Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Net spend on players since June 2016 - the harsh reality
- Thread starter Wozza
- Start date
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Yeah, but according to the cognoscenti on here, our purchases WILL come good once played in the right position.
the right footed denilson
New member
One of the big reasons we are currently managerless. Rightly or wrongly Bloom has backed the players and recruitment team and blamed Hughton for not getting more out of his investments.
the right footed denilson
New member
It's not crap. Our budget etc is relatively low. Our NET spend has been relatively high.
Originunknown
BINFEST'ING
These figures look to be accurate in terms of transfer fee?
They exclude signing on bonuses, agent fees and don't factor in wages obviously.
They exclude signing on bonuses, agent fees and don't factor in wages obviously.
£99m more than Spurs.
Spurs have just opened a billion pound stadium and already had a great squad. We were coming into the Premier league with room for massive improvement in order to stay up. Fulham spent 101m in one summer. Teams like Burnley, Palace and West Ham have been in the division for longer and spending large sums for several more years. Bournemouth's wage bill is almost double ours...etc etc
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
Great data, but not sure what it proves? Saints and Newcastle spent least and finished just above us. Spurs spent the next least and are in a European Cup Final.
Watford spent a little more and faded in the league but got the luck of the draw to reach the FA Cup Final, but that could have been us.
Burnley splashed a little as they needed a stronger squad to play in Europe for the first time, but still a massive fail in the Premier League.
Liverpool next, yet they reached the Champions League Final in spectacular fashion and made a one horse race in to two for the Prem..
Man City spent the most and won the league. Man Utd spent the next most and were regarded as terrible for all but a 9 (??) match run of new manager bounce wins before fading to 6th and arguably one of their worst seasons in many years since Fergie at least.
We spent £30 m more than Fulham, £50m more than Hudds, but we play on in the Prem and they failed miserably.
So the harsh reality is - oh, wait a minute, net spend figures mean absolutely nothing because every club has different quality start points before the buying and selling starts. We spent what we spent and stayed up. From our point of view, I would suggest great value for money.
- Thread starter
- #10
Those numbers are broadly accurate* as is also being discussed right now on a very similar thread: https://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?372901-%A3140-million-on-players
(* - in as much as they can be, given nearly every fee is "undisclosed")
Mungo_Jerry
New member
- Sep 27, 2011
- 184
Also needs to be put in the context of sales.... Liverpool coined over £200m selling Coutinho and Suarez in this period, Saints 75m on VvD, Chelsea cashed in on Oscar and made a profit on Costa and David Luiz (buying him back for less than they sold him for - I think) etc.
These figures show net spend. At the risk of stating the obvious that is:
Money spent buying players - less money spent selling players.
Of course we're going to be big net spenders. We sold no one worth a penny and bought £5m-£17m players for two seasons running. That adds up quickly.
Other teams have been in the Prem for decades and are swapping out one expensive signing for another. Low net spend but still huge signings in an effort to refine their squad. We are creating a Prem squad almost from scratch.
Newcastle only spent £4m net? Yes, but they came down with a Prem squad and went straight back up. So above situation applies.
Look what Fulham and Wolves spent net in effectively one season.
There's nothing odd about our figures. We went up and spent. We stayed up (only 50% of sides do that) and had to spend again because we're still building a squad.
I'd be looking at net spend alongside total spend to see the real sums we're talking about. Then look at wages (where we are very low relatively - mainly because we're buying players from Euro-leagues who see even our paltry Prem wage structure as a huge step up). And look at signing on fees (not reported here).
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Perhaps it would be better to look at squad or 1st team value and salary cost per club to make a fair comparison.
Quite
- Thread starter
- #17
Well Burnley don't pay massive wages.
I'm told the club is quite backward in terms of marketing and commercialisation. Guess they know they'll only ever be a local club.
Quite an interesting comparison to be made with the Albion at all levels, I think...
Last edited:
Nobby
Well-known member
- Sep 29, 2007
- 2,605
Quite. Again
And spread across each club’s Premier League stay
Then it’s worth talking about
And we will be in the bottom three or four
Nobby
Well-known member
- Sep 29, 2007
- 2,605
For example, and I’m not trying to be controversial
Fulham £101m - 1 season
Albion £130m - 2 seasons
Fulham £101m per season
Albion £65m per season
So we have spent dramatically less than Fulham and outperformed them
Which makes the ranking in the list above worthless
And that’s before we talk about our wages being second lowest in the league
Yours
Joe Accountant
Nobby
Well-known member
- Sep 29, 2007
- 2,605
Absolutely right. And Burnley who are the one team below us in wages terms