Everton are in a mess.

[mickd1961]

This is true. I read somewhere (so no clue how true this is) that the Brighton owner had put around a billion into the club since he's been there. He's obviously recouped some of that now with the player sales. But anyone who thinks theirs is a sustainable model is just not the case. They have had an owner with deep pockets prepared to invest a large amount.

We have never had that, and even though the club is in better hands now, we still won't have that level of investment.

We should really be looking at ourselves for the blueprint...the 2010-2018 era. We had a sustainable club, an owner who watched every penny and for some of that time, a director of football who was the best in the country. Our recruitment was largely very good, which was the foundation of our success.

I agree to a large extent 123 but the big downside with Peace was his penny pinching and his desire to keep us “small” and casting us as a “mid table Championship club”.

Jeremy didn’t like anyone earning more than himself which is a major drawback when operating a Prem club.

The plan for us should be along the lines of identifying lower league and European talent but also giving our own youngsters much more of a chance early in their careers.

We’ve lost too many like Izzy Brown and Morgan-Rodgers for little or nothing whereas if we’d been playing them it’s more likely they might stay longer and give us a better sell on value.

I have to say, in the 52 years I’ve supported Albion we’ve never been good with our own youngsters or identifying likewise from other clubs.

Cyrille from Hayes was our Jamie Vardy, we’ve not done much since 1977!

[Leicesterbaggie]

I agree to a large extent 123 but the big downside with Peace was his penny pinching and his desire to keep us “small” and casting us as a “mid table Championship club”.

Jeremy didn’t like anyone earning more than himself which is a major drawback when operating a Prem club.

The plan for us should be along the lines of identifying lower league and European talent but also giving our own youngsters much more of a chance early in their careers.

We’ve lost too many like Izzy Brown and Morgan-Rodgers for little or nothing whereas if we’d been playing them it’s more likely they might stay longer and give us a better sell on value.

I have to say, in the 52 years I’ve supported Albion we’ve never been good with our own youngsters or identifying likewise from other clubs.

Cyrille from Hayes was our Jamie Vardy, we’ve not done much since 1977!

And didn’t Ronnie Allen pay the £5,000 out of his own pocket for Cyrille!

[mickd1961]

And didn’t Ronnie Allen pay the £5,000 out of his own pocket for Cyrille!

Yes he did Leices.

We’ve always been a penny pinching club run by misers and charlatans, we deserve one good owner in our lifetime, let’s hope Shilen is that man.

[On Balance]

The BBC interview form March gave an indication of his vision going forward. I think most would have seen and read it but the link below takes you to it should you have missed it.

I think it will be a carefully and timely worked through plan. No knee jerk buying, no throwing millions at it. It seems that there will be finances available but not in the volumes that some may wish for.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68495996

[mickd1961]

The BBC interview form March gave an indication of his vision going forward. I think most would have seen and read it but the link below takes you to it should you have missed it.

I think it will be a carefully and timely worked through plan. No knee jerk buying, no throwing millions at it. It seems that there will be finances available but not in the volumes that some may wish for.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68495996

Most of us know this interview inside out.

I think most of us would like to know what the recruitment team looks like, who’s in charge of it and what is the structural plan?

These days, athleticism and energy around the pitch is such a big part of the game, rarely do we have a player who compares to many of the other sides doing well.

This is why Fellows stands out so much and Johnston since his arrival, their sheer speed and quickness of thought and movement makes a lot of our squad look like statues.

I long to see a much lower age average in our side and would prefer a lot of under 25’s with the odd wise head on the pitch to captain them.

[On Balance]

Most of us know this interview inside out.

I think most of us would like to know what the recruitment team looks like, who’s in charge of it and what is the structural plan?

These days, athleticism and energy around the pitch is such a big part of the game, rarely do we have a player who compares to many of the other sides doing well.

This is why Fellows stands out so much and Johnston since his arrival, their sheer speed and quickness of thought and movement makes a lot of our squad look like statues.

I long to see a much lower age average in our side and would prefer a lot of under 25’s with the odd wise head on the pitch to captain them.

I gathered that most Baggies would have seen the article.

The point is Mr Patel appears to be happy to get his feet under the table. Get to know the club, understand what he has, what he needs and then he, I would guess, start to make some changes and do what he thinks needs to be done. For me this is a sensible way to begin your ownership of a football club.

His business acumen speaks for its self. I would have disliked it if he had come in and made changes cart blanche from the off. He points out in that interview that it will take time to get the club where he wants it to be.

[Calgarybaggy]

I just read a book called "Soccernomics" by Simon Kuper. I highly recommend it because its very eye opening. Its an attempt to analyze pretty much every aspect of the game, even the women's leagues, on a purely economic basis. He comes up with some very interesting conclusions. He says success is very closely related to how much you pay the players because there is a more or less free market for players. In general the teams with the highest payroll will be more successful and in the long run it doesn't seem to matter as much how "great" the manger/coach is - if he doesn't have a high enough payroll to be competitive he will ultimately fail. He admits that there are often exceptions to this rule which is what makes all sports interesting, but they are usually short term situations - think Leicester winning the Premier League but are now in the championship. So in our situation we have about the fourth highest payroll in the championship and guess where we have been most of the season. The top three payrolls are Leicester, Leeds, and Southampton and guess where they are. Fifth is Norwich and guess where they are. The outlier this season is Ipswich but unless they seriously beef up their payroll they are ultimately doomed in the premier league. Also, buying players for huge amounts of money is generally a poor strategy because they more often than not do not live up to expectations. Have we ever shelled out what for us were huge amounts and had a roaring success? David Mills comes quickly to mind but if we look at all the "club record breaking transfers" over that last forty years can you name one that became a Jeff Astle or a Tony Brown or a Cyrille Regis? The best strategy when it comes to buying players is to find the hidden gems, the diamonds in the rough, the out of favour and the unfashionable players. So we bought Cyrille Regis and Laurie Cunningham for next to nothing because black players were not fashionable at that time. We got Willie Johnston for about half what he was worth because Rangers had had enough of his discipline problems. But perhaps the most important conclusion he comes to is that the financial resources of a team are going to decide its long terms success. More economically viable teams comes from bigger cities. We are never(or rarely) going to see another Nottingham Forest win the champions league or an Ipswich Town make a splash in the premier league for more than a season or two because they just do not have the economic resources to compete over the long term. And financial fair play rules make it even worse because a sugar daddy can no longer pour literally billions of pounds into an otherwise failing team or a team from a smaller center. We are not going to see another Chelsea or Man City who have only reached their success in the past 15 years because of outside money. So where does that leave us? If we are smart about how we spend money and where we find players we can probably maintain our status as a mid level premier league team. Aspiring to anything else will be extremely dangerous for us. The economics seem to dictate that that is our lot.

[Dubbag]

I just read a book called "Soccernomics" by Simon Kuper. I highly recommend it because its very eye opening. Its an attempt to analyze pretty much every aspect of the game, even the women's leagues, on a purely economic basis. He comes up with some very interesting conclusions. He says success is very closely related to how much you pay the players because there is a more or less free market for players. In general the teams with the highest payroll will be more successful and in the long run it doesn't seem to matter as much how "great" the manger/coach is - if he doesn't have a high enough payroll to be competitive he will ultimately fail. He admits that there are often exceptions to this rule which is what makes all sports interesting, but they are usually short term situations - think Leicester winning the Premier League but are now in the championship. So in our situation we have about the fourth highest payroll in the championship and guess where we have been most of the season. The top three payrolls are Leicester, Leeds, and Southampton and guess where they are. Fifth is Norwich and guess where they are. The outlier this season is Ipswich but unless they seriously beef up their payroll they are ultimately doomed in the premier league. Also, buying players for huge amounts of money is generally a poor strategy because they more often than not do not live up to expectations. Have we ever shelled out what for us were huge amounts and had a roaring success? David Mills comes quickly to mind but if we look at all the "club record breaking transfers" over that last forty years can you name one that became a Jeff Astle or a Tony Brown or a Cyrille Regis? The best strategy when it comes to buying players is to find the hidden gems, the diamonds in the rough, the out of favour and the unfashionable players. So we bought Cyrille Regis and Laurie Cunningham for next to nothing because black players were not fashionable at that time. We got Willie Johnston for about half what he was worth because Rangers had had enough of his discipline problems. But perhaps the most important conclusion he comes to is that the financial resources of a team are going to decide its long terms success. More economically viable teams comes from bigger cities. We are never(or rarely) going to see another Nottingham Forest win the champions league or an Ipswich Town make a splash in the premier league for more than a season or two because they just do not have the economic resources to compete over the long term. And financial fair play rules make it even worse because a sugar daddy can no longer pour literally billions of pounds into an otherwise failing team or a team from a smaller center. We are not going to see another Chelsea or Man City who have only reached their success in the past 15 years because of outside money. So where does that leave us? If we are smart about how we spend money and where we find players we can probably maintain our status as a mid level premier league team. Aspiring to anything else will be extremely dangerous for us. The economics seem to dictate that that is our lot.

That's one block of text right there!!