Everton's Transfer Policy Explained

by   |   27/07/2017  99 Comments  [Jump to last]

Amongst the plethora of information about the new football season, this one at The Guardian seems to me to be the most pertinent. Despite, for the second year in a row, Everton supposedly having a “£100m warchest”, it’s clear that Everton have so far actually made money in this window. Compare and contrast with teams previously regarded as minnows, in Huddersfield and Bournemouth and the real picture begins to emerge.

Tonight sees the start of what will be my fiftieth season of following Everton. My view is that yet again, Everton’s policy remains as “sell to buy”. Whilst journalists continue to witter on about Everton’s £100m transfer spree, the truth is that Everton’s spend was entirely predicated around the certainty that Lukaku would be sold. Everton benefited hugely from the fact that several clubs wanted Lukaku and this, effectively, pushed the price up.

And so to yesterday’s pre-season Press Conference where Everton’s manager(what I would actually call spokesperson), Ronald Koeman used the platform to try to market Ross Barkley. It’s only my opinion but I believe that Everton have engineered a situation where they want to sell Barkley. This is a great shame as Barkley is one of the best players Everton have produced since Wayne Rooney. The problem now for Everton is twofold. Barkley is currently injured and this is exacerbated by the fact that there are far less suitors for Barkley than there were for Lukaku.

In the Press Conference, Koeman re-iterated that he wanted defensive cover for the injured Funes Mori as well as wanting to strengthen the midfield and attack. Koeman also pointed out that there was money available – “and said further spending was not dependent on money raised from Barkley.”

Let’s see what happens. My view is that Everton’s policy, as it has been for years, is to balance the books and that, until assets like Barkley are sold, there won’t be more money available for Koeman to spend.

back Return to Talking Points index  :  Add your Comments »

Reader Comments (99)

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

Ray Robinson
1 Posted 27/07/2017 at 10:09:07
Jonathan, I don't necessarily agree with your view – my own is that we do have a war chest irrespective of player sales. If we hadn't sold Lukaku, would this have meant we couldn't and wouldn't have signed anyone?

Saying that we have balanced the books or even made money because transfer receipts and payments balance out always seems a tad simplistic to me. Commitment to pay the salaries of incoming players over 4-5 years is nearly always at greater cost than the relief gained by not paying the remaining salaries of players who leave with 1 or 2 years left on their contracts.

Also, loaning out players for a year reduces wages in that particular year but does nothing to alleviate their costs when they return (unless they are loaned out again).

My own view is that we have spent a considerable amount in this window but it's not immediately apparent because it's a commitment for the future – a bit like PCP on a car. you've got a brand new motor for next to nothing but you still have to pay the guaranteed future value to buy it in 3 years time!

James Watts
2 Posted 27/07/2017 at 10:26:32
"it's clear that Everton have so far actually made money in this window."

When looking at transfer, you forget to take into account player wages and how much they have grown. The players we have brought in are on more than the players we have lost, overall. I think you'll find once you've gone through those, over the coming year our overall spend will be higher. Much higher.

My view is that, yet again, Everton's policy remains as “sell to buy”.

If you think that, you really haven't been paying attention. You're being very short sighted in only taking in to account pure fees. Again, see above.

"It's only my opinion but I believe that Everton have engineered a situation where they want to sell Barkley."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that's pretty daft. Why would we have done that? We offered him a contract. A very good contract by all accounts. He doesn't want to sign, for whatever reason. Barkley has engineered the situation by not signing. Koeman hasn't handled it well, I agree, but he's only answered direct questions. He hasn't gone out of his way to slag Barkley off as some believe. If he had signed and Koeman was saying this, then you'd be right. But again, you're wrong in your thinking. What did you expect Everton to do as a business? Say no worries Barkley, you don't want to sign but we won't say anything and let you play out the year and let you go for free?

We've also just bid £45m for Sig. Where do you think that money is coming from if we are still a 'sell to buy' club as we sure aren't going to get anywhere near that for Barkley – assuming he's sold before the window closes.

And don't forget, the window does not close for another 5 weeks. There is still plenty of time to get more players in.

Overall, it's simply not a great article and your last paragraph sums up how silly this is. You have assumed too much and not taken all the facts into account and based it on lop-sided reasoning.

Hang on, it's not you is it, Phil Walling, using a different login?!

Jim Potter
3 Posted 27/07/2017 at 10:43:30
We offered both players very good contracts.

Lukaku always wanted to move on 'up'. (Always on the cards with his ego).

Ross has come to the conclusion he has to move away to improve and to flourish. (Mistake?)

We have done some excellent deals with more to come. Only come the end of the window will we know if we invested or 'balanced the books' as you think, Jonathan.

I fully expect the former – and regardless, I think the squad will be much stronger come the end of the August dealings.

Mike Green
4 Posted 27/07/2017 at 10:48:39
Well said, Ray, and a perfect response from James Watts (#2).

Chris Williams
5 Posted 27/07/2017 at 10:49:41
I've never seen or heard anyone from the club talk about a war chest. It's a construct of those purveyors of shite, the media.

Net spend is pretty much irrelevant in my view. The question is surely, is the squad stronger?

I'm pretty sure Everton didn't choose to sell Stones or Lukaku, so it was hardly a sell-to-buy policy. They both wanted to leave. But I'm sure we were happy to take the cash, and they have/are making use of it.

I don't know if Koeman could care about Barkley either way, but the money will come in handy. As to his ability, I suspect a fair few might disagree with you.

Pickford, Keane, Williams, Schneiderlin, Gueye, Klaassen, Bolasie, Lookman, Onyekuru, Sandro, Rooney, and Stekelenburg, Martina, plus several promising youngsters to bolster the U19 and U23 squads too.

Please tell me that you agree that this squad has been greatly strengthened Jonathan, regardless of net spend.

And they haven't finished yet. Koeman has said he wants to bring in replacements for Funes Mori, Lukaku and another, maybe Sigurdsson, so another 䀆m? Gross of course!

Add to this the cost of ridding us of Martinez and his grisly gang and the expense of bringing in Koeman and Walsh and ancillary staff and as you can see that the total outlay and investment has been significant. Gross or net.

And it's not just the expenditure, it's what it stands for, it's what it represents. Everton stirring again. Optimism, hope for the future, the chance of success or at least competing for a change. The death of Plucky Little Everton. The first steps in a long overdue rebirth.

We're fans ffs, not bean counters!

And of course we haven't yet seen a ball kicked in anger. That starts tonight and I'm looking forward to it massively.

Mike Green
6 Posted 27/07/2017 at 10:54:04
And another belter from Chris Williams!

I'm off to read about stadium plans...

Jon Withey
7 Posted 27/07/2017 at 11:08:13
Not to mention the investment in youth – I see we just brought in Gibson from Newcastle.
James Stewart
8 Posted 27/07/2017 at 11:10:10
While I can understand the skepticism, we are Evertonians after all; I think it is clouding your judgement on this occasion.

We signed a plethora of players before Lukaku was sold, clubs don't accept IOUs – the money was in place to allow us to conduct those deals independent of the Lukaku deal. When we sign Sigurdsson, Giroud or Benteke plus, defender that will be around another £100m.

For once the money is there and perhaps Koeman just wasn't that impressed by Barkley. He was offered a contract; he declined it. What more is Koeman supposed to say?

Brian Williams
9 Posted 27/07/2017 at 11:10:11
And what if we do have a negative spend? If the team has been strengthened and we've done it by selling players who didn't want to be here anyway, what's the problem?

Too many get caught up in the balance sheet without realizing that, for us supporters, it's about what happens on the pitch. It's about win, lose or draw. I'd actually rather have a slight profit on transfers if the team is improving and we're progressing.

Money, fucking money, it's a sad world when people judge you on how much you've spent and not on the end result of your buying and selling actions. Get a life and leave the business end of things to those who are more able than most on here to do it.

FFS, if Rooney drives one into the top corner tonight from the edge of the box I won't be turning to the lad in the next seat and saying "Hmm wonder how much that cost us in fees and wages"? I'll be trying not to piss myself when I jump up and down like a madman.

Enjoy the football, enjoy our club. If you have to get caught up in figures go buy a Sudoku book, ffs.

Nicholas Ryan
10 Posted 27/07/2017 at 11:20:43
So, we're to be criticised for accidentally balancing the books? Only on ToffeeWeb!!
Dave Abrahams
11 Posted 27/07/2017 at 11:24:35
Great post, Chris Williams, and you forgot to mention the money Mr Moshiri spent clearing the debts acquired by Kenwright; that was quite a tidy sum. Well posted, Chris.
Ray Robinson
12 Posted 27/07/2017 at 11:27:22
Good point, Jon (#7). I wonder what the overall spend has been on investing in numerous players for the future? A tidy sum in its own right, I'd wager.
Chris Williams
14 Posted 27/07/2017 at 11:53:04
Yes, I missed that, thanks Dave. And what price do you put on rekindled hope in the future again?

I'm going tonight with my son, and I feel like I've not felt about an Everton season for a long time. You always look forward to a fresh new season, but this is different. For my son it will probably be unique.

I loved Brian's comment at #9 about Rooney scoring tonight. Maybe I should take a calculator.

Clive Rogers
15 Posted 27/07/2017 at 11:55:56
It's being reported this morning that Gibson has signed from Newcastle.
Don Alexander
16 Posted 27/07/2017 at 12:06:50
I think most of us of Jonathan's age have been as sceptical of the owners as he is since the Premier League was started. I have.

That said, the arrival of Mr Moshiri has been transformational. Added to the points made by others above he's also well down the road to establishing a new state-of-the-art stadium on a site other teams, especially one red one, would part with a bollock to acquire.

Koeman also deserves credit and support in my estimation. He improved us by four places last season but this summer he's already signed half a team and got rid of squad members not up to the job, with probably more to come in both directions. If he can replicate the progress he made at Southampton in twice shedding and integrating half a team with immediate success, I'll be well chuffed.

Onwards and upwards.

James Watts
17 Posted 27/07/2017 at 12:11:07
That can't be true, Clive (#15). We haven't sold anyone!

Well said, Don (#16).

Matt Williams
19 Posted 27/07/2017 at 12:41:49
Net spend! Who cares?

Your statement we are "sell to buy" is nonsense. Just look at the order the words are written in. If you want to argue we needed to sell Lukaku to balance the books we'd be "sell to pay for the players we've already bought".

Anyway, Mr Lukaku was on what, a miserly 㿲k per week? If we are balancing the books are you really trying to argue that Rooney, Sandro, Keane, Pickford, Martina and Klaassen have a total salary of 㿲k per week between them? If not, then how are books being balanced?

Not to mention signing on fees and what are surely huge fees for agents.

File this under "male cow excrement".

Simon Bates
20 Posted 27/07/2017 at 13:19:54
Nice attempt, Jonathon, and I can't call you out for trying, apparently even God loves a trier.

However, I have to agree with common sense and facts, which as well as being eloquently pointed out to you on numerous posts above, literally speak for themselves .

Moshiri is a highly successful business man; Everton is a high profile business, profit and loss are part and parcel of an ongoing enterprise – it simply can't run any other way.

Forget about it, let it go, and enjoy tonight; after all, this is what we really want to see, discuss and have been waiting for... Football!!!

James Morgan
21 Posted 27/07/2017 at 13:22:27
Just because one player's exit equates to that of what we've already spent (though we are likely to spend more) who cares? Who is to say we wouldn't have spent that anyway? Would you rather Lukaku only went for 㾶m just to say our next spend is a lot higher?

If Barcelona sell Neymar for 𧶀m but only spend 𧴜m on his replacement, and say 㿞m on a centre-half which then means they don't need any more players, does that mean they are not showing ambition or are selling to buy?

Ridiculous article.

Kevin Tully
22 Posted 27/07/2017 at 13:27:00
Jonathan, you state: "Everton supposedly having a “𧴜m warchest”, it's clear that Everton have so far actually made money in this window. Compare and contrast with teams previously regarded as minnows, in Huddersfield and Bournemouth and the real picture begins to emerge."

To keep this simple, you sell player A, for 𧴜M, who earns 𧴜k per week or approx. ٣.2M per season.

You then purchase 5 players for 㿀M each – all earning 𧴜k per week. That is an extra 㿀.8M in wages alone, not including signing on fees, agents fees, bonuses and whatever else they have negotiated into their contracts.

I won't go into what Mosh has spent purchasing his shares, paying off mortgages & loans and other signings, but it's north of 𧶀M. We still haven't finished in the transfer market either. Looking at net spend alone is very, very misleading. Our wage bill will be through the roof.

Dan Davies
23 Posted 27/07/2017 at 13:27:11
I'd love it if Sigurdsson signed today!
John Pierce
24 Posted 27/07/2017 at 13:28:44
I think the article is regressive as the thinking is behind the piece. Everton have done a number of things off the pitch which underpins the opposite of the authors position.

Well documented clearance of debt, connection with both LCC and a big Chinese bank; new improved sponsorship both at Finch Farm and shirt sponsor.

In the round, Everton are financially 'fitter' than ever before. That is not the mark of a club who 'has to' or 'chooses to' sell to buy.

The £60m credit facility is a tacit understanding should we need transfer funds quickly and readily whilst the ground is being built, it is there. No need or appetite to sell any player.

On that thought, Everton have and will have sold Rom, Ross and Stones all of whom wanted to leave.

The article is fundamentally at odds with our actions. Do we really have spend an infinite amount to move beyond the aged phrases as 'net spend', 'sell to buy'? Long since debunked.

Time to move on as a club and as a fan base. We are not breaking new ground financially, just catching up to the norm for a club our size.

Mike Gaynes
25 Posted 27/07/2017 at 16:19:29
Jonathan, you have certainly united ToffeeWeb with your article. I've never seen a response this unanimous.
James Flynn
26 Posted 27/07/2017 at 18:36:50
Dan (#23) – Be specific. It's not on Google or anywhere else.
Dan Davies
27 Posted 28/07/2017 at 13:30:40
Sorry, James, just a flippant comment in response to the article, nothing concrete, my friend.
Kieran Kinsella
28 Posted 28/07/2017 at 14:05:26
I'm a little concerned in terms of how we've spent the money. It seems to me we've increased competition in certain areas but we are hugely deficient in other areas.

Comparatively speaking Davies and McCarthy are closer in ability to Klaassen and Gueye than Connolly is to Baines.

Out wide we still have Mirallas who's always been hit and miss with Lennon who's lost his pace and Dowell who Koeman doesn't seem to rate as back ups.

Upfront we have Rooney and two kids who may or may not become stars.

Martin Mason
29 Posted 28/07/2017 at 14:16:47
I'm a bit confused with this article. What other policy could a business have other than to balance the books or make a profit on transfer deals? Surely nobody expects them to trade at a loss, that is crazy business.

They will stay in business and become financially stronger by making an operating profit rather than loss and we have a stadium to buy. EFC isn't a charity, it is a Company, and they have one responsibility only which is to provide a return to their shareholders.

Chris Watts
30 Posted 28/07/2017 at 14:20:22
People getting very excited but I wouldn't put any emphasis on last night's game it's just too early. All we need to do is qualify for the competition – it's not about style.

Koeman just make some strange decisions, however; his use of Calvert-Lewin seems odd. I can only assume he is sending out messages to the board that we are still light in certain areas. I hope we play with more width than was shown last night.

It seems strange that after signing 5 good players we still seem light. Coleman and Bolasie will make a difference but I think selling Lukaku has left a massive hole. Sandro, Rooney, Klaassen etc with Lukaku would have been amazing but without him we seem to have lost a lot.

Clearly we need a top top striker and someone with pace and trickery on the wing. Time to go large, Mr Moshiri, but plenty of time to do it.

David Barks
31 Posted 28/07/2017 at 14:31:48
We have not gone on a spending spree, as has been pointed out. Sales have financed our buys. And we haven't radically increased the wage bill. Lukaku might be the big sale, but we also released and sold other players. Deulofeu, Kone, Valencia, McGeady, Cleverley all gone from the team and the wage bill. On top of that, we loaned out quite a few.

As for your question Martin asking what other policy a business could have? It's called investment. A policy of investing now for future growth is not new to business. Tesla Motors did so for years before only turning a profit earlier this year. To bring it closer to home, Chelsea and Man City spent like crazy in order to establish themselves at the top.

Ray Robinson
32 Posted 28/07/2017 at 15:49:21
David (#31), we had this discussion on another thread a few days ago and we clearly cannot agree. Neither of us know what the incoming players earn in relation to the outgoing players, so neither of us can comment with any certainty whether the wage bill has gone up or not.

However, when you add the large number of U23 players that we have bought, I'd hazard the guess the rise in the wage bill is quite significant. Certainly the committed expenditure will have increased as players on longer term contracts replace those coming to an end. Even loan players' future salaries remain on the books for when they return.

Despite the transfers appearing to balance out, I reckon that we have been on a spending spree, although I'd agree that much of it isn't immediately apparent.

Martin Mason
33 Posted 28/07/2017 at 16:03:30
David @31, investment comes from profit or borrowing so the critical thing is first to make a profit.

Chelsea and Man City run an unsustainable business model based on having rich sponsors who perhaps believe that by splurging on players they will eventually make profit by becoming a top side. This failed model is what broke Leeds.

Eventually the only sustainable model is to make an operating profit and to borrow only what can be repaid. From what I see, Moshiri as a clever business man will operate on this philosophy. This is completely different to a "sell to buy" policy which doesn't remotely apply to Everton.

Tesla is also a failed business model because it survives only on massive tax payer subsidy as part of the Climate Change scam. They'd be bankrupt without.

Anthony Hughes
34 Posted 28/07/2017 at 17:45:48
Have we had the Sky/BT Sport money yet?
Dave Southword
35 Posted 28/07/2017 at 18:04:40
You might want to change the title of the article from "Everton's Transfer Policy Explained" to "Whinging About Stuff I Have No Idea About"

This could've been posted as a comment on a real article.

David Barks
36 Posted 28/07/2017 at 18:45:25
Martin Mason,

Wow, you really exposed yourself with that last post, well done. The climate change scam, okay. As for your total lack of understanding of what Tesla's business model is, and what investment actually is, I can't say I'm surprised going off all your lovey dovey posts about Kenwright's greatness.

Tesla has invested for years into the long term "fact" of a radical transformation in global energy production. That's not a scam, automotive is going all in with electric vehicles, it is where all the research and development is. I know, I'm in the field.

In the sporting side, it's all Hybrid energy moving toward full electric. The competitive motor sport sector is what drives the innovation in the consumer side. It will all be electric in the very near future.

Tesla have invested for years, not making a profit, to establish themselves in the market. They aren't just building cars. They have invested massively in the battery production sector as well as solar, which is the future. You invest for the future, not to make an immediate profit but a long term profit into the future. Just like investing in your retirement fund or stock portfolio is not to get immediate returns.

Colin Glassar
37 Posted 28/07/2017 at 18:57:11
Martin Mason strikes again.
Paul A Smith
39 Posted 28/07/2017 at 21:52:06
Jonathan, I fully feel your honest post. I believe the club have engineered the Barkley situation also.

Go back a few months and Barkley celebrated in front of the Gwladys like Everton mattered to him.

Go back a little further and Koeman stated Barkley had spoken to him about unfair criticism and asked "why is it always about me".

In stating this, Koeman was again making it all about Barkley and it also suggested Barkley felt the manager was quick to pick out his faults.

Don't get me wrong here, Barkley was too wrapped up in love from Martinez and may have needed to be stronger but it seemed the ball was rolling in removing him?

Going back to Barkley's celebration, blue social media was ecstatic in the most and the Echo ran a piece on how Barkley was giving the fans a message?

We may never know but to me he has had a good push. The transfer policy does seem like you say to be book balancing and something I fully expected and was criticised for predicting. To me it was so obvious we were spending the Lukaku money to get the euro names in.

I may be totally wrong and hopefully I am but can you imagine the recent signings amongst the crop of big names we have sold and are about to sell? That would be some squad.

Barkley going is awful for me. He creates chances and space no matter what people say. The evidence is there and with the movement of Sandro and Rooney compared to Lukaku, Barkley would have far more options ahead of him.

Thanks, Jonathan, I enjoyed the post.

Paul A Smith
40 Posted 28/07/2017 at 23:24:37
Think its fair to say Jonathan isn't really telling any lies and its just how he feels. Both arguments can make good points and healthy debate is okay for everyone.

I think the sarcasm and criticism is a bit unfair and teaches us nothing. Its not easy getting your feelings down on here and the lad had the bottle to say how he feels.

Let's see how the window pans out and hopefully we are stronger in attack. And we go on to win the Europa League.

Mike Gaynes
41 Posted 28/07/2017 at 23:38:17
Martin, it would appear that you know just as much about the football business as you do about Tesla, the hybrid industry, business sustainability and science.

Which is to say...

Martin Mason
42 Posted 28/07/2017 at 23:46:58
David, sorry but I stand by what I said. Believe me, I'm qualified to do so.
Eddie Dunn
43 Posted 28/07/2017 at 00:07:01
May I bring to you all a reminder of a certain 㿨 million overdraft facility with a Chinese bank. Surely this has helped us to shell out on players whilst waiting for the Lukaku deal to go through. This suggests there is some truth in the sell to buy argument.

I mentioned this weeks ago, before Lukaku was sold when we were splashing the cash to everyone's delight. I was told that I was being cynical!

Until I see us spend money on a good striker as well as Sigurdsson, I will remain sceptical.

I think the Barkley injury has thrown a spanner in the works and that is what is frustrating Koeman who was hoping for a quick sale, and that is why he opened his big mouth saying Ross was "100% going". He is desperate to make the board bite the bullet, get in Sigurdsson and one or two more.

Mike Green
44 Posted 29/07/2017 at 00:40:31
Chelsea's and Man City's owners didn't invest to make a profit, they invested to help legitimise themselves.
James Watts
45 Posted 29/07/2017 at 01:05:25
Paul (#39). "I believe the club have engineered the Barkley situation also." Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?That makes NO sense.

One thing you are forgetting about all this is Koeman was asked in every single press conference about Barkley. The club haven't engineered anything. If Barkley was performing as he should have been, the only questions about him would have been 'Barkley has been linked with a £60m bid from Man City. Can you comment?'

Koeman may have been too honest (if that's possible) in his answers, but to say the club engineered it? Gobsmacked there is more than one person out there who thinks this. Seriously, just think this through. The club have engineered a local lad to leave on the cheap? Seriously?!

As for the rest of the post about 'only spending the Lukaku money', that train of thought is just as wrong as the original poster. What about the money we spent in January (£35m plus alone on just fees)? What about the increase in wages across the players we've brought? What about all the players we've shelled out decent fees for the U23s? Not to mention the other costs of buying the land for the stadium, etc. As I previously said if you really think that, you simply haven't been paying attention on what is going on at our club.

And #40. "Both arguments can make good points..." No, they can't. Both arguments do not. Healthy debate is good, I agree, but this is no debate. Not even close. Why? Because the 'sell to buy' claim is absolutely absurd and has no credible argument.

Sit down, write down all our incomings and outgoings since January for fees. Write down the wages saved by players who have left vs wages for players we have brought. Write down all the investment in the U23s. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

Eddie (#43). As I said to Paul. Whaaaaaaaaaat?!? If you watch the press conference, you can see Koeman was reluctant when answering questions about Barkley. To say he opened his big mouth, again, what?!? He was asked if Barkley was leaving. He answered. Was he just expected to not answer? And the overdraft is for £60m and was only put into place after we had sold Lukaku if you check your time line. So again, that doesn't really stand up either.

Seriously people, wake up. Smell the coffee.

Will Mabon
46 Posted 28/07/2017 at 03:32:30
"Wow, you really exposed yourself with that last post, well done. The climate change scam, okay."

Exactly what did he expose, David? A different opinion to yours?

Paul A Smith
47 Posted 29/07/2017 at 11:10:00
James, like I said we can only say how it feels now. We both explained why. Who let Barkley's deal run down? He can't renew his own contracts.

I keep hearing we bid £45M for Sigurrdson, they want £50M don't they?
Remember we bid £12M for Shearer just after he'd gone for £15M.
Our deals probably wont count on Barkley going; it will be McCarthy, Niasse, Mirallas and the rest of the deadwood.

James Watts
48 Posted 29/07/2017 at 11:37:15
But Paul (#47). Those explanations simply do not make any sense. He still had around 16 months left on his contract when talks were entered in too. He's had plenty of time to sign. He's chosen not too. Whatever the reason.

To say/imply we engineered it so we can sell him to get funds for other players is daft. Surely it would have been in our interests to get him signed up to sell him for a higher fee if that was the cunning plan? Running the contract down only suits one person, namely Ross as he'll get a move for a fee well under current market values.

And to say we can only buy once we sold x, y & z is just plain wrong. And if you looked at all the facts, which some of them I've already spelt out, you would see just how wrong it is. Or am I just banging my head against a brick wall trying to explain why it's so wrong?

And going back to Shearer is pointless. It was a long time ago. Different world compared to now. Things have moved on. Sigurdsson has been left out of the Swansea squad (again) this weekend so it looks like negotiations are still on going and if so, good on both parties for not just rolling over and giving in. You think it'd be prudent to say, okay he's £50m, no questions asked?

Your point of view, reasons and arguments just don't make any sense right now. But I'm open-minded so please, give me some sensible arguments & facts on how we are still 'sell to buy' and 'we've engineered the Barkley situation'. I'm happy to be proved wrong!

Paul A Smith
49 Posted 29/07/2017 at 14:24:10
James, like I said mate, we can only state how we feel and fair dos you state your point well.

I think the Barkley situation should have been dealt with once he had 2 years left like most are if they are to receive a new offer. Come next week I could be totally wrong.

Maybe I am simply fed up at losing Barkley and it clouds my judgement but I am fed up of people also putting Siggurdson in the same bracket as Ozil and Hazard to justify a £50 mill bid for him. I'd be hoping we had a major forward if we spent £50 mill on anyone now.

James Watts
50 Posted 29/07/2017 at 14:57:49
Yeah, fair enough, Paul. I can certainly understand the frustration about losing Barkley. Something I can relate too as felt exactly the same over Rooney when he left. Albeit in different circumstances.

But we definitely agree on Sigurdsson, £50m is crazy and he's not worth it. I can understand why Koeman/Walsh want him but for that price? Dunno. And he's not in Hazards or Ozil leagues. Good player, but not in their bracket. I think he'll do a good job for us having said that. Him linking up with Rooney, Sandro, Klaassen, Davies and our new striker (to be named) will be awesome to see.

Ah you never know, they might have someone lined up for the striker position. Well, I should say they better have someone lined up as we're in for a long season if they haven't!

Chris Williams
51 Posted 29/07/2017 at 15:14:24
Hazard being quoted at 䀆m like Coutinho, so he's clearly not regarded as being in the same league.

The market seems to have moved on to crazy levels this year, with City paying 𧴺m for 3 fullbacks.

Wait until next year!

Paul A Smith
52 Posted 29/07/2017 at 16:07:20
James, you're one of the first I have got off on the wrong foot with but found civil enough to discuss football with.

Nice one for that mate, I am pretty honest with most things in life and I admit a lot of Everton related discussion comes out of passion, frustration and sometimes a lack of patience.

I would say I don't tend to make comments without some foundation and I honestly don't mind being wrong if it's for the good of the team.

Hopefully most of this thread are right and Jonathon, a few others and myself are totally wrong about future transfers.

If Barkley turns out a failure wherever he goes I will come straight back to you and hold my hands up, mate. Like nobody did for me after they called McCarthy the new Roy Keane.

Anto Byrne
53 Posted 29/07/2017 at 00:15:01
The waking giant that is Everton the club, that has for the last 20 years been a financial wreck, is now getting its act together.

The new stadium on the dock is something that we can all look forward to. We are building the infrastructure; we are developing the academy with a strong base of very good promising players.

All financial management should be based on making a profit – even if you sell off some assets, so it's just business buying and selling players in the end. As supporters, we have seen the areas on the pitch where we want to see improvement.

We have a keeper who is it seems pretty useful. A central defender, good in the air and quick. We have an old war horse in Rooney who hardly played for Man Utd last season and he looks like he can do a job – imagine if he performs a bit like Zinedine who was playing until 36. How good would that be? Rooney does not have to play 60 games. If he does 30 to 40, that would be a sizable amount.

The team needs two more players and I think we all want a top class striker. If Vardy was available Id like to have a player like that. I'm not sure about the Icelandic guy; I only know Koeman wants him so. He is a play maker and is a free kick specialist so bring him on in.

Phil Walling
54 Posted 30/07/2017 at 09:59:21
What's the betting Ross will finish up at Spurs with Sissoko coming to Goodison as part of the deal?

At least Koeman and Walsh will have 'got their man' at last!

Daniel Lawrence
55 Posted 30/07/2017 at 10:25:11
I know it's probably been addressed on the countless comments about Barkley. But surely someone has to be accountable for the lack of foresight of allowing his contract to run out at the exact age (#24), when we will receive no compensation. We'd be in a far stronger negotiating position if it were a year earlier.
Alan J Thompson
56 Posted 30/07/2017 at 16:17:40
It doesn't seem that long ago that thanks were being given for being run by a "True Blue" and what financial difficulties all these other clubs would be in when their new billionaire owners lose interest. Despite that it was Everton who sold, owing to financial difficulties, probably the best English player to be produced in what, the last 15 years.

I am unaware of where Moshiri's money to buy an interest in Everton comes from; it may be as simple as investing his company's profits to reduce the present and or future tax bill. Whether he actually loses or gains on it will be seen at some point in the future.

Can anyone confirm if there is a ratio as to how much can be borrowed against the value of a company – twice the share value? If so then that may be what is determining total transfer spending.

We all have an opinion as to if the squad has been improved but I suppose the truth will be seen on either the final league position or success in Cup competitions.

David McMullen
57 Posted 30/07/2017 at 17:21:21
Just caught the article, not read the comments, but while I get the cynical view for one you can't blame the club for – for example Lukaku. He's engineered the move and we've got good money for our asset.

Yes, we have been a selling club: those in my supporting time are Lineker, Beardsley, Ferguson, and Rooney my dad used to talk about the likes of Lawton, Mercer and Ball being sold. But other clubs do it too – didn't they sell Suarez? And United sold Ronaldo? Arsenal sold Van Persie? Tottenham sold Bale?

Barkley – well I don't know the facts but certainly don't see the club are selling him to fund new signings – we would have rather kept him, he's the one that's said he wants a new challenge.

When you do the maths, we may not have actually spent millions in that way but the club are 'spending' and have 'made at statement' this summer of their intentions. That'll do for me. We have been a sleeping giant for too long. The pauper club of the Premier League era. Finally, no more.

Bill Watson
58 Posted 01/08/2017 at 04:21:51
Jonathan: you forgot to factor in the Arteta money!
Eric Myles
59 Posted 01/08/2017 at 05:45:46
Alan J #56, Moshiri's money came from the sale of his shares in Arsenal. I doubt he would be able to buy shares in his own name using his company's money.
Alan J Thompson
60 Posted 01/08/2017 at 14:33:26
Eric (#59); I am unaware in what name he holds or has held any shares. If his is an investment or private company then I doubt he has any problems albeit I have absolutely no idea about his businesses.
John Otway
61 Posted 01/08/2017 at 15:33:15
Google him, Alan, Google him
Nitesh Kanchan
62 Posted 01/08/2017 at 16:20:50
If the Keita rumour is true, then we will end up in top 4 or 3 with Sigurdsson and Keita. But I have a feeling it is the Dutch Lazio player Hoedt that Koeman is targeting.
Andrew Ellams
63 Posted 01/08/2017 at 16:46:55
Since Moshiri came to town, we've had two TV/PL payouts, a season and a bit of matchday revenue, the sale of the naming rights to Finch Farm and whatever merchandise has come through the door.

We don't need to sell out best players to balance the books. We've sold two high profile players who wanted to go and got rid of some deadwood and improved on every one of them so far with the exception of Lukaku.

David Barks
64 Posted 01/08/2017 at 17:29:47
So why is it that, despite the impression that we've revamped our entire scouting department with so many claims of Steve Walsh's greatness, that we seem to only be able to or be looking at players in England?

Last season: Gana, Schneiderlin, Williams, Valencia, Bolasie. This season: Pickford, Rooney, Keane, Martina. We've signed Klaassen and Sandro, with Sandro obviously being widely known as available for a ridiculously low transfer fee and Klaassen having the Dutch roots with Koeman.

Why are we not shopping in the European and Brazilian markets? The German league is full of very good talent. Brazil is full of top attacking talent. Just look across the park at their two Brazilians.

But we keep shopping in the very overpriced English market, now focusing all attention on Sigurdsson. There are so many playmakers in Spain, some fantastic young talent in France. But we're focusing on England based players only. Doesn't make sense to me.

Chris Williams
65 Posted 01/08/2017 at 17:35:50

I think he values Premier League experience. He saw Spurs and Liverpool buy plenty of players with their cash from big transfers but it didn't work out so well because a fair few of their buys had no Premier League experience.

That's possibly it, plus he has limited time to get results. It may also explain the significant investment for future seasons in younger players, a few of whom come from abroad.

John Otway
66 Posted 01/08/2017 at 17:40:38
Chris. 65. That's it absolutely. David Barks, go set up home with Phil Walling.
Jay Wood
67 Posted 01/08/2017 at 18:41:59
David Barks @ 64:

"Why are we not shopping in the European and Brazilian markets?"

We need a striker, ideally with all of the following: scores all manner of goals – left foot, right foot, headers. Technically adept. Good hold up and lay off play. Good pace. Good team player. Good pro.

Here's a riddle for whoever wants to play: Who am I?

"I have played international football for a Soccer Super Power at the World Cup and the Confederations Cup.

"I am currently the leading goal scorer for the unbeaten league leaders in the strongest league in the region, with 10 goals in 17 games.

"I have been timed to run as fast as Usain Bolt over the first 20-30 m.

"That is one reason my tally should be more as recently my pace deceived a linesman who ruled out a perfectly legitimate goal for offside as I was clearly a metre or more onside when the pass to me was made.

"I score goals with both feet and my head. I play the lone striker role with good movement across the width of the park, good technique and hold up play, with the ability to bring others into play.

"Recently, I was selected as the best in my position in the league and am considered a model pro.

"I am the same age as Olivier Giroud, but would cost considerably less than him in transfer fees and salary.

"I have a wide range of experience playing in many different leagues with top clubs around the globe, including the PL.

"Oh! And I have also played and scored for Everton."

"Who am I???"

Who is gonna be first to identify the player?

Tom Bowers
68 Posted 01/08/2017 at 18:44:58
Despite some small negative vibes (myself included) Everton appear to have spent wisely and have addressed the positions that concerned most fans last season. Goalkeeper, centre back and striker to begin with and a midfielder. They have spent £99 million, got Rooney and Martina for free and basically recouped that £99 million with the sale of Lukaku, Deulofeu and Cleverley.

What we need now is Koeman to get the system and tactics right so that they can become a winning side. It's easier said than done but a couple more signings may do the trick.

Koeman must have known Barkley was a certainty to go from way back so he wasted no time getting Klaassen and may still get Sigurdsson.

David Barks
69 Posted 01/08/2017 at 19:01:00
Well if he's taking lessons from Liverpool and Spurs then he's taking the wrong lesson. They absolutely do a solid mix. Look at Liverpool for example. Firmino, Coutinho, Suarez before that, Emre Can, Matip have been very influential players. Their England based players have been a mixed bag. Sturridge, Ings, Benteke, Allen and even Lallana until last season were disappointments. Milner, Mane, Henderson have been successful. But this summer they went overseas for Salah. They are a solid mix.

Then with Spurs, Eriksen, Dier, Son, Alderweireld, Lloris, Vertonghen all overseas acquisitions. They are mixed with the England based players like Alli, Dembele, Wanyama, Rose, Trippier. And of course Kane came up with them. Again, a solid mix.

Whereas we seem to be overwhelmingly shopping in England. Sandro and Klaassen are our overseas purchases. I'm happy with both of them. But after that, our scouting department doesn't seem to be straying too far from home.

Look at our projected lineup right now. We'd have Schneiderlin and Gana in the middle, with Williams and Keane at the back along with Pickford in goal, flanked by Baines and Coleman (when healthy) but Martina for now. Rooney, Klaassen and Sandro in attack, probably joined by Mirallas. If Sigurdsson does actually join, he'd probably take one of those spots, maybe over Mirallas. We're not exactly searching far and wide for the best talent. That to me should be a concern.

Ian Bennett
70 Posted 01/08/2017 at 19:24:48
Can I start a campaign to sack Derek McGovern, the guy is an absolute prick.
David Barks
71 Posted 01/08/2017 at 19:42:38

Wow, just had to lookup what you were referring to and, just wow. I'm ashamed that was published in the Echo. After all the crap dealt to the Sun, and very rightfully so, for the Echo to publish that is truly shocking. What a disgrace he is and an absolute disgrace that the Echo chose to publish it. His comments about Guinea and Ebola, joking about that, my God.


Craig McFarlane
72 Posted 01/08/2017 at 19:46:02
Jay Wood @67: Jo, is that you?
Jay Wood
73 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:04:57
Pour yourself a cachaca, Craig... Jo it is.

Not that I'm advocating his return. Rather, just highlighting that the Brazilian league is not awash with great untapped talent as David Barks perhaps believes. Anyone showing any ability is quickly hoovered up by European clubs at a very junior age.

All of their top players in the last 20-30 years have made their careers and fortunes in Europe, only returning to Brazil for a last 'hurrah' in their twilight years.

There are literally thousands of wannabe Brazilians plying their footballing trade in pretty much every nation on the globe. And, sadly for some, it's also a nasty insidious trade. Many a naive rural family is convinced by an agent to let him take their son to Europe to earn his fortune at footy, only to be sold to the sex trade or unpaid serfdom in a sweat shop.

Unless and until we set up SEVERAL Soccer Schools of Excellence around Brazil, as Barcelona has, we are not likely to tap into the promising yet still untested talent the country still produces.

A scouting network alone will not achieve that, IMO.

Jay Wood
74 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:13:12
And on a side note, just read the link in reference to Derek McGovern.

What kind of mind thinks and writes and publishes such a piece, and what kind of newspaper editorship allows it through?

Truly despicable, contemptible excrement.

Denis Richardson
75 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:20:09
I'm not really sure why anyone is complaining about how much we've spent (or not spent) this window.

The gross number shelled out this window IS over 𧴜m – how that was financed is less important imo. Would it make people feel better if we'd 'only' sold Lukaku for say 㿞m and had to stump up another 㿅m out of our own pockets to finance our transfers?

At the end of the day, the main thing is who we bring in and not how much they cost. The fact we've been able to bring in no less than 6 first teamers, whilst selling only one player who regularly started, surely is a massive plus. (Before anyone brings up Lukaku's goals, I would remind them the guy wanted to leave so the only real choice left was to get as much cash for him as possible).

We also have the not too small task of financing a brand new stadium and no bank on the planet is going to give us 100% debt to do that. Also, players wages have gone up so extra cash needed there to pay the ever increasing wage bill.

The real question is, taking a step back in time, if you'd been offered the current squad we have or the one we had 12, 24, 36 months ago, which one would you prefer? Have we improved or not?

In my view, Lukaku wanted to leave and it seems Ross does too, so the clubs only choice is to cash in, for what will end up being well over 𧴜m – I can only applaud the club here surely. Barca called in the option on Gerry, again the club had no choice (Koeman didn't fancy him anyway) and I can't recall too many tears when Cleverley was shipped out.

I think people are getting distracted by the numbers, focus on the playing squad and the fact we'll have a new stadium in a few years time. Things are looking much better today than they have done for many a year (last 20 odd years to be precise!)

David Barks
76 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:21:46

And what exactly made you believe I wasn't talking about being one of those clubs hoovering up the young talent? I think it would be fairly obvious that we wouldn't want to be signing a professional from Brazil who is in their mid to late 20's. They would have obviously made their way to Europe by then.

My point is, where is our Brazilian scouting network? Or Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, etc. Why are we not one of the clubs trying to get those young players? We're signing a lot of youth players, but mostly from England, same as the senior players. Suarez was signed at 19 into the Dutch league, so it isn't only warm weather climates in Spain that can get these players. Vidal's first European club was in Germany. There is no reason we shouldn't be doing the same thing.

Peter Roberts
77 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:22:38
Ian and David

Wow, that is ignorant and shameless at best. Not just him who should be called to account but the editors at the Echo as well.

Jay Wood, in answer to your riddle I will hazard a guess at Jo (save for the pace but, I don't remember him being that quick)

Jim Jennings
78 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:24:27
David Barks,

We've signed seven first team players so far. Three from abroad and four from England. Is that not a fair mix of both?

If Sandro was "obviously being widely known as available for a ridiculously low transfer fee" then it stands to reason that Walsh / Koeman etc did well to sign him above all the other would-be bargain hunters, no?

Have you also forgotten about the 48 clubs who tried to buy Henry Onyekuru or has that been airbrushed from recent history because it doesn't suit your narrative?

As for why we are not in for the new Suarez, Vidal etc there are more limitations on signing non EU young players in the UK compared with say Portugal, Belgium, Holland etc.

Dave Abrahams
80 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:33:02
Derek McGovern, he wrote for the Daily Mirror for years, he always thought he was funny but very seldom was. The Mirror eventually realised how pathetic he was and got rid.

He is always looking for attention with his articles, he doesn't seem to know that the only writing talent in his family belongs to his brother Jimmy who has written quite a lot of outstanding material for television.

David Barks
81 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:45:15

How do you count a player who is loaned or to a different league as someone in our first team?

John Pierce
82 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:46:43
David & Jay, re Brazil and scouting. I tend to agree with Jay here.

It's unlikely we would find the the gem in the Brazilian and South American market in general.

The supply parameters have changed hugely now and mature players in the bracket Koeman is seeking are very rare.

Most domestic leagues in South America are now a shadow of their previous depth. The setup is now in marketing young players before the hit 20. Uruguay are good exponents of this.

If we are fishing at all in that pond, its untried promising youngsters. Not a player 24-29 that's been overlooked.

Jay Wood
83 Posted 01/08/2017 at 20:48:04
Tetchy, David, tetchy.

To quote your own words @ 64:

"Why are we not shopping in the European and Brazilian markets? The German league is full of very good talent. Brazil is full of top attacking talent. Just look across the park at their two Brazilians. "

Compared to your post @ 76:

"I think it would be fairly obvious that we wouldn't want to be signing a professional from Brazil who is in their mid to late 20s. They would have obviously made their way to Europe by then."

The latter is most certainly not implicit in your earlier comment.

Your examples of 'the dark side' 'successfully' recruiting from Brazil and Latin America are also false. Coutinho was signed up by Inter Milan (by the FSW, no less) at 18, 7 years ago. He played for Inter and had loan spells at Espanyol before Liverpool took a punt on him from Inter, where he was not pulling up trees.

Firmino is similar. Signed up by Hoffenheim aged 19, he spent 5 years there before Liverpool splashed out 㿊m for him a couple of seasons ago. Good player, but hardly prolific.

Then there is Suarez, another of your quoted examples. Picked up by Groningen in Holland at 19 when they actually were looking at another player. After a single season there, he moved on to Ajax where he played 4 season before signing for Liverpool in the great shake up which saw Torres leave for Chelsea and Carrol and Suarez arrive within hours of each other. A much desired target by many a club, as subsequent transfer interest demonstrated.

All three, then, were 'known' in the European football scene, rather than Liverpool having a wider more sophisticated scouting network successfully working in Latin America than Everton.

I've written in depth before how FC Porto in Portugal is an excellentmodel of how to recruit successfully and profitably in Latin America. There is hidden gold in them thar hills.

Many clubs other than Everton currently have the jump on us in that market. Your complaint seems to be why hasn't Walsh and the club already set up better scouting networks in Latin America (and other untapped regions).

How about giving Walsh and the club time to do just that, rather than painting it as negatively and somehow negligent, as you seemingly do?

Jim Jennings
84 Posted 01/08/2017 at 21:01:45
David Barks,

Because he was signed for the first team and loaned out to meet the entry requirements to play in the UK that the latter part of my post alluded to.

I notice you elected to not respond to the point being made as to whether you apportion any credit to Koeman & Walsh with securing the signatures of young Henry and Sandro.

Pete Edwards
85 Posted 01/08/2017 at 21:04:47
Jonathan... what an absolute pile of rubbish! Sorry but we are not still a sell to buy club.

We spent close to £100m and sold a player who didn't want to be here and others who were surpluss to the managers requirements.

The fact the net spend isn't the £100m "warchest" is irelevant!

We do have some downbeat negative sods supporting us don't we!!

David Barks
86 Posted 01/08/2017 at 21:14:00

You badly misinterpreted what I wrote in the post

Jay Wood
87 Posted 01/08/2017 at 21:16:25

I rather think you badly explained yourself.

Jon Withey
88 Posted 01/08/2017 at 22:14:48
Oh bloomin 'eck – Dowell is out on loan.

Sigurdsson in then...

Jay Wood
89 Posted 01/08/2017 at 22:22:45
Good article on the Beeb about the nuances of scouting and recruiting raw and known talent.


Ernie Baywood
90 Posted 01/08/2017 at 22:23:50
I want to see the club buying players and improving the squad, and I believe they have. Making a loss isn't something I'm hoping for.
David Barks
91 Posted 01/08/2017 at 22:30:33

You selected a couple of lines from multiple posts to change what I was saying. That's not how it works. I made a post about Everton needing to expand our scouting, that we are far too unbalanced in signing players from England as opposed to around the world. In the original post I reference the two across the park as being Brazilian, not that they were signed from Brazil. It was simply a comment following my statement about all the talent in Germany, that we need to be looking outside of England much more than we are.

In a follow-up post, after someone said we are following Liverpool's and Spurs' example, I went through their better players to show that they are not just focusing on signing players from England. The players referenced were signed from multiple countries. I am fully aware of where those players were signed from, which is why I included them as not being signed from other English clubs, just as I referenced Can, Salah, Matip, Dier and on and on. It was a follow up post in response to another comment. But you wanted to copy one line and try to imply that I was trying to state that Liverpool signed those players from Brazil. Again, not what I said.

And then again in my post #76, I state where Suarez was signed to, along with Vidal. So I don't think I needed the history lesson from you afterward regarding Suarez since I had already said as much. But thanks anyway.

So back to my point, look at our lineup. Look at where we are signing players from, both youth and senior ranks. It is overwhelmingly from England, which comes with inflated prices. I'll repeat it, look at our current project starting 11 if we sign Sigurdsson. Pickford, Martina, Keane, Williams, Baines, Gana, Schneiderlin, Sigurdsson, Rooney, Klaassen and Sandro. Only two players signed from overseas. That's not doing a good job of identifying talent across the globe. Add in the reserves, we'd have Davies, Mirallas, Jagielka, Barry, Lookman, Calvert-Lewin, Stekelenburg. Again, overwhelmingly signed in England, not looking for international talent.

That is my point. Not that we have zero players signed from overseas clubs. Not what I said or implied. But we are paying very high prices for players from English clubs at, in my opinion, a very uneven rate. Spurs have done this. Liverpool have done this. I reference them only because they were brought up in response to my original post. We got Klaassen for £25 million, who was the captain at Ajax, scoring goals and leading his club to a European final. What do you think he would cost coming from an English club, considering we paid more for Bolasie? That's my point.

Andy Crooks
92 Posted 01/08/2017 at 23:00:52
Jay, I looked at the riddle you set, very interesting answer by the way, and my first response was (I've had a beer or two)... Geoff Hurst.
Jay Wood
93 Posted 01/08/2017 at 23:23:52
David @ 91:

"You selected a couple of lines from multiple posts to change what I was saying."

Not at all David. @ 67 I used one line from one post of yours, not to address you directly, but rather, to draw attention (in a playful riddle) to a potential transfer target in a position we IMO desperately need.

When Craig correctly identified Jo as the riddle player, I again made fleeting reference to you and the line I quoted by posting:

"NOT that I'm advocating (Jo's) return. Rather, just highlighting that the Brazilian league is not awash with great untapped talent as David Barks perhaps believes. Any one showing any ability is quickly hoovered up by European clubs at a very junior age."

@ 76 you actually agreed with my last sentence quoted above, something you most certainly did not make explicit in the post I originally quoted you from.

As for your (now repeated) claim about Everton needing to "expand our scouting, that we are far too unbalanced in signing players from England as opposed to around the world", two things.

First, as others have also pointed out, we have recruited players outside of England. At not just 1st team oven-ready, but also for the academy. Surely, that is one of the things you are demanding? Finding those raw diamonds BEFORE they are household names?

The FULL incoming list from outside the UK is:

Davy Klaassen (Dutch) from Ajax (24)
Nathangelo Markelo (Dutch) from Groningen (18)
Henry Onyekuru (Nigerian) from Eupen (20)
Sandro Ramirez (Spanish) from Malaga (21)
Boris Mathis (French) from Metz (19)
Anton Donkor (Germany) from Wolfsburg (19)

Incoming from the UK are:

Jordan Pickford (English) from Sunderland (23)
Josh Bowler (English) from QPR (18)
Wayne Rooney (English) from Man Utd (31)
Cuco Martina (Curacao) from free/Southampton (28)

That makes SIX 'rest of the world' incomings to four from the UK, so you are factually wrong in your claim.

Secondly, as I made very clear in my own posts, we are playing catch up in some of the markets you want us to be more active in. You clearly take a swipe at Walsh and the club for not already having in place a more efficient scouting system than we have.

I merely said give the club and Walsh time to build up that aspect in the setup, which I don't doubt is part of Moshiri's long term plan for the club, given all the other initiatives he has implemented. After all, Everton already has a global reputation with the 'Everton Way' and how we prepare our young 'uns. A more effective and efficient scouting system by establishing soccer academies in soccer hotbeds around the world would fit naturally into our existing youth system AND with EitC and our involvement in local community projects. Win-win all round.

As for your apparent indignation that I shone the spotlight on you referencing successful Latin Americans recruited by Liverpool, why then did you reference them at all if, as you say, you are fully aware of their history and where they were truly recruited from? It's a broken reed to beat the club with and simply a false claim (or association, if you prefer) that you attempted.

So your (again repeated) claim in your latest post that our recruitment "is overwhelmingly from England" is – as I have clearly demonstrated – false.

As is your secondary claim that "we are paying very high prices for players from English clubs." Only Pickford of the four UK-based recruits to date have cost a 'high price.' Both Rooney and Martina were frees. Bowler a couple of million, which is nothing in this market.

Not for the first time this summer, I will repeat the line:

Let's wait until 1 September when the window shuts to be able to make a genuine evaluation of the summer's comings and goings.

Tom Bowers
94 Posted 01/08/2017 at 23:32:34
Everton have had players from around the globe; some were good, some were not. Just paying a fortune for someone does not guarantee he will perform well or fit in. Many other clubs have had the same problems over the years...

Having endless finances from billionaires or billionaire companies helps produce a better squad in depth than most of those clubs not so fortunate.

All the best scouting in the world does not mean you can get the players you want. The whales will always get more than the minnows and grow bigger. That is why the same clubs have been dominating the division for many years, Leicester being an exception.

David Barks
95 Posted 01/08/2017 at 23:52:06

For your list, you left off Keane and Gibson. Also, I am counting last season as well, since this isn't Walsh's nor Koeman's first season. So add Schneiderlin, Stekelenburg, Gana, Williams, Lookman, Calvert-Lewin to that list. I'll ask you again, look at our project starting 11. Then look at the expected bench. Do the maths for players from English clubs vs players from clubs outside of England. First team players, overwhelmingly from English clubs, at a very high price.

There is no reason for you to try to tell me what I was saying. I am telling you what I was saying. I did not say that Liverpool signed them from Brazil. I made a point that they, along with Can and others were signed from clubs outside of England. Just as I did with the Spurs players I mentioned.

Do you see any Brazilian players in our youth set up? Any Argentinians? Any Chileans? How about Uruguay? Columbian? Do you think we could maybe do a bit more work in setting up some networks down there so that we could start to identify that talent, even if we don't sign them as teenagers, but will have a larger portfolio of those players and follow them in the Dutch or German or Italian or Spanish club that might sign them and continue their development?

This shouldn't be a pissing match as you are trying to make it. Again, look at our damn team, they are almost all from English clubs. If we sign Sigurdsson, we could expect our starting 11 to include 9 players signed from English clubs. I am not saying I want a team full of players signed from other markets. Meanwhile, our neighbours signed Salah for £37 Million and we're looking at paying £50 million for Sigurdsson. That inflation is 100% down to one being from Italy and the other from the Premier League.

Jay Wood
96 Posted 02/08/2017 at 00:53:18
David, fair dos on the Keane and Gibson signings. An oversight by me. Here is the link I took my data from - the club site's very own transfer info pages!


Scroll through the pages. Bizarrely, neither Keane nor Gibson are listed. Still only makes it a 6-6 draw on Rest of the World vs UK, so your claim that transfers are "overwhelmingly from England" remains, at this time, FALSE.

To try and prop up your argument, you wish to list players signed last summer and in January. How, exactly, could Walsh or Koeman have implemented an effective WORLDWIDE scouting and recruitment policy you are apparently demanding in that time span with everything else going on at a new club for the pair of them?

You are just not being consistent in your (several) positions. You seem to take exception to, what you perceive as:

* a poor or non-existent worldwide scouting and recruiting structure, with Walsh to blame for not having already implemented one (a tad unfair on both counts, IMO)

* a strictly UK-centred transfer policy (it clearly isn't)

* paying inflated prices for UK-based players (again, our purchases have not been wildly extravagant at all in the current market. Some have been free and others represent potential bargains. You are seemingly basing this particular claim on a player who has not yet been confirmed: Sigurdson)

* an apparent resentment that we have signed overseas ONLY once they are proven in the PL and the UK, rather than as untried unknowns when still youths in their home countries (your position on this one is very smudged)

As for claiming I am trying to make this 'a pissing match' .sigh... No David. I am simply engaging in debate with you, offering a counter view to your own position. It is allowed. You opinion is neither sacrosanct nor definitive.

You are also very clearly ignoring where YOU agree with ME and I agree with YOU!

* I have said 'there is gold in them thar hills' in Latin America.

* I have acknowledged we are playing catch up to other clubs who are more established in certain regions around the world.

* I quoted FC Porto as an excellent model to follow.

* I expressed the belief - the hope - that Moshiri and the club WILL, in the long term, implement overseas academies in soccer hotbeds around the world to discover the rough diamonds, which will dovetail nicely into our proven academy and EITC work

Keep huffing and puffing with indignation as much as you like David, but you are not offering a coherent counter IMO, whilst ignoring the clear common ground that does exist between us.

Happy pissing!

David Barks
97 Posted 02/08/2017 at 01:44:02

Please quote where I said we have "* A strictly UK-centred transfer policy (it clearly isn't)".
I didn't say that. I said we rely far too heavily on UK-based players and when you look at who will be playing in our team, both first 11 and on the bench, that is a fact. Signings into the first team are, in fact, overwhelmingly from England.

"* An apparent resentment that we have signed overseas ONLY once they are proven in the Premier League and the UK, rather than as untried unknowns when still youths in their home countries (your position on this one is very smudged)".

I don't know man. I don't know how else to explain myself here. In the past two years we've signed Klaassen and now Sandro into the first team from outside of England. I'm ecstatic about those signings and believe we aren't exploiting that market enough for players to add to the first team. I believe we are far too limited in our scouting network in South and Central America for our youth teams. How is that smudged?

* Paying inflated prices for UK-based players (again, our purchases have not been wildly extravagant at all in the current market. Some have been free and others represent potential bargains. You are seemingly basing this particular claim on a player who has not yet been confirmed: Sigurdson)

We paid a record fee for a keeper, who was just relegated. I'm happy we signed him,. We paid almost as much for Bolasie as the RS paid for Salah. And we have bid £45 million for Sigurdsson, but need to go to 50 to get him. Those are inflated prices. I'm not saying not to buy any of those players. I'm happy we signed Pickford and hope he does well. I'm happy we signed Keane. But it is a well known fact that players in England are far overpriced. Hence my point of more balance since your money goes further on the continent and other continents.

Onyekuru is a perfect example of this. Apparently very sought after yet cost less than £7 million. I don't count him as a first team signing because he's not even with the club. We paid more for Lookman, only because he's English. And yes, I'm happy we signed Lookman too.

Jim Jennings
99 Posted 02/08/2017 at 08:54:54
David Barks

"Do you see any Brazilian players in our youth set up? Any Argentinians? Any Chileans? How about Uruguay? Columbian? Do you think we could maybe do a bit more work in setting up some networks down there so that we could start to identify that talent, even if we don't sign them as teenagers, but will have a larger portfolio of those players and follow them in the Dutch or German or Italian or Spanish club that might sign them and continue their development?"

The reason you don't generally see lads from those countries in ours (or other English clubs) youth set-ups was answered for you already in the last paragraph of post #78.

As for the second part, can you enlighten us as to how much we ARE doing in that respect to make you believe we should be doing more in tracking this talent pool from South America to mainland Europe? Just what makes you believe this "portfolio" is not sufficient at present?

James Hughes
100 Posted 02/08/2017 at 09:35:55
Neymar definitely joining PSG for 𧵾 million is the breaking news.

Quick, Farhad, get your wallet out and put in a higher bid!

Alan J Thompson
101 Posted 02/08/2017 at 14:32:14
Did we not get Jo on loan from Man City? Rodriguez was signed from Uruguay but has not been seen... and Funes Mori? Not a lot admittedly but Everton don't seem to have had much luck with South Americans. Alcaraz, the Venezuelan who came with Fellaini, and the one Moyes had on trial who did his knee in.
Tony Marsh
102 Posted 02/08/2017 at 14:57:13
As far as I can see, it's the same old shit at Everton despite our new billionaire owner. You are right about the Lukaku deal financing the summer spending but other things concern me also. Why did we sell Lukaku so quickly to Man Utd at what now appears to be a knock-down price? Man Utd wanted Rooney gone so we can't use that as a reason for the quick deal. Once again Man Utd have our kecks off. The Sigurdsson deal is now turning oh so Everton. Why not just pay what Swansea want and move on. We are billionaires, aren't we?

The pre-season friendly fixtures are laughable when you look at were and who Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool etc are playing and the crowds they are playing in front of. The game we had against Twente looked as if it was on a school field with jumpers for goalposts. We could use the Europa League as an excuse but it's the same every year – we play crap teams in rubbish locations. We do nothing for the image image of the club.

The Bramley-Moore stadium issue is also of great concern. While we have fans waffling on about the size and colour of the proposed arena not a shovel has hit the ground yet. If as we are told we now own the site why not start filling in the dock and laying the foundations for the ground to sit on once we have the final plans in place? Why wait and sit around? If it really is a done deal were is the progress? I smell another Kings Dock fiasco in the making. None of it makes any sense. Start fucking digging and crack on until the planning permission arrives or shut up about it. You just know some Polite on the council will try to scupper this plan.

The football we are playing is shocking. As bad as last season's away form. That display last Thursday was an embarrassment. I think we will struggle tomorrow – it's all too disjointed. No focal point without Romelu. We should never of sold Lukaku in till we had a replacement sorted.

Then again it's Man Utd that call the shots around here isn't it?... Please will someone tell that yes man Elstone to shut up as well. He is clueless and should've been sacked when Moyes left...

Jay Harris
103 Posted 02/08/2017 at 15:08:35
Not forgetting the unforgettable Stracq, Alan.
Alan J Thompson
104 Posted 02/08/2017 at 15:11:18
How the mind plays tricks, Jay, but it was asked if any were in the youth system and I could only think of the Uruguayan who I think is still on the books. I think Terry Darracott has more in his autograph book.

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