Everton

[TBM]

... and?

With a fraction of the money other teams spend, Everton should be applauded for giving it a shot.

Incidentally, where I thought Moyes tended to struggle was in signing strikers that were good for more than 6 months. I imagine this is to do with tactics and budget. If Martinez can cut that Gordian knot, and some of the bigger clubs continue to struggle then I don't see why not.

Nobody said they shouldnt be applauded. In fact I said I was enjoying watching them play so well. My point was simply its nigh on impossible for them to keep it up so lets not all hop on the "Everton are the next great English football team" bandwagon

I don't think anyone is, are they?!

Its just nice to see a team doing well that isn't there by having a oil rich owner pumping millions in year after year

[YateleyRoyal]

Still waiting for Sanguine to come back on this one.

[Sanguine]

My idea is the best.

Lukaku is scoring goals for fun at Anderlecht, but because Chelsea and City don't intend to play him, they don't bid for him, and he wouldn't join anyway, since he won't get a game. This brings his transfer value down, and the likes of Everton pick him up for £10m (instead of £17m) and he fires the goals that take Everton into 4th spot and a CL place.

Share the best players and you share the wealth of the game.

But how can you tell if it is their intention to play him or not? Things change - if he impresses in training, if he fits in with your system better than an existing player, if someone else gets an injury etc - then he could play.

Also, who do you have to prove it to whether or not your intention is to play someone.

Also, what happens if you say you intend to play a player, buy them, and then dont play them - do you get a fine? Have to sell them?

Eh?

Almost none of the above. My suggestion is that the club can buy a player, then do what they like with him, just not loan him to another top flight European club. But with that rule in place, the likes of (say) Lukaku, are more likely to consider moves to teams where they are most likely to get a game, and clubs are less likely to spunk bajillions in transfer fees on wages on players they don't intend to use.

[stealthpapes]

... and?

With a fraction of the money other teams spend, Everton should be applauded for giving it a shot.

Incidentally, where I thought Moyes tended to struggle was in signing strikers that were good for more than 6 months. I imagine this is to do with tactics and budget. If Martinez can cut that Gordian knot, and some of the bigger clubs continue to struggle then I don't see why not.

Nobody said they shouldnt be applauded. In fact I said I was enjoying watching them play so well. My point was simply its nigh on impossible for them to keep it up so lets not all hop on the "Everton are the next great English football team" bandwagon

ALL ABOARD THE BANDWAGON CHOO CHOO

as far as I'm concerned.

[YateleyRoyal]

My idea is the best.

Lukaku is scoring goals for fun at Anderlecht, but because Chelsea and City don't intend to play him, they don't bid for him, and he wouldn't join anyway, since he won't get a game. This brings his transfer value down, and the likes of Everton pick him up for £10m (instead of £17m) and he fires the goals that take Everton into 4th spot and a CL place.

Share the best players and you share the wealth of the game.

But how can you tell if it is their intention to play him or not? Things change - if he impresses in training, if he fits in with your system better than an existing player, if someone else gets an injury etc - then he could play.

Also, who do you have to prove it to whether or not your intention is to play someone.

Also, what happens if you say you intend to play a player, buy them, and then dont play them - do you get a fine? Have to sell them?

Eh?

Almost none of the above. My suggestion is that the club can buy a player, then do what they like with him, just not loan him to another top flight European club. But with that rule in place, the likes of (say) Lukaku, are more likely to consider moves to teams where they are most likely to get a game, and clubs are less likely to spunk bajillions in transfer fees on wages on players they don't intend to use.

But my point still stands. Clubs quite often dont know whether a player will play for them until he signs. Sure, there's plenty of work done beforehand but it all comes down to how they train/how they fit in with the system/injuries etc.

[Sanguine]

That's the risk they take. But they shouldn't be able to loan him out to another top flight team. If he doesn't fit, move him on. Stops big clubs hoarding the top talent.

[NewCorkSeth]

... and?

With a fraction of the money other teams spend, Everton should be applauded for giving it a shot.

Incidentally, where I thought Moyes tended to struggle was in signing strikers that were good for more than 6 months. I imagine this is to do with tactics and budget. If Martinez can cut that Gordian knot, and some of the bigger clubs continue to struggle then I don't see why not.

Nobody said they shouldnt be applauded. In fact I said I was enjoying watching them play so well. My point was simply its nigh on impossible for them to keep it up so lets not all hop on the "Everton are the next great English football team" bandwagon

I don't think anyone is, are they?!

Its just nice to see a team doing well that isn't there by having a oil rich owner pumping millions in year after year

I'm 2 good results off becoming an Everton fan

[King of Sting]

... and?

With a fraction of the money other teams spend, Everton should be applauded for giving it a shot.

Incidentally, where I thought Moyes tended to struggle was in signing strikers that were good for more than 6 months. I imagine this is to do with tactics and budget. If Martinez can cut that Gordian knot, and some of the bigger clubs continue to struggle then I don't see why not.

Nobody said they shouldnt be applauded. In fact I said I was enjoying watching them play so well. My point was simply its nigh on impossible for them to keep it up so lets not all hop on the "Everton are the next great English football team" bandwagon

I don't think anyone is, are they?!

Its just nice to see a team doing well that isn't there by having a oil rich owner pumping millions in year after year

They are not the only Merseyside team doing well who are not financed by sugar daddy owners.

[YateleyRoyal]

LOLWUT.

[King of Sting]

I speak the truth. While Chelsea and Man City are financed by super rich Ruskies and Arabs, the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal are self sufficient.

[NewCorkSeth]

I speak the truth. While Chelsea and Man City are financed by super rich Ruskies and Arabs, the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal are self sufficient.

Dont Liverpool have the highest sponsorship deal? Read that somewhere recently I think. Or I could have just made it up! Please confirm

[YateleyRoyal]

And what about the fact the club were screwed when sugar daddies hicks and gillet were there, so it got sold to another sugar daddy john Henry?

[No Fixed Abode]

I speak the truth. While Chelsea and Man City are financed by super rich Ruskies and Arabs, the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal are self sufficient.

I'm pretty sure Liverpool aren't self sufficient. They're dwindling down the richest clubs in the World list due to their 25 years of demise.

The top English clubs in the Forbes index are as follows. Liverpool barely making the top 10 now.

Man Utd $3.16bn
Arsenal $1.33bn
Chelsea $901m
Man City $689m
Liverpool $651m

[YateleyRoyal]

I speak the truth. While Chelsea and Man City are financed by super rich Ruskies and Arabs, the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal are self sufficient.

I'm pretty sure Liverpool aren't self sufficient. They're dwindling down the richest clubs in the World list due to their 25 years of demise.

The top English clubs in the Forbes index are as follows. Liverpool barely making the top 10 now.

Man Utd $3.16bn
Arsenal $1.33bn
Chelsea $901m
Man City $689m
Liverpool $651m

How are the two facts even rel8ed? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of clubs round the world that aren't in the richest list that are self-sufficient, so I dont get the connection.

[No Fixed Abode]

You're quite correct. However, taking all the financial implications into account (wages, tv revenue, shirt sales, ticket sales, prize money), there is no way Liverpool can be self sufficient at present especially with a lack of Champions League Football.

[Sanguine]

Arsenal, Newcastle, Norwich, Swansea and WBA are the only PL clubs who registered a profit last season.

[YateleyRoyal]

You're quite correct. However, taking all the financial implications into account (wages, tv revenue, shirt sales, ticket sales, prize money), there is no way Liverpool can be self sufficient at present especially with a lack of Champions League Football.

Gotcha.

[YateleyRoyal]

Arsenal, Newcastle, Norwich, Swansea and WBA are the only PL clubs who registered a profit last season.

Interesting the Geordies are there, as many would consider them to have a 'sugar daddy' chairman.

[King of Sting]

I speak the truth. While Chelsea and Man City are financed by super rich Ruskies and Arabs, the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal are self sufficient.

Dont Liverpool have the highest sponsorship deal? Read that somewhere recently I think. Or I could have just made it up! Please confirm

Exactly. They generate their cash by sponsorship, gate receipts etcetera. Not by billionaire Arabs or Ruskies using their personal wealth.

[From Despair To Where?]

Quite why this is all on the Everton thread, I've no idea but:


http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jan/19/liverpool-kit-deal-warrior-sports1

Liverpool say they expect to earn a staggering £300m through their new six-year deal with the US sportswear company Warrior Sports, and have denied accusations that underachievement on the pitch led to the collapse of their current kit deal with Adidas.

Warrior, owned by New Balance, will become the club's kit supplier from June having agreed a £25m-a-year deal to enter the football industry for the first time. The £25m per year is a guaranteed figure for Liverpool, not performance-related, and eclipses the £23.5m-a-year deal that Manchester United have with Nike but are currently renegotiating.

With Warrior, Liverpool will control all non-branded merchandising – products outside the usual kit range – and are free to open club stores wherever they choose. That is not the case under Adidas, who control Liverpool's kit supply and the sale of non-branded merchandise, and the club believe they can double the £25m a year from Warrior when the current restrictions are lifted this summer.

Adidas were gutted to lose the Liverpool deal because their kit is reportedly the 4th biggest selling in the world. Warrior also offered double what Adidas had on the table even before you consider the better terms of the Warrior contract.