Jump to content


Have Everton Rid Themselves Of Their ‘selling Club’ Tag?

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Lowensda


    A force to be reckoned with, I reckon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,818 posts

Posted 29 Mar 2010 - 16:47

  • 0

#2 Bailey


    Kevin Ratcliffe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,261 posts

Posted 29 Mar 2010 - 18:09

Until we can afford to buy around 10mil's worth of player without having to flog someone else in the process we will be a selling club.

However, as the article says we are now back in the right half of the league and have a squad of quality players that has the ability to get somewhere which will attract a certain calibre of player, but as mentioned earlier, if we havent got the money then it doesnt really matter who we can attract...
  • 0

#3 dmac


    Joe Parkinson

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 67 posts

Posted 29 Mar 2010 - 19:33

wont a club always have to sell players though otherwise the wage bill would be mental?
  • 0

#4 bluenoseyankee


    The Love Child of Fellaini's Fro & Pienaar's Cornrow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 29 Mar 2010 - 20:33

I think there is a difference between a selling club and a club that sells. Semantics, I know, but bear with me a moment as I think the article has made a very valid point.

Prior to Moyes and even until the last two years, we were most definitely a selling club. We sold because we produced/found players of too high calibre to play for a mid-table/relegation battling club. Our sales were largely coerced by necessity (financial survival) or by the wage demands of the player. (Rooney being example #1).

Now, I believe, we have moved from being a selling club from which the big teams find new talent, to a club that sells. Let me give some idea to what that means for me. A club that sells is a smartly run club (and in our case out of financial necessity). A club that sells may, from time to time, choose to sell its prize (or one of it's prized) asset(s) in order to fund/make room for what the club sees as a net gain. For me the Lescott saga was and is a perfect example of this. Yes Lescott wanted to move for higher wages and yes Citeh's money was ridiculous, but could we have kept hold of Lescott and benched him til he changed his mind? Sure. We sold Lescott because we wanted to better our squad. The 3 players we bought with the Lescott sale are evidence that we benefited more (in pure football terms) from his departure than had he remained.

I think this is what the author of the article is trying to get at...and for me the way all clubs should be run. There are not an infinite number of quality footballers and even less positions on the first squad, so logically some players (even good ones) need to be sold to make room for changes and improvements. All clubs sell, but some choose to while others are coerced.
  • 0

#5 Sheeeeeedy


    Tim Howard

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 103 posts

Posted 30 Mar 2010 - 03:45

City are an anomaly because they have an infinite amount of money, so last summer was a bit of a one off. However It still seems like Moyes has tp sell before he can buy and has a made a good job of selling for a profit and bringing in bargains. He can only do that for so long though.
  • 0

#6 Romey 1878

Romey 1878


  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,179 posts

Posted 30 Mar 2010 - 07:43

This summer or the next with Rodwell could go some way to showing whether we are still a selling club or not.
  • 0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users