I would hazard a guess that Everton fans would wish they were lower down that table. A total farce yesterday and they appear to have been architects of their own disaster.
The word Princess springs to mind.
Everton might have dodged a bullet there.
I know there are people on this forum who like to overthink things, but the sporting director of Monaco doesn’t have a problem with the way Everton acted.
But what does he know. 
I’m not sure where over thinking comes into this or who these over thinkers are. All we know is what’s reported and that Everton missed out on a player they apparently hoped to sign & Monaco were happy to sell.
It was claimed Everton manufacturer a medical issue.
Given the situation, why would Everton put the move at risk.
The player seems to think they did. Anything that weakens any of our opponents for 17th place suits me 
Manchester City have brought in half a billion pounds worth of players in the past 10 weeks do people think they have improved their squad enough to now become favourites to win the league.
Depends on the ability of their manager. Is he good enough? If yes, yes. If no, then he’ll be gone.
The spend figure on its own is highly misleading. Earlier you said that it was necessary to complicate measures by adding in wages etc. Now you are going in the opposite direction by ignoring readily available figures such as sales.
My figures show Man City invested £458m and received £304m. It should also be noted that this excludes the loan+obligation of £60m for Marmoush to Spurs. Whilst excluding Marmoush in the headline figures is correct per accounting rules, if you are questioning City’s strategy, Marmoush should be allowed for. Hence the overall spending is not excessive vs other clubs.
City’s strategy is one of a squad revamp. Ageing quality players on short/nil contracts (Rodri, Silva) being replaced by younger quality (I hope). This is asset creation. Others left the club, maybe maximising their time under Pep. Maresca bringing in players to suit his style.
All seems reasonable to me.
1 Like
I’m trying to simplify things you and others prefer the net spend method so was the agreed fee/valuation between you and the selling clubs for the players you bought in before you deducted your sales almost half a billion yes or no?
When you agreed to pay Nottingham Forest £116 million for Elliot Anderson was that agreed price before you deducted sales yes or no?
“Net spend” is simply assets bought for Y minus assets sold for X.
It’s nothing to do with operating costs, i.e. salaries/bonuses.
It’s also nothing to do with profit or loss on sale of an asset.
I think a good compromise measure is showing purchases and sales separately, from a consistent source. Net sales, being the difference tells part of the story, namely the extent of overall investment.
The £116m figure for Anderson is part of the £458m total purchases. Other players e.g. £61m received for Rodri are in the £304m total sales.
So Anderson is not worth £116m?
Mmm , maybe there is room for another thread - on football accountancy ?
1 Like
Well, the deal makers and accountants would say yes. The purchase and sales figures are just a record of the agreed fees.
Whether Anderson really turns out to be worth it remains to be seen and would be something to debate in future. Now would just be guesswork.
The recent news on former referee Mike Dean’s self amusement during games is just astonishing !
1 Like
Only time will tell if Anderson was worth it.
I’m not sure that it is but bear in mind that he’s a book to sell.
I find it staggering that one football club can sell and loan out a total of 39 players in one transfer window.
Well they did have a lot to sort out. This is a picture of the players meeting new manager Alonso for the first time…
10 Likes
Newcastle keep up their unbeaten run with a late equaliser from Jacob Ramsey.
1 Like