saafend_seagull
Well-known member
Well, looks like we backed hughton to the fkin bank!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Net spending table last 4.5 years
- Thread starter saafend_seagull
- Start date
Well, looks like we backed hughton to the fkin bank!
B-right-on
Living the dream
Is that 5th most over the past 5 seasons?
Seems hard to believe but with no sales to offset, I suppose so.
God bless Tony, that's all I can say.
Seems hard to believe but with no sales to offset, I suppose so.
God bless Tony, that's all I can say.
blue-shifted
Banned
We had to spend a reasonable amount to consolidate in the Premier League
I expect us to slip down that table. Though there are forces working on both directions. Player inflation remains inexorable, but the graduates from the academy mean we won't have to recruit as many players. In addition I expect us to ship out a large number of players (the ones Potter wants to ship out) in the summer.
I expect us to slip down that table. Though there are forces working on both directions. Player inflation remains inexorable, but the graduates from the academy mean we won't have to recruit as many players. In addition I expect us to ship out a large number of players (the ones Potter wants to ship out) in the summer.
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
I expect us to plummet down the table in years to come, as we will produce home grown talent to augment the 1st team AND to sell.
martin tyler
Well-known member
- Jan 25, 2013
- 5,967
Suppose selling is the biggest factor here. Spending is relatively modest per player if you think about the number of players we have signed. Expect in years to come this will come down quite a lot especially if we move a player or 2 to a “top 6” club in years to come.
Looks like we spent 60% of our £100M PL money for each season we have been in the PL. Wonder what percentage other teams spent.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,867
my interpretation is we have spent 160%
blue-shifted
Banned
I also think this shows just how much scope there is to get up the table by buying well.
Many of our best signings, such as Burn, Gross, Ryan have been for fairly modest amounts. Some of our well documented other signings show that you don’t get 3 or 4 times more for 15 to 20m than you do for 5m
Many of our best signings, such as Burn, Gross, Ryan have been for fairly modest amounts. Some of our well documented other signings show that you don’t get 3 or 4 times more for 15 to 20m than you do for 5m
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,867
because the figures are negativeI have assumed that expenditure is £60m over over our income...
Beat me to it!
Since when have five negatives added up to plus £206M?
schmunk
Why oh why oh why?
I understand these "net spend" figures to be simply Transfer Fees Paid less Transfer Fees Received - income from the PL or elsewhere doesn't come into it.
- Aug 8, 2005
- 27,225
Well, looks like we backed hughton to the fkin bank!
Where is the full table?
But the figures quoted are for net spending on transfers not on general expenditure.
maltaseagull
Well-known member
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Only the net spend one though
Yes, only that one. Although we can't rule out doing the same on the other one. Sadly.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,867
ok sorry... misunderstood the context.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,867
Misunderstood what the figures meant. To me it is a meaningless stat which perhaps just tells you what we already know i.e. we had to spend as we were upgrading our squad . I assumed wrongly that it was in context of income and we had over spent on our income by those amounts.
The stat though hides so much of the truth i.e.a lot of what we have bought was not very good and that our championship players were pretty good.