chinapig

Down to the change of manager I assume as they have now signed Aaronson from Salzburg.

He may have used an adjective like key, important and so on but what stands out is that he refers to "my recruitment team" as he did when he was with us. Not "our" not " Paul's " recruitment team. Which rang alarm bells when he was here and to do the same with Ipswich fans but they seem to be lapping it up.

He described Paul Cook as part of his recruitment team. That tells you all you need to know about where the power lies when it comes to recruitment.

People do often declare what they think a player is worth but as you suggest it is really a case of what the market will bear, which tends to be rather lower. Especially if prices are depressed post pandemic, which may well be the case.

Great, thanks Tom.

That's the most sensible thing he has ever said.? What is the problem with embedding links since the latest forum upgrade? Seems hit and miss. @TomF?

How can they expect to Excel otherwise??

They certainly are. Though the meaning of value for money seems to have escaped them when Ashton was running the show.?

It does suggest the club doesn't take the role very seriously, which I find depressing. Alternatively, Championship clubs in general may be under valuing the job perhaps.

Don't forget that Dave would be amortised though. ?

Wow! Hope all goes well.

I think UEFA's reference to transfers would include signing on fees. I trust wages will include image rights too given that one of the clinchers for Mbappe was that PSG allowed him to keep 100%.

The irony here is that what I quoted above is essentially a salary cap. Steve has always been in favour of that yet he allowed Ashton to keep increasing the wage bill to the extent that @Fuberpoints out. Now he is going to be forced to do what he claimed he was in favour of. Better late than never.

https://www.uefa.com/returntoplay/news/0274-14da0ce4535d-fa5b130ae9b6-1000--explainer-uefa-s-new-financial-sustainability-regulations/ Assuming the new UEFA rules are adopted by the EFL the following (among other things) will define sustainability: The cost control rule restricts spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of club revenues. (The gradual implementation will see the percentage at 90% in 2023/2024, 80% in 2024/2025, and 70% in 2025/2026). This requirement provides a direct measure between squad costs and income to encourage more performance-related costs and to limit the market inflation of wages and transfer costs of players. Which is going to be a challenge for us, and most clubs in fact.

@ExiledAjaxhas covered this better than I could. I would just add that there is some kind of precedent in that Man City took the PL to court to try to stop their investigation (now in its third year!). The court found against City but it shows that the courts will at least consider such claims. I've seen a claim that Everton's Covid losses were higher because they did not claim furlough payments but since players weren't furloughed that doesn't seem to be sufficient to explain the huge difference compared to other clubs.

As I have pointed out if you are going to claim hypothetical losses of transfer income you should logically add back hypothetical transfer spend on the same basis. Something lost on the highly paid brains at the PL it seems.

Inadequate response from Masters as expected. The simple question is to ask why would Everton's losses be so much greater than clubs with higher revenue? There must surely be a correlation between the two even if it's not 1:1. If their losses truly are, say, over 3 times greater than Arsenal's it should be easy to explain why without giving away any great secrets. As to "we have found no evidence" that rather depends on how hard you look. Not very is my guess.

Hinchcliffe isn't alone when it comes to criticising keepers from a position of ignorance. Souness is constantly saying the keeper should have done better when a goal is scored. If I want to learn about goalkeeping I listen to Ben Foster, Rob Green or David Preece not some aging outfield player with no expertise.

I see Leeds and Burnley are now guarding against Everton deleting the evidence. I doubt the PL will act decisively because it could open a can of worms drawing other clubs into the net but it would be nice to see them taking the integrity of the game seriously for once. Who needs a regulator eh?? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61529371

Works for Everton it seems.?

Commentators, pundits and journalists have a list of teams they like to say deserve to be in the Premier League. Sporting merit doesn't come into it for them. Just as one day there will be a European Super League I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the PL becomes a closed shop of teams elected as members on the basis of their perceived size. Which is shorthand for how much money they can generate.

A personal rather than commercial purchase would explain the alleged generous rental terms certainly.

You would know better than me but why would they rent on generous terms? A commercial deal would presumably mean making a profit within a reasonable period. Or are the owners life long Derby fans? You know, like Mel Morris.?

It seems to be an actual denial rather a non-denial denial, which is usually along the lines of "this is just speculation..." . Of course they could just be lying.

Curious isn't it that clubs choose to deduct notional transfer income lost but don't choose to add back notional transfer spend? Reason enough to, as you say, disregard the former. Here's to Lampard being given £100m to spend this summer and the PL response being "meh".