Ripple effect: Everton could face Ndiaye dilemma after record Rogers deal

The absurdity of the summer transfer window has taken a new twist after Chelsea agreed a £117m deal to sign Morgan Rogers from Aston Villa.

The fee is a guaranteed sum and will makeRogers the most expensive English footballer of all time, eclipsing the £116m deal that took Elliot Anderson from Nottingham Forest to Manchester City earlier in the window.

It’s a stark reminder of the different playing fields in the Premier League right now, with financial rules that benefit a clutch of clubs, and make it tougher than ever for those behind to catch up.

Sure, the financial compensation for Aston Villa is huge, but, fresh from a second Champions League qualification in three seasons, Villa are forced to cash in on a key asset to remain compliant. Chelsea, meanwhile, can spend significantly again despite missing out on European qualification and their frivolity of recent windows.

Everton could feel the ripple effect of the deal, with early murmurs already surfacing around Iliman Ndiaye.

Aston Villa, armed with a war-chest and Champions League football, are now on the lookout for a Rogers replacement.

Ndiaye, in many ways, fits the brief. A brilliant ball-carrier who is comfortable centrally or drifting inward from the left, the 26-year-old would arrive in his peak years and with proven Premier League pedigree.

Last season, Ndiaye bettered Rogers for progressive carries, completed dribbles, key passes and assists per 90. Their numbers for non-penalty Expected Goals and Assists were similar, as was their completed crosses data. Ndiaye lacks the goal threat Rogers carries, but with a more attack-minded support cast, those are numbers that could rise.

Aston Villa might not be the only suitors. Arsenal had placed Rogers top of their wish-list and remain keen on a left-sided forward, while Manchester United are also in the market, should a suitor be found for Marcus Rashford.

It leaves Everton with a dilemma. Arguably the club’s biggest asset hasalready made noise around an exit, with rivals reportedly weighing up approaches. Losing Ndiaye would be a big blow to the Blues, but the financial food chain of football is powerful.

Everton need to be decisive. Ensure Ndiaye is committed for the foreseeable future, or cash in now while the market is high and, crucially, with sufficient time to source a replacement.

Newcastle suffered for dragging their heels with Alexander Isak last summer, a deal that went to deadline day and ultimately upset their entire campaign.

Everton cannot afford to replicate that mistake.

Reader Comments (23)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

Mihir Ambardekar 1 Posted 20/07/2026 at 15:08:06

Good opportunity for us to price him at £80-90M. We can get 2 quality players in for that money.

Ndiaye is good but he tends to go missing in games. Also he himself hasn't ruled out leaving Everton.

If we get a good deal, we should take it. However, our targets should be lined up for a quick replacement.

Jonathan Oppenheimer 2 Posted 20/07/2026 at 15:31:34

Certainly a good argument to cash in based on the silly fees now being paid. I think most people thought it good to sell at £60 million if it brings in two good players, but up it to £80 million, plus selling Dwight, Patterson, and Iroebugnam for a combined £40 million, that leaves us a good amount to bring in a quality, starting XI-ready right back, left back and striker — if somehow we got the recruitment right.

John Collins 3 Posted 20/07/2026 at 15:46:54

If he's going I want it as soon as possible so we can reinvest on two top full backs.

Kevin Molloy 4 Posted 20/07/2026 at 16:07:47

Yes, we may get lucky here.

Get some proper money in, cos it looks like the player's head has already been turned

Andrew Merrick 5 Posted 20/07/2026 at 16:27:29

Adding fuel to the fire, that, Harry! A stupidly large bid for any player will be considered by most clubs. Bottom line is we would have a huge hole to fill without him. Jack Grealish is an unknown right now, Tyrique George is a developing player, and sadly so is Tyler Dibling.

Our current strikers need lots of service and attempts to get a meagre goal tally. And of course we still need fullbacks. My heart says keep him.

Phil Roberts 6 Posted 20/07/2026 at 17:16:09

Why do we need 2 full backs? I thought Anzou was a revelation at Dundee and ready to take over the mantle of Leighton Baines.

Are we all saying he is not good enough, with Mykolenko as back-up?

Nicolas Piñon 7 Posted 20/07/2026 at 17:36:12

80k at least woudnt bother

Jay Harris 8 Posted 20/07/2026 at 18:06:06

Alas, Dundee are no indicator of how he would cope in the Premier League, Phil.

He looks more like a winger or wingback to me so would suit a 3 at the back system more.

Iain Love 9 Posted 20/07/2026 at 18:47:15

Wonderful player to watch, but everyone has their price. I wouldn't let him go unless we have replacements lined up.

I would point out his goals and assists aren't what I would expect for the money some people are saying we should be asking.

David West 10 Posted 20/07/2026 at 19:11:02

Glad we hadn't took any offers before these mad fees started changing hands.

I love him, but let's be smart, he's not going to finish that contract, cash in now while his stocks high and the market is bonkers.

I'd love the club to keep investing in these young players, obviously we need experience to complement them, but I'd rather watch a few young players have a go and fail, than watch some mercenaries going through the motions.

John Williams 11 Posted 20/07/2026 at 21:31:14

He scored 6 goals last season, two of which were penalties, so not a striker.

We need more goals, but is he the man?

Annika Herbert 12 Posted 20/07/2026 at 21:56:50

With better players around him and a more attack minded manager, I thi k you would see Ndiaye's assists and goal output increase significantly.

Whilst I would prefer to see him stay and have more quality added around him, I think he has already decided he wants to leave.

The big concern would be who do we get to replace him. Given our inactivity in the transfer window so far, would the club look to hoard the cash, or buy a cheap replacement?

Jamie Sweet 13 Posted 20/07/2026 at 22:03:50

Can someone explain how on earth Chelsea can spend that sort of money this summer when they have no European football? I thought they might have to tighten the purse strings and have a bit of a clear out. Obviously I was wrong.

Or is it that after the limp slap on the wrist they got for all their previous indiscretions, they've decided they can just carry on doing what the hell they want.

Mike Gaynes 14 Posted 20/07/2026 at 23:13:04

Jamie #13, Chelsea have annual revenue of close to £500m even without European football. Under SCR regs they can spend around £400m. They've already spent about half that.

Their three co-owners collectively are worth $30 billion or so, and corporate partner Clearlake Capital has about $90 billion under management.

And they don't care about balance sheets.

Mark Steers 15 Posted 20/07/2026 at 23:51:25

Annika @12,

Why do you say "with an attack-minded manager"? Wake up!!! Moyes is staying here and will be here till the end of the season. The reason is the owners don't care and will leave Moyes to crack on.

Moyes will get us into the top half but it won't be pretty but he won't care -- he never answers the fans. He is like asbestos -- can't be touched... so don't torment yourself.

Mark Taylor 16 Posted 20/07/2026 at 00:17:37

Mike 14

If I understand the new regs, using the numbers you outline, that £400m has to cover all football related expenses. That includes all the current squad including the management team, along with net player amortisation as far as I understand it.

Chelsea have just been fined by Uefa for exceeding their rule of 70% football/squad costs(versus the EPL rule of 85%). Very roughly that gives them about £65m wiggle room now they're not in Europe, everything else being equal (it won't be entirely so, they've got big earner Sterling off their books this year).

That £65m isn't a transfer budget, it would include the players wages plus amortisation. So for example it would buy you roughly 3 £50m players on 5 year contract paying £10m salary for each. I believe this is how it works.

I'd be really interested in someone closer to the real numbers doing an analysis for Everton, so we can see what firepower we may or may not have. Of course owners may not wish to push to the highest limit, either to give a chance of some dividend income or just being cautious and leaving a contingency.

Eric Myles 17 Posted 21/07/2026 at 02:32:39

Mark #16, I raised the point about whether amortisation is considered in the PSR expenses calculation on another thread.

Am I right then that if we buy a £50 million player on a 5 year contract then only £10 million of that goes onto the PSR expenses calculation?

Even if we've paid the full amount up front?

Sean Kearns 18 Posted 21/07/2026 at 03:40:38

He is brilliant but his end product makes one realize why a bigger club never signed him… his final pass or shot is usually lacking to be honest. But on the other hand he’s looking up for a 1-2 and sees Barry or Beto, so I can understand his own frustrations. He probably would be better if we had a ball playing center forward. If we can get big money for him then I have no qualms, Dewsbury Hall is gear and having a fit Jarrad Branthwaite gives me a fucking semi on… I CANT WAIT FOR WEEK ONE! UTFT!

Mike Gaynes 19 Posted 21/07/2026 at 03:55:07

Mark #16, I believe you are both correct and incorrect. SCR doesn't cover "all football related expenses." It applies only to transfer fees (amortised as you described), player and lead manager salaries, and agents' fees.

SCR doesnot apply to the management team, backroom coaching and training/medical staff, any administrative costs or stadium upkeep. (Odd that stadium revenue counts towards SCR but stadium costs don't count against it.)

Chelsea's UEFA fine is a complete joke -- €3m, of which €2m million is suspended, leaving a €1m actual fine. Boehly spends more than that restocking the bar on his yacht. Chelsea doesn't care about getting caught, or about fines.

TFG won't release numbers in the middle of a fiscal year, so any analysis would be "ballpark" at best, and I'm sure you're right that they won't spend up to their SCR limit in this window. They'll want to leave what you accurately describe as a contingency, in case we have a Spurs-like siege of injuries and need signings in January. We only lost two starters for extended periods last season, and as of May 1 we were third-luckiest club in the league with only 12 injuries and 98 total games lost (Spurs had 27 for 363).

That sort of good fortune tends to balance out. Brutally.

Mike Allison 20 Posted 21/07/2026 at 08:32:19

Chelsea can afford it because they've hoarded young players for years and are selling them off to offset spending. Apparently they raised £300M in player sales last season. Rather than moan, I'd head for the sales.

They've got five strikers for one position with no European football. I don't know much about Guiu or Emegha, but Jackson and Delap are both better than Beto and Barry.

Ajay Gopal 21 Posted 21/07/2026 at 12:22:47

Mike, that still doesn't answer Jamie's (13) original question: "Can someone explain how on earth Chelsea can spend that sort of money this summer when they have no European football?"

Especially when Chelsea have declared the largest loss ever of any Premier League club last year -- a staggering £262M! Whereas for a transgression of -- was it £19.8M in losses over the PSR limits due to dubious reasons -- the Premier League nearly got Everton relegated with an 8-point deduction?

It just doesn't make sense.

Alan McMillan 22 Posted 21/07/2026 at 15:34:00

sell! At those prices, we could and should look to offload a player who is not fully committed to us. Also, AFCON, not great when they go missing for a month every two years.

23 Posted 21/07/2026 at 16:05:15

Eric 17.

I believe so and Mike G seems to think likewise. So yes that £50 player 'only' costs us £10 a year. But don't forget the salary. And that is a semi permanent addition to the cost base (for as long as the contract runs)

Mike G

Thanks for that clarification. So Moyes salary is included but no-one else of the coaching team. I presume any sacked (main) manager costs would be included though.

I agree about the contingency (probably wise) but I'd still like to see someone with better insight given us some idea. My own back of a fag packet said c £170m in squad costs versus a next year turnover of maybe £240m (less? more?).

That gives us £205m and therefore £35m envelope. Keep say £10m back for emergencies, that's £25m. Enough to buy you 3 £30m players on 5 year contracts on £100k a week. Almost. Plus whatever we can get in sales. That could add a lot to the pot. It's why Ndiaye, at the right price, would make sense. It's a system that almost incentives trading (at least in the short term). I'm sure someone with better insight could do a more accurate version, it would be right up the Esk's street.

But if we don't use the money more effectively, then it won't amount to much more than a hill of beans.