David Moyes 22/1

[Oxfordfox83]

If Moyes had replaced Wenger instead of Fergie I think we'd be talking about things very differently. Happily, Man Utd's squad between keeper and 10 has been utter dogsh1t for two years now, unhappily people seem to have missed that it was SAF's total lack of succession planning that dumped them in that position, not Moyes' changes. Feel bad for the man, but couldn't be happier that the loathsome smug b@stards who have proclaimed themselves the one true way of football for two decades are finally feeling the pinch. It will take an enormous job to get them back in the CL imo, and long may they fester in mediocrity...

[MC Prussian]

He was spared by the sales of Rooney, Lescott and Rodwell. It wouldn't look so good if Man City hadn't paid over the odds for Lescott and Rodwell. Pretty sure we had the same discussion in the General Football section of the forum.. 

 

But I will just quickly remind you of some of the purchases Everton made under a man who had little money to spend and a club who said he couldn't spend.. 

 

Richard Wright - £4.8 million

Joseph Yobo - £5.25 million

James Beattie - £8 million

Per Kroldrup - £6 million

Simon Davies - £4.5 million

Phil Neville - £4.5 million

Andy van der Meyde - £8 million

Andy Johnson - £9.5 million

Yakubu - £12 million

Fellaini - £15 million

Bilyaletdinov - £9 million

Sold Piennar for £3 million and then bought him back for £4.5 million..

 

Yeah you're right, Moyes didn't have money to spend at Everton. 

I don't know what's funnier - a thread on Moyes being one of a many favourites with the bookies to replace Pearson (as ludicrous as it may sound).

 

Or... a Leicester Liverpool fan doing his best to keep the Everton - LFC hatred alive by belittling anything to come out of Goodison Park in the past 10+ years.

First you claim that Moyes had an unlimited amount of money to spend, then you maintain he had some to spend. What's next... nothing? Sub-zero?

 

[Guest ttfn]

He was spared by the sales of Rooney, Lescott and Rodwell. It wouldn't look so good if Man City hadn't paid over the odds for Lescott and Rodwell. Pretty sure we had the same discussion in the General Football section of the forum..

But I will just quickly remind you of some of the purchases Everton made under a man who had little money to spend and a club who said he couldn't spend..

Richard Wright - £4.8 million

Joseph Yobo - £5.25 million

James Beattie - £8 million

Per Kroldrup - £6 million

Simon Davies - £4.5 million

Phil Neville - £4.5 million

Andy van der Meyde - £8 million

Andy Johnson - £9.5 million

Yakubu - £12 million

Fellaini - £15 million

Bilyaletdinov - £9 million

Sold Piennar for £3 million and then bought him back for £4.5 million..

Yeah you're right, Moyes didn't have money to spend at Everton.

You're either being deliberately obtuse or you don't understand the concept of a "net spend".

What do you mean "saved by the sales of Rooney, Lescott and Rodwell"? Does that not count then, despite the fact that it was Moyes who (partly out of necessity given the poverty of the club he was managing) gave Rooney and Rodwell their debuts and signed Lescott from the Championship? Even if you make an adjustment of, say, £15 million to reflect City paying over the odds on Rodwell and Lescott, that's still an average spend of less than £3 million per season.

You could apply your fair valuing logic to any club - let's add back the £25 million profit Liverpool made on Torres while we're at it shall we? That "saved" Liverpool's net spend from being even higher than that of Everton's in the same period.

And if anything you've just supported my point further - any time Moyes developed a top class player he was forced to sell them. And yet he still kept Everton consistently in the top 6 or 7, despite having to contend with the fact that throughout his tenure the top 3 or 4 spots were locked up by a combination of Arsenal and United's dominance and financial doping.

Even on a gross spend basis, Moyes spent £130 million in 13 years (£10 million a season). There's an argument that that is a lot of money, which it is to you and I, but when you consider that it is over £40 million less than Liverpool spent NET i(and only about £25 million more than Villa) n the same period, it's pretty obvious that compared to the clubs he was trying to compete with, he had very meagre resources.

[Grandad.]

I don't know what's funnier - a thread on Moyes being one of a many favourites with the bookies to replace Pearson (as ludicrous as it may sound).

 

Or... a Leicester Liverpool fan doing his best to keep the Everton - LFC hatred alive by belittling anything to come out of Goodison Park in the past 10+ years.

First you claim that Moyes had an unlimited amount of money to spend, then you maintain he had some to spend. What's next... nothing? Sub-zero?

 

 

What on earth are you talking about, I haven't belittled Moyes in this thread have I? Clearly stated that he had money to spend at Everton, which people said he didn't. Well I have quite clearly shown that he did have money to spend. 

 

Something good to come out of Goodison? Hmm ask Evertonians now about David Moyes and see what their views are on the man, the man held them back, look at the difference Martinez has installed at the club in 10 months compared to them 10 years of Moyes. Moyes did buy some cracking players and moved some on for good money, yet Martinez has them playing at a new level, he has them playing a refreshing style of football, he will take players to a new level. Was Moyes really going to do that if he stayed? I very much doubt it. 

 

I never claimed anything of the sort, I clearly said Moyes having a limited amount of money is a myth, he had money. From 05/06 to 07/08 David Moyes was allowed to spend around £76.5 million on arrivals and the outgoings in them three seasons was around £22.5 million.. Even a jumped up idiot like yourself can work that difference out, in that time was David Moyes working on a shoe string? So he was probably achieving the already expected for a club in that period, his League finishes were 11th, 6th and 5th. 

[Guest ttfn]

What on earth are you talking about, I haven't belittled Moyes in this thread have I? Clearly stated that he had money to spend at Everton, which people said he didn't. Well I have quite clearly shown that he did have money to spend.

Something good to come out of Goodison? Hmm ask Evertonians now about David Moyes and see what their views are on the man, the man held them back, look at the difference Martinez has installed at the club in 10 months compared to them 10 years of Moyes. Moyes did buy some cracking players and moved some on for good money, yet Martinez has them playing at a new level, he has them playing a refreshing style of football, he will take players to a new level. Was Moyes really going to do that if he stayed? I very much doubt it.

I never claimed anything of the sort, I clearly said Moyes having a limited amount of money is a myth, he had money. From 05/06 to 07/08 David Moyes was allowed to spend around £76.5 million on arrivals and the outgoings in them three seasons was around £22.5 million.. Even a jumped up idiot like yourself can work that difference out, in that time was David Moyes working on a shoe string? So he was probably achieving the already expected for a club in that period, his League finishes were 11th, 6th and 5th.

And what about since then? Because if the net spend was higher than the overall £14 million I quoted for his whole tenure for the 3 specific years you've picked, then it must have been recouped to some extent after those three seasons when, guess what? He STILL had Everton routinely in the top 7.

[Grandad.]

You're either being deliberately obtuse or you don't understand the concept of a "net spend".

What do you mean "saved by the sales of Rooney, Lescott and Rodwell"? Does that not count then, despite the fact that it was Moyes who (partly out of necessity given the poverty of the club he was managing) gave Rooney and Rodwell their debuts and signed Lescott from the Championship? Even if you make an adjustment of, say, £15 million to reflect City paying over the odds on Rodwell and Lescott, that's still an average spend of less than £3 million per season.

You could apply your fair valuing logic to any club - let's add back the £25 million profit Liverpool made on Torres while we're at it shall we? That "saved" Liverpool's net spend from being even higher than that of Everton's in the same period.

And if anything you've just supported my point further - any time Moyes developed a top class player he was forced to sell them. And yet he still kept Everton consistently in the top 6 or 7, despite having to contend with the fact that throughout his tenure the top 3 or 4 spots were locked up by a combination of Arsenal and United's dominance and financial doping.

Even on a gross spend basis, Moyes spent £130 million in 13 years (£10 million a season). There's an argument that that is a lot of money, which it is to you and I, but when you consider that it is over £40 million less than Liverpool spent NET i(and only about £25 million more than Villa) n the same period, it's pretty obvious that compared to the clubs he was trying to compete with, he had very meagre resources.

 

What are you comparing Liverpool to Everton for? 

I know we have spent an awful amount of money on substandard players, but we aren't discussing Houllier, Benitez, Hodgson and Dalglish, we could have a field day discussing Liverpool and our business, we nearly went bust because of it. 

 

I grasp NET spend, hence look at the point in my previous post in three seasons his spending compared to his sales, doesn't make the greatest of reading does it to your argument. 

 

City over paid for Lescott and Rodwell, if anyone tells me Lescott was worth £22 million and was over priced by a good £10 million then they are bigger fools than I thought, same with Rodwell. 

[Grandad.]

And what about since then? Because if the net spend was higher than the overall £14 million I quoted for his whole tenure for the 3 specific years you've picked, then it must have been recouped to some extent after those three seasons when, guess what? He STILL had Everton routinely in the top 7.

 

And what about since then? Because if the net spend was higher than the overall £14 million I quoted for his whole tenure for the 3 specific years you've picked, then it must have been recouped to some extent after those three seasons when, guess what? He STILL had Everton routinely in the top 7.

 

Again, for the last time, I AM NOT SAYING MOYES WAS A BAD MANAGER FOR EVERTON. I am saying it is a complete myth that he didn't have money to spend, he quite clearly did. From every big sale, Moyes was reinvesting it in the squad. 

[Guest ttfn]

What are you comparing Liverpool to Everton for?

I know we have spent an awful amount of money on substandard players, but we aren't discussing Houllier, Benitez, Hodgson and Dalglish, we could have a field day discussing Liverpool and our business, we nearly went bust because of it.

I grasp NET spend, hence look at the point in my previous post in three seasons his spending compared to his sales, doesn't make the greatest of reading does it to your argument.

City over paid for Lescott and Rodwell, if anyone tells me Lescott was worth £22 million and was over priced by a good £10 million then they are bigger fools than I thought, same with Rodwell.

I'm comparing Everton to Liverpool because Moyes routinely had Everton finishing within a couple of positions of Liverpool without having anywhere near their financial clout. Same goes for Villa and Spurs. With the top 3 locked up, those were his competitors. He had less money than all of them and over the long-term kept pace with them.

Your three season selectivity is obviously completely ridiculous, given the fact that it does not take into account the fact that he then must have had a net income for the next few years and still kept Everton there. The reason for that, of course, was that a lot of the players he signed were young and stayed at the club for the medium term (eg Fellaini).

I've addressed the Rodwell and Lescott point in the post you're quoting so I'm not sure why you've brought that up again - even if you add £15 million to Moyes' net spend (if we were to say that City had overspent by that amount) it's still a drop in the ocean.

[Guest ttfn]

Again, for the last time, I AM NOT SAYING MOYES WAS A BAD MANAGER FOR EVERTON. I am saying it is a complete myth that he didn't have money to spend, he quite clearly did. From every big sale, Moyes was reinvesting it in the squad.

Ok this we can agree on. In my book that is not having money to spend. Having money to spend is being given the chance to improve your team by spending more than you get in, in my book. Surely that's the only basis on which you can judge a manager's performance relative to his spend.

In a clone environment, if two managers start with the same squad and both spend £100 million, but one has to sell £100 million of the original squad to fund new players and the other doesn't, who is likely to have the better team at the end of it?

[Grandad.]

Ok this we can agree on. In my book that is not having money to spend. Having money to spend is being given the chance to improve your team by spending more than you get in, in my book. Surely that's the only basis on which you can judge a manager's performance relative to his spend.

In a clone environment, if two managers start with the same squad and both spend £100 million, but one has to sell £100 million of the original squad to fund new players and the other doesn't, who is likely to have the better team at the end of it?

 

Yes but going back to my whole original post, him having limited funds is a complete myth. There was nothing limited, from every penny brought in through sales, Moyes spent. Now if Kenwright had taken 50% of all sales for the clubs finances and left Moyes the rest then I would understand everything you are saying, but that wasn't the case. 

 

Kenwright let him have the lot and some summers he was given more, hence the three seasons I used as an example. Moyes was fortunate a fair few of his signings had value left in them, Arteta being a good example, £10 million was made on his sale but Moyes soon used that £10 million. 

 

I've not said he wasn't good for Everton, I think he achieved his expectancy, any Everton will tell you about Kenwright, he only let that money be spent if it was going to bring in results. I don't think he went above his means once apart from his Champions League finish in 05, really don't. No trophies and only one Cup Final, again this isn't me slating him, I just don't think he is as good as people made him out to be and some messiah at Everton. Everton fans now know he wasn't all them things.

[Bayfox]

What?!!

What?!!!

You wouldn't take David Moyes if Pearson got the boot? His qualifications are way ahead of anybody we could realistically attract, which is precisely why there's no chance of him managing us.

I'm fed up with this revisionism about Moyes. He was practically a miracle worker at Everton. I started watching football in about 1993 and apart from a rogue FA Cup win Everton were a complete joke until he got there.

He did an absolutely amazing job at Everton - with little money to spend and not much of a squad to start with Moyes had them in the top 7 almost every single season. He restored pride to that club and built a consistent side. We'd be unbelievably lucky to have him if Pearson was to leave.

Moyes consistently evolved his Everton side.

No I wouldn't.

He never evolved that side in anyway.

If you want to watch the ball knocked up to the yak, fellaini, jelavic whoever it maybe. Just get a review of of l1 and first year back under pearson. Knock it upto howard. Play of him.

Martinez has shown what could have been done with those players in terms of letting them play football.

It's also a myth he had no money. Yak, jelavic, fellaini, etc. Yes he may spent some wisely on cahill and jagielka.

But for me watching this city side shows how far pearson has come. Moyes managed to turn utd into everton.

[MC Prussian]

What on earth are you talking about, I haven't belittled Moyes in this thread have I? Clearly stated that he had money to spend at Everton, which people said he didn't. Well I have quite clearly shown that he did have money to spend. 

 

Something good to come out of Goodison? Hmm ask Evertonians now about David Moyes and see what their views are on the man, the man held them back, look at the difference Martinez has installed at the club in 10 months compared to them 10 years of Moyes. Moyes did buy some cracking players and moved some on for good money, yet Martinez has them playing at a new level, he has them playing a refreshing style of football, he will take players to a new level. Was Moyes really going to do that if he stayed? I very much doubt it. 

 

I never claimed anything of the sort, I clearly said Moyes having a limited amount of money is a myth, he had money. From 05/06 to 07/08 David Moyes was allowed to spend around £76.5 million on arrivals and the outgoings in them three seasons was around £22.5 million.. Even a jumped up idiot like yourself can work that difference out, in that time was David Moyes working on a shoe string? So he was probably achieving the already expected for a club in that period, his League finishes were 11th, 6th and 5th. 

I never said you were belittling Moyes, I was referring to your stance on Everton's transfer policy under Moyes.

 

He laid the foundations for the club to return to the upper half of the table and back into Europe. No league finish below 8th spot following the 2005/2006 season speaks for the fine work he did, considering the fact that it was bloody hard to break through the Big Four dominance in those years. Four to five clubs who spent even more than Everton.

 

Oh, and thanks for the dear "jumped-up idiot" - I'm sure people will find the joke in there somewhere, seeing it coming from somebody with at least two FT accounts.

Obsessed much with this board? Remind me again why you're posting on here, Uncle Albert...

[Grandad.]

I never said you were belittling Moyes, I was referring to your stance on Everton's transfer policy under Moyes.

 

He laid the foundations for the club to return to the upper half of the table and back into Europe. No league finish below 8th spot following the 2005/2006 season speaks for the fine work he did, considering the fact that it was bloody hard to break through the Big Four dominance in those years. Four to five clubs who spent even more than Everton.

 

Oh, and thanks for the dear "jumped-up idiot" - I'm sure people will find the joke in there somewhere, seeing it coming from somebody with at least two FT accounts.

Obsessed much with this board? Remind me again why you're posting on here, Uncle Albert...

 

Everyone knows this is a new account, as the other was wrongly banned. 

Obsessed with this board? Have a day off will you, you should be happy I come on here and actually hold down debates and discussions with you all, the majority of people on here can't say much for themselves.. Most will wait for someone to write something then jump in with "This.", you may not like me, I certainly cannot stand you but just leave me be, instead of trying to inform everyone that I'm a Liverpool fan and my old account was Uncle Albert, do you think if I didn't want people to know that, I would of used a different kind of name?

 

Or... a Leicester Liverpool fan doing his best to keep the Everton - LFC hatred alive by belittling anything to come out of Goodison Park in the past 10+ years..

 

And you claim you didn't say I tried belittling Moyes and Everton? Wow.

 

Like I have repeatedly said, all I came on this thread to say was, it is a complete and utter myth that David Moyes had limited money to spend at Everton, there was nothing limited about it all. Whatever money he raised through sales he spent and sometimes even more than the sale money. If you can't get your head around that then fair enough but this certainly isn't a Liverpool fan trying to get one over on something Blue, it's a fact. 

[Loggy88]

Pearson deserves the whole season next year whatever happens. He is now officially our best manager of all time.