The NSNO Everton Forum – the place for Everton fans to discuss Everton FC, matchday, team news, transfer rumours, players, managers and everything happening at Bramley Moore Dock
Shogun wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2026 9:31 am
Safe to say we've learned a lot about the Friedkins and their intentions even if there's plenty we still don't know.
Seems likely to me that the Friedkins have little to no interest in the day-to-day running of the club and the lack of repercussions for those involved in the perceived failings of the transfer window would suggest as much. There's been plenty of noise suggesting strife between Moyes, Kinnear and the rest of the 'transfer committee' when it comes to targets for not only this summer transfer window but the one before too. You only have to look at Roma to see as soon as De Rossi made a fuss that he was gone, as soon as Ranieri had a pop at Gasperini that he was gone. If the Friedkins had the same level of involvement here then there's no way things would just be carrying on as they are.
I took from Moyes' press conference that he's basically done with the likes of Kinnear and the committee now and he is just happy to get on with the season because he probably knows as well as anyone that nobody is going to be sacking them and there's no point in carrying on about it. If it's true that the Friedkins haven't spoken to Moyes in the 20 months he's been here then that kind of says it all.
The worry for me is, if they aren't selling the club, how bad does it have to get before they are involved? I'm not the biggest David Moyes fan but if it's basically all down to Angus Kinnear to lead the club and choose Moyes' successor then things could get very bad very quickly because everything I've seen suggests that on the footballing side of things then this man is out of his depth as CEO of a Premier League football club.
Agreed
He's a marketing executive trying to play Director of Football, with owners who have checked out so very little accountability. He's set up a structure that allows him to have much more input into footballing decisions than a CEO at a well run club would have.
Cereal Killer wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2026 11:55 am
We aren’t ever getting owners who’ll plow a load of money in though now the rules have changed, let’s not hold onto that idea
There’s a lot more to putting money in than spending on players.
I’m talking more investing in the infrastructure.
Improving the training ground, the academy, academy recruitment, paying off the debt, building a proper recruitment structure, building around the new stadium .
This is what long term owners should be looking at doing.
TheRam wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2026 3:11 pm
There’s a lot more to putting money in than spending on players.
I’m talking more investing in the infrastructure.
Improving the training ground, the academy, academy recruitment, paying off the debt, building a proper recruitment structure, building around the new stadium .
This is what long term owners should be looking at doing.
A review of the academy finished in the summer, concluding with replacing loads of the staff. I'd like to know more about what that means - previously there was a lot of talk about continuity of playing style and formation between the academy and the first team, but it never looked like it when I watched the u21s.
Trowel wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2026 5:03 pm
A review of the academy finished in the summer, concluding with replacing loads of the staff. I'd like to know more about what that means - previously there was a lot of talk about continuity of playing style and formation between the academy and the first team, but it never looked like it when I watched the u21s.
The academy should be viewed going forwards with a lot more importance.
If we can get money for academy products, then that is a huge boost. Imagine every year 2-4 players going for £1-5M and occasionally one going for £10-15M.
Not only is that a great income stream as per Chelsea, but it’s also a huge draw for young talent.
777Kidnappings wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2026 5:28 pm
Does the 1st team really have a playing style. Im not sure what theyd try to be following
The new regime is all very martinez. Lots of it sounds okay but behind the ideas theres no clue how to implement any of them
Sorry, but you're incorrect every academy i've worked at has a playing "plan" never been to one that doesn't...what it effectively means is that they try to set teams up that play 11 a side games in certain situations ie: who does what where and when at say goal kicks, free kicks, throw ins...different areas of the pitch etc....for me it works in academy football...however it for me it "falls apart" somewhat in the first team... mainly because the majority of players are not academy graduates from the club they're playing for...Why do it then ? it actually gives the younger players as they get older and progress a structured positional learning curve...that's the theory....Academies want at a young age footballers.... they come in as say a Right back but they want them to learn other positions in order to develop their game knowledge and development.
what damages it ?.. IMO constant changes of first team managers who come in with their own ideas....i was at an FA seminar once where it was questioned "surely it produces robots not footballers"...the answer came back "no it produces an all round player with a knowledge of adaptability during a game...?
I'll leave you to decipher that one...
4evablu wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2026 3:39 pm
Sorry, but you're incorrect every academy i've worked at has a playing "plan" never been to one that doesn't...what it effectively means is that they try to set teams up that play 11 a side games in certain situations ie: who does what where and when at say goal kicks, free kicks, throw ins...different areas of the pitch etc....for me it works in academy football...however it for me it "falls apart" somewhat in the first team... mainly because the majority of players are not academy graduates from the club they're playing for...Why do it then ? it actually gives the younger players as they get older and progress a structured positional learning curve...that's the theory....Academies want at a young age footballers.... they come in as say a Right back but they want them to learn other positions in order to develop their game knowledge and development.
what damages it ?.. IMO constant changes of first team managers who come in with their own ideas....i was at an FA seminar once where it was questioned "surely it produces robots not footballers"...the answer came back "no it produces an all round player with a knowledge of adaptability during a game...?
I'll leave you to decipher that one...
As others have said, share issue doesn’t impact SCR, it’s not revenue, yes improves cash flow for other operating costs but will have no impact on transfer pot, probably needed because of the £40 mil hole that tge payment to Burnley has left.
If Dan Friedkin is seen at Goodison regularly, how might that impact, at least on the face of it, their dual ownership of clubs in European competition separation strategy?
If TFG are looking for more investment from outside parties how might that impact their dual ownership of clubs in European competition separation strategy?
There are obviously other reasons for both, but even if they're not even secondary considerations, it can't hurt.
EDIT: Bramley Moore HDS, not Goodison.
Last edited by Cods on Wed Sep 09, 2026 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cods wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2026 2:22 am
Couple of things on the image of the ownership.
If Dan Friedkin is seen at Goodison regularly, how might that impact, at least on the face of it, their dual ownership of clubs in European competition separation strategy?
If TFG are looking for more investment from outside parties how might that impact their dual ownership of clubs in European competition separation strategy?
There are obviously other reasons for both, but even if they're not even secondary considerations, it can't hurt.
