FanchesterCity

Shame to see this lad go. Would MUCH rather have him that Savic (who quite frankly, isn't up to the job and needs to learn sharpish). Onouha's a very bright lad indeed, and very well mannered. Cracking addition to any squad. 80K a week? who knows. I wouldn't always trust the media who 'appear' to know the ins and outs of personal contracts very quickly. Wouldn't be in QPR's interests to leak it, and probably not in Onuoha's either (not the best way to start at a new club).

Question for ya... Which song (about Liverpool) is Z-Cars based on? NO GOOGLING!!!

But what was it BEFORE Z-Cars? There's a question for ya.... Surely Z-Cars has had it's day? and before anyone starts, I'm no fan of bloody blue moon either. There seems to be a real shortage of proper 'anthemic' tunes of late unless you resort to some classical music. :-( and I'm loathe to say it, but I will... you'll be hard presses to beat Celtic's anthem (sadly ripped off by your neighbours)

He comes across as very affable in general, but rumours are he's a monster behind the scenes. Very much in the 'if you don't like my ways, you don't belong here' mould. Nothing wrong with that whilst it's working. Ten's partly right about forgetting what it's like to lose. It doesn't take long before you 'expect' to win. They say this is how great teams SHOULD feel, but the moment you don't, it's a shock to the system. In this league, as I've said countless times, anybody can beat anybody. Refs can make controversial decisions, teams play out of their skin to beat you (when you're a scalp) or they can park the bus and frustrate you. I definitely think the 'dynamics' change when you're at the top (or bottom) of a league, and there's nothing 'typical' about any game. I suspect this is adding to Mancini's frustration and learning curve. It actually only makes sensible fans appreciate how difficult it must be for Chelsea / Arsenal / United sometimes, when teams definitely change their usual game against you. Frustrating in the extreme.

People who misuse the word 'chronic' when they actually mean 'really bad'

Incidentally, when the Premier League was formed, the rest (football league) clubs were given an option: 1) Take a fixed percentage of the Sky deal (in return for letting them cover matches from lower leagues too). I think it was 20% but I could be wrong on that. 2) Go it alone and sell the rights elsewhere and keep all the money they make. They chose option 2, because the Football League believed their marketing dept could compete with Sky and would be able to at least earn more than 20% of Sky money. To be fair, at the time, Sky was new, and nobody was quite sure if satellite TV was some passing fad. Alas, the Football League made the wrong choice and Sky went on to become an incredible success. Not quite sure how the 'parachute payment' system was negotiated... I'd be interested to find out.

noooooo What I am saying is, it pays to remember (look back) at such things and see how attitudes change depending on how the club is doing at the time. When a club's doing well, they often don't give a toss about another club, but then they're in trouble, suddenly the 'greater good' comes into play. All clubs do it. I personally am in favour of the 'greater good' (which is why I give a toss about Everton). The game is great because each club needs each other, and that's why I think all funds should be shared on a 'fair' basis. Deciding the 'fair' basis is another matter! but it shouldn't be on size of club (otherwise all the big city clubs will be favoured and the small town clubs left behind).

hehe.... Sugar voted for Sky AND happened to be making some of the receivers (along with SGS Thompson or Pace, can't recall) and dishes. Whether one influenced the other....? *smirks*

Actually, believe it or not, Alan Sugar was influential in much of it. Spurs were one of the five wanting to go with ITV... then Alan Sugar came in at Spurs. Alan Sugar's firm (Amstrad) just happened to be making all the dishes (and fitting them) for Sky! Whether this influenced Mr Sugar, I wouldn't care to say... make your own judgment on that. Anyway, he broke from the big 5 and decided to vote for the Sky deal, which went a long way to collapsing the ITV deal. It was a bit more complex than that... but that was a key moment too.

I don't blame Everton, they were in the elite back then, but it does pay to remember such things. If (shudder to think) Everton were in the bottom half and someone said "let's half the premier league and form a new 'super elite' - how would Everton feel then? The problem is, Everton FANS weren't the ones saying it (although I suspect, like most fans, many would have been all for it!), it was the owners. You have no say in the owners, and it was different owners then anyway. Everton then, isn't Everton now. But still, if we look back in history at most clubs, they've all been greedy, all been stupid and all shafted the fans at some point.

1983 ITV obtained a two-year contract from the Football League to show live matches for £5.2m. A four-year deal in 1988 cost £44m. There was clearly large sums of money available for showing live First Division games. The top clubs felt that they deserved a greater percentage of this money and Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham and Everton threatened to form their own "Super League". In 1992 it was agreed to establish the FA Premier League. The new league was almost identical to the old Football League Division One. The main change was that its clubs would keep all TV revenues. Sky TV, owned by Rupert Murdoch, paid £304m over five years to show a large number of these games live. In 1997 this contract was renewed for £650m. Everton were one of the clubs (at that time) who wanted to remain with ITV rather than go to Sky, and they also wanted to keep the 'higher revenues' for the top 5 super clubs (at that time). The rest of the league (First division as it was then) voted against.

Sky didn't kill it The clubs did. Everton were one of the handful of clubs that wanted a breakaway league and to go with ITV money (keeping it all for themselves). ALL the clubs wanted 'TV money', but the majority went for the Sky deal instead. Sky have done THEIR jobs exceptionally well, it's the clubs who haven't managed the money properly. They've had a fortune handed to them, and they've largely blown it. Club owners were neanderthal morons in the 80s and little has changed. The majority of football clubs are still a shambles behind the scenes. What SKY did (and possibly ITV may have done, we'll never know) was show that the traditional thinking (that matchday receipts) was where a club made it's money was outdated, and simply incorrect. Clubs failed to realise that the 40K week in week out crowd was a finite number, with little prospect of expanding or paying much more than they already did. Sky (along with Premier League) showed that the sport was bigger than any single club, and that marketing the 'league' to millions of armchair supporters, or fans who also enjoyed seeing other teams play was the way to go. A small slice of a MASSIVE pie was much better for clubs than a large slice of a small pie. The collective power of the league meant that advertisers had a much bigger reach, didn't have to align themselves with any single club, and could 'glam' up the sport via TV graphics and hype..... the rest is history. Well done to Sky. Shame on the clubs.

That article is exceptionally good, but needs to be read a few times (I would say). The only aspect I'm not keen on is the urge to join the Blue Union. I think just suggests a certain side of the fence. But if anybody wanted a pretty impressive and I'd argue insightful reality check... read it.

if that's his wife, it's no WONDER he's never got time to be here!

No it's not. During a hostile takeover, no access to the books is given. That's why it's hostile... it's brought about not by agreement but by simply buying up the shares by individual negotiation. Hostile takeovers are notoriously risky for this very reason.

so.. a 50/50 header for a ball might be deemed 'no intent' (going for the ball) but there's a fairly reasonable risk of a head injury. The reason it only happens now and again? because one player opts out. Red card for both? I think Kompany was a yellow to red. I think red was at the 'harsh' end of the spectrum, but still a valid call. Would have liked to have seen the ref book him and half a word about over enthusiasm, but all in all, can't complain too much.

BK lied when he told the Blue Union... "I don't know where the money's going" he said it repeatedly. 10 minutes later he said "all our money's going to the banks". If you put a generous slant on that, he didn't "lie" he was simply confused.

I don't think for a moment the bank forced the sale either. In fact, I don't believe they have the power to do so. What I DO believe though is that they have a noose around the club's neck and are entitled to their money back. In layman's terms.... Banks to Everton "You run your business as you see fit, but you OWE us the money and we WILL get it back" Everton to Banks "We're struggling as it is with all the interest payments" Banks to Everton "We're very sorry to hear that. We look forward to your next payment at the end of the month as usual" It's that simple. The banks aren't calling the shots directly, but there are very few ways the club can pay them off... and selling the players is the most practical"

Due Diligence would only occur in a friendly takeover not a hostile one. Of course Everton appear to be seeking a friendly one. But even so, one does not air their dirty laundry PRIOR to a sale. They attract suitors first, then negotiate. It's far better to know who is 'remotely' interested then focus efforts on selling yourself to them than to reveal all your problems upfront and attract nobody at all.

Whilst that NTL deal may be 100% accurate, or slightly wrong... (I don't know), it's still an appalling situation. I keep SCREAMING this: - We aren't talking Portsmouth here... we are talking about one of the all time greats / big clubs. (Top 10 if you're being harsh, and top 5-7 if you're being fair) - The club has NOT been short of revenue. It's had some of the better revenues in the PL and at one time was stated as being in the top 20 in Europe. - The club hasn't spent on a new ground - so there's no massive outgoing in (say) the way Arsenal are paying for their stadium - The club hasn't spent prolifically, and many would argue it's been extremely frugal. So there can be no accusations of big signings, mega wages etc - The club has sold a number of leading players for fairly significant sums, with a number of them being at a significant profit. - The club has had impressive crowds, certainly well above average. So it can't be argued that you're not getting gate receipts So all in all, it's very hard to see how you CAN be in such a state. Sure, you're not Man U, and you're not funded by a billionaire, but you're comparable with Spurs, Villa, Newcastle etc in terms of 'facilities available'. What more does it take for fans to see that the board have FAILED? Monumentally. WHERE THE HELL HAS THE MONEY BEEN GOING? Cos if they can't make a profit with the above, then they shoudn't be in business at all, let alone the football business.

I agree with Hafnia. It makes me think of a car with Everton fans as the passengers and Bill as the driver. The car is way out of control and the fans are arguing about how to avoid a crashing and they're each telling Bill 'do this' or 'do that'. All the while they fail to recognise the driver himself is pissed, and simply not capable of control.

They don't WANT to say "the money's paying off the debts" because they are trying to sell the club and don't want it to become a distress sale (which it's close to being) They don't want to reveal the true mess they are in, to put it bluntly. Any interest they have mustered is no more than a polite 'whiff' of the club (since any serious potential of an offer would require the shareholders to be formally notified).... note 'potential' (not a formal offer). If there is reasonable cause to suspect an interested buyer, there's a legal obligation for the shareholders to be notified. It reeks of the board not wanting to actually lose their own money, and discovering they can't sell the club without doing so, since the price of the club is too high. God only knows how many long term agreements the club are entered into.... 50 year lease on Finch Farm is just one example. There could be many other commitments the club are under.

Looking forward to your new book... Romance on a budget ;-)

it's not ONLY the players fault. WE the fans are the market. We scream for new players and marquee signings. We are willing to accept their pay. We're as much to blame as they are. It's a triangle... The players will earn as much as clubs are willing to pay, and the fans are willing the clubs to spend more and more, plus shockingly bad business decisions are made at clubs that involve over extending themselves to afford top players. All three parties are to blame. So what if City pay 20 players more money. or United do? That's 40 players you can't have.... big deal, there's a few thousand more to choose from. Then what if Livepool pay a bit more than you, and Arsenal, and Spurs... that's putting you 6th in the 'pay' table... etc etc. It's always been that way, so there's nothing to stop many clubs saying "we aren't going to pay any more. It's 10K a week, but you're in the Prem!".... Once all the spaces at the high payers are gone... where are those players going to go? if they WANT to play in the Prem, then they'd have to accept 10K. At the end of the day, the MORONS running football and the clubs have caused this. The employees (the players) have demanded more and more and the stupid sods running the game have pandered to it.

Very true. A 'modest' pay cut across the board would do wonders... 10 grand a week * 20 players = 200K a week = 800k a month = 9.6 million a year. It's a start. You'd soon discover how 'loyal' these Everton players are..... not very. That's not a criticism, just true of most players at any top club I'd say.