FanchesterCity

Hey lads, if you can't take it - so be it. No skin of my nose. Enough chaos at City tonight without having to worry about a minority of Everton fans who get wound up. Why not make the board purely Everton? have done with it. If that's what you're about that's fair enough, just don't advertise as open to other fans. Make your minds up, but stick to it whatever you decide.... stay or go? Will check back in the morning - I've a few beers to drown first

I don't think a cash injection for players is the way to go... where's it going to get Everton? it's not going to get then in the top 4 unless a miracle happens, so to what end the extra spending? If more money went into the club, it needs to be spent on measures likely to improve their revenue and get them back on track. Probably new ground, or improvements. Sadly this is a MASSIVE cost, but probably better in the long run than a few marquee signings that could be hit and miss and will always depreciate in the long run. Everton need to get their off field business at the same level as their competitors, THEN think about on the pitch. Cos it's that that is stopping anyone from buying the club in the first place... and it has loads of potential with a fan base that large and consistent.

Sometimes, it's not that someone's done a bad job - he's done a GREAT job.... it's just people like a change. And that might be the case with the fans vs Moyes / Kenwright? I don't think there's many clubs when 100% of fans agree on an issue when their club hasn't won anything for some time. Mancini is/isn't the right man, Moyes shrewd / stupid, Gerrard past it / the main man etc. I agree that Moyes isn't the most media friendly. He's no Harry Rednapp that's for sure. he's not as 'classy' as Mancini (but before you start, Mancini doesn't actually SAY anything of note, and he's managing a currently winning team). The reputation Moyes has is 'does wonders on a low budget' and to my mind - that says ALL the wrong things about a club like Everton. It's not his fault - but when 'on a low budget' and 'with the players he has' gets added onto his list of qualities - it's not right. Everton are a big club - and SHOULD be talked about in the same way that Arsenal are (forgetting the past few weeks!), or the way United are etc... but the fact is, they aren't. As it stands, the old stalwarts of United, Liverpool and Chelsea are the mainstay of talk. Man City the current 'fashion' team and Spuds 'the pundit's favourites'. Villa and Everton just aren't on the radar. Arsenal are just a media dream at the moment, for good or bad!. It's Bill's job to get Everton back on people's lips... you don't have to be winning the league for that, just playing attractive football, giving 4th place a good go, and stopping Moyes from being negative in the media. Moyes COULD have said on Saturday "tough game to play City at the moment, and I'm not one for having to be defensive, but in this instance we gave it a good go and it didn't pay off... looking forward to Liverpool next and we might just try the opposite approach and give 'em a real game". It would win over a lot of people if he said that. You have to admire old 'Arry's humourous approach when asked about Adebayour.... "Course the relationship is great - I've only had 'im two weeks... ask me after xmas!" (Mancini could lighten up a bit too... and I don't mean his hair!) And as for Kenny - he's a dry bugger... funny, but dry.

What Liverpool have going for them, as do Man U... is mental attitude. Not sure about Everton's strength in that area, but I don't think it's quite at the same level. Bit off topic, but that's City's problem too. We don't have the 'winning mentality'. We now have individuals who have it, but not as a team. It's twice as good as it used to be, but miles short of Liverpool and United (and Chelsea for that matter). I reckon it can add a good 25-30% onto a team sometimes. If Liverpool do get 4th, I would say it's that mentality that will get them there over Spurs. 'Cos on paper - I'd possibly favour Spurs. And don't put it past City to drop off... for all the names and strength in depth, we're still on the edge of top 4, not firmly established. It only takes an exit from Champions League (likely) and a few dodgy results on the trot... 3 or 4th place and Mancini will be under pressure, and players coming out in the press etc etc. It's ALL to play for!

I think it's ALL too early... City are doing well - but they'll come unstuck soon enough - Daglish is a legend, but he's not a miracle worker - Everton can play a bit - he just needs to let them. We're 5 or 6 games in and pundits reckon it's a 2 horse race and Chelsea MIGHT there abouts. It's just too early by far. And with the number of games these days, stuff goes wild after xmas, when the shallow squads get injuries / tired, or the top teams start getting distracted with Europe. I'm just not sure you can tell much from the games so far... even the 'invincible' United slipped up. The only thing with Everton that might worry me if I supported them... was second half of the season, and folks are carrying knocks and there's not much depth to the squad.. many a good team have found themselves 3-4 points off the drop zone all of a sudden. If you're not up in that top 3rd by xmas, the bottom 2/3 gets quite compressed, and some big name teams start getting twitchy. Liverpool can tell you all about that from last year!... it doesn't take much before you actually wondering if the 'impossible' is possible! And bloody Blackburn and Wolves start going on winning streaks haha... Can't see it happening to Everton mind you, I think you're 100% top 8, poss top 6... but you just never know in this game

Seems so... not sure why, like I said, IF they beat you at the weekend, they're above you with a game in hand! And folks are (generally) singing the praises of Liverpool. Could be wrong but I just think they know they won't go down, but also know it's unlikely they will set the world alight either. At least with Liverpool (rightly or wrongly) Kenny's whipped up some enthusiasm and there's optimism in the air. Come the weekend, if Everton win, it'll all change - but if they lose, the fans will turn quickly. They do at ALL clubs, truth be told. esp if there's already a level of discontent to start with. It's a derby - anything can happen!

are you SURE you don't support City? I detect a touch of sky blue in you! Gotta admire that honest answer!

erm... don't forget Billy Graham preached there once too! - credit where credit is due!

At Arsenal, the moved from a ground quite like Goodison... possibly (no shouting) a bit classier... that had a really nice 'feel' to it - like a well preserved old ground. To a spanking stunning stadium. The fans complained a LOT about the lack of character, and ended up getting Arsenal to add some stuff to the ground - like the Arsenal logo in the seats (I think), and far more extras around the ground as 'heritage'. Oh,,,, and the CLOCK!... the 'clock end' to remind 'em of Highbury. I'm afraid that's just part of the price you pay I think. You just can't take the character with you - just a few token items and that's your lot. Perhaps that's just the issue - you will NEVER replace Goodison, and the fatal mistake is hoping to. When you move to a new stadium, it's like remarrying - you just can't ask the missus to be as dirty as the last one ;-) If you could build a new ground on the same site - that's the only way I think you can get a great compromise and still feel 'it's the same pitch' but that's totally not viable without compulsory purchase orders on the housing and school etc etc and would still cost more! And you've have the council moaning about traffic. They can't do much about you already being there, but they CAN put obstacles in your way if you build a new structure - although in my opinion, it would benefit the area.

Good luck with THAT!!! :-) I can't think of any that cut the mustard to be honest. Emirates is impressive - but only a visual spectacle (and even then it's not THAT amazing). Even of the grounds that have been extended, United's a bit of a mess outside and I don't really think there's any 'vibe' of tradition about it. Craven Cottage is possibly the best for that. St. James' Park always impresses me though - and that's fairly ugly - but I have a soft spot for Newcastle. If I had to pick an away ground that wasn't modern, it would be there. City is pretty generic, reasonably nice touch on the 'winding stairs' outside, but that's about it. Stadium of Light isn't bad - but more of the same Bolton - tricky, you either love it or hate it - it's pretty modern looking / slightly futuristic. Anfield - well, humm have to be careful how I phrase this. It DOES have some amazing history but - it's a real anticlimax Stadiums are stadiums by and large - it's very hard to make a load of cheap concrete and plastic seats that impressive! I've been lucky enough to go to the Benabeu and Camp Nou (but never to a game) and I have to say both were a bit of a dump outside, but inside - breaktaking - got chills just imagining what it's like at a derby. Oh and driven past the Allianz Arena - Munich. That's (from places I've been) the most 'distinctive'. Let me know if you think of a modern (uk) ground with much character! - I'm racking my brains and can't think of one.

The outcome of this game will make a huge difference to the table (in terms of psychological perception). If Everton win, I think they go above Liverpool and have a game in hand, and suddenly Everton are 'top 6' material again - and Liverpool brought back to reality (just saying it as the papers will say it!)... If Liverpool win, it will confirm that Liverpool are back on the up, and Everton's troubles are still ahead of them (again, just how the papers will play it). Fascinating fixture though, even for neutrals - and the atmosphere's always been heated! sitting on the fence a bit here, BUT I can see either Liverpool winning bar a decent margin 3-1, 4-1 OR Everton snatching it 1-0.. That's just a reflection of 'if Liverpool get on top, they have the firepower' / 'if Everton can stifle Liverpool like they almost did at City, they can win it' Probably not the best prediction on an Everton board - but I'm not one for blowin' smoke up arses!

The other thing of course is that IF people decided 'ok' let's go down the new stadium route, it's all to easy to look at a stadium like the Emirates and say "that's where WE need to be at" (in terms of prestige and size etc) - but that's just out of the question for most clubs. You're more likely to looking at something LIKE what City have - nice enough but no great 'sheiks' (sic). A super duper stunning ground is asking to much. (I think) - just a modern, larger capacity, better views ground is all you'll get. If you decide to stay at Goodison... 'doing it up' and expanding it usually costs an arm and a leg - and often disproportionately expensive - a bit like keeping your old car going! it starts getting out of hand. The way things are in the sport today - the current fan base is NOT enough. You can't keep expecting the 40,000 regulars to keep paying for everything - they can't afford it, and it's simply not right. So you have get your revenue from other sources. You're getting more or less the same 'standard' TV money as most other clubs, but mega bucks stuff is coming from CL. It's a BIG ask to get into CL, especially year in year out. You can attract more fans - either with some tweaking of the ticket prices (e.g. 10% less cost to get 15% more fans) - but I suspect the prices are finely tuned already You can attract more fans with 'better' performances and sexier football You can attract more media / sponsorship AND fans with marquee signings - which is risky. It can work, but it can go horribly wrong too. You can give up all reasonably hope of becoming a top side, and settle for mid table stalwarts - reducing your costs etc - but that might see gates down too. You can invest in a new stadium which is less risky than a bunch of marquee signings, and doesn't depreciate as quickly either, and start 'afresh'. The new stadium generally attracts more fans than loses, brings in more sponsorship (because MOST sponsors want to be associated with success (perceived), newness, good facilities, families etc) - more corporate boxes (not a fan of them, BUT needs must - if you want their money!) There MUST be lots of latent Everton support up and down the country (let alone Merseyside). All those new kids growing up now are making choices about who to support... it's been United for years, and a fair few for Chelsea - City are grabbing a few now, and Everton probably need to be doing the same. Call them 'plastics', call them 'fashion followers' etc etc but they ARE the future of clubs. Some will always follow Everton - of course they will, cos their dad supports them, or because their mate supports Liverpool, and they want to be different etc... but most kids are being marketed at and 'captured' by the big clubs. If you don't join 'em - You'll dwindle. And NO club is too big for that to happen to. That's what I reckon anyway! The Kings Dock could have been spectacular location - but it's gone now - but I'm sure other chances will come. If / when you get a new stadium, I am certain it'll attract new interest, new investors, new fans and new players. It's just a shame your council 'seems' to favour Liverpool (or Liverpool are a bit sharper than you guys on the commercial front? - no offence!)

I think with a bond it's a proper guarantee - not a gamble... the only 'variable' is what Everton would do with the money and if it would move the club forward. It's safer than shares - since with shares, if the worst came to the worst, you'd be left with nothing. However, if Everton went on to do a United and dominate for 20 years, you'd just get was promised in the original bond, with a shareholding, you COULD be well and truly in the money ;-) Share = high risk, but you become part of Everton (good and bad!). You could make some money, or lose it all. Bond = low risk, you help Everton out and get your money back + interest, but no say in the club (like now!) I 'think' (but not certain) that they can issue the bonds on a specific premise - 'to pay off the debt' or 'build a new stadium' or just say "for whatever purpose we want!" <--- don't do it!

Cheers! nice gesture. It's all new to us... very exciting, but a real lesson too. These teams really ARE steeped in European history and know how to do well. Like Everton on Saturday (I think) - we'd take a draw. I expect 2-0 to Munich but miracles happen!

If you guys could 'invest' in Everton - but NOT as shareholders... but as bond holders, would that be an option for Everton? For that that don't know... a 'bond' is basically a way of you lending the money to Everton, but they promise to pay it back (and with interest). Example: You give them 1000, and they promise to give you back the 1000 in 10 years. BUT, they will also pay you 5% interest every year on that money. This is something Arsenal did to help pay for the stadium (since they couldn't actually afford it) - but also part of why their prices are high and they need to make sure they can afford to pay it back in the future!) The same principle applies as with a shareholding though.... if the business isn't performing well now, why should it after you've lent money to it... unless you believe that money will be invested wisely and turn the club around. You could spend it on players and aim for CL but that's a heck of a gamble, or you can invest it in ground improvements / new ground (arguably the more stable investment). - however, with a shareholding, you have a stake in the club, and a say in what goes on... with bonds, you just lend them the money. Would Everton fans go for bonds? (easy to say "yes" but you might be pissed when you've not earned much interest over 10 years and the club squandered the money)

Would be great for Everton (imo) IF they could have a stadium that was modern, but very different too - some way they could try and retain a bit of Goodison Park spirit. Unfortunately, the way the game's going - it's all about the money and new stadiums are little more than concrete affairs, tarted up to look smart. But they don't cost must to maintain like old grounds. In all honesty, I don't think I'd want to go back to Maine Rd now. We lost a lot of atmosphere in the move, and we said goodbye to what was (in all reality) a mess of a ground. Our mess - but a mess. We'd patched it up, expanded it, wasted money on it and more. I'm older now, I want to take my son to see some of the world's best players - not necessarily in our team!... Sometimes you just have to point out to him "son... I know it hurts, but that rooney goal was class" or "see this Goodison Park son?... this is what City used to be like". In another 30 years it will all be gone (imo) I really like the quality of football seen in the Premier League now and that's happened because of the money.... BUT... I see disaster ahead - either collapse of many great clubs, or we'll end up like the Americans - and more or less a 'stage show'. Partly why I'm enjoying the Everton board, cos below the surface, City and Everton are just two examples of how clubs are affected by the money (or lack of) - You haven't got any, and we're spending what we haven't got. Neither are particularly good moves! One the one hand - you could do with a bit more money to bring about success (not a lot, just enough to compete for the odd player or two), and City need to keep winning or else we're in trouble with no CL money etc. i.e. Both clubs are relying on some luck in order to actually be viable. I suspect most City fans would rather say they'd rather have our problems than yours (and Everton fans would say the same for them!). Most of us are working class fans, kicked a football around in the streets in a dodgy pair of hand me down trainers as kids and latched onto a local team cos we liked the colours, or a certain player, or tended to favour the underdog in the town (Everton, City) Everton have been stable, City have been a roller coaster - through no fault of our (the fans) own - we're just pawns in a game like you. Chairmen come and go, some with money, some with promises, some with Thai brides ;-) Very few deliver on what they said they would. Hate to mention Fergie, but in his recent interview he talked about the future of clubs - and about how the kids are the future (obvious, but true). Everton's rich heritage is something to be proud of, and in a perfect world, you'd be handing over an historic stadium to the kids. But - it might actually be like your granny's old house being left to you. To HER it was her world, she was born in it... but to you, the grandkid inheriting it... it's and old house, you don't want it, you want something new - so you flog it. Harsh, but probably the reality of the situation in the cold light of day. What Everton have done in their many years can't be taken away. But clinging on to Goodison (imo), or having folks hinder your move (council?) might actually prevent an amazing future. Tonight - I get to watch City play Bayern... we'll probably get drubbed, but I'll have had the chance to see it. If that means I was 'bought' with City's money... so be it... I was bought, I was weak, I caved in... We all caved in. I really believe Everton fans would too if you got lucky with a sugar daddy. If one comes along and says "50K stadium, top players, European nights (again)" - it's hard to turn down (not that you get a choice anyway) and I'd BET your attendance figures would be UP and now down. What do you reckon?

Putting aside the club he's at.... Anybody watched the interview and what's your opinion? I've never liked the bloke, but this was a good interview and he made some proper comments on the rights and wrongs of football and some insight into the mentality of the club and players etc. I thought he made a good point about the influx of foreign players too - just the range of cultures and the mentality of foreign players (not necessarily bad, just different). And a good point about away sections at grounds - adding to the atmosphere. Last Saturday, Everton brought plenty of away fans - don't want to go into numbers but it was certainly more than we'd normally see. Definitely helps to build up good atmosphere at games. Forgetting he's Man U - good or bad interview?

If only two team are winning a league and that shifts to three, you do the maths. 1/2 vs 1/3 United's spending was less this season than in many other seasons. Players are frequently NOT paid based on the income of the club, but on future projected revenues. This is partly why many MANY clubs are in debt. When City came in for Lescott... Everton had a choice. He was under contract. They sold. Why? money. Don't fool yourselves that somehow money didn't influence matters. The same with Arteta. ALL of our clubs are in a financial mess in varying forms... ours included. It's not OUR fault, and it's not Everton's but they've ALL contributed to the mess in some part. Everton (and City) wanted the Premier League. They wanted more money. They wanted to get richer. We didn't give a toss about the other other clubs below us. You can't now start moaning about the mess it's made as if you're innocent. 'It's a mess' and that's that. And it needs sorting. Or you will be bust, and City will be following you soon after when our owners get fed up. I'm far from stupid. I believe I'm just more realistic than you're being.

My interest in Everton? none at all! If I get a decent debate with other fans I'm happy. I just don't have time for the anti City feeling... or 'anti' anything really. I genuinely believe most fans are the same ultimately and are interested in perceptions about their own team, try to right a few wrongs about misperceptions and if they've any sense, want to better understand what's going on in football in general (esp the money troubles of late). When a club like Everton are struggling, something somewhere is wrong. Ok - old ground, but equally, it's a great example of footballing roots - it's not a bad thing to be old / traditional style ground. Good fan base - consistently well supported, consistently top tier and no real history of wild spending or crazy chairmen. So - if THEY are having difficulties, it's just a red flag for me. Portsmouth? - I can understand - you could see it coming! But not Everton. We had a right bunch of morons running our club for years (most with very honourable intentions) and it actually took a bunch of mercenaries to kick our ass into shape, and we've a long way to go. I'm no an Everton fan, clearly, so don't dare suggest what Everton fans should or shouldn't think... but I will express an opinion and have no time for mickey taking. I struggle to understand why folks almost 'expect' other fans to start mocking. Of course there'll be a few morons who will mock anything, but most simply don't find ANY of what's going on in football funny, and Evertons spot of money troubles is only what man other clubs are experiencing too. I do think though, that fans struggle to be honest with themselves. I like to think of City as a friendly club, but once in a while you see the morons that City have (in parts) and get a glimpse of what Away fans are seeing. In the same way, forums like this should be mindful of the impression they are giving of their club. I'm finding the hardest part about being a City fan is that folks assume you're condescending when you mention their older ground, or turnover, or unable to attract the top players'. But they forget that City have been in that boat all too recently and we've had to pay hand over fist to get players we wanted - why? because the truth is we ARENT united or liverpool or chelski etc If there's one thing I'd say to Everton it's this: As much as people perceive City fans are 'full of themselves lately' (it's actually intoxication with actually seeing something we're enjoying), and financed by a Sugar Daddy, they are just people who never have a say in what actually happens with their club. And as much as Everton fans often deny having any similarity to City, I really believe there's a lot in common. If both sides can accept that the state of their clubs is NOTHING to do with them - it's thrust upon us, and ultimately we both want the same things - then the better that will be for relations. Nobody's mocking Everton. Talk about Goodison Park is not a way of bragging about our part council owned stadium... it's just discussion. One person did say something I found trouble some.. and that was that 'Goodison Park' was extra special and not just 'any old ground' like Maine Road. Maine Road WAS just 'any old ground' but not to US. The reality is, Bolton fans went through ALL the same stuff Everton fans might have to. City fans went through it, Sunderland fans went through it etc... It's never about how 'great' Goodison is vs another ground, it's about what it means to the fans. THAT is the same for all fans. Sometimes - fans share a common purpose. Love of the game, and cheaper pies.

All a matter of perception - from our point of view it looked like we couldn't break you down and it would be just our luck that you'd break and snatch one (exactly what Napoli did to us, and we played very well against them). I'm biased, but yes, it looked like we were the ones looking for the goal all day long, and we did have a couple of close chances, but you defended very solidly and I don't think we once got behind you (other than loose ball in the opening minutes to Dzeko). We got a lucky deflection (but you make your own luck right?) If you shoot enough times from those positions and you have so many men in the box, there's a fair chance you will get a deflection! I can't for the life of me see much negative in the way Everton played. Defensive, yes, but I don't see that as negative. Negative play (to my mind) is constant fouling, breaking the game up. Deciding to play Attack Vs Defence ain't negative! it's just bloody frustrating if you can't break the defence down. City did precisely the same last year away at Arsenal. We got lucky and snatched a draw (which at that point we were damn grateful for). The return match will be more interesting I think when both teams have a slightly better idea of where they stand in the table, and Everton (maybe) more likely to fancy attacking us. City are quite a decent team when the wind is blowing in the right direction, but there's at least 8 teams capable of beating us... hmm ALL teams could beat us, but I think you know what I mean. On a good day, Everton in all likelihood will be a top 1/3 team and to me that means most teams will say "tricky game this". Given you've lost players, and not got money to spend, I think that's a bloody good state of affairs. The only concern is how a ;good team' can get a couple of injuries and find themselves getting dragged into the bottom half of the table where it gets very messy very quickly - and that might be something that could happen to Everton. And, hate to mention finances again, but clubs will come sniffing around in January too, seeing who they can grab from you. If QPR come in with a cheeky bid for Leighton Baines, or Arsenal decide they fancy Jagielka... will Everton be able to hold out? A lot might depend on their league position at the time?

The evidence suggests otherwise. The Prem's been won by 4 teams in the last 19 years. 3 teams in the last 16 years. Just how 'open' do you think the league was / was going to be? It's obscene to pay a player 200K a week, but if you think it's okay to be paying them 30K instead, then you're deluded. Everton are as much a part of the problem as any other club. The problem is the money, and the overspending by ALL. City aren't helping in the slightest, but as long as folks are saying "you're very bad, and we're only a little bit bad' then we'll drown anyway. It IS what it is. We live with it, or we walk away from the game. So far it seems we don't like it, but we don't hate it enough to walk away.

The 'comfort' during the game - hmmm quite possibly yes, but, the pessimist in many City fans takes some killing. Even at 2-0 there was a goal line scramble after a bit of a slip from Lescott, and we were playing a very good Everton side (in our eyes). Had it gone to 2-1 it would have been a nightmare for City fans - we've seen it too many times. PANIC!!! Admittedly, there are some City fans who think Aguero's just a notch below Messi, and Balotelli's a genius waiting to happen. That's just delusion and youth. I can assure you the vast majority of decent City fans think we're doing very well, still have a lot to learn, and definitely still prone to bottling it. Man United we most certainly are not. We just don't have that mentality as a club, or as fans. One day, we hope to have. I hope you don't take offence if I suggest it's a 'similar' situation with Liverpool. The gap, possibly not quite as wide, but still, it's there. But if anything SHOULD give us faith it's that United were no great shakes when their reign first started... 25 years on, you have to admire them. In another 25 years it MIGHT be us, it MIGHT be Everton or it MIGHT be some other team. I'd just like it to be someone new, and would like to give a few more fans the chance to see their team win at least something in their lifetime. Sadly 90% of fans will never witness their team win a thing in an entire lifetime - quite sad that (I think)

I did actually say that I think it's far more likely that it will make it a top 5 rather than break anything up. And absolutely it's been 'bought'. However, I do take issue with the notion that those top 4 places have ever been another OTHER than bought. The spending to league position correlation is clear as day... the top spenders are the ones winning all the time and vice versa. All clubs have used their economic weight to attract players and buy the best possible (or what they THOUGHT was the best!)... It seems to me that the days of Nottingham Forest getting a squad together capable of conquering Europe (twice!) are long gone. We'd ALL love to do things they way they did. But it's over, the football we knew then isn't the football of today - sadly. The particular problems with City and Chelsea are not that there's some wealthy owner (that's always gone on) it's simply the SCALE of the wealth behind it. It was fine for Martin Edwards at United trying to flog it off to Michael Knighton in the 80s, or even Francis Lee at City etc... but when it changed from 'local millionaire to foreign billionaire" folks weren't (and aren't quite as keen). It's wrong - of course it is, and it skewes the 'fairness' of the game. But when United come and take Rooney, or City come and grab Lescott, it's only the same as when you do the same to lesser (financially) able teams. It's either right, or it's wrong - football can't have it both ways. Personally I hate it. I don;t think there SHOULD be financial reward for winning the league - just the pride. As soon as the winners get more money, and by the way, significantly more... (via CL qualification) it can ONLY encourage a 'have' and 'have not' split. When only two teams have won the league on the last x number of years... something doesn't feel right. Of course it's nice to watch the some great players and have a nice (matter of opinion) stadium. It's good to win for a change too!... but absolutely it's tainted - but like most fans starved of success for years and years, we shake hands with the devil and do the deal. Hand on heart, I think the fans of all other clubs would be doing the same if it happened to them (not that the fans actually have any say anyway). We got very lucky (or unlucky) and none of it was because of football. Only an idiot would think that. And if / when Everton manage to find a new investor - that won't be for footballing reasons either. We're ALL swimming in the same cess pool - just some of us have been jammy enough to have snorkel... so we can last a LITTLE bit longer before we drown in it with you. I would still see a top 5 as better than a top 4, and a top 6 better still... in a perfect world a top '0' would be best of all.

As for Beckford, he looked to be a good 'snatch' when you got him... but he was mid 20s then, so ought to have found his natural level (though not always the case). Problem with strikers is that they can be made to look world class, or donkeys with the smallest changes in confidence or supply. He didn't look a total donkey - and if Cahill get injured, what then? Seems to me that you have to have as deep a squad as the budget can afford, and as others have said, perhaps the budget was the deciding factor in the end.

There's no undercurrent at all - it's just how I see it. And absolutely City were dross for the best part of the 35 years I've watched them. Possibly had 7 good seasons at best, the rest was shocking. The facts remain the same - the general perception of Everton, rightly or wrongly is that it's not going to amazing football to watch. The perception of Arsenal (recent form aside) is precisely the opposite - even though the 'reality' isn't always what people expected. I have been quite critical of my own club, and remain so in some instances, but just because I highlight a couple of negative perceptions about Everton doesn't make it a piss take. What's to laugh at? I defended the fact that I don't think anybody thought badly of Everton's tactics. Don't be so paraoid. Yes you're skint - so what? so where City a few years ago, and very probably will be again when our little fun ends. This isn't about Everton vs City, it's more of a general comment on the shocking plight of football, of which Everton are just one potential victim (and so are City in a other ways). If I think your ground is holding you back - that's not saying "ha - look at the state of the place" - it's saying "the punters you NEED to bring in the extra money won't like your taste in decor - and won't really care that much about your history - they want sanitised stadia and branding opportunity. They want nice clean toilets and fancy restaurants" - it doesn't make it RIGHT, but it's the reality of the situation. It's precisely what Roy Keane was moaning about 15 years ago with Prawn Sandwiches and he was right. But if you're to compete and not get left behind, you're gonna have to jump onboard. I'm no more happy about that than you are, just facing the facts (as I see them). If I say the ground is in a deprived area - doesn't mean I'm mocking anything - I support City - it moved from one deprived area to another. Very similar areas (to Everton) in many ways, possibly worse in Moss Side (as was then). The trouble seems to be when someone says "not sure Everton could pull 60,000 regularly in a new stadium - people take it as some sort of cock measuring contest. I don't think City could either. I could harp on all day pipe dreaming about if City extended the ground AND we won CL AND we got Messi we could give United a run for their money - but we couldn't and that's that. In the same way, like it or not, the red lot in Liverpool have managed to build a bit of an Empire that's still holding reasonably well, and you'll struggle to compete with. One day you might, but for the foreseeable future isn't not going to happen. Perhaps I'm wrong, it's possible, I'm just trying to be honest and realistic, even if it's not blowing smoke up anybody's ass. There are easier targets than Everton to take the mickey out of - and again, what's the laugh it? you're not bust, you're getting relegated, you're not getting stuffed 8-2, you're not swapping managers week in week out.... So City have money? yes - from a sugar daddy. Can't spin the line United and Liverpool do with "we've won our money, we've been the best in the Europe' etc etc. You just need to accept that other fans sometimes just like chatting about other teams and seeing some of the same problems they experience, and some of the different issues affecting them (cos all too often, what goes around, comes around).