iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

And the only thing that could have significantly shifted that he didn’t know about at the time would have to come from ownership.

130

Usually only lateish breaking stories. Armstrong has been done to death all day. O’Brien broke quite early too I think?

010

But his upside will only go up. And even then it doesn’t make sense to do it now, do it after the season before 30th June.

000

But the thing is if it’s just to be compliant with SCR - you don’t have to do that until June 30th. If it’s cash flow then the owners need to sell up immediately if they’re that skint.

The bit I don’t get is if he was lying - why do the interviews in the first place? It was entirely voluntary, didn’t have to do them. Why would you book them if u knew this was the direction of travel? I have no strong feelings on Kinnear, but I’m inclined to think something has shifted in the 2wks.

230

I’ve been convinced for years that we’re a social experiment to see how much misery and disappointment a group of people will voluntarily endure and keep coming back for more.

020

He wouldn’t be the first or the last.

020

Or it just means he’ll be off to (17th place) Spurs.

100

And you might be right, but he didn’t have to do those interviews (and particularly when he did). I’ve no idea if he’s any good at his job, but to me it doesn’t make sense that he would have done it if he’d known he was lying. Why would you put yourself in the firing line like that? 🤷🏻‍♂️

000

Moshiri was certifiable though, don’t think we can use him as a yardstick 😆 And even if you could, this is very different. Failing to get a player in is one thing, lauding how exciting the future will be then imploding the team is another.

It’s an unpopular opinion, but I don’t think Kinnear was lying. Why would he voluntarily do those interviews and say what he said (when he could have just done and said nothing) if he knew this was the situation. Something has changed in the last two weeks if you ask me.

Peel want way too much for the land, apparently.

121

I’m not so sure, honestly. In a relative sense, at least.

000

Think it’s clear now that “we’re not poor” isn’t true. At least in any way that actually matters

100

Said it before, but it just shows how so many football fans base their opinions about purely on media narratives

Had someone earlier using the FA Cup final as an argument for why he’s better than Pickford… when he should have had a clear red😆 And 1 of the commentators yesterday “not many in the PL let in less than Henderson last season”… 3 did. Pickford being one of them. Pickford also prevented the most goals

240

Not really “champ”. Shouldn’t have been on the pitch to do any of that, and even WITH it, it’s one match. But yeah, you too.

000

Honestly it just shows how much people just rely on media narrative for their opinions. Still see people talking about him as “erratic” or “a liability” even though it hasn’t been remotely true for like half a decade. So weird.

010

Just to clarify - that was the game where he should have been sent off for handling outside the box, right? 👀

100

I did. He performed well. But it’s 1 game.

000

Hasn’t been true for a long long time now.

000

As someone who watched every single minute of Everton’s play last season (and for many seasons before) - I promise you you’re wrong. Hence why his xGC differential was the best in the PL. He was a bit erratic about 5 or 6 years ago, but because the media loves a narrative, they’ve stuck with it.

100

He DID put in a good performance in a friendly though, I’ll give you that.

100

On clean sheets? Oh, no, no that. Goals prevented maybe? No… no not that either… Tricky one…

200

If you think Jordan Pickford is a liability, football ain’t the sport for you.

100

Oh look, an English keeper puts in a half decent performance(in a friendly) and the media (along with some harder thinking fans) are back on the “should be England #1” train. What Pickford needs to do to get some respect is beyond me. He’s England’s best keeper, and it’s not remotely close. #efc

2191

But you can still write off (for PSR) the capital part of the repayments, yes?

100

I think those rules are just that it’s only excluded once it’s STARTED being built (ie not excluded before planning permission granted, because it’s theoretical at that point) not that it stops being excluded AFTER it’s built? I’d be interested to see the wording though.

100

Far cry from Liverpool and Chelsea, but also a far cry from our recent seasons One area we fully agree is the need to always be looking to ways to further increase revenue, and that Nelson dock could be a phenomenal way to do that. Could be a game changer.

100

insignificance vs the other numbers mentioned. Fully expect (assuming we pull our finger out) that we’ll spend over £100m (possibly over 150) this summer. On an average 4 year contract that’s “only” a £25-40m PSR hit + wages.

100

didn’t count towards PSR, but some was borrowed to cover club running costs - this has been settled completely. Curious where you got the info that the (now much much lower rate) stadium interest now counts towards PSR - it’s still infrastructure investment. But either way it pales into

profit. Personally I’d have sold Goodison separately to get an additional bump next year, but I’m sure there’s a reason why they didn’t. 5. Reduction in interest. Some estimates had us paying £40-50m a year in insanely high interest loan repayments. Now some of this was for stadium costs so

be on less than previously. 3. Even if wages do rise, the increase in revenue (pegged by various sources at c. £40-£50m a year) will dwarf it. And that figure was before the sponsorship deal (£10m). 4. Most reporting has the sale of the women’s team at £55-60m. All of which will go onto PSR as pure

factor until that spending occurs. 2. We don’t yet know that wages spend will go up. We’ve lost a very significant amount off the wage bill and have so far replaced those players with people who will be on less (Dom/Thierno, Doucs/Alcaraz, Young/Aznou). Those who have re-signed will almost certainly

@neilw.bsky.social Hi mate. Replying to you directly because I think I’ve inadvertently annoyed Giulia enough today. 😣 I get what you’re saying but do have a couple of counter points. 1. Amortisation only goes up as a consequence of signing players, so it’s not in and of itself a limiting

I used to be really into the NBA in the ‘90s. Been meaning to get back to it, but I hear they’ve screwed up that sport too.

100

Yeah the reduction in the amount of non-Everton football I watch has been crazy over the last 5-10yrs. Everton being awful has played its part. Plus VAR, plus PSR. Feels like every decision the authorities make just reduces enjoyment.

Absolutely no dispute there. Ridiculous system. The fact that fans now need to know words like “amortisation”, and that we’re all talking about things like the sale of women’s teams and hotels/car parks shows how daft it all is.

100

Apologies, I thought it was clear that I was talking about the next one to end, but it’s so easy to be misinterpreted in text, I should have been clearer. I definitely wasn’t implying that we could spend like Liverpool, just that we have significant headroom especially compared to previous seasons.

000

Entirely open to the fact I’m missing something, but I’m looking at the CURRENT PSR window (the one we’re now in, that started on 1st July 2025). The one that ended on 30th June 2025 is set in stone now and spending (or sales/other income) we do now can’t impact that. Assuming we passed that period.

120

That’s why I didn’t argue the point, and discussed the other figures leaving the women’s side apart from it

000

Apologies, absolutely wasn’t my intention to miss quote you. But it would be reasonable to say that money will change hands for the women’s team within the PSR period ending next year wouldn’t it? Wasn’t asking you to justify yourself. I’m a big fan of your reporting.

200

thanks again for responding, it’s appreciated! 🙏🏼

000

amortisation is taken into account. Sorry, that ended up being a lot longer than I expected, and if I’m wrong fair enough, but I would be interested to know where the logic breaks down. Not saying we can spend like Liverpool or Chelsea, but seems like we should have significant headroom? Anyway,

100

another £10m. We’ll put the women’s team thing aside as you said there’s no money involved (although other usually reliable reporters have said otherwise). But even with a £50m shift (and that’s without taking into account any reduction in outgoings!) that would allow a 9 figure outgoing when

200

spend should be (while not unlimited) significantly greater than it has been for a long time, while staying under the threshold. Most estimates (Mr Maguire etc) were that increased revenues from stadium alone should be £40m+ greater than previous seasons, BEFORE the H.D deal, which is reported as

100