Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Does anyone have the stats for championship promoted team spend



dwayne

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
14,860
London
In the last 5-10 years?

I was reading that the average spend was around 30 million first season. Obviously there will be yo-yo clubs that skew this slightly. But it would be very interesting to see how we stack up as it stands.

I know it's a broken record on this board but it very much feels like we are doing this season on the cheap with little to no recognised premier league players (apart from maybe sidwell?!)
 








Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
We've currently spent around £12 million in transfer fees.

I guess another £25 million to go - just on 2 players.

Then a free goalkeeper, and a loan for 9th choice defender.
 




AmexRuislip

Trainee Spy 🕵️‍♂️
Feb 2, 2014
33,727
Ruislip
In the last 5-10 years?

I was reading that the average spend was around 30 million first season. Obviously there will be yo-yo clubs that skew this slightly. But it would be very interesting to see how we stack up as it stands.

I know it's a broken record on this board but it very much feels like we are doing this season on the cheap with little to no recognised premier league players (apart from maybe sidwell?!)

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/brighton--hove-albion/startseite/verein/1237
 


martin tyler

Well-known member
Jan 25, 2013
5,826
Sure that's a myth. There is an article granted summer 2015 saying the average spend over the previous 10 years by promoted clubs that stay up is 12.4 million.
That year Bournemouth and Watford bucked the trend and both spent in excess of 22 million and stayed up. Norwich spent around 10 And went down (some of these clubs seems to hide a lot of fees as undisclosed in recent times which cloud Bournemouths figures for sure)
Last year Burnley stayed uphaving spent 21 million
Biro spent 21.25 and Hull 12.4 both went down

Problem this year there is less value or so it seems. While teams are prepared to pay 50 million for the likes of Walker, Sigs, ect then until those teams have spent their stupid amounts and need to discard players then the club are doing it right and getting value from abroad. May look like doing it on the cheap but I don't see us spending more that 25 million.

Main point of the article it's how you spend your money not how much you spend that helps survival
 
Last edited:


martin tyler

Well-known member
Jan 25, 2013
5,826
IMG_0830.JPG
 








Perkino

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2009
5,978
There's no obvious correlation between spend and survival. We will need a tight defence which we may already have and players who can score on the counter attack or from a set piece as we're unlikely to occupy large amounts of possession
 




dwayne

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
14,860
London
There's no obvious correlation between spend and survival. We will need a tight defence which we may already have and players who can score on the counter attack or from a set piece as we're unlikely to occupy large amounts of possession

I think el pres stats suggest otherwise. There is a correlation between spend and staying up.
 




MattBackHome

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
11,689
I think el pres stats suggest otherwise. There is a correlation between spend and staying up.

Based on ElPres' figures I'd suggest that the correlation isn't strong enough to prove that hypothesis; yes the bottom three teams spends (as a % of the total promoted teams spend that year) resulted in relegation, but so did 2 of the top 3.

If anything the figures suggest that you should spend roughly the same as your promotion rivals (between 23% and 41% of total promoted teams spend) and not more.

Plus we're not done yet.
 




BBassic

I changed this.
Jul 28, 2011
12,220
I think el pres stats suggest otherwise. There is a correlation between spend and staying up.

They don't suggest that to me.

Of the five relegated on that list three of them spent over £30m and got relegated anyway.

Suggests to me that money helps when spent wisely rather than blindly.
 


dwayne

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
14,860
London
They don't suggest that to me.

Of the five relegated on that list three of them spent over £30m and got relegated anyway.

Suggests to me that money helps when spent wisely rather than blindly.
The 2015 figures are scary. Watford spent all that money and I couldn't name 3 of their players.

Sent from my SM-G9350 using Tapatalk
 


BBassic

I changed this.
Jul 28, 2011
12,220
The 2015 figures are scary. Watford spent all that money and I couldn't name 3 of their players.

Sent from my SM-G9350 using Tapatalk

Absolutely. I'd wager some of their fans can't either to be honest.

Cardiff is the one that scares me the most. £45m on players and still went down. That's the sort of spending spree I fear people want us to embark on. Signing players because we have the money to sign players isn't the way a well run club does things.
 


Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Aug 25, 2011
63,401
Withdean area
The 2015 figures are scary. Watford spent all that money and I couldn't name 3 of their players.

Sent from my SM-G9350 using Tapatalk

= shrewd buying from abroad and they stayed up with ease in the end in each of their PL seasons.

Which is a positive point often made about Winstanley & Co buying from overseas and getting better value.
 









Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here