Everyone are probably not the best example although it wasn't me that originally used them to make the point. However, if you look through history there have been many times when Everton have fallen into serious financial problems as well as come very close to being relegated. It's not luck they have always got out of trouble. Nor is it 40,000 crowds (although I acknowledge that obviously helps), it's good management as well as cutting your cloth accordingly and taking the odd calculated risk. Big crowds don't really mean a thing if you don't manage a club correctly. Ask Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday! Nottingham Forest, Wolves! The list goes on and on.

Hear hear

Wrong again, I am of course ALWAYS right, in everything I do, ever!

My point was that your statement wasn't based on anything other than your own assumptions. So I don't see how it was worth making.

On the other hand, many like yourself are suggesting that the board should be willing to make 'adjustments' to the wage structure when it's felt necessary. Well, forgive me as I don't know his exact wages, but didn't we already do that with Chamakh?

You're interested in constructive debate? Could've fooled me.

I'm talking about Chamakh's wages. I'm pretty sure they are above the normal level of our squad, so the board made a decision back in the summer that he was a calibre of player who was worth making an exception for. Which you and others have claimed they are unwilling to do.

To be honest though, this just takes us further away from the original point of the thread.

I'm guessing Moody has a good rep based on work he did managing transfer dealings for Watford and Cardiff. Malky Mackay in particular was full of praise for him.

In terms of his work for Palace, I would have liked us to have got some players in by now as Pulis wanted, but overall I think it's way too early to judge.

What do you think est1905?

sydtheeagle and Ian J,

I suppose it all depends on whether you feel paying someone £35k per week if we get relegated, good business. 2 of those with all the add ons and you're looking at a different sort of risk. In the case of Chamakh, he's sort of on the terms of 2010. Keep or discard, depending on league finish.

One thing is for certain, THREE teams will get relegated, and have some serious issues to address, looking at large annual losses, even after parachute payments. TWO of those THREE probably won't come back up again, and that'll be because of the changes they'll have to make, not because they've gone down. 2010 are trying to cover both possibilities, not go for one, and ignore the fact the 'overdue' bill letters might land on the doormat in 12 and 18 months time with Champ football for another 1,2,more seasons. Contingency planning. It'll be in the thoughts of plenty of marketing management consultants and trouble shooters.

You talk about having our pants pulled down in August, but that is exactly what happens to teams in January. What we'll have to do is wave a few quid under some noses when the end of the window gets closer and the player and/or selling club realises that not all Prem transfers mean a 100% - 400% jump in wages or that it's not only what the selling club wants, but what someone is also willing to pay.

Hopefully TP, Moody and Parish are looking at potential players who crave football, being in the 1st XI, in the top league, with a club that is on the up, and a manager players want to play for, and are confident in his ability to beat relegation. If they can find a couple of those with that drive and hunger when 25 man squads are due to be announced and the opportunity starts to drift away, they'll have used the money well, not have their pants pulled down by the agents demands or the selling clubs January p1ss taking.

COYP

OK, just for you, it's in the 'We need to get going' thread. It's difficult not to notice that when there's a thread that's contrary to your's that you rate or find 'interesting', you often don't respond.

[Link]

COYP