Keegans Export

That's fair enough but I think it's an improvement on both their previous situation (with KLD being the main shareholder but not having the majority) and the potential of either the crypto blokes or that hairy weirdo coming on board.

I think it's a decent outcome for them. Obviously not the mega-wealthy investment from INEOS (or whoever else) but at least it has tidied things up a bit.

Unless I'm missing something, those stats don't prove anything. He's playing in Germany. Compare him to Jadon Sancho - G/A in Germany 12G/14A, 17G/16A and 8G/11A. First season in England = 3 goals, 3 assists.

37m Euro is about £30m which is in line with what has been reported over here (what we've offered) and they want £37m

Ignoring calls isn't being part of an active negotiation

I think three (that's Targett + 3 more) in by the start of pre-season would be fine. You can sometimes pick up a good deal or two (or loans) as the window is closing so I wouldn't be concerned if we hadn't done all of our business by then. Edit - by the start of pre-season I meant middle of July, didn't realise they are back in just a couple of weeks. Either way, a week of pre-season with mostly the current squad will give Howe a chance to assess what we need.

It's not a guarantee but it's a lot more likely than dropping £40m on some striker with a decent record in Germany/France/Netherlands who is much more likely to be Wout Weghorst than Ruud van Nistelrooy and that's what you're paying for. In a situation where FFP dictates that we can't afford too many misses in the transfer market, it's not a bad strategy to pay a bit more for known quantities (hence Tripper, Targett, Burn). That's not to say we won't unearth another Bruno but I don't think that'll be the norm.

That's because you know (pretty much) exactly what you're going to get. They don't need 6-12 months to acclimatise to the league, they've got a proven record in the Premier League and you're paying a premium for that. It's the same reason I'd be more comfortable signing Kalvin Phillips for £40m than someone like Sangare for £30m - Sangare might turn out to be an absolute beast, but I know what Phillips can offer and I'd happily pay the extra £10m for that assurance.

So he's a good finisher, good movement, two seasons of good returns in the PL (at 23/24) and you think he will continue to "get goals" with the right players around. But he isn't worth £30m? Who are you signing from the continent that is going to be less of a risk than that?

The "100% fit" part isn't irrelevant though, it has to be factored in. It's the main reason we're even considering a replacement for Wilson. Since he broke into the team DCL has played 32, 35, 36, 33 then 17 PL games (153). Wilson's last five seasons - 28, 30, 35, 26, 18 (137). Wilson has missed 35 games since he joined, DCL has missed 21 in the same time. He's also 5 years younger. I guess it breaks down to whether last season was an anomaly for DCL or whether that's just the player he is now. If it's the latter then yeah, aside from being younger you're not gaining a huge amount versus Wilson. But if you get 2019/20 and 2020/21 Calvert-Lewin at 25y/o then £40m or so represents very good value imo.

How much are you classing as a lot? They might be more willing to negotiate because of their FFP troubles. It's touched on in the article that because they bought him so cheap, pretty much whatever they sell him for is profit. Richarlson cost £40m and apparently they owe 10% of the next sale to Watford, so selling him for £40m = £20m FFP profit, selling DCL for the same = £40m FFP profit. The issue obviously is that Richarlson has made it much more clear that he wants to leave, whereas DCL seems happy enough to stay.

I think I might be in the minority but I like Calvert-Lewin. He's one of the few saleable assets Everton have and (unlike Richarlson) they have the potential to make a decent profit on him FFP-wise. Obviously I wouldn't spend ridiculous money but I think he could be good value at £30-40m.

I'm not overly worried. We'll have an upper limit in terms of transfer fee etc, we'll have a date at which we will basically say "take it or leave it" to Lille and/or Botman. We'll have alternatives lined up. I might be misremembering it but I'm fairly sure that in January, we had constant back and forth with Sevilla and Lille until at some point we pulled the plug and signed Dan Burn very quickly afterwards. Is that how it happened? My son was born in January so much of it is a blur

I don't think Osimhen is particularly realistic either but it does keep nagging away in my brain. I assumed he'd go to a CL club, but the strongest links have been to Arsenal and Man Utd, neither of which are in the CL next season. Apparently Man Utd won't pay the asking price (£85m) and Arsenal are chasing Jesus, so there's a decent chance he doesn't go to either...

Oh right, I understand. Yeah, it's just terminology really - the obligation to buy will kick in depending on certain criteria being met (playing time presumably but I guess it could be anything). If there aren't any criteria then yeah, it's basically a transfer of an asset and would have to be included on that years' accounts.

That is right, but it also extends the impact of the transfer. So the example @TheBrownBottlegave above is right - £100m/5 years = £20m per year but it means you're reducing your FFP room by £20m each year for five years. If you did the contract over three years, you'd be free from that two years earlier, although you'd have "paid" an extra £13m in each of those three years vs. the 5-year deal. The other advantage to a shorter term contract is that if you end up selling the player, you could sell for less without it classing as a loss towards the FFP. So if your £100m player sells for £80m after one season, in the 5-year option his book value is £80m so you've broken even, in the 3-year option his book value is £66.7m so you've "made" £13.3m. Obviously it's a trade-off again because you could probably get more money for a player with four years on his contract vs two years. There's also something clever you can do by constantly extending the contract by a year or two. There was a post on here using KDB/Man City as an example but I've no idea where it was. We really need a "FFP questions and discussion" thread, I'm way off topic here

That's exactly what it is, but from a FFP perspective it ties in with your first point. If we bring in a player on a loan + obligation to buy deal this summer who we think will help propel us up to 7th/8th, you would be pushing the fee one year down the line where you would expect your commercial income (and prize money) to be higher as a result of performing better in the league. So the transfer fee is still the same amount, but you're pushing it into a year where you expect your income to go up too and therefore the impact on FFP is reduced because your income has gone up by the time you start adding the transfer fee to the FFP calculation. I think I've done a terrible job of explaining that.

I'm not sure why you've got ASM on the right there, you're taking away his main threat, namely cutting in off the left on his right foot. I'd rather see another RW come in and although I'd obviously love Paqueta if he's going to be £50m+ then I think we're better off investing that in a striker. Basically it feels like the drop off from Wilson to Wood would be more damaging than having Shelvey/Longstaff/Willock over Paqueta.

Thay was my understanding too. We could never sign U18s from outside the EU, now we've left the EU we can't sign U18s from there either.

Bit of a risk him coming here (or anywhere else for that matter) to potentially just be a backup with the World Cup just around the corner...

Romano vs Edwards - truly a battle for the ages

They're holed up in the Jesmond Dene Hotel with Tranquillo Barnetta, poor buggers.

We should just sack off Botman, Ekitike, Diaby etc. and just sign as many highly-rated <19s as we can Really though, we are doing the right thing by holding our nerve. Either the deals get done with terms we are comfortable with, or they don't and we move on to other targets and show we aren't going to be pushed around. Of all the deals we've done, only Wood was a clear overpay. Trips, Targett & Burn all <£15m. Bruno more than justifying his price tag so far. Trust the process™

Pre cut...what