Ross Barkley

[BillyShears]

Two cracking posts Matty.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wonder if the yawning financial gap between leading clubs like City and more modest clubs like Everton is what the Everton board envisaged when they set the ball rolling on the concentration of money towards the top of the English game when they decided, consumed by naked greed, to move the pieces on the board in relation to gate and TV money in the 1980's, in a way they envisaged would be wholly in their favour?

If you know your history..........

 

[quadvod]

As an evertonian my question for city fans is why do you want him now?

The lad has magnificent potential but thats all it is at the moment - he's far too up and down to command a regular place in your side with the resulting publicity of him gathering splinters on the bench (england's next great hope ruined by city etc...)not being worth the hassle

All this when you have that fabulous player silva (best in the league for me) who can play that no 10 role infinitely better at the moment

If everton are to sell then kenwright will have to pitch it as a deal that we just couldn't turn down (given that the tv money has suddenly made us financially secure) - you'd be silly (imo) to deal at the sort of price we'd be after

 

[moomba]

As an evertonian my question for city fans is why do you want him now?

The lad has magnificent potential but thats all it is at the moment - he's far too up and down to command a regular place in your side with the resulting publicity of him gathering splinters on the bench (england's next great hope ruined by city etc...)not being worth the hassle

All this when you have that fabulous player silva (best in the league for me) who can play that no 10 role infinitely better at the moment

If everton are to sell then kenwright will have to pitch it as a deal that we just couldn't turn down (given that the tv money has suddenly made us financially secure) - you'd be silly (imo) to deal at the sort of price we'd be after

I guess if we wait until (if) he's the finished product he'll cost twice as much and will be much more difficult to prise away from Everton without leaving us and Barkley open to criticism.

Something wrong with the football model IMO when the best thing for the player generally takes a back seat to money and inter club politics.

I do think if we are to start bringing through "less than finished product" players like Barkley and our academy kids we might have to change our philosophy a bit.

 

[BillyShears]

I wonder if the yawning financial gap between leading clubs like City and more modest clubs like Everton is what the Everton board envisaged when they set the ball rolling on the concentration of money towards the top of the English game when they decided, consumed by naked greed, to move the pieces on the board in relation to gate and TV money in the 1980's, in a way they envisaged would be wholly in their favour?

If you know your history..........

For those of us not au fait with Everton's history, could you maybe put some meat on the bones of that post please.

 

[BillyShears]

As an evertonian my question for city fans is why do you want him now?

The lad has magnificent potential but thats all it is at the moment - he's far too up and down to command a regular place in your side with the resulting publicity of him gathering splinters on the bench (england's next great hope ruined by city etc...)not being worth the hassle

All this when you have that fabulous player silva (best in the league for me) who can play that no 10 role infinitely better at the moment

If everton are to sell then kenwright will have to pitch it as a deal that we just couldn't turn down (given that the tv money has suddenly made us financially secure) - you'd be silly (imo) to deal at the sort of price we'd be after

I have to say, first and foremost, it's pretty naive of Everton supporters to think that a decent set of accounts makes you financially secure in the long term. You're treading water. In actual fact you are still up for sale because Kenwright doesn't want to invest in the infrastructure required to help you push on commercially so that you can have sustainable success over a period of time. Your current financial security has come from a greater or lesser extent from selling your best players every other summer. You don't have the money to invest another 40/50 million in that squad, nor the money to build a new stadium. I'm not trying to be harsh, but that's a reality. I understand the bullish talk from Martinez about the club not needing to sell to pay off debts or an overdraft, but your board of directors IMHO aren't going to knock back a cash offer of 40 million pounds for any of your players.

Anyway, so why do I want Barkley. I think he's as good as Martinez is talking him up to be. He's got the potential to be the best English player of many generations. He is already at his tender age, although inconsistent, at his best better than 99% of the midfield players in the league. You mention Silva but generally Silva has played either from the left or from the right for City. I think Barkley's role in our squad would be to effectively take the place of Nasri/Toure as he can play either centrally or from a slightly wider position.

There's another reason I want Barkley, which is much more parochial in a way. Other than Milner and Hart we don't have any English players who are good enough. To be a top club and to have consistent success you need a core of English players in the dressing room. Our previous title winning team had Milner, Johnson, Hart, Barry, Lescott, and Richards. Since then we've lost Lescott, Barry, Richards and Johnson, while the incoming Rodwell and Sinclair proved to be garbage. Milner still hasn't signed his new contract so it's possible he could go too. In that sense we're crying out for at least a couple of English players in the dressing room.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wonder if the yawning financial gap between leading clubs like City and more modest clubs like Everton is what the Everton board envisaged when they set the ball rolling on the concentration of money towards the top of the English game when they decided, consumed by naked greed, to move the pieces on the board in relation to gate and TV money in the 1980's, in a way they envisaged would be wholly in their favour?

If you know your history..........

For those of us not au fait with Everton's history, could you maybe put some meat on the bones of that post please.

Everton, along with the other cohorts of the self-importantly titled "Big 5" (them, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and - surprise, surprise - united) threatened to break away from the rest of the league unless the rules relating to gate receipts were changed in the 1980's. Up to that point this revenue had been shared between the home and the away team with the latter receiving (iirc) one third of the gate receipts. It was a form of wealth redistribution in the game conceived, I believe, in the nineteenth century to ensure a more level playing field. As time marched on and clubs from the larger urban centres started to acquire more power in the game, for reasons of demographics, and to a limited extent, at that time, television, they started to resent this arrangement, seeing it as a hindrance to their aspirations for greater commercial power and success. City, it should be said, in spite of being as well supported as some of those clubs, were excluded from that grouping, because of the chronic mismanagement of the Swales era.

I hesitate to be too critical of any of those clubs per se, not least because I am sure that Swales would have been in on the act if he'd had the opportunity, but nonetheless it was a move that was designed with self-interest at its very heart. A big "fuck you" to the rest of football. The thing about moving the pieces on the board, however, is that you can't always predict where that will take you. united have benefitted enormously from those moves as well as the further steps that they and those other clubs were intimately involved in to concentrate more money at the top of the game (Sky; Premier League; Champions League; G14). Others like Everton and Spurs have garnered less from the changes, at least in relative terms. Them's the breaks, I guess.

What is so beautifully ironic about our current ownership, and that of Chelsea it has to be said, is that it only became possible or feasible because of the path that Everton and their fellow members of the "Big 5" embarked upon when trying to feather their own nest. Abramovich and Mansour were attracted to the honey trap that Everton actively helped to create.

It's why protests from Everton fans about how unfair it all is always put an enormous grin on my face. The footballing landscape of today was shaped, in no small part, by their club with its snout in the trough.

Live by the sword.....

 

[BillyShears]

I wonder if the yawning financial gap between leading clubs like City and more modest clubs like Everton is what the Everton board envisaged when they set the ball rolling on the concentration of money towards the top of the English game when they decided, consumed by naked greed, to move the pieces on the board in relation to gate and TV money in the 1980's, in a way they envisaged would be wholly in their favour?

If you know your history..........

For those of us not au fait with Everton's history, could you maybe put some meat on the bones of that post please.

Everton, along with the other cohorts of the self-importantly titled "Big 5" (them, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and - surprise, surprise - united) threatened to break away from the rest of the league unless the rules relating to gate receipts were changed in the 1980's. Up to that point this revenue had been shared between the home and the away team with the latter receiving (iirc) one third of the gate receipts. It was a form of wealth redistribution in the game conceived, I believe, in the nineteenth century to ensure a more level playing field. As time marched on and clubs from the larger urban centres started to acquire more power in the game, for reasons of demographics, and to a limited extent, at that time, television, they started to resent this arrangement, seeing it as a hindrance to their aspirations for greater commercial power and success. City, it should be said, in spite of being as well supported as some of those clubs, were excluded from that grouping, because of the chronic mismanagement of the Swales era.

I hesitate to be too critical of any of those clubs per se, not least because I am sure that Swales would have been in on the act if he'd had the opportunity, but nonetheless it was a move that was designed with self-interest at its very heart. A big "fuck you" to the rest of football. The thing about moving the pieces on the board, however, is that you can't always predict where that will take you. united have benefitted enormously from those moves as well as the further steps that they and those other clubs were intimately involved in to concentrate more money at the top of the game (Sky; Premier League; Champions League; G14). Others like Everton and Spurs have garnered less from the changes, at least in relative terms. Them's the breaks, I guess.

What is so beautifully ironic about our current ownership, and that of Chelsea it has to be said, is that it only became possible or feasible because of the path that Everton and their fellow members of the "Big 5" embarked upon when trying to feather their own nest. Abramovich and Mansour were attracted to the honey trap that Everton actively helped to create.

It's why protests from Everton fans about how unfair it all is always put an enormous grin on my face. The footballing landscape of today was shaped, in no small part, by their club with its snout in the trough.

Live by the sword.....

Thanks mate, I really appreciate that. I vaguely recall the gate receipts thing but it makes much more sense now.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

For those of us not au fait with Everton's history, could you maybe put some meat on the bones of that post please.

Everton, along with the other cohorts of the self-importantly titled "Big 5" (them, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and - surprise, surprise - united) threatened to break away from the rest of the league unless the rules relating to gate receipts were changed in the 1980's. Up to that point this revenue had been shared between the home and the away team with the latter receiving (iirc) one third of the gate receipts. It was a form of wealth redistribution in the game conceived, I believe, in the nineteenth century to ensure a more level playing field. As time marched on and clubs from the larger urban centres started to acquire more power in the game, for reasons of demographics, and to a limited extent, at that time, television, they started to resent this arrangement, seeing it as a hindrance to their aspirations for greater commercial power and success. City, it should be said, in spite of being as well supported as some of those clubs, were excluded from that grouping, because of the chronic mismanagement of the Swales era.

I hesitate to be too critical of any of those clubs per se, not least because I am sure that Swales would have been in on the act if he'd had the opportunity, but nonetheless it was a move that was designed with self-interest at its very heart. A big "fuck you" to the rest of football. The thing about moving the pieces on the board, however, is that you can't always predict where that will take you. united have benefitted enormously from those moves as well as the further steps that they and those other clubs were intimately involved in to concentrate more money at the top of the game (Sky; Premier League; Champions League; G14). Others like Everton and Spurs have garnered less from the changes, at least in relative terms. Them's the breaks, I guess.

What is so beautifully ironic about our current ownership, and that of Chelsea it has to be said, is that it only became possible or feasible because of the path that Everton and their fellow members of the "Big 5" embarked upon when trying to feather their own nest. Abramovich and Mansour were attracted to the honey trap that Everton actively helped to create.

It's why protests from Everton fans about how unfair it all is always put an enormous grin on my face. The footballing landscape of today was shaped, in no small part, by their club with its snout in the trough.

Live by the sword.....

Thanks mate, I really appreciate that. I vaguely recall the gate receipts thing but it makes much more sense now.

No problem, pal.

I think many Everton fans have a real problem dealing with where each club currently finds itself. The fortunes of football clubs have always vacillated, as a result of judgement, happenstance and wider factors over which no one has any real control. We were a bigger and more successful club than Everton in the late 60's and 70's. If that can be subject to change once, why not again? Many of them seem unable to appreciate this fact. It's like their brains cannot process the information. Maybe things will change again, although it's considerably less likely now that FFP, voted for by their club it has to be said, is in situ.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

As an evertonian my question for city fans is why do you want him now?

The lad has magnificent potential but thats all it is at the moment - he's far too up and down to command a regular place in your side with the resulting publicity of him gathering splinters on the bench (england's next great hope ruined by city etc...)not being worth the hassle

All this when you have that fabulous player silva (best in the league for me) who can play that no 10 role infinitely better at the moment

If everton are to sell then kenwright will have to pitch it as a deal that we just couldn't turn down (given that the tv money has suddenly made us financially secure) - you'd be silly (imo) to deal at the sort of price we'd be after

I have to say, first and foremost, it's pretty naive of Everton supporters to think that a decent set of accounts makes you financially secure in the long term. You're treading water. In actual fact you are still up for sale because Kenwright doesn't want to invest in the infrastructure required to help you push on commercially so that you can have sustainable success over a period of time. Your current financial security has come from a greater or lesser extent from selling your best players every other summer. You don't have the money to invest another 40/50 million in that squad, nor the money to build a new stadium. I'm not trying to be harsh, but that's a reality. I understand the bullish talk from Martinez about the club not needing to sell to pay off debts or an overdraft, but your board of directors IMHO aren't going to knock back a cash offer of 40 million pounds for any of your players.

Anyway, so why do I want Barkley. I think he's as good as Martinez is talking him up to be. He's got the potential to be the best English player of many generations. He is already at his tender age, although inconsistent, at his best better than 99% of the midfield players in the league. You mention Silva but generally Silva has played either from the left or from the right for City. I think Barkley's role in our squad would be to effectively take the place of Nasri/Toure as he can play either centrally or from a slightly wider position.

There's another reason I want Barkley, which is much more parochial in a way. Other than Milner and Hart we don't have any English players who are good enough. To be a top club and to have consistent success you need a core of English players in the dressing room. Our previous title winning team had Milner, Johnson, Hart, Barry, Lescott, and Richards. Since then we've lost Lescott, Barry, Richards and Johnson, while the incoming Rodwell and Sinclair proved to be garbage. Milner still hasn't signed his new contract so it's possible he could go too. In that sense we're crying out for at least a couple of English players in the dressing room.

A decent set of accounts?

Like many, including West Ham and Southampton, they mortgaged their TV money to Vibrac, a dodgy pay day loan outfit in the British Virgin Islands, because they simply don't have the day-to-day cash flow they need to sustain the club.

Nothing wrong with that, they get £60m up front, but it's essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Just as we get the tired accusation that we will go bust if our owner walks away, Everton would really be in trouble if they were to ever be relegated or the TV deal went bump.

Clubs thought the likes of Setanta and ITV Digital would be hole-in-the-wall cash machines for life...

Leeds United being the prime example of borrowing on tick.