FanchesterCity

That's probably fair, but the calibre of player you're likely to bring in (if any) will either fall into the 'past their best' or 'potential' prospect. I'd rather opt for the potential option, and trust in Moyes to bring out the best (if it's there). With the older 'past their best' types, they have no future and each year they'll get worse. I certainly wouldn't say he was 'dire' either though. Which might be enough to help Everton out for a year or so, and then reassess if he's made an impact or not. All about money really isn't it... what can you realistically buy for not very much money? It's not going to be a world beater :-(

LMAO!

Basically it's an example of smart practice by the developer... They buy the land from you (because you can't afford to develop it yourself). They build it for you (effectively a loan) You agree to rent it for 50 years (so they get their money back AND some!)... amazing deal for them - guaranteed return (unless you go bust) They slip in a clause allowing Everton to buy it back if they wish (whoopee doo... if Everton want it, they can have it... for the right price.... erm, isn't that the same as paying off the loan early?). Basically, you took out a loan from the developer, albeit in the form of property.

They sold it first. That's my understanding. They had it built to their specs, but by then the land had been sold. It was developed by ROM capital (obviously to meet the needs of Everton), but the land was already ROM's at that time. Is that not right?

I'm not sure it IS a good idea. You sold the land to the developer who then developed it. Now if you buy it back, they've made a decent killing (depending on the price of course), and you're left with a state of the art complex that's costing you a lot of money to run... Much depends on the cost/benefit of such a facility. Of course it SOUNDS great to have such a facility, and in theory to nuture young players through the system too, but IS it actually paying its way?

I thought it was a tenancy agreement - where (one assumes) the owners are responsible for the upkeep? That said, I'm sure it's a bit more complex than that, and Everton probably have some sway in the use, and responsibility for certain costs associated with those facilities. Possibly another 'messy' agreement Everton have entered into that is costing them money, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Seems definitely more like Johnson... not tough, but wiley... can run at defenders and dribble etc. Then again, if you're at City you are afforded a bit of a chance to show that off (although it WAS 2 years ago when we weren't quite as good as now). If you're in a struggling team, that sort of player might be considered a luxury by some (although others might argue you need a bit more forward thinking).

Not quite sure how that would work. If they buy Finch Farm, aren't they just buying the land and current facilities? There's no onus on Everton to continue using it is there? Of course, you'd assume initially Everton would have raised funds from the sale, AND manage to keep the use of the facilities... whereas another buyer would most likely close the place and develop on it. Leaving Everton stil needing to find another place, or simply not have one. If they DO buy the place, why not just raise the funds anyway, and create some tied gift to the club, so that there's a legal obligation to use the money in the manner stipulated in the gift?

*Yellow Card* - this isn't a Millwall forum ;-) hehe@that email address. Some poor bugger might HAVE that, and they'll get all your Everton spam!

He's playing in Spain (on loan) at the moment.... Espanyol I think. He is small, but not tiny... about 5'9. Then again... Mr Messi's no giant ;-) He looked really good with City, but he was only 20 so we lent him out on loan, and he's still ours... but I suspect City would let him go. Might be wrong (hence why he's still on loan). Also, he was (by all accounts) quite decent at Rangers. So either he WASN'T decent and they didn't keep him, or they couldn't afford to keep him. If they couldn't afford to keep him, that might be the case for Everton buying him too... dunno. Definitely better than Bily although different wing (no idea if Vlad can play left side)

Here's a thought for you... Vladimir Weiss... Very promising right winger, but can come inside and capable of scoring goals..... a bit like Adam Johnson. Potentially he'd be a decent 'cheap' buy from City.

Racism in some sense is 'natural', in as much as murder is 'natural'.... it occurs in life naturally. Naturally does not mean RIGHT, but it's a natural occurrence. If someone is significantly 'different' in belief., behaviour or appearance they are typically rejected from the group. Not in every case, but often, and even in the cases where they are not, they are 'incorporated' because of guilt, or a sense of duty to do the right thing.... which is basically having to fight the otherwise natural urge and invite them as a member of the 'group' anyway. It's alarming how perception of the 'group' changes though.... if you're from Liverpool, the Manc's are the rejected ones, but if you're with southeners, it's the North vs South etc.... Or you have a great muslim mate at work and HE is ok... it's the 'rest of them' that are iffy. We all do it to some degree... only SOME prejudice is now socially unacceptable. Religious, sexual or racial prejudice is pretty much taboo, but we'll still call the unemployed 'scroungers' or the Welsh 'sheep shaggers', the Scottish 'tight fisted' and the Norfolk lads 'inbred'... the list of examples is endless really. So in a way, to be 'surprised' it still goes on is itself surprising. There's a wave of social 'facade' that pretends we don't do that sort of thing nowadays, and that it doesn't really go on. But I still hear names like 'puff' and 'queer' on the terraces..... it's still lurking under the surface.

The problem is... 50 years ago...in the USA, blacks were told "why try to live in a white town? you're inviting trouble on yourself". Which, to some extent was true... But should they always run away from it? Because of prejudice... why should THEY have to modify their behaviour to avoid the problem. In the end the racists win as long as they carry on managing to stop people having the same right as anybody else. Eventually, they (anybody in an oppressed minority) has to face the demon and carry on, and let the morons reveal themselves for what they are. They can't keep hiding and running forever (the oppressed).

If only that were true. It's incredibly easy NOT to be traced with a little knowledge. Any public wifi spot will do you. And if you're really paranoid... Prepay SIM card, in a phone that's only used for that purpose, only turned on and off away from home, easy peasy. 100% untraceable. The moment you ever use that phone elsewhere, or with another SIM, you're nicked, but until then... you're A.N. Other. Of course you can also use umpteen proxies or a VPN, but those COULD be traced with enough effort (not that the police would make such an effort for a twitter rant)

Well yes, that's one way to put a positive on things. And, thank God we 'salvaged' some pride yesterday - means a lot against United and gives us confidence that we've got some fight in us. You 'could't say the same for Everton if things don't work out in the cup... there's an upside... less games, less change of injuries etc.It might help you towards the latter stages of the cup if you're out and you're playing teams still in it (and wary of injuries etc). But Fulham's not a bad draw all in all. 6/10 draw I'd say.... could have been better, could have been worse.

My mistake! I'm losing the plot! I've got Cup in one half of my mind, and the Spuds game on Weds on the other! It's that missing league game of yours! Since it's the league... you're doomed ;-)

Isn't it the Echo Arena?

Of course it's winnable. The premier league has already shown anybody can beat anybody, and add the fact that his is a CUP game into the mix, and who knows? On paper - Spurs to win comfortably, but in reality, everything to play for. I can't honestly see Everton murdering Spurs, but I can see them sneaking a 0-1, or possibly a draw

That

But both sides invariably cancel each other out. Either seller holds out for more money and risks losing the sale, or the buyer holds out for a lower price and risks losing out. In the end, both clubs just lose time, and at least one of them loses out (with no remaining time to replace the outgoing player, or seek an alternative incoming player.... unless they gamble and buy before selling, which often gets clubs into financial trouble. I suppose it's par for the course really, but you do have to admire a couple of recent moves where teams have simply done their business early. Good, sensible business if you ask me.

I liked the article, but disagreed on a couple of points too... specifically that Kenwright isn't to blame. He's the chairman. It's his duty to best by the club. Accepting the (seeming) fact that TODAY Everton are a hard sell, you have to look at why they are currently a hard sell. We shouldn't go into the age old specifics of debt / ground etc... but we should say "ok, one of the country's VERY top clubs has had good revenue throughout BK's tenure. It's spent very little during BK's tenure, and yet now, it finds itself in debt, not worth very much, and this has happened in a climate where some other rivals have managed to do much better (let's discount City as a bit of a special case). He took over a great club, which admittedly wasn't in the best of shape even then, but arguably no worse than the mess most clubs where in. After 25+ years of Stewardship and 13 years of ownership, blame should and MUST be laid firmly at his door. Nobody can blame him for not having enough money... he's not a billionaire. But they CAN blame him for lacking foresight enough to realise he was going to run out of money. They can blame him for not seeing opportunity when the 'boom' was on to sell Everton then. They can blame him for increasing the debt. They can blame him for failing to invest in the team (not huge amounts, just sensible amounts for the club of its size). Being a fan of Everton doesn't make him a great runner of the club. In some respects, it might well hinder his judgment. But, like any manager or player would be, he MUST be judged on results. The results are.... he's probably taken the club backwards, and at best, not progressed. And given such failings, he has the audacity to claim he's the best person to find his own replacement. I don't think he is. Only a fool has himself as a representative in court - the old legal adage goes. In the same way, only a fool who couldn't properly run a football club would believe he can identify the 'right' folks who can.

so wrong and yet rather funny

What would a new theme add? - a change of decor, and possibly a slightly more accurate shade of Royal Blue? I'm unsure of what's involved in the themeing but imagine it's a few lines of CSS (for a shade change), obviously a lot more for a layout change? The current theme is 'tranquil' in my opinion, and easy on the eye for long term use. You wanna visit the Norwich forum... to know what unsightly is! I can't really find any fault in the theme, and don't think it needs any significant alteration other then (arguably) the blue isn't quite Everton blue in the horizontal header bars (sure you know what I mean). Also... technically, you're supposed to try and make a website as accessible as possible to the disabled - it's a very gray area, but high contrast schemes are usually offered by sites that bother to make an effort, so I can see an argument for use chosen colour schemes to resolve that issue. 90% of sites don't offer such a feature though.

Football doesn't work that way. You are penalised for the incident at the time, not on what someone thinks you had coming. Careless challenges? aye. All defenders commit them. Kompany isn't exempt. I think you're suggesting he does it more than others... in which case, referees are still doing a bad job for not catching him doing it. Seemed harsh today, but it's a risk you take when you make a strong challenge in that way. Sometimes it's applauded, sometimes it's admonished. C'est la vie