones

by   |   24/06/2016  18 Comments  [Jump to last]

Prior to the 2013-14 Premier League season, the Short Term Cost Control (STCC) rules were agreed upon for the next three years, and then renewed in 2016 with the purpose of stopping salaries increasing in line with the new broadcasting revenues. The STCC rules state that, “Clubs cannot increase their player wage bills by more than £7m compared to the previous year unless they can demonstrate that any excess is due to individual club revenue sources.”

This means that Everton cannot go and buy £100m worth of players and renew the contracts of many of their young stars because the wages would rise by far more than the £7m growth that is permitted. Even though Everton now has the funds necessary through the takeover to buy expensive players, they may not be allowed to. Unfortunately, Everton cannot do what Manchester City did in 2008 after they were taken over by Sheikh Mansour with the massive £32.5m signing of Robinho from Real Madrid because it would not follow the STCC rules.

back Return to Talking Points index  :  Add your Comments »


Reader Comments (18)

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


William Cartwright
1 Posted 24/06/2016 at 07:02:19
Oops . . . . . . . . . ?
Brent Stephens
2 Posted 24/06/2016 at 07:09:24
WOW!! Or Ooops as William say! Does anybody know if this (EPL reg) is a weak one? Like FFP might not be as strong as it's often assumed? If this is a strong reg then we're seriously in the poo? Or does the increased TV revenue mean we'll be within regs?
Barry Connor
4 Posted 24/06/2016 at 08:02:12
There are always around these 'rules' through creative accounting as has been demonstrated down the years by Man City, Chelski etc.

I seem to recall huge sums being paid by the Man City owner's friends for naming rights to the stadium, TV rights in obscure parts of the world etc.

However, it would be typical if the door to the stable was bolted just as we arrived!
Zeya Aung
5 Posted 24/06/2016 at 08:35:27
That means this wage table will stay.
Tony Abrahams
6 Posted 24/06/2016 at 08:39:42
A bit of sanity at last. This time next year we will still have been able to increase our wage bill by £14 Million.

Moshiri, is a billionaire on paper, but with the plans in store for Everton, he would be spending over half of this money, in a short space of time.

What happens if he then decides, that like Randy Lerner, it just isn't sustainable?

Don't want to start another one of those "evidence threads", but unless we have major players waiting in the back-ground, I for one would sooner see us, "walk before we start running".

Joe Clitherow
7 Posted 24/06/2016 at 08:59:03
Tony

"A bit of sanity at last. This time next year we will still have been able to increase our wage bill by 㾺 Million"

Yep and over two years and averaged for a 25-man squad that is just over £5k per week per player. Barely index-linked in footballing terms and I don't think it will bring in the step up in players we all want. Probably not even keep the players we currently have in a small squad. Not even walking in my view. Do the maths.

As for Moshiri, based on his wealth of ٟ.3Bn (before the market crash this morning), and on the 𧺬M you quoted the other day for players and stadium, well, it must be just terrible to be down to your last 𧿘M. Not that his funding will come from his personal account, he will mostly underwrite, that's how this stuff generally works.

And nor will player spend will be anything like 𧴜M based on the salary increases we could supposedly offer.

But one question – what on earth has this got to do with John Stones, as per the headline? Man City and other clubs got round this loophole quite easily by calling the cash injection something else and taking a relatively small fine. Clever people will always do the same.

Brent Stephens
8 Posted 24/06/2016 at 09:20:52
"unless they can demonstrate that any excess is due to individual club revenue sources.” Is that the let-out?
Tony Abrahams
9 Posted 24/06/2016 at 09:40:49
Joe, you have you're own view, I'm just giving a different slant on things, that's all.

Joe, without going into the finer details of wealth and crashes, (I know very little) "BUT I DO" suspect that a lot of this money is also tied up in other schemes, and it wouldn't just be money that is lying about and gathering dust.

Something has changed its very obvious. I'm just questioning how sustainable this will be, with only one man's money, but as you say, clever people will always find a way to get around things.

As for us idiots, Bold blue writing should do, especially when it's all underlined ASWELL?

Martin Nicholls
10 Posted 24/06/2016 at 11:30:16
Joe#7 - who is to say that a significant proportion of Moshiri's fortune is not $based? If so, this morning be might find himself with an even bigger fortune!
Alasdair Mackay
11 Posted 24/06/2016 at 11:58:58
Can't they just structure it differently?

His basic salary increases by x (in accodance with the £7m rule), but he gets a nice bonus every time he manages to tie his own shoelaces.

Thomas Surgenor
12 Posted 24/06/2016 at 12:37:02
Surely Osman, Howard and Pienaar were three of our bigger earners?
Having them replaced with kids from the academy means (as it stands) our wage bill is actually down.

We won't be able to bring in 5 top class players. But we should be able to afford 2 or 3 and stay within the wage limits.
Especially if we offload McGeady and a.nother from Oviedo, Gibson, Kone or Niasse

Dan Davies
13 Posted 24/06/2016 at 13:00:11
Don't want to steal your thunder Albert but there was a piece on GoT by the Esk yesterday which explained this in much more detail and might help the understanding of selling Stones. Sorry.

I'd bet Mr. Moshiri has a few offshore accounts to protect his fortune too!

Dennis Ng
14 Posted 24/06/2016 at 14:25:56
Dan, we're all going from that article but using "we may have to sell stones" is not the headline I was thinking Albert should have used.

Albert, if wages was the object here, we could sell anyone of our highest earners, e.g. Lukaku, Barkley, Stones. Singling out Stones, who Esk used as only an example, is misleading to say the least.

On the OP by Esk, he mentioned sponsorships. Hopefully we'll get a few sweet deals which can alleviate the wage ceiling problem. Selling our key players would be a step backward. Giving them unnecessary pay bumps is also a step backward if not worse.

Anthony Dwyer
15 Posted 25/06/2016 at 00:42:13
This is worrying, so if a wage cap affects us then we need to act accordingly. To lower wage bills we have to cut off the dead wood and the highly paid players who hold no real value.

1: McGeady was signed on the cheap due to his contract details; he should go.
2: Kone was signed on decent money; get him gone.
3: Barry is decent but he's 34; we need to move him out if the above is true.
4: Gibson deal needs to be scrapped; I know this isn't something that is easy, but surely someone can take him on a free.
5: Lennon is a decent player, but he's not a top player. Deulofeu is young and can become a top player; so, if I had to choose, I'd keep both Deulofeu and Mirallas over Lennon.
6: Oviedo is basically just shite in my opinion; I'd keep Baines, Galloway and Garbutt over him.
7: Cleverley is an average player who was signed on a free; Dowell could replace him on a quarter of his wages.
8: McCarthy is a big one but, if Wijnaldum and Schniederlin came in, then we may not need him; just a thought.

Leaving McCarthy out, we would still free up huge wagers if we shipped them bang-average players out, leaving good money to boost the wages of Lukaku, Barkley and Stones.

I'd guess we would free up over 𧷤,000 a week with Barry, Kone, Oviedo, McGeady, Cleverley, Lennon and Gibson whilst probably getting around 㾻m plus transfer funds in.

Dave Abrahams
16 Posted 25/06/2016 at 09:50:03
I think the club will decide, very shortly, whether Stones is going or staying, Man. City are reportedly ready to make an official bid for his transfer. It will be no surprise to many on here if he opts to sign for City.
Jay Harris
17 Posted 30/06/2016 at 18:30:43
A number of the squad have already gone, and if we send players out on loan, that will take care of their wages.

A well dressed sponsorship from Mr Moshiri's companies or contacts should ensure we can do what the hell we want regarding acquisitions.

Andy Meighan
18 Posted 08/07/2016 at 22:00:30
Tony 6 the voice of reason and brilliantly put across. I'm guessing you're like myself – old school (I'm 57) and I'm a bit sceptical about this new found wealth so to speak. While it's exciting in the same breath it's also worrying and those two words you spoke sent shivers down my spine – Randy Lerner. That's why I certainly don't want to see us throwing silly money at ordinary players you could get for a fraction at the price in the championship.

Let's face it – we've laughed for years now at the amounts of cash our lovable neighbours have threw at really poor players. I for one never ever want to see us doing things like that. I'm still breaking out in cold sweats over Niasse.
Paul Burns
19 Posted 11/07/2016 at 19:06:41
Sell Niasse instead.

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