28 Mar 2017 10:12:00
Hi Eds been thinking about the Rom situation and just wondering a few things how much affect on his value would the differance be between 1 year or 2 years left on his contract?
I was just thinking that let's say we play hardball and keep him for next year would potentially his value decrease be offset should we break into the top 4.
I think that yes it's dangerous to keep a player if he wants to go but in Roms case if it is for a big move he would still have to perform I was just wondering how it would balance up from a finance point of view.
From a team point of view I feel that lose Rom this summer we will struggle to replace but also another year and 3 transfer windows may make it easier in the sense we can bring someone in and they will have time.

{Ed002's Note - (a) His value would reduce and all leverage would be gone. (b) If the player is forced to stay he won't be happy and performances could drop - again reducing his value.

I think there is something in the water on Merseyside that makes everyone obsessed with the need for a period of transition for players and managers? Other clubs change players and managers on a pretty regular basis and get on with it. Liverpool constantly rebuild and have been in transition since 1987. Everton fans seem to want to hang on to a player even if he wants to leave and then have a year or even three transfer windows to replace him. You need to keep in mind that players are simply transient employees of the club James and it is best not to become too attached. The club are looking at replacement players already as I have explained - they screwed up with Manolo Gabbiadini in the summer and again in January and perhaps there is a lesson to be learned. They wasted a lot of time on Rachid Ghezzal who really was not going to make a move from his comfortable life in South central France to the grim and wet Northwest of England where there would be a significant cultural change and little chance of football at the highest level - when Everton should have been concentrating on Rafik Zekhnini (who they may look again at). Another lesson to be learned. Everton cannot wait around to see what happens and must be more decisve - they need to sort Lukaku and a replacement out as soon as possible.}

1.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 10:32:55
We'll said ED002. Couldn't agree more.

2.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 10:36:31
Don't know much about zheknini but he's scored 8 in 44 games for odd fc. They 3rd best team in Norway last season. Only 19 though so worth a look. Also Ed, what do you know about cyle larin from Orlando that Everton are meant to be looking at?

{Ed002's Note - I am not aware of any interest in Larin from Everton nor how he would be expected to gain a Work Permit in England. However, Besiktas has shown an interest in the Orlando player.}

3.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 11:00:46
Thanks ed. It was just in one of the papers this morning.

{Ed002's Note - It would be an odd one Geoff as I cannot see how he would get close to meeting the WP requirements.}

4.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 11:11:35
Cheers Ed sorry if I came across wrong not trying to hold on to Rom for sentimental reasons it's only for his goals.
I only bought in the time factor to give a new player particularly a younger the time to adapt without the burden of the expectation of them being a straight Rom replacement undoubtedly some may be able to and I have no doubts that Walsh and his team will find the right people I was just thinking of like a jansen or silmani that came in to the league last summer with big reputations and haven't delivered yet but I'd excpect them to be better next season.
When Rom does go and he will at some point personally he will be remembered as 1 of the best players I've had the pleasure to watch and I hope he goes right to the top.

{Ed002's Note - I appreciate he scores goals but that alone will attract the interest of clubs playing at a higher tier. He wants to play at the top level and would have agreed a new contract at Everton that might have kept him a little longer if they had offered an acceptable one - they didn't. The burden of expectation in the Premier League will be there regardless James. Fans get on the back of players and that doesn't help with performances - but to be fair the Everton fans are pretty forgiving with the players compared to others. Spurs and Leicester did not buy the likes of Janssen and Slimani to grow in to their teams, they were expected to immediately contribute to teh match-day squads. There is too much as stake these days for clubs to look beyond youngsters to be given time. Lukaku has certainly played well his whole career and one hopes that Everton will be able to strike a deal for a suitable replacement James. Take a look at Willain Jose who only joined Real Sociedad last sumemr but is attracting the interest of Everton and would probably be a better option than Dinamo Kyiv's Lucasz Teodorczyk - who Everton have continued to watch whicls on loan.}

5.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 11:17:01
We could sign him then loan him to besiktas (or another club) to gain work permit requirements. Other clubs have some done it before, I seem to remember.

{Ed002's Note - Being on loan won't help with his Work Permit Geoff - and it would make zero sence for Everton who have no loan structure at the club - just look how Shani Tarashaj is getting on at Eintracht Frankfurt.}

6.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 12:50:23
Scored 1 in 11. Not sure if he doing well or getting much game time but the club are doing ok. Mid table.
Willian jose looks a good little player. Scores against the top sides too. Scores 9 in 20 and actually made an appearance for real Madrid before they moved him on.

{Ed002's Note - Right, so Everton has no loan structure and Shani Tarashaj is simply kicking his heels in Germany. Willian Jose is doing well this season and could, for the right money, be an option that is achievable.}

7.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 13:28:01
Not sure what you mean about everton's loan structure. Like all clubs we loan players out to get game time. It's up to sw and his team to monitor this to make sure the players are developing with a chance of returning and incorporating into the first team or if not moving them on.

Teams like juventus and Chelsea have 40+ players out on loan at other clubs. This stockpiling of players is just obscene.

{Ed002's Note - Everton has no plan for taking players and developing them through a defined process, no plan and no direction. Shani Tarashaj is a good example, loaned out on the last day of the transfer window to anyone who would take him. Everton has not build a relationship with any other side to help develop players. I am not sure why you think having a large number of players out on loan by far better run clubs is "obscene".}

8.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 14:01:26
I think it's wrong to stockpile players when this talent pool can be spread across other clubs to make it a 'fairer' competition.
It's like Mercedes having the 5 best drivers on the grid. only being allowed to use 2 . just to stop other teams from having them.

{Ed002's Note - It is their business model and the fact that they are out on loan at other clubs who are helping with their development and benefitting from it makes it "spread across other clubs" as you suggest. You should be recognising this as the way forward. Your example is completely incorrect - the players are not sitting their doing nothing they are playing for other sides.}

9.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 14:10:54
I understand that ed and you are right but how many of those players out on loan from, say chelsea, will come back and get first team football there.
Lukaku is perfect example. Loaned out to West Brom then Everton and eventually sold for a nice profit.
Are these club treating these players like property to sell for a profit after a couple of years?

{Ed002's Note - Some of the loan player will be integrated back in to the first team squad - two or three this summer - some will leave to join the clubs they have been on loan at as better players - some will go elsewhere as better players - some will stay on loan with Chelsea. If they cannot settle (e.g. De Bruyne, Salah, Cuadrado) then loans, improvement and sales gets income for the club - but all were originally putrchased to play for Chelsea, not to profiteer on. If they don't make the grade after a loan (e.g. McEachran, Bamford) they are given the opportunity to restart their career elsewhere. If there are other reasons the club are not happy with a player or there has been any sort of intolerable incident then they are moved on (e.g. Lukaku). If a player makes unreasonable demands on the club (e.g. Solanke) then they are moved on. But critical to all of this is that there is a plan, there are relationships with other sides that see players develop and there is a structure & process in place that supports this. It works very well for Chelsea and others are seeing that it is a system they should be looking to.}

10.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 14:33:02
Very kind of you for that detailed information, ed.
Football has become more business and political than actually playing for the fun of it.

{Ed002's Note - You are welcome Geoff. You are right about it being very much big business now.

Long gone are the days of the cloth-capped, hobnailed-booted, chimney sweep making his way, rattle in hand, to cheer on his team at Goodison on a Saturday afternoon before a few pints of wallop in the pub and home to thrash the wife and kids.}

11.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 16:01:51
Speak for yourself Ed002.I just gave the wife a hell of a thrashing for talking to me whilst I was filling the pools coupon! But on a serious note, I heard UEFA is discussing plans to stop the stockpiling of young talent and then loaning lots of them out. In a similar fashion to the fair play rules, they want to have a maximum squad size that includes loan outs. I thin Chelsea are one of the clubs they see as "stockpiling" young talent and making an "unfair" playing field. I don't remember where I read it, but it sort of makes sense to me.

{Ed002's Note - They have indeed discussed such rulings - and they know the downsides that a bunch of young players will lose their careers and when there is an eventual breakaway the elite sides will cherry pick the best of the rest of the players leaving UEFA, if they are still in business, with a far less attractive group of clubs. I should ass that this was originally the baby of Platini - who had a major beef with English sides and who knows their is an unpublished article related to him and UEFA (that a press agency is sitting on) that could have catastrophic consequences - so he won't be saying too much too soon.}}

12.) 28 Mar 2017
28 Mar 2017 23:22:27
It is indeed a strange one Ed and I agree that Platini is a bit of a hypocrite with probably some dirt on him. However, as an Evertonian I have the view that over 100 years of football tradition whereby any team could win any competition. and the roller coaster of clubs winning the league and FA Cup . not to mention European competitions laterly, went out the window when the first Sky deal was made. The so called top 4 will probably always be the top 4 because they bought into the scheme at the beginning. The FFP rules benefit the status quo and just make it difficult for another club to now buy into the "top 4". Man City probably just got in in time but I am not sure where it all leads.

{Ed002's Note - Folks won't change the rulings easily DP. If you are relying on the evil MF like MP you are F'd. Everton need to work to be part of the "top 4" as others do - there is no excuse in or out.}

13.) 29 Mar 2017
29 Mar 2017 09:04:48
Agreed Ed002. And I firmly believe we have the structure in place to have a good go at it. I just feel that the FFP rules actually hinder clubs with new rich owners. like us. Whereas before the FFP rules clubs like Man City and Chelsea had new rich owners who came in, chucked money at every aspect of the clubs. achieved the "top 4" structure which ensured regular extra Sky income over a sustained period. That in turn gave them world wide coverage that the rest of British clubs never got. Not just with Everton. great old clubs like Villa, Leeds, Notts Foresst, Newcastle etc were left behind. Everton were fortunate that they remained Premier League, but so easily could have slipped away like those I mention above. In the 70's Everton were known as the millionaires. That lasted a short while and other clubs passed us. I honestly cannot see clubs passing Man Utd on the rich list. nor Liverpool. Chelsea? Man City? Arsenal? It is almost like we are in a different League. But Leicester City gave me some hope. As Moshiri has . but particularly Bill Kenwright with his determination to bring in Walsh and Moshiri and get our structure in the best possible shape. I am currently crossing fingers, toes and any other bits of anatomy that I can cross.

{Ed002's Note - There is provision for a club with new money to use that money if they follow the process of informing UEFA by December 31 of the previous year. To the best of my knowledge Everton has not done that and to the best of my knowledge Mr Moshiri will not be throwing money at the club - there will be no £200M per window or whatever everyone was thinking. The commitment is to spend money on transfers but that money will come from the income the club makes from player sales and perhaps from the increased television income.}

14.) 29 Mar 2017
29 Mar 2017 11:42:10
Ok thanks Ed. I think I misunderstood how it worked then. I thought any monies had to be generated by "footballing" income. eg naming of training ground, naming of stadium etc. I did read a posting on here about a couple of years ago when Man City first got the Arab Emirates investment. Someone jokingly suggested they were going to sponsor each corner flag and the half way line. ie the United Arab corner flag 1, 2,3 and 4 etc. I do see that the likes of Man Utd have 3rd training kits sponsored and the likes. It sort of makes a mockery of the rules, which was the point I was trying to make. I think I do agree with the squad size limitation though. And minimum of home grown players. Not jusr because I am an Evertonian, but because I like to think a football club is exactly that. a club and not a business. Naive, I know, but I stillcry when I watch Old Shep movies. Guess I am a sentimenalist.

{Ed002's Note - Provision was introduced by UEFA to allow clubs a one off chance to spend new money.}