Jump to content

Other Premier League Transfers - Deadline Day

Lighthouse

By Lighthouse
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted

WALTERS TO BURNLEY?

 

Stoke City have accepted a bid that could rise to £3m from Burnley for striker Jon Walters, Sky sources have revealed.

 

He's yet to complete a medical and agree personal terms but we understand the transfer could be completed before the start of next week.

 

Walters has made over 250 appearances for Stoke in his seven years at the club.

Saint Scott

Saint Scott

Posted
Posted
@htafcdotcom: CONFIRMED: @ScottyMalone28 completes his transfer to #htafc from @FulhamFC, signing a three year deal

 

DD_OZSBXUAAyrt7.jpg

Three in quick succession. That kit on the other hand is god awful

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It can be subjective and I doubt anyone would agree on a universal criteria but in the metrics I consider I see Everton as a bigger club. Fanbase' date=' stadium, revenues, standing in game, historical success etc. They are certainly more relevant as a club right now than us, but perhaps not by much.[/quote']

 

Bigger and richer.

 

They have a larger stadium and a richer owner. Other than that they've won nothing for about 25 years and have generally competed with clubs the size of Saints, West Ham etc. in the middle of the Premier League.

 

If we're talking about league titles won over 30 years ago, yes they are bigger. As are Forest, Preston, Huddersfield and Wolves.

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
Three in quick succession. That kit on the other hand is god awful

 

It certainly is.

 

Just looked up their signings. They've made 8 already & spent nearly £40m

Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
Posted
Everton are a bigger, richer and more successful club than Saints in every way, shape and form.

 

There is no debate. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nowt.

 

Richer with same income.... Ok case closed

 

Nobody is disputing the successful bit

saintwbu

saintwbu

Posted
Posted

Anyone in the Premier League other than those that get Champions League football are also-rans. Fair play to any Everton or West Ham fans that take pride in being a 'big' club. But they're not. They're competing with us. No player is going to choose them over us because they're 'bigger', it'll come down to who pays them the most money. Also when I say 'those that get Champions League football' I basically mean Arsenal, Man United, Chelsea, Tottenham, Man City, Liverpool.

Mystic Force

Mystic Force

Posted
Posted

They might be considered bigger now, but if a team strings success together over a period of time they become "big". Clubs that do poorly for a period of time become "small". For example people who fiddle with fish are currently "tiny".

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Everton are a bigger, richer and more successful club than Saints in every way, shape and form.

 

There is no debate. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nowt.

 

And yet if we'd offered more money to any one of their signings, they'd have come here instead.

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
Everton are a bigger, richer and more successful club than Saints in every way, shape and form.

 

There is no debate. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nowt.

Correct.

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
And yet if we'd offered more money to any one of their signings, they'd have come here instead.

 

Celtic are a much bigger club than us but we can take their players

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Celtic are a much bigger club than us but we can take their players

 

Which is basically the point I'm making. Players don't go to clubs because they are 'bigger.'

Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Everton has accepted a bid if £75 million for Lukaku according to sky sports!

 

Stones, Lukaku and probably Barkley... I thought they weren't a "selling club"?

 

Every club bar Real Madrid & Barcelona is a selling club.

Cartman

Cartman

Posted
Posted

What does "bigger" mean anyway? If it's historically more successful then yes they are, not that it makes a club in anyway more attractive to players. If it mean richer then no they are not, both clubs annual revenues are almost identical. They took out a 60m loan to fund their purchases, along with the 75m they seem to be getting for Lukaku. This notion that they are some sort of sleeping giant or that they are somehow far more than what they are is bizarre, must be some nostalgic acid trip because they are and have been an also ran for the past 30 years.

saintwbu

saintwbu

Posted
Posted

Heisenberg is gonna be in here saying that Everton can get top dollar for their players. Well their forum this morning reckoned they'd be getting £100mil for Lukaku! After his Van Dijk maths, a £75mil deal for Lukaku, subtracting agents fees, signing on fee, petrol money, lunch money, new training kit, leaves them with about 50 quid!

Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
Everton has accepted a bid if £75 million for Lukaku according to sky sports!

 

 

From Utd to boot, sounds about the right amount, maybe a bit on the high side for a player that only seems to score given certain conditions.

Winnersaint

Winnersaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

Problem is with Everton is that they have a history which predates an awful lot of posters on here. Therefore they have no point of reference for EFC. Those old enough recall a team in the late 60s/early 70s with a midfield of Ball, Kendall and Harvey and Joe Royle up front. They were different class. They even put 8 past us in 1971 at Goodison.

Edited by Winnersaint
Toon Saint

Toon Saint

Posted
Posted

Lukaku transfer puts into focus how cheaply we let Mane go. Barely a struggle and sold right at the beginning of the window to the first bidder. At least we seem to have toughened up this summer.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
Posted
Heisenberg is gonna be in here saying that Everton can get top dollar for their players. Well their forum this morning reckoned they'd be getting £100mil for Lukaku! After his Van Dijk maths, a £75mil deal for Lukaku, subtracting agents fees, signing on fee, petrol money, lunch money, new training kit, leaves them with about 50 quid!

 

I wouldn't suggest that Everton get top dollar -

 

Lukaku 75

Stones 50

____________

Total 125

 

Mane 30

Wanyama 10

Pelle 10

Fonte 7

Clyne 12

Lallana 25

Lovren 20

Cork 3

Lambert 3

Puncheon 2

Juanmi 3

____________

Total 125

OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
I wouldn't suggest that Everton get top dollar -

 

Lukaku 75

Stones 50

____________

Total 125

 

Mane 30

Wanyama 10

Pelle 10

Fonte 7

Clyne 12

Lallana 25

Lovren 20

Cork 3

Lambert 3

Puncheon 2

Juanmi 3

____________

Total 125

Nice one, lets not take into account the massive price inflation since the new TV deal came in. Personally I agree and believe we dont get top dollar as rival clubs know that we will sell, wheras Everton always give the impression that they wont and so clubs arrive expecting to pay above top dollar.

 

We get decent prices but not eye watering ones like Everton, Stones 50m being one of the examples, the tall lanky one who went to Man Uts with Moyes is another who was massive money

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
Never heard of him. Interesting stats, though for La Liga. Last 2 seasons only, played 69, scored 2, assists 5, yellow cards 26. That's more than Oriol who in PL, P64, goals 2, assists 0, yellows 18.

 

A very good player by all accounts.

Donatello

Donatello

Posted
Posted
I wouldn't suggest that Everton get top dollar -

 

Lukaku 75

Stones 50

____________

Total 125

 

Mane 30

Wanyama 10

Pelle 10

Fonte 7

Clyne 12

Lallana 25

Lovren 20

Cork 3

Lambert 3

Puncheon 2

Juanmi 3

____________

Total 125

 

:lol:

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Nice one, lets not take into account the massive price inflation since the new TV deal came in. Personally I agree and believe we dont get top dollar as rival clubs know that we will sell, wheras Everton always give the impression that they wont and so clubs arrive expecting to pay above top dollar.

 

We get decent prices but not eye watering ones like Everton, Stones 50m being one of the examples, the tall lanky one who went to Man Uts with Moyes is another who was massive money

 

Nonsense, we both get good prices for our players. Everton are open for business, same as any other 'selling club'. Fellaini, Rooney, Lescott, Peinaar, Arteta, Stones. They've sold the lot and RL and RB will be next to go.

 

Stones went for £50m because he is young and English, same as Sterling and Shaw. We got £16m for our reserve RB a few years ago and £14m for a striker who's done nothing for 3 years.

GGalpin

GGalpin

Posted
Posted
I wouldn't suggest that Everton get top dollar -

 

Lukaku 75

Stones 50

____________

Total 125

 

Mane 30

Wanyama 10

Pelle 10

Fonte 7

Clyne 12

Lallana 25

Lovren 20

Cork 3

Lambert 3

Puncheon 2

Juanmi 3

____________

Total 125

 

Missing out Schneiderlin's sale to suit the agenda and going with the lowest reported fees (Mane was £30m rising to £38m, Pelle was £13m, Fonte was £8m, Wanyama was £12.5m ditto Clyne, Juanmi £5m). Classic.

 

Anyone would think you're being a Richard for being a Richard's sake...

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Missing out Schneiderlin's sale to suit the agenda and going with the lowest reported fees (Mane was £30m rising to £38m, Pelle was £13m, Fonte was £8m, Wanyama was £12.5m ditto Clyne, Juanmi £5m). Classic.

 

Anyone would think you're being a Richard for being a Richard's sake...

 

His comedy numbers aren't worth discussing TBH. He has also left out Shaw for £31m (a world record for a teenager at the time) and Chambers for £16m. We'd probably have got at least £60m for the pair adjusted for the new TV deal inflation.

Saints1976

Saints1976

Posted
Posted

Everton have spent £241m since last Summers transfer window going by these links, to say they've simply spent the Stones and Lukaku money is ridiculous, they've been the two biggest sales by some margin (when Lukaku's goes through) but they'll continue to spend going by the players they're still being linked with.

 

Also they paid off Martinez (£10m) Us (£6) and Leicester for Walsh (£5m) to go with that, so that's £262m.

 

Then take into account their owner wiped of an £80m debt on top of that, with no date to repay it. Then combine that with a new stadium they're going to build on their waterfront.

 

I think these Lukaku money comments are a bit premature, especially seen as they haven't received any money for him yet. people just repeat what they've read.

 

Also, no £60m loan has been taken out, that facility acts as an overdraft, you can use it if you want to but you don't have to. The fact that the World's biggest bank is willing to give them one is the news.

 

http://www.skysports.com/everton-transfers

 

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/16-17/transfers.php

saint1977

saint1977

Posted
Posted
His comedy numbers aren't worth discussing TBH. He has also left out Shaw for £31m (a world record for a teenager at the time) and Chambers for £16m. We'd probably have got at least £60m for the pair adjusted for the new TV deal inflation.

 

Quite and as someone pointed out, we just got £14m for someone who was sadly very plagued in the last 3 seasons, albeit that I hope his fortunes improve again at WBA. Chambers money was in Koeman's words at the time 'a gift' and those figures don't include the TV deal either and you are correct, I didn't see Shaw there either nor Morgan who have depreciated in value since leaving.

 

He should get a job with Trump's campaign team with analysis that wrong and biased.

Dr. Kucho

Dr. Kucho

Posted
Posted

With Lukaku likely to go to United, I wonder what their player recruitment strategy is? Buy as many overinflated, big name players and hope they can be merged in to a team.

Cartman

Cartman

Posted
Posted
Everton have spent £241m since last Summers transfer window going by these links, to say they've simply spent the Stones and Lukaku money is ridiculous, they've been the two biggest sales by some margin (when Lukaku's goes through) but they'll continue to spend going by the players they're still being linked with.

 

Also they paid off Martinez (£10m) Us (£6) and Leicester for Walsh (£5m) to go with that, so that's £262m.

 

Then take into account their owner wiped of an £80m debt on top of that, with no date to repay it. Then combine that with a new stadium they're going to build on their waterfront.

 

I think these Lukaku money comments are a bit premature, especially seen as they haven't received any money for him yet. people just repeat what they've read.

 

Also, no £60m loan has been taken out, that facility acts as an overdraft, you can use it if you want to but you don't have to. The fact that the World's biggest bank is willing to give them one is the news.

 

http://www.skysports.com/everton-transfers

 

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/16-17/transfers.php

 

:lol: I'll believe it when I see it. Nothing has come of it yet.

 

And where on earth did you get 241m if by your links their 16-17 buys come in at 67.6m? And you really believe they haven't factored in the Lukaku sale into their spending?

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Which other club gets their bluster and BS so easily accepted by everyone?

doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
With Lukaku likely to go to United, I wonder what their player recruitment strategy is? Buy as many overinflated, big name players and hope they can be merged in to a team.

 

 

You get the feeling the Manchester United brand is becoming more important than the football. It's all about sponsorship and marketing now and big names sell.

doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted

We'll someone is doing very well out of man u.

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40516483

 

Lukaku is a client of agent Mino Raiola, who also looks after Paul Pogba, Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Henrikh Mkhitaryan - three players all signed by United last summer.

The Belgian turned down the most lucrative contract offer in Everton's history in March and later said: "I don't want to stay at the same level. I want to improve and I know where I want to do that."

Saints1976

Saints1976

Posted
Posted
:lol: I'll believe it when I see it. Nothing has come of it yet.

 

And where on earth did you get 241m if by your links their 16-17 buys come in at 67.6m? And you really believe they haven't factored in the Lukaku sale into their spending?

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Which other club gets their bluster and BS so easily accepted by everyone?

 

I got that from adding up like someone who can't add up. :lol:

 

It's £170m, plus the payouts for Martinez, Koeman and Walsh. £191. On top of that is the clearing of the £80m debt. And whatever the ground costs. (which will be a manageable debt)

 

Nothing has come of what? The ground.

Saints1976

Saints1976

Posted
Posted
:lol: I'll believe it when I see it. Nothing has come of it yet.

 

And where on earth did you get 241m if by your links their 16-17 buys come in at 67.6m?

 

This window alone is £30m Pickford, £30m Keane, £23.6 klaassen, £7m Onyekuru, Sandro £5.2. That's £95.8m by my bad maths. so I don't know where you're getting £67m from for everything. Then add the two previous windows, Morgan, Bolasie, Williams, Lookman etc = £72.6m, Morgan was £24 not £20 as stated so that's £168.4m, and whatever else is spent because let's face it, there will be more. I'm counting three windows because that's purely down to their new owner.

 

Then the owner took all of the debt over with no repayment date and is building a new ground.

skintsaint

skintsaint

Posted
Posted
This window alone is £30m Pickford, £30m Keane, £23.6 klaassen, £7m Onyekuru, Sandro £5.2. That's £95.8m by my bad maths. so I don't know where you're getting £67m from for everything. Then add the two previous windows, Morgan, Bolasie, Williams, Lookman etc = £72.6m, Morgan was £24 not £20 as stated so that's £168.4m, and whatever else is spent because let's face it, there will be more. I'm counting three windows because that's purely down to their new owner.

 

Then the owner took all of the debt over with no repayment date and is building a new ground.

 

I thought new owners couldnt come in and do this and waank loads of money in a short period of time.....thats what FFP is all about?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...