Everton Banter Archive September 04 2017

04 Sep 2017 22:27:48
Talk of Niasse going out on loan, what is your thoughts on this Eds, baring in mind we have given the guy the number 34 Jersey, personally I would keep hold until January, Ronnie must be changing his views with the squad number, unless we only have the maximum number of players we can register And that was the reason he made the numbers up.

{Ed025's Note - a loan would be good baz, we have to get shut of him mate because hes a lemon, thats not his fault though so i wish the guy all the best..

04 Sep 2017 18:15:18
Every one moaning that we didn't buy a world class striker to replace the one we lost what most people for get is there is not many world class strikers out there and the ones that are out there either already play for a world class team or going to a world class team so any money spent on a striker is a punt unless they are already proven in the premier league rk got it right by not throwing money away on a striker and choosing to wait till the right one becomes available have faith we are going forward not backwards coyb!

05 Sep 2017 07:55:29
Not a bad call, but If we knew rock solid that Lukaku was going (and he did leave giving us plenty of time) , then maybe we should/ could have concentrated earlier on a striker instead of spending weeks and months on Siguurdson. What we have now is a dirth of midfielders, an interesting one admittedly but along with that we do not have a solid front man. Along with that I agree we are only a few games in and Koeman needs to find his best side, I suspect that side will include Bolasie and Coeman when both are fit.

05 Sep 2017 11:17:06
I thought both Sandro and Rooney are strikers. I think some of you guys are getting a bit hung up on the Striker thing. We have played 3 fixtures and Rooney has 2 goals. what's to say he can't keep that rate going 2 in 3 will net him 24 goals this season.

05 Sep 2017 12:46:02
Bigduncsmum i totally agree a striker should have been first on the list before midfielders and sa90 Rooney cannot play as a striker he drops deep to often and does not apply enough pressure on the opposition defence and sandro is not a striker he might have played up front for Malaga for a season but that's about it he's a winger and never once played up top Barcelona i think we would get the best out of him out wide think we mist a trick in not trying to get jese Rodriguez from psg.

04 Sep 2017 17:01:03
Target man is the missing part of the jigsaw, know it's scrapping the baral, but is there anyone unattached, who might, in the short term, fit the bill.

04 Sep 2017 21:15:16
Rossi is a free agent and might be worth a punt but I'm happy with who we have.

05 Sep 2017 06:46:03
He'd need to strap some of those blades on his feet that Oscar pistorus has to be a target man he's only 5ft 8.

05 Sep 2017 10:06:17
Rossi isn't bad but would crumble in the prem.

04 Sep 2017 14:03:14
Maybe one of the Eds could clarify something?
It's not directly related to Everton, but might have some future bearing on the club as it builds up its sponsorship, commercial, and match day (new stadium) income - or (possibly? ) tries to attract other wealthy shareholders like Mr Moshiri - and looks to spend bigger fees and wages on recruiting and retaining better players and invests in the club's infrastructure (stadium, training ground, academy, community, etc. )
I've read reports that Real Madrid and Barcelona have complained to the football authorities about the FFP compliance of Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester City following their massive transfer expenditure.
It's reported that while the regulators quite rightly actively monitor all clubs' income versus expenditure, they are taking a particular interest in these clubs' latest dealings.
My question is this: have the likes of Real Madrid benefitted from favourable financial "arrangements" with their local and national governments, etc., in the past and, if so, isn't it hypocritical of them to now complain when other clubs use their "relationships" (e. g. with oil-rich owners, etc. ) to their financial advantage - especially as PSG, etc., claim to be acting within the letter of the law (as per current rules and regulations) if not (many observers would say) the spirit?
I don't claim to know what the real reason is, but it seems like the old elite clubs don't like having these newly-monied upstarts challenging for the riches and rewards at football's top table.

{Ed002's Note - (a) Real Madrid and Barcelona have no way to submit complaints to UEFA so I suspect whatever you have been reading is incorrect. (b) UEFA has met with PSG twice to understand their intended means of compliance. (c) Neither side needs to demonstrate they are compliant until the relevant accounts are submitted next year. (d) Numerous clubs are monitored each year due to prior infractions. (d) Hypocricy is of no relevance, it is a fact based determination against regulations. (e) I don't know what ytou mean about "the spirit", as I have said, it is an evidenced determination of compliance. (f) Real Madrid and Barcelona remain very much "elite" clubs with income well beyond the likes of Manchester City and PSG so I don't really get that point. They remain two of the "elite" clubs that meet a couple of times each year to discuss major issues, proposed rulemaking changes, FFP, the eventual Pan-European Breakaway, the new Far Eastern Expansion and money matters related to other parties looking to exploit European football across the world. The clubs met in Monaco less than two weeks ago and bother Real Madrid and Barcelona were present with this "elite" band and were as vocal as ever.}

04 Sep 2017 14:42:42
Bobby the complaint to UEFA is by La Liga not an independent club.

04 Sep 2017 15:05:12
bluegray87: that may well be the case, but Real Madrid and Barcelona, while not exactly pulling the strings, will surely have been bending the ear of La Liga.

04 Sep 2017 14:55:16
Ed002 - thanks as always for the in-depth response.
I'm probably mis-remembering, but I thought that a few years ago there were murmurings about the favourable financial treatment that Real Madrid enjoyed from their national and local governments. That's what I meant by hypocrisy, BUT I accept that FFP is now a factual, evidence based system.
I also do accept that the "elire" clubs want to protect their position - quite understandably of course - but I remain sceptical (albeit that's emotional rather than rational! ) about the attitude of the "elite" clubs to other clubs competing for the worldwide riches available for top-class European football.
I guess that I - like even other fan - should simply enjoy the football and not get too interested in these other aspects, but I do find them fascinating.

{Ed002's Note - (a) Yes Real Madrid did get favors due to the training pitches back in 1998. It was long before FFP and I really don't know why you want to bring that in to this. Additionally a number of Spanish sides (Valencia, Barcelona, Elche, Athletic Bilbao, Real Madrid, Osasuna and Hercules) were found to be paying incorrect tax and getting state aid benefit dating back to the 1990s. Again this has all long been addressed and are of zero relevance to FFP or what is happening nowadays. If you want a current example, try Everton and the involvement of Liverpool City Council in the new stadium and the impact of that upon their FFP. (b) The "elite" clubs are a group that meet with a view to issues which concern themselves and what they see as the way forward for football. There is nothing whatsoever to be sceptical about - it is a very real situation.}

04 Sep 2017 15:55:36
"The complaint was by La Liga not an independent club" or, to put it more accurately, it was on La Liga headed notepaper. It is undoubtedly the "old guard" seeking to hinder the new and doing what they can to ensure that the status quo remains.

{Ed002's Note - La Liga cannot complain either. They have been told this before.}