Tim

And then the classic "Rafa might have a nice surprise for you" leaving plenty of scope for any player. a couple of months later Keane signs so the above turns into "Keane was the nice surprise I was talking about"

No, and Balague is being an idiot for even putting it in his piece.

Less than £30m in sales since christmas Sissoko £8.1m Riise £4m (rising to £4.1m with add-ons I think) Guthriw £2.5m Carson £3.25m (rising to £3.75m with add-ons) Crouch (at most) £11m (I think it was around £9m with rest as add-ons) So £29.45m at most. Bought is upto £58m including add-ons. It all depends on what you believe the Mascherano transfer fee was. Skrtel £6.5m Mascherano upto £18m but press reports range from £10m to £18m Keane £19m (with another £1.3m as add-ons, oh and a charity donation) Dossena approx £7m Cavalieri £3.5m was reported Mendy/NGog around £2.5m combined was reported. Rafa had also spent approx £4m on youngsters in August last year which doesn't appear in most figures quoted. (Aswell as getting rid of Palletta for £0.5m)

It might not just be to do with overall value of the transfer, or whether the board are idiots, or whether Rafa is wanting to potentially overpay. It could be as simple as Villa wanting the bulk of the money upfront (after having apprantely agreed to it being paid in 3 installements, if reports are to be believed). This would cause an issue. As I've said before, because of the value of purchases made from premiership clubs in recent seasons (and the potential Barry one) the club have had to pay out alot of money in a very short space of time compared to transfers from overseas. Spreading it out over a longer period would benefit us at a time when cash management is going to be even more important with the new stadium. Having more of it upfront might mean looking again at the plans for financing if the owners are staying, or sell on value if they are selling. Or it could all be bulls***.

But the extra £2.6m+ in wages (assuming £50k per week, although probably higher) is a burden which ideally the club could do without. Crux of the situation for me is, if they promised the money but then changed their mind it is a bit s***ty and they deserve the stick. But if they were just going to borrow it then the deal shouldn't go ahead. If the club can't afford it then it shouldn't go ahead, simple as. As others have said, there's Gerrard, Mascherano, Lucas, Plesiss and Alonso already at the club for CM. OK if Rafa wants to go with 3 in the center then 1 more is needed to have 2 for every position, but 5 is deffo enough. 3 straight in first teamers, one very able deputy in Lucas and a very able youngster. It's common sense to maintain a balance both in the squad and the finances.

We paid a maximum of £10.4m At an estimate I'd say his book value in the accounts is in the region of £3m. So the club would be looking at a profit in the region of £10m.

*cough* Gerrard *cough* (although he did change his mind). As for villa, me thinks that Lerner has possibly reminded O'Neill that if he wants any transfer funds then the Barry deal has to go through. But O'Neill certainly did well to make both himself and Villa look like complete idiots. Anyway, the 31st August will be interesting down at Villa Park.

Moyes admits they need 5 or 6 players, so what do they do? They supposedly try and splash all their cash on 1 player. Season ticket sales must be extremely slow this summer.

Until a couple of years ago all transfers between premierleague clubs (or it could be all english clubs) had to be fully paid within 12 months of the transfer taking place. Traditionally payments to foreign teams were over the length of the contract (with a chunk upfront). The rules were changed, about 4 years ago I think, where transfer fees between league clubs could be spread over the life of the contract. The dispute between us and villa will be on both how much is add-ons and when payments are. For the last two or 3 seasons we've had some big outgoings on transfers as we've bought a fair few from the premier league. The actual net cashflow for the last 3 financial years (reported) for transfers has been £92.4m (£135.8m gross). The club will be looking to ease the burden on that, to reduce the need of going into the revolving credit facility.

Then more the fool villa are. If they are going to just ignore upto £7m just to spite us then f*** them.

If it wasn't for the fact that we've two center midfielders going to the olympics the club should just wait another couple of weeks and then put in another bid just before deadline day for a much lower transfer fee. As the transfer windows comes to a close Villa risk losing out on alot of money. I can see us going after him again in january for a deal worth barely £10m if it doesn't go ahead this summer.

They only bought one player, and sold a few. First link not working.

The club have also made one other significant £15m+ purchase in the last 6 months which will effect things. The club bought out Granadas share of LFC TV Limited.

I'm confident the finance will be obtained. As I've said before, the club already have approx 15% of the funding available to them, arguably more if they were to utilise the revolving credit facility, but that would be unlikely except in exceptional cases). come on, you've got to let me off kewell aswell, he's been missing so long it's as if he's never been here. But Voronin, Alonso, Itandje, Finnan, Benayoun and Pennant have not left. I'll hold my hands up if they subsequently go without replacement, but as yet that is not the case.

Not really. The club aren't having problems now. Since the takeover over £60m above money generated from sales has been spent on transfer fees. Hardly having problems.

These responses are not directed at you eljazzen, just my opinion of the post by coop what so the club should just keep all players and still spend the same money? The club should be self sufficient, it shouldn't need a sugar daddy. Getting rid of the dead wood is also to keep the wage bill down aswell as bringing transfer funds. The net spend since they have arrived is in the region of £60m+. The money the club makes is actually their money. We sell the player the new player is replacing. So if next season Rafa wanted to buy a player to replace Kuyt, he'd sell kuyt as it would not make financial, or footballing, sense to keep Kuyt if he isn't required. Judging by close reading of the accounts, the interest is covered until refinancing. That would be the stadium where work is actively being done at present? What some people need to realise is if we bring players in, some have to go. If they have to go then there is nothing wrong with bringing in as much money as we can. If that reduces the net spend then it reduces the net spend. So far this calendar year the club have sign 7 new players (plus Mascherano permanently) and got rid of, I think, 5 players (Riise, Sissoko, Crouch, Carson, Guthrie) so the squad is actually bigger. And 2 of those who we got rid of have been on loan in recent seasons anyway. But those sold have all been replaced.

Further to this. Subsequent to the financial year ending 30th June 2007 the mancs spent £9.9m on players while they sold players for a combined value of £23.6m. Thus £13.7m net inflow. This is upto 8th February 2008 at the latest (the date the accounts were signed off) although it will be earlier than that in reality. But I don't know if there were any purchases/sale in january by the mancs or if the above two figures are inclusive of performance/appearence related fees. That makes an adjusted gross transfer spend of approx £73.2m and gross receipts of £80.4m leaving a net inflow of £7.2m. At 30th June they did have contingent liabilities of £20.7m relating to transfer fees. There are no details on contingent assets. LFC had £7.4m and contingent assets of £8.6m

The original figures (£78.998m) are for the period 1st July 2006 to 30th June 2007. The figures in my second post take into account the transfers that took place between 1st July 2007 and the date the accounts were signed off (before the january transfer window). The £10.8m is the amount they received between 1st July and 31st August 2006 on sales, the £15.7m is what they paid in the same period.

Thanks for that, I had finally put the pain of the transfer out of my mind. Ok there's 4 players. So in the preceeding 8 years the club bought 4 £10m+ players. That's been matched in the last 13 months or so. The type of player has changed. Instead of being squad fillers the club's now going for proper first teamers. Not saying it gets the owners off the hook, but it shows a change in tact a bit.

Part of the £10.8m I put in aswell.

But to an extent that is happening. Rafa wanted torres and he got him. He wanted mascherano signed sealed and delivered and he got him. He wanted keane and he got him. Those are 3 £15m+ players in the last 13 months or so he's signed, with another £11.5m one signed aswell. I don't think we signed more than 3 £10m+ players in the preceeding 6 years (cisse, Alonso, Heskey I think are the only ones, correct me if I'm wrong though).

The one thing I will mention though is that Carrick was bought in July 2006, thus actually falls into the above figures. Take out approx £15.7m from both gross and net expenditure. The mancs also sold players for value totaling £10.8m so take that from the receipts above and add back to net expenditure. This will give a rough £63,298,000 gross spent, £6,480,000 gross received on sales giving a net of £56,818,000 for the january/summer transfer windows (upto 30th June at the moment) of 2007.

Going on financial years (which is all I have at the moment, give it a few hours and that should change) Mike is close on his £50m net claim. He's actually understated it though. During the financial year 2006/07 the mancs spent approx £78,998,000 on transfers and took £17,280,000 back in receipts. Giving an approx net spend of £61,718,000 net spend. Once I can get my hands on the accounts again I can give the post balance sheet event figures on transfer spending to gauge a better idea. In the preceeding 2 financial years they spent approx £50m gross on transfers with approx £14m being brought back in from sales (those are cumulative figures for the 2 years).

There's more work being done on the stadium presently than there was in the preceeding 6 years. Contractors are on site, £60m+ is available to start the build. There's no reason why the club won't raise the money for the required loans for the stadium, even with the credit crunch. They won't get it all financed by loans, but that's a given, but they will get the necessary funding. The £60m+ they have available already represents around 15% of the total funding required. That's an awfuly lot of money for banks to lend if there isn't a tentative agreement on the remaining finance.

he's left, just a short statement from everton at present, but suspicion is that project kirkby has been called in.