Jump to content

James Tarkowski


HalfTimePost

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Zatman said:

It was one of the reasons i was put off by signing Tarkowski :P   

Defenders can look better playing the Burnley style

Conversely their potential ball carrying and passing abilities can be hidden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/05/2022 at 18:33, Tomaszk said:

Very surprised if we chose Diego Carlos over him. There's loads more risk attached to Carlos. 

If they both joined, they'd be starting together.

I think the next few years for Everton is battling to get out the bottom half. I don't think that's the likely scenario for us. Thought he'd be bored of bottom half relegation battles by now.

It may be we were discussing with him and circumstances changed. Carlos was obviously in the works for a little while with how quickly and silently it happened.

I'd imagine Tarkowski was just initial discussions to understand his contract requests incase of a few circumstances.

Maybe to see he could be talked down to be considerably cheaper deal than Carlos or as a Plan B if Carlos turned us down.

Might also be that we'd planned on selling one of Konsa / Mings and holding onto the other. Konsa's injury might have meant that we'd be without him and either couldn't sell him or didn't want to sell Mings and also be without Konsa in terms of squad consistency. So we've decided to pause for now and see where we are in January or next summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LondonLax said:

They didn’t pay a fee so probably had more room for a higher wage. 

To add to the other players on big wages they are unluckily/unable to sell. 

What’s the opposite to moneyball? Ah yeah Everton     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CarryOnVilla said:

5 years on 120k a week 

giphy.gif?cid=5e21488605emhbdn06ek4r9wc8
 

good to see Everton adding to their problems 

It's the same financially as on £75k a week and costing £10m. It's a financially good deal for Everton.

Why the vast majority of VT don't understand the total cost of a transfer is what matters. Not that a fee and wages are some kind of distinctly separate things 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

It's the same financially as on £75k a week and costing £10m. It's a financially good deal for Everton.

Why the vast majority of VT don't understand the total cost of a transfer is what matters. Not that a fee and wages are some kind of distinctly separate things 

 

It’s still an expensive wage for a team like Everton and their financial issues. Also it’s a long contract, with each passing year with less clubs wanting him. So if it goes wrong for him their (I don’t think it will) it could be problematic if they ever need to reduce the wage bill again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

It’s still an expensive wage for a team like Everton and their financial issues. Also it’s a long contract, with each passing year with less clubs wanting him. So if it goes wrong for him their (I don’t think it will) it could be problematic if they ever need to reduce the wage bill again 

Wage is just one cost of a transfer, the other half is the fee. So paying him 75k a week and paying a 10m transfer fee costs the club an identical amount as signing him for free and paying him £120k a week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CVByrne said:

Wage is just one cost of a transfer, the other half is the fee. So paying him 75k a week and paying a 10m transfer fee costs the club an identical amount as signing him for free and paying him £120k a week. 

Yeap… 

However you want to split it, it’s still pretty expensive for Everton and their current situation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

Yeap… 

However you want to split it, it’s still pretty expensive for Everton and their current situation 

I think it's financially a very good deal for Everton getting a player like Tarkowski and it costing them ~£6m per year. That's less than Mings costs us per year and both are of similar level CBs I'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

They didn’t pay a fee so probably had more room for a higher wage. 

Opposed to our £100k a week for 4 years for a 29 year old , plus a 26 mill fee.

Its a good deal for Everton. He is a really good defender . Stays fit , reliable , a leader.

As soon as we got Carlos this was dead due to the profile. He would have been one of the options for an experienced defender to play alongside Mings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

It's the same financially as on £75k a week and costing £10m. It's a financially good deal for Everton.

Why the vast majority of VT don't understand the total cost of a transfer is what matters. Not that a fee and wages are some kind of distinctly separate things 

 

It’s the same — but only if the player stays until the contract ends. If the club want to move the player before that, it’s not the same.

A player with a transfer value above zero can be sold, or at least loaned to another club. If the player in a couple of years isn’t performing enough to warrant 125k per week, he could be difficult to loan out unless Everton agree to pay a part of his wages.

That’s why paying high wages for ”free” transfers is risky. Those players can become impossible to move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good signing for them. Lampard apparently wants Gallagher and going to be one of their top targets. Those 2 would improve Everton's first 11 immeasurably and you would have to say they would have a much better season than the one just gone. If they are in for Gallagher then so should we be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
×
×
  • Create New...
Â