Alarm bells are ringing.

Moyes is away doing punditry at the World Cup having a good jolly up why we’re allowing players to pass through our fingers and into the hands of our rivals. Tut tut it won’t do..

Signing George was a no brainier really, however I’d say it’s more George wasn’t taken by us rather than the other way round and who can blame him. We’re not going anywhere fast at the moment, Harry Wilson has also rejected us and opted for Leeds

This doesn’t bode well for our transfer window or our season, bad omens and players are giving us a wide berth already, I tell you what this could be an absolute disaster of a window and the start of a domino effect resulting in relegation, which to be honest is probably what we need and deserve.

As a further note if I may,

We do have Moyes though and there’ isn’t many other managers I’d want to steer us to safety by the skin of our teeth, so you know, every cloud…

I think it's both short sighted and short termism at it's worst if we get Grealish over George. What Grealish would cost in terms of a loan fee or buying, even at a reduced fee, plus wages isn't worth the return. Especially when you sit it beside what George will give you for a smaller outlay.George will also have a resale value, whereas Grealush won't.

You would also have money left over.

On the pitch, I think George will produce nearly as much as Grealish. Grealish has maybe two decent seasons left in him, and thats hoping hes fully fit in August, stays injury free, stays off the vooze and out of strip clubs at four in the morning. George will also only get better.

Harry, while any team who gets relegated may deserve it, I don't see what benefits would be in it for us. No one needs relegation. The chances of coming straight back up are mixed at best. It is a tough division to get out of. If we didn't first time, it would destroy the club financially, commercially and reputation wise.

Even if we did get back up first time, we would be viewed as a basket case. The squad would be even poorer than it is now, our revenue streams to help finance the day to day running of the club would be poorer, and our debt would not have gone away.

As far as I know, and I'm open to correction, only going into administration would aid us in getting rid of the amount of debt we have, and would carry into the championship. But then our credit rating disappears, bridging loans to cover the shortfall between revenue and costs, and it's Everton, so there would probably be a shortfall, would be harder to get and more expensive. And we would probably start the season in the championship with a points deduction.

We could renegotiate the terms of the debt but it would still be there, only for a longer period of time, which means more interest.

We are finding it difficult enough to survive right now without what relegation would do to us. What exactly is it do you think the club would do when relegated that would benefit the club, that would have it running more efficiently, that would have it more ready than before relegation for life in the P.L, for life in the footballing world in general?

Harry, are you deliberately being provocative? Cos it’s working.

Harry, are you deliberately being provocative? Cos it’s working.

I think it depends on the managers intentions, set up and expectations. Comparisons between Grealish and George are really not a direct comparison. Grealish doesn't have George's pace but defends better than George. Moyes sets up his wide players to tuck inside and track back with defensive responsibilities being paramount. George is better as an out and out winger. The same can be said of KDH and Alcaraz, the latter is focused as an attacking midfielders, more so than KDH. So in a nutshell the players we want and the players we keep are the ones Moyes wants to play his style. Except that's not what the recruitment team are buying. As a result we are seeing players getting no minutes, a clear divergence between the two " factions" one thing is for sure, TFG will not sanction further the purchase of players Moyes won't play.

Christine, fair point. In an ideal world, we could sign bot, given their different strengths. You are right to say there is little point in spending the money on the players if Moyes won't play them.

Another repeat of last summer's transfer window, and subsequent season, is madness but predictable with Moyes.

I would have thought Moyes is only loosely relevant to our squad building this summer. He's only here for another season - and our signings, you would hope, are going to be part of a project which sees us assemble a genuine Champions League calibre squad in 3 to 5 years.

For me, I agree with Harry that signing George should be a no-brainer. The fee is very low. And he's exactly the sort of player required in the attacking third to play Champions League style football. Any decent club needs about 4 of that sort of player to give you variety and options. The fact he is British is, for me, also a plus. Creating a core of high potential British players should stand us in good stead.

Grealish would be a good loan signing again but there's lots of reasons (mostly financial but some footballing) not to sign him on a permanent deal.

I would like both, but a one year deal for Jack.
Dibling needs to be sold or loaned, a decision on Illy needs making now.
Moyes is away, I'm unsure how immersed he is in transfer business, but I wish we had a new manager with a longer term plan, that was all over this now.

Grealish is expected to return next season, with both parties open to a second loan. But his return is a sticking plaster.

His absence was costly? Everton lost their most creative player and collapsed to seven games without a win,but the collapse was also tactical. Moyes made no adjustments, refused to rotate, and performances dropped across the pitch.

Meanwhile, George is being passed over. A £20m signing with pace, two-footedness, and resale value, he is exactly the type of signing well-run clubs make. Choosing Grealish over him is short-term thinking at its worst.

The real issue is a squad too dependent on one player, with no system or alternative to compensate when he is gone. And if Moyes is only here for another season, why are recruitment decisions being shaped around him?

The club is learning nothing. or has the Grealish absence been used by Moyes been accepted as a excuse for the collapse.

I heard the fee was around £25m, must admit we'd need to be sure to go for that.
Would I sign Grealish for £12m for a year? yes, he's the difference between mid table and a relegation fight. He's also great to watch, and good for the players around him. there's no resale, but he could quite conceivably play at the top level for another 3 years at least. it's not like he relies on pace.

Kevin #11

That is probably the logic being used.But it appears to be a departure from the youth with potential policy last Summer and plans for their development.It has probably come up in the stats that the loss of Grealish in late January was significant.

These days at Everton, patience and expecting the unecpected, which in most years for Everton, doesnt normally yield good results.

George over Dibling? For me its a nap, but the club spent 40M, on a player who in fairness didnt get a fair chance to prove himself.
Mediocriy for me, was Mickelenkos 3 year deal.

Is Moyses gonna meet his Bosses in the USA? Will he get much to spend this summer?

No one knows, but theres a feeling of ground hog day again.

But decent away games in preseason, hopefully the preseason goes well.

I think having one young winger who may, or not be, a great prospect is enough. If Grealish is returning, with our limited resources, then there is no point in acquiring George if we are not selling or loaning Dibling.

£50 million buys you a decent quality premier league player now, while £100m + buys you top quality. £25 buys you a development player with league experience like George.

Would we sell Branthwaite, Ndiaye and Garner to finance Grealish (loan), George, Bowen, Wharton and, say, Alex Jimenez?

Not saying we should, but we might.

Even if our available transfer spend is £150 million per revenue, we will probably need to sell also this summer to make strides in rebuilding the squad.

Under the new Squad Cost Ratio rules, Everton could have around £100m to spend, helped by rising stadium revenue, but that budget is not endless.

Europe was never realistic before the Burnley compensation case, though qualification would have helped progress imo. Even then, Everton would still have had to meet UEFA's stricter 70% Squad Cost Ratio.Premier League new SCR which replace PSR are 85%.Everton stand at 75% in the last accounts.

So Grealish as the safer option and George as the longer-term gamble makes sense. Grealish is proven and can make an immediate impact, while George is unproven and may not play much. Spending a fifth of the budget on a player who may not feature carries real risk.

The real issue is that the club is again being forced to choose between short-term safety and long-term investment. That is a recruitment failure, not a choice between two players.

Since Everton are appealing the Burley compensation, the amount of the fine is not part of any calculation.

It might just mean we’ve got a deal lined up at lower cost for one of the other wingers we’ve been heavily linked to like Maamma, Irankunda or Fatawu.

Jerome # 16, how is Europe not realistic next season? We were only two wins off Europe last season - with still quite a poor / patched up side. Had Branthwaite and Grealish stayed fit throughout there’s a very good chance we’d have made it.

Granted there wasn’t much to choose between about 10 clubs (we were two defeats off 17th).

But it seems unduly pessimistic to say it is unrealistic.

I am confident Spurs will be much better but the turnover of manager positions at Bournemouth, Palace and elsewhere might help too.

I know you don’t like Moyes at all - but he has a reasonable track record of getting teams into European competitions.

The key thing is sorting out the flanks (full backs and winger partnerships), pacy / mobile cover at CB to ensure Keane and Tarkowski don’t start together ever again, and more variety (ie technical ability) in the striker positions.

It needn’t cost a fortune to be materially better next season.

Good points raised by all, lets hope for some genuine Rays of Hope soon.

I haven't followed the rumours for transfers, however strongly feel that if Everton are going to go for Grealish (at presumably an annual cost similar to the contract cost of George) then it shows a complete fat-headedness of approach!!

I do not see how such a move could push the club forward given his age.

Furthermore, if the suggestions above have merit: that Moyes won't play players bought whom he doesn't appreciate, and if therefore the club are buying players that the manager doesn't want... then either the manager or the club need to think again. "Pointless" doesn't even begin to describe a transfer policy which is actively undermined by the manager, and since Moyes has shown his clear intransigence then surely the club should get shot.

For me, this (if true) would represent yet another Everton face-plant of gargantuan size... but then hey, what's new?

Robert#19

You make a fair point about how close Everton were. Two wins off Europe with a patched-up side does suggest progress is within reach, and Moyes has a track record of getting teams into European competitions. Sorting out the flanks, adding pace at centre-back, and bringing in technical variety up front need not cost a fortune to materially improve the side.

But my concern is not whether Everton can qualify. It is what happens if they do. Paul The Risk ianalysis identifies structural weaknesses—financial and regulatory constraints, squad depth and quality, and infrastructure challenges—that a European campaign would expose. The stricter UEFA 70% SCR requirement would impose financial constraints the club is not structured to meet. The added workload demands squad depth Everton do not possess. Moyes does not rotate. The recruitment strategy is not building for that level of demand.

You are right that it does not cost a fortune to be materially better. But being materially better in the league is not the same as being equipped for Europe. The club is pursuing a win-now policy under a manager who may not be here next season, with a budget shaped by revenue targets that require European qualification to sustain.

If the gamble fails, the headroom for future windows will be reduced, and the squad will be older with limited resale value. If the gamble succeeds, the club may find itself in Europe without the squad, the manager, or the financial structure to sustain it.

That is the cycle the club has been trapped in for years. Your point about being only two wins away is valid. My concern is that those two wins might be the most dangerous ones to achieve.I also have stated as Europe slipped away that part of the collapse was a realisation.that this is the case and it suits the Finch Farm Culture sense of self preservation of the status quo,not to qualify for Europe..The gravy train continues.

Correction

Paul the Esk of course. Autocorrect again.

Rupert#21

Definitely the Club should get shot.Moyes intransigence and Finch Farm’s failure to develop the young players with potential from last summer’s transfer window, and the failure to do so this summer and next season, could be very telling. The club spent significant money on Dibling, Barry, and Aznou, yet none have been fully integrated into the first team ( Imo Barry looks badly coached ). Not to mention George and others on loan. If this pattern continues, the message to future prospects is clear: Everton is not a place where young players develop. That will damage the club’s ability to attract the next generation of talent, reduce the resale value of the squad, and deepen the cycle of short-term ism that has defined Everton for decades. The intragient failure to develop youth is not just a sporting issue; it is a financial one, not even mentioning the Chief Executive's obvious weakness.

By the way I have not being negative, I am being realistic, which gives me no comfort.

Jerome, counrting how many games that Hibbert and Osman played between them is a good indicator in itself of the value of developing youth. Tom Davies, while not spectacular, was solid and played a number of games. Ross Barkley another one, he generated a transfer fee as well. How many of those players would have progressed under the current set up? Precious few I would think.

What odds Armstrong and Graham's time at Everton just fizzles out.

Buying players for the here and now is great if you're City or Arsenal. You're buying C.L level players and have something to offer them.

We did a good version of singung for the present last summer with KDH and Alcaraz. Alcaraz didn't get a look in and is possibly gone this summer. How many players of this calibre will.be interested at the moment given how the last twelve months have panned out overall?

For us we're not going to be world beaters after a couple of windows. Adding a couple of Georges and Diblings per window, with a reasonably priced Alcaraz or KDH is the way to go. The quality of the squad increases over a relatively short enough period of time.

We did it right signing George on loan then messed it up with not playing him. Dibling and Aznou may as well not have signed for us. How much interest will they have in staying.

Shortsightedness, a lack of joined up thinking, a lack of follow through. It's farcical and depressing. Unfortunately, it's also only too familiar at Everton.

Kieran#25

It is really hard to understand why? and it even harder to understand why Moyes has been allowed to basically dictate the Strategic plan, when he can just run down his contract and keep things ticking over whilst he does.

I am genuinely baffled that TFG would allow this, though I have put forward, in comments, how TFG would justify their present path and strategy.Which I thought would end in Crisis Management. I really did expect better.

Maybe Jerome - Moyes isn’t driving the strategic plan in the way you think (which is entirely plausible) and therefore TFG aren’t unduly concerned.

I thought about that as well and it just does not make sense,Robert.

Please tell me Moyes will now be appointed new Scotland manager now Clarke has resigned.

Christine the meanness is there for Moyes to take it on.4 years would get him to Pension age.

Christine - that would give all parties an exit route and allow a full reset at Everton. We can only hope.

Apologies for this comment not being linked to the article, but has anyone heard anything about the possibility of Jarred Bowen signing for us? The reason I ask is that this morning I received a message from my son with a photo of Bowen in conversation with Angus Kinnear. Neither my son nor myself have any idea whether there’s any real significance or substance to this photo, but I was wondering if any other Evertonia members had seen it or heard anything about it? Personally, I like Bowen but he turns 29 very soon and I don’t want us to be paying silly money for him!! Anyway, sorry again for this question not being directly connected to the Tyrique George article, but it seemed the best thread to put the question on!! Hopefully someone else will have seen or heard about this photo and have some more information about it.

Come on Scotland, make Moyes an offer he can't refuse.

I suppose it's a negotiating stance, but he's dynamic and direct. The first winger we've had who can go both ways since Dave Thomas. If JOB buries that peach of a left-foot cross v Sunderland, we could be in Europe. It's hardly a massive price-tag.

David # 32 - the opportunity to sign Bowen is a good one. Obviously he has very limited resale value and may start to deteriorate sharply from about 32. That means you have a player who can occupy that position for 3 seasons (which is not that long) and then little or nothing to buy his replacement with. However, if we were to sign him AND his heir (ie a 16 to 20 year old) that might be a sensible approach.

What is not sensible is pretending a player like Bowen is a major difference maker on his own.

I get the impression that West Ham want about £50m for him - which is really not a big fee. But even if we negotiate that down to say £40m it’s still a lot for us so it needs to be thought through as a strategy.

David#42

On the 19th July'25 Kinnear and Moyes where seen in heavy discussion in the tunnel after the preseason defeat by Blackburn.I would say it is significant,especially with Nidiaye in the World Cup shop window.Obviously Bowen can work with Moyes.

For me the answer is simple.

Sign them both. Play them both.

George on the left and Grealish as the number ten. KDH drops back to play a deeper role with James Garner alongside him.

The only deal acceptable to me for Grealish would be another loan and the activating of the clause to buy George looks like a no - brainer at the price being quoted.

Let’s have it right though, this formation only happens if Moyes takes the Scotland job.

I live in hope.

George or Bowan? I'd have George any day of the week.. Bowan for me doesn't justify a transfer fee. Just don't like him.. can't tell you why.. I don't know..

Evertonians just know this,

Financial stability is not the same as Football sustainability. Moshiri achieved the former but never the latter, and the club is now repeating the same mistake under new ownership.

Bowen is a win-now player. He is proven, experienced, and can contribute immediately, just like Grealish. He suits Moyes perfectly because he delivers the short-term results the manager needs to secure his legacy,a maybe even Europe if Finch Farm allows. But Bowen has limited resale value, high wages, and no long-term future beyond the next two or three years. He is a short-term fix.

George is a player with potential who can contribute now and has a future beyond Moyes. He is younger, has resale value, and fits the profile of a sustainable squad build. But he may not be ready to start every week, and under a manager who does not rotate, his development could stall. He represents a long-term investment in a club that is not thinking long-term.

The situation at Everton is financial. It is about sustainability, not stability. The club is currently unsustainable on the football side. The squad is ageing, wages are high relative to performance, and the transfer strategy has not generated sellable assets. Moshiri achieved financial stability by keeping the club afloat, but he never achieved football sustainability. Things go pear-shaped if, even with stability, sustainability is not heading in the right direction.

The club is pursuing a win-now policy under a manager who may not be here next season. Lyndon's description of Moyes is apt: he lowers the ceiling and raises the floor. The headroom reduces and the squad ages.The club may reach Europe without the means to sustain it.

That is the cycle the club has been trapped in for years. Stability without sustainability is just managed decline. The choice between Bowen and George is not just a recruitment decision. It is a choice between repeating the mistakes of the past or building for a future that the club currently seems unwilling to plan for.

Totally agree with Jerome about George being a much better long term investment.He’s capable of making an impact both now and for several years to come, long after Dour Dave has said his goodbyes!! As I’ve said, I do like Bowen though (sorry Christine!!).He’s obviously proven at this level, scores goals, creates chances for others, and works extremely hard.Even in a poor West Ham team last season, he scored 11 goals and had plenty of assists to his name.The fact that Moyes knows him very well after signing him for West Ham could also be beneficial.He’ll know his strengths and weaknesses.Knowing the dour one though, Bowen could be playing right-back by Christmas!! Being serious, what I also like about Bowen is that he seems to be a level headed, down to earth bloke.He doesn’t behave like some sort of superstar, which is something I always like to see in players…even if they ARE superstars!! But much as I’ve bigged Bowen up, my big worry is that we’ll end up paying well over the odds for him, which just doesn’t make financial sense given his age.And his wages are certainly not going to be peanuts either.So IF this transfer happens, it simply HAS to be on our terms, and not West Ham’s.And if that doesn’t look like being the case, we need to walk away from it…whether Moyes likes it or not.Because as Jerome says, paying big fees and wages for the likes of Bowen and Grealish does nothing for long term sustainability.Good as these players are, they’re not going to get better now because of their age.

There’s not a lot of optimism on this site. Which is strange in a way - since the extreme austerity and mismanagement of post 2021 Moshiri is behind us and we’ve finally ended the annual relegation worries.

Will the mood improve if we make a few signings?

Or does it stay bleak until Moyes’ contract is up?

depends on the signings I think Robert. If we sign a good forward and a good right back a lot of tails will go up.

Yes Robert a few signings will make a difference.The difference between TFG and previous regimes is that they will act when the numbers tell them to. They have already restructured the debt, refinanced the stadium, and improved the balance sheet. They will do the same on the football side, when the data shows it is necessary in a gradual pragmatism.Evertonians may not see the results yet, but TFG are not patient for the sake of patience. They are patient for the sake of the right outcome. When the moment comes, they will move.Moyes may find the scenario different than he expects, as TFG gradually tighten in there ultimately results driven culture.It is not going to be as comfortable next season as Moyes and Kinnear expect it is going to be.Even the Fans are gearing up.

Maybe because things look so obvious, they are getting the light of day that that they never got before .This will not go unnoticed and will be acted on as a result.. This is not blind optimism ,it is a rational assessment of a regime that has yet to show its full hand.

Apparently a deal to sign George is back on. Clubs negotiating a lower up front fee but more add on fees but still around £25m in total.
George, Hackney and Rohl will already take this summers spending to £60+m with nothing coming in. If we get a decent right back from somewhere I’m not sure there will be much more coming in other than loan deals

John # 44, I would have thought our spending this summer will at least beat last year’s measly spending. Rohl, George and Hackney all look like good low cost deals and should allow room for a few more (especially given serious interest in the likes of Ndiaye, Barry, Iroegbunam and McNeil).

We seem to have signed 16 year old Arthur Barrett from Chelsea. That’s two for the u18s now alongside Kai Hutchison - who is still listed as being Dundee but appears to have been confirmed as joining.

So, far from passing on Tyrique, the deal is back on which is very encouraging. If it is completed we are certainly investing in potential rather than the finished product. The player would bring many of the attributes we lack; pace, the ability to go either side of a defender, effective crossing and shooting.

Obviously he has displayed enough of the right attitude to convince Moyes he is worth the outlay while Tyrique himself appears convinced his prospects are better served with us than with Chelsea or any other potential suitors. I would not be surprised also if Moyes held him back a little in the loan period so as to reduce the up-front outlay. If this deal and the Hackney transfer are completed this week, both players plus Dibling and Röhl will benefit from full pre-season conditioning and be ready to compete from the start of the new season.

That in itself is an indication of progress as is club’s willingness to embark on a transformation of the squad through investment in younger talent window by window.

Robert, last summer our net spend was about £100m, hence my view that if we get a decent right back there is probably not a lot left in the pot.
I agree we might be able to generate further funds by selling but, other than Iroegbunam, I haven't heard any credible rumours for the likes of McNeil or Patterson and I wouldn't want to lose N'Diaye although he would generate a decent fee.
The other factor is the £40m potentially required to pay to Burnley. I know TFG said it wouldn't affect the transfer kitty but the money's got to come from somewhere!

Last season we spent €129m - the 14th lowest in the Premier League and €70m off the mode and median average. It was only that low because (a) we have nothing to sell and (b) we had severe financial restrictions.

If we spend that little again I would be surprised and extremely disappointed.

From what I can gather the transfer budget is £100million.

This is the maximum transfer commitments the club believes it can make while remaining within its financial plan and PSR, rather than a literal £100m cheque book.

In reality it consists of a combination of:

Owner-backed investment and available cash flow.

Spending structured over several years through instalments.

Some expectation of player sales.

Spending that has been modelled to comply with PSR.

So it is not a straight forward spend over a number of players adding up to £100 million.

So as Robert says £128million was spent last year, but Transfer fees are almost always paid in instalments over several years.

For example:
£40m player → £8–10m paid each year over 4–5 years.

£25m player → perhaps £5–6m per year.

The accounting works differently too. A £40m player on a five-year contract is charged to the club's accounts at £8m per year (amortisation), not £40m in one go. That's why clubs can commit to £100m+ of transfers without having £100m immediately available in cash.

As I understand it, Everton’s spending is restricted because PSR limits losses, not spending. Clubs can only lose £105m over three years (less if they’ve spent time in the Championship).

Losses come from:

- wages

- amortisation (transfer fees spread over contracts)

- operating costs

- interest

- stadium costs (partially exempt, but not fully)

So the question isn’t “how much can Everton spend?” It’s how much loss can Everton absorb without breaching PSR?

High-revenue clubs can absorb far more loss. Everton cannot. I haven't double checked all of these but from a bit of googling it looks like this is how we stack up in terms of revenue:

1. Manchester City — £737m
2. Manchester United — £679m
3. Arsenal — £631m
4. Liverpool — £629m
5. Tottenham Hotspur — £542m
6. Chelsea — £480m
7. Newcastle United — £327m
8. West Ham United — £284m
9. Aston Villa — £273m
10. Brighton — £226m
11. Crystal Palace — £193m
12. Everton — £192m
13. Nottingham Forest — £190m

So Spurs can commit to €60m for Van Hecke and €98.6m for Matheus Fernandes because their revenue can fairly easily absorb the amortisation and wages.

Wage-to-turnover ratio is another limiter — but Everton’s wage bill isn't that high (11th last season but closer to Burnley in 20th than the team in 9th). However, because our turnover is low, even a mid-table wage bill becomes restrictive.

Whether you call it spending (in real terms) or the commitment to pay (over a given period) - it all ends up in the same place. It stops us from competing for the most sought after players - and it stops us from having depth in the squad.

That is why I have said in other threads that, above all else, TFG are (I hope) most focussed on building our global brand and global revenue. They will recognise it is essentially madness to expect any footballing success operating within such tight financial constraints. Since it will take time to build the global brand / revenue, it will take time to build a competitive squad - hence my previous suggestion that if I were owner I would target 3 years for Europe / 5 years to Champions League.

That's not to say we might not do things ahead of that sort of schedule - and I really wouldn't rule out the much despised Moyes taking us back into Europe next season, if we can continue to find value in the low cost market as we appear to have done with Hackney, Rohl and (finger's crossed) George.

Jerome @52, I think the club still needs to be careful with spending. While the fee is spread out, if you are paying for five or six signings, it could still add up to 40m or 50m a financial year. We still need to balance what we spend.

Leeway will improve. Commercial improvement, improved league finishes, better management of debt etc will all help.

But for now, caution still needs to be observed.

I think we will need to improve on player trading. Player sales are a vital revenue streams for any club. We can't afford to carry players who will be falling down the pecking order or won't be getting game time.

Kieran#54

I think that will be the crunch point with TFG.They will want an assessment done on the players they have and a plan going forward.

Becoming an effective seller is a very big part of raising revenue.

The RS are probably the biggest success as sellers in the Premier League over the last decade.

That is partly selling Torres, Suarez and Coutinho for big fees that allowed them to build big, high quality squads.

It is also the behind the scenes trading of youth prospects and low cost purchases - many of whom are always intended for onward sale for profit, not for the first team - like Ben Doak and Bobby Clark last year. Circa £30m profit from players showcasing their talents on loan, in youth internationals and the occasional dead rubber game.

City and Chelsea are now generating and sellling a conveyor belt of Premier League quality academy graduates for much the same reason - pure profit. Real and PSG have been doing it even longer.

That’s why we need to invest much more heavily in the academy - once it is established it can be a cash cow to bump up the transfer spending. And provide first teamers if they are exceptional

Robert as of today the club is no longer restricted by PSR as the financial year that ended yesterday is the last to be subjected to that. Going forward it is the new SCR rules where our first team squad costs, i.e. wages, amortisation of transfers etc must stay within a % of revenue

Jerome, I would well belive that player assessment will be a big part of the owner's plans. Selling a couple of players will cover the cost of buying a couple of players. It's that simple.

While not ideal in the short term, selling N'diaye would cove the cost of George and Hackney. What you would hope is that George, once bedded in, replaces the talent and skill you lose with N'diaye. In theory, it's also that simple.

Robert, at present Armstrong is the only youth player we could sell at this stage. I think we may have missed a trick with Dixon. It is an area we need to improve on. But with the amount of youth players we release each summer, where do you start?

Thanks John - that just seems to mean slightly different rules but essentially the same outcome.

We may have stabilised the finances (to help stop us going bust) but we are by no means in good financial shape - and that really hurts any attempt to bring in the quality and quantity the squad needs to start competing.

Unpopular view on here of course but you can also see why it’s unlikely TfG will consider Moyes to be underperforming.

Kieran - I wish all our academy prospects the best but the market never rated Dixon as a sellable asset.

Just another example of fans massively overestimating the quality of u21s football and the standard of our players in that very poor level of football - as per Warrington, Mills etc etc.

Robert#56

That is the key point. Everton are the only Premier League Club to make a profit on players trading in the pass five years.That was because of slash backs determined by PSR.Now the situation has changed for Everton and actual trading of players and their value has come into focus.The actual performance and value related to this determines the grown.Everton are weak on infrastructure ( according to Paul the Esk) and developing young pl players.With a Survival Manager you are not going to get that or the demands to progress in those areas.If the Finch Farm Farm option is not taken up it is confirmed as being a White elephant and plans must be in the pipeline for either the a hybrid two site set up or a greenfield location.

This link shows the net spend for the past 5 seasons (and total):

https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1

Of next season's Premier League clubs, only Hull have made a profit over the past five years.

We made a loss in that period of €-45.81m. Only Brighton, Coventry and Leeds have made smaller losses in the last 5 years.

You're right though Jerome - this is largely because of year on year unprecedented negative investment in the playing squad due to Moshiri pulling the plug and the idiotic transfer strategy of 2016 to 2020 robbing us of future spending power (under PSR etc).

I know you have your bugbears and I have mine - but if you look at what is going on at other clubs the key thing that makes a difference to football results is the club's ability to provide the manager (from time to time) with top class players and plenty of them. That has an unsurprising correlation with investment levels into the playing squad and academy.

Robert I was talking about one year in 5 years But obviously Hull have crept in.But Everton where not even threading water over that period.That is why it is essential they push on now, though as the season progressed Moyes managed to do return to normal.

Yes Robert what really counts in the performance on the pitch and what it takes to get that to a higher level Money being pumped in may look.good, but it does not have the same effect and becomes a problem.if progress in the pitch does not come.Actually it adds to the costs and produces nothing.

The world cup is going to take another two weeks to finish. Is Moyes in America for the whole thing or will he bother with a pre-season? The new season is six odd weeks away.

These new.plauers will need to be bedded in. Moyes swanning around the states isn't a great look.

As John says @44 I also think that a new deal for George may well have been agreed with Chelsea and it should be confirmed soon.

What the situation as far as Grealish is concerned is a mystery and nobody is saying anything as far as I can tell. Maybe things will change if the George deal gets confirmed as I think it will.

I'd be very pleased to get George. The suggestion seems to be it's a £20m deal (a bit cheaper than the option to buy) and hopefully that is confirmed soon. If so, credit to TFG for finding this kind of quality at low cost.

I don't know if others use this site, but the best transfer round up website seems to be transfer feed.

Have a browse if, like me, you find this sort of thing interesting.

The suggestion I have heard Robert is £16.5m with addons back loaded to the take the total to the original Chelsea price if they are met. I think the £16.5m up front is right but I am not sure how accurate the extras are or how they are structured.

If the fee is £16.5m (which is maybe about €20m) then that is extremely good value.

Based on fees so far the pricing for a fairly standard Premier League signing is about £20m to £40m. An expensive signing probably starts at about £80m now or maybe higher.

According to the BBC we’ve agreed a fee worth up to 30mil for George 24 mil upfront and 6 mil in add ons based on if we get European football and appearances, it also includes a sell on clause of 15%

So the original option to buy at the end of last season was 25 mil? Now we’ve got that down by 1 mil but have to pay an extra 6 possibly? I’m not sure how I feel about that.

Overall, I think we have made a good deal for a talented prospect in today’s expensive climate but it’s strange how Chelsea have renegotiated the terms.

I’m a bit confused because we are still using “Goodison” revenue to judge how free we are to spend??
Surely with the extra revenue through ticket hikes, sponsorship, other events, etc, our right to spend should be significantly higher? Wasn’t that the point?
Can anyone enlighten me please?

This has aged well…