Makis

No, they can still fleece the club numerous millions through their "investment" vehicles.

Anyone following https://twitter.com/WatchedToffee ? Some seriously worrying sh*t there.

Could be, I haven't really paid attention for a while. Something like 18 million was the last price I saw mentioned.

Soldado was supposed to be much better than either of those two.

Would they really spend about 30 million on Berahino and Austin?

The rumour has been they are after Berahino.

Yar. I give up. You keep telling Barkley is worth trillions and Lukaku zillions and McCarty shitloads more than we paid for him (any offers under 30 million should be laughed at). When any other group of supporters overestimate the price of their players you lot start new threads laughing at the idiots.

Everyone understands Luiz was a completely ridiculous deal. Comparing any other deals to that is just unrealistic. Mangala price is wrong. Shaw at 27 million is almost half of the 50 million. 50 million is unrealistic in the sense that if someone really offered that for Stones, he'd be gone in a flash. Everton is not in a position to turn down that sort of offer.

Because the nucleus of this team could well disappear even if Stones is not sold. 50 million is a ridiculous amount for a defender and there's no point in comparing that to a forward's price.

Let's not be stupid. Stones is not the best defender in the world yet. He might be in a few years' time. But by then we might be without Lukaku and Barkley because the club can't invest in strenghtening the team. And Chelsea won't pay 50 million in any case. City might.

I'd be a bit worried about a working permit.

Gullibility isn't strictly tied to intelligence. A lot of smart people believe in their version of god, for instance. Doesn't make them stupid. People also believe in marketing hype, politicians, that reality TV is real and so on.

Damn, I have that on my to-buy list, guess I need to move it up the ladder. People forget that the last time the club splashed money on the transfer market (without selling first) was under Johnson. Maybe if his hamper business hadn't taken a hit things would have been different.

Sums things up very well.

But true. Based on seeing how Evertonians at large think about the club. Just as an example, a lot of people really thought Kirkby was a good idea for the club (it wasn't, only for the major shareholders and Tesco). I mean, how gullible do you have to be to believe that? There have been several ridiculous bids, like the whole Alan Smith thing. http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11671/2299557/everton-confirm-smith-interest Or Moutinho. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-make-new-bid-joao-3478232(this article was also sure Smith was as good as signed) I'm sure people with better memory could list more.

Because most fans are gullible and they buy it every time.

Except that the club has a history of doing just that. Offering 11 million for Shearer when Blackburn had already accepted 15 from Newcastle, for instance. This would be a strange time, however, usually these blarg offers have happened prior to season ticket renewals.

She could be the #10.

JUST SIGN SOMEBODY, FFS!

Turnover versus other operating costs.

If we really were doing that, investing in youth, we should do it for real. It does not involve paying big wages to players like Kone, Barry and Alcaraz. Cleverley is no spring chicken either and Lennon won't fit this description either if he signs, as rumours suggest.

Is the ratio to turnover as high as Everton's?

Nice goal but wtf was the goalie doing in the first goal? Must be one of the softest goals I've ever seen. If it had been at the keeper he probably would have dodged.

Yeah, but if you refer to that player as "we need an attacking midfielder who's primary role is to connect the play from midfield to the forwards (however many that may be)" every time it would be pretty awkward.

#10 used to be the left inside forward. Due to tactical changes #8 was pulled back, of course the context was different but I guess it was just more logical that #10 was higher up the pitch than #8. The number has been worn by quite a few great players, including Maradona. And lest we forget, even in England the norm was that #9 was the big, bulky forward and #10 was the nippy one if the team played with that sort of pairing. Today it just refers more or less to the CAM (more FM bollocks). Current football tactics seem to suggest two forwards is just too many. You give up too much in the midfield. Some teams like Barca even play without a recognized striker (the 4-6-0 formation).