Everton Rumours Archive July 14 2014

14 Jul 2014 18:18:59
According to my mate, who's a Chelsea fan and a bit of tit. If we don't agree to a loan deal, Rom is staying on the books at Chelsea. He's implying that the player has absolutely no say in the move, and to be honest, I don't see Rom actually wanting to push athrough a move to us. And frankly I'm past caring. Sure Bobby has got another trick up his sleeve yet and I hope it's not Bony. Second season, anyone remember Jela?

{Ed002's Note - You are right about one thing.}

He is a tit

14 Jul 2014 21:24:36
I think Bony is a different class altogether mate than Jellyfish .

Oh no doubt mate bony is class. Not worth 25 mil though that's my only issue.

No I totally agree . But the outlay would pay off if he could provide 20+ league goals and a champions league spot at the end of the season .

It's going to be hard getting someone of Bonys class cheaper than 20 million when Ross McCormack goes for 11 million.

{Ed007's Note - That has got to be, by FAR, one of the strangest transfers in football ever. Ross McCormack is now the 9th most expensive British striker, there's something far, far wrong about that. Imagine you're a Fulham supporter just now, or even worse imagine Everton had paid that for him, there's strikers still playing up here in Scotland that are better than McCormack. I wonder if they fancy Leigh Griffiths to partner him....}

Strange transfers we know about them at Everloan Ed. Denis Straquilursi from Tigre. You couldn't write it.

14 Jul 2014 16:12:50
Swans say no official bids for Bony? sounds like they are ready to sell, some interest from us may give Lukaku a kick to say yes!

14 Jul 2014 17:57:08
I think if bobby was interested he would have already made a bid. I think we should, I don't think we should hedge our bets on lukaku. Two weeks to make up his mind, as far as I'm concerned, if he says no it is time wasted and there is a chance we could miss potential alternatives

14 Jul 2014 14:15:45
any news on besic ed

{Ed025's Note - lots of speculation KH, but thats it mate..

14 Jul 2014 14:13:18
any news on bosic ed

{Ed025's Note - not yet mate..lots of speculation, but thats it..

14 Jul 2014 11:44:00
Hearing we have agreed a 22 million plus add on's for Rom, that the news Lolpool were interested was a play act by Chekski to try stop us playing such hard ball, apparently interest has completely cooled in Rom from around Europe during the World Cup as other cheaper/ less out spoken options became available! It is now down to the player and terms, this could be a sticking point, Lukaku seems to think he should be playing for one of the Champions League big hitters, and if we don't sign him its because of the player not Bobby/Blue Bill!

Whether this comes off or not I think it shows just how far the club has come! 10 years ago or so we sold Rooney for a similar fee, and I never dreamed we'd be bidding that much cash on one player without a billionaire financing us!

Everton play hardball with Chelsea haha I've heard it all now that's made my day.

The 'hard ball' that has you in stiches mike apparently refers to our un-willing-ness to meet Chelsea's bloated price tag, we have our valuation and are sticking to it. This 'hard ball' is practiced by most clubs when conducting transfer negotiations.

14 Jul 2014 07:07:16
Looks like the night have been something to that rumour I heard the other day, about Lukaku reps meeting Everton reps in Birmingham.
The bookies have now got us as odds on for him. Fingers crossed lads this might be it!

When will the average punters realise that bookies set the odds according to the amount of money that's been wagered in the market and how much they (the bookies) could each win or lose whatever result might arise. The bookies might set the initial odds - before a bet is placed - according to what they think, but once bets are being placed, it's pretty much simple arithmetic as they aim to make money whatever the outcome. The bookies' purpose is to make money - pure and simple - and all the rest is pure marketing to drive up interest and take more of the punters' money. I'll admit it's exciting and good fun - I'll have an occasional flutter myself.
Something suddenly becoming short odds is usually because there's been a flurry of money being placed - usually due to some rumour in social media! Bookies are just making sure that they don't lose money whatever the outcome. Besides, the big bookies are dealing with millions of pounds being bet, so they have to look at their projected profit and loss columns when setting the odds.
How many times have you seen stories about odds being dramatically changed - say for managerial appointments - only to see a different outcome? The reason bookies are perceived as "not often being wrong" is because they know how to offer odds that make money - not because they can predict the future. If they were perfect - and if the punters were perfect - then every event would be won by the betting favourite and no non-favourite, let alone an outsider, would ever win. Whatever outcome, the bookies have set odds to protect themselves.
That's why you don't often see a bust bookie - and that's also thanks to a large extent to there being so so many "mug" punters, which includes me!

14 Jul 2014 10:52:13
Quite the response that, Sid. I completely get what you're saying, but these sudden influxes of bets, and the subsequent alteration of the odds don't come from nowhere. Sure, social media is unreliable, but bookies aren't stupid, and they wouldn't drop the odds to evens, hugely reducing their take, unless they believed this has legs.

14 Jul 2014 11:16:42
alternatively, the flutter of money placed on a certain event could be inside information which then causes odds to drop. Consider a everton representative who was not meant to know Lukaku's move was iminent suddenly found out it was a 'done deal' but at that moment bookies did not know the paperwork had been signed and that representative then put a large amount of money backing Lukaku to sign, the odds would shorten. (not always social media which can effect betting odds)

AB1878: thanks for your post.
By reducing the odds, bookies are looking to keep their margin of profit whatever the outcome - although I accept that punters might find the reduced odds less attractive and not place as many bets.
The stake (what the punter has paid and would lose if the bet is a loser) would still be the same - the change in odds would only affect what a punter gets paid if the bet is a winner. The bookie can only affect what is paid out on winning bets - by changing the odds - but cannot affect the stake money that the punters have already placed. Besides, for these sort of football bets, the odds for each wager is usually fixed for each bet as it's placed - it's not like horse racing where you'd get SP (starting price) odds for the bet.
I accept that all sorts of things affect the odds being offered by bookies, but I maintain that the odds are, above all other considerations, just the arithmetical reflection of the money being placed in the betting market and are not a reflection of their ability to predict the future. It's just a money-making business for them.
Let's say that Everton were 100-1 to win the Premier League outright. If I could afford to bet £1,000, then I could win £100,000 (plus my stake back as well) OR I could lose and the stake goes to the bookie. In the great scheme of things, only 1 out of 20 clubs would eventually win the Premier League, so the bookie will pay out on bets on just one club and keep the stakes for the rest. The bookie will do the arithmetic and have offered odds accordingly. Now, if thousands of other Everton fans made the same bet as me, and it wins (!), then the bookie would have to pay out millions - and be at risk of not covering this by the stakes from all the losing bets on the other clubs. So, the bookie would start changing the odds as the bets pile on - shortening Everton and lengthening other clubs depending on the arithmetic. The change in odds usually means that more bets are being placed - punters lumping money on the "new" favourites OR thinking that a longer-priced one is worth a punt. Either way, the bookie will make sure that all the stakes from the losing bets would cover the cost of paying out the winning bets.
Sure, the bookies want to attract punters - and will generate interest in the media - but they're in business to make money, which they're pretty successful at.
I say again - I like an occasional flutter, but although it's an affordable bit of fun for me, I recognise that it's a serious money-making business for bookies.