Summer 2015 transfer window thread

[chaileyjem]

We were a much stronger proposition the last time we outspent Derby.

The last year, in which there are figures; 2013/4, we outspent Derby but unfortunately we weren't a stronger proposition. Against Derby that season at least.

But this has nothing to do with whether the money was well spent, the quality of the squad, where we finished in the table or whether Martin is a better striker than O Grady.

Its purely your view that Derby and Albion both have investors who put money into the club except Derby's investment goes on the team, whereas you think Albion's (ie: Bloom's investment and our revenue) is going on - well what exactly ? Something other than the £20m+ that goes on the footballers wages in your view. You clearly have access to better data than me that shows that Derby are behaving differently to the Albion so fair enough.

 

[nwgull]

Have you now got last year's figures to hand then, or are you still quoting two years ago when I have already said that I was GUESSING that Derby outspent us last season. We were a much stronger proposition the last time we outspent Derby.

By last year do you mean 13/14, when Derby beat us 4 out 4 times that they played us?su

 

[Icy Gull]

By last year do you mean 13/14, when Derby beat us 4 out 4 times that they played us?su

No I mean we were a much better team than we are now the year before last, not that we were better than Derby. We had much better players so I can believe that we possibly spent more than them. However I struggle to believe the dross we had last year cost more than the Derby team. Chailey Jem seems to be suggesting it might have...even though he doesn't have the figures. The quality of their squad and the additions they made would scream to me that they spent more than us

 

[Icy Gull]

The last year, in which there are figures; 2013/4, we outspent Derby but unfortunately we weren't a stronger proposition. Against Derby that season at least.

But this has nothing to do with whether the money was well spent, the quality of the squad, where we finished in the table or whether Martin is a better striker than O Grady.

Its purely your view that Derby and Albion both have investors who put money into the club except Derby's investment goes on the team, whereas you think Albion's (ie: Bloom's investment and our revenue) is going on - well what exactly ? Something other than the £20m+ that goes on the footballers wages in your view. You clearly have access to better data than me that shows that Derby are behaving differently to the Albion so fair enough.

No, I think Derby probably spent much more than us last year, not sure why you are not getting this

 

[Foolg]

No I mean we were a much better team than we are now the year before last, not that we were better than Derby. We had much better players so I can believe that we possibly spent more than them. However I struggle to believe the dross we had last year cost more than the Derby team. Chailey Jem seems to be suggesting it might have...

If, as a couple of very credible posters have suggested, the likes of Chris O'Grady are on 15k a week, I wouldn't be suprised if our wage bill was higher.

Bennett (Villa) - would be on high wages, Stockdale wouldn't be cheap even after relegation from the Prem, Agustein (10k+ a week), even the likes of Colunga, Baldock etc will be on good wages. Leon Best is on 30k a week at Blackburn (makes my stomach turn), and i'd be shocked if we were paying less than 10k a week of that.

When you do the (admittedly rumoured) sums on wages, our strike force would've been on over £50k a week last year - CMS, Best, Baldock, Colunga, COG.

It's worrying just what we are/were paying some f*cking awful footballers.

 

[chaileyjem]

No, I think Derby probably spent much more than us last year, not sure why you are not getting this

Gotcha. Derby , like Brighton are spending an absolute fortune on their team (wages mostly) and not getting promoted either.

 

[chaileyjem]

I wouldn't be suprised if our wage bill was higher..

Bloom and Barber have both said publicly in 2014/15 that it was.

 

[Foolg]

Bloom and Barber have both said publicly in 2014/15 that it was.

I know. Sorry what I meant was that I wouldn't be suprised if it was still higher than that of Derby.

 

[Icy Gull]

Gotcha. Derby , like Brighton are spending an absolute fortune on their team (wages mostly) and not getting promoted either.

We may both have ended up in the same division and Derby would have had a gut wrenching last few games, however they appear to be on the right track in achieving their goal, we were lucky not to get relegated. So not really that similar. Mind boggling to think we may have spent more than them achieving so little and going backwards so fast.

 

[Iamapen15]

Paul Konchesky... Just something I've heard.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Paul Konchesky... Just something I've heard.

Dreadful player one footed and no positional sense. Please no

 

[chaileyjem]

Mind boggling to think we may have spent more than them ...

Agreed. Its frustrating that we finished 20th in 2014/15 given that Tony Bloom pumped money into the team and continues to do so.
Good luck to Derby though this season. Be good to have a chance to beat them again.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, I think Derby probably spent much more than us last year, not sure why you are not getting this

I'm not quite getting it, because you seem to be saying:
1. B&HA are not spending enough money on players (especially in comparison to Derby)
2. B&HA are spending badly (especially in comparison to Derby)
I think [MENTION=24867]chaileyjem[/MENTION] seems to be focusing on 1 to disprove you, whereas I think you think both has been the case. I'm of the view that 2 is the most prevalent response, and that we've either had three or four consecutive bad transfer windows (I'm still unsure as to whether Jan 15 was good or bad, and will see what goes on this summer before falling either way). This is because we've sold (and, occasionally, released, e.g. Orlandi) good players, and replaced them with lesser quality.
RE 1, we certainly are spending less on players (wages and transfer fees, considering both ins and outs) than we were in 2013/14.

 

[chaileyjem]

RE 1, we certainly are spending less on players (wages and transfer fees, considering both ins and outs) than we were in 2013/14.

Why the certainty ? Hard to say until we see the published accounts but what we do know is The fees for Baldock - Ulloa, COG, Stockdale - Kus (and most of our other signings) were all more expensive than their replacements and no doubt their wages too. Bloom/Barber says what we spent on the budget was up in 2014/15. There's no sign, at least in the accounts, that our wage bill seems to be declining and its still in the top 10 of Champ clubs. Although the rate of increase has slowed. Perplexing , frustrating and for some on here an absolute scandal but not unusual. I'm sure TB is furious. Given its mostly his money. Average Championship footballers are paid a ridiculous amount of money. (and good luck to em).

If you mean that our incoming player revenue was higher. Yes we are likely to have made a big profit in player sales last season thanks to a certain striker. But that doesn't mean we certainly spent less.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why the certainty ? Hard to say until we see the published accounts but what we do know is The fees for Baldock - Ulloa, COG, Stockdale - Kus (and most of our other signings) were all more expensive than their replacements and no doubt their wages too. Bloom/Barber says what we spent on the budget was up in 2014/15. There's no sign, at least in the accounts, that our wage bill seems to be declining and its still in the top 10 of Champ clubs. Although the rate of increase has slowed. Perplexing , frustrating and for some on here an absolute scandal but not unusual. I'm sure TB is furious. Given its mostly his money. Average Championship footballers are paid a ridiculous amount of money. (and good luck to em).

If you mean that our incoming player revenue was higher. Yes we are likely to have made a big profit in player sales last season thanks to a certain striker. But that doesn't mean we certainly spent less.

Yes, incoming player revenue was what I had in mind. Add together Barnes, Bridcutt, Ulloa and Buckley and that now seems to come to something close to £16m (for which well done to the board and, within that, Paul Barber). To the best of my knowledge, in the same timescale, the players that we've spent anything beyond a nominal fee for are Stephens, COG, Baldock and Stockdale and, combined, that is below £4m.
Even if the wages outlaid continues to increase, c£12m is a significant amount to catch up on. You're more aware of the figures than I, but it is this that I'm basing the certainty upon.

 

[chaileyjem]

Yes, incoming player revenue was what I had in mind. Add together Barnes, Bridcutt, Ulloa and Buckley and that now seems to come to something close to £16m (for which well done to the board and, within that, Paul Barber). To the best of my knowledge, in the same timescale, the players that we've spent anything beyond a nominal fee for are Stephens, COG, Baldock and Stockdale and, combined, that is below £4m.
Even if the wages outlaid continues to increase, c£12m is a significant amount to catch up on. You're more aware of the figures than I, but it is this that I'm basing the certainty upon.

Agreed. Yes it's certain that revenue on transfers increased. We sold some good players. Championship clubs often do.
And it's certain the club have said at least that spending on football budget increased year on year.

Both can be true.

I think you're point though is that we should spend all our transfer income on fees for new players. Fair enough but very unusual for champ clubs who tend to bank that money on wages or other costs. Most make profits on player sales.
Doesn't mean spending hasn't increased. But I understand that point. Let's see who we sign this summer.

ps: IG was implying that TB hadn't coughed up , unlike Derby. Given that he keeps signing off on historically high player budgets and million pound signings and he insists he will continue to do so then this doesn't stand up.

 

[Machiavelli]

Agreed. Yes it's certain that revenue on transfers increased. We sold some good players. Championship clubs often do.
And it's certain the club have said at least that spending on football budget increased year on year.

Both can be true.

I think you're point though is that we should spend all our transfer income on fees for new players. Fair enough but very unusual for champ clubs who tend to bank that money on wages or other costs. Most make profits on player sales.
Doesn't mean spending hasn't increased. But I understand that point. Let's see who we sign this summer.

ps: IG was implying that TB hadn't coughed up , unlike Derby. Given that he keeps signing off on historically high player budgets and million pound signings and he insists he will continue to do so then this doesn't stand up.

I'm not trying to make that point, although I would say that that £12m gain in transfer fees is significant, and more than has been needs to be ploughed back into the squad in order for us to become more competitive (without wanting to sound ungrateful to Tony Bloom).
That said, you've regularly pointed out that our player budget is above average in this league. What we need to do is to spend better, but after three or four poor transfer windows, we've got a fair bit of rebuilding to do in terms of quality additions to the squad.

 

[severnside gull]

Some really good debate on this thread.
One of the problems we have encountered i think is that after a couple of seasons' good performances players and their agents start to look at the next step on the ladder and if we are not at very least in the race for promotion they push to move on. You can't blame the club for it as the real power lies with the players (as, sadly, we saw with Bridcutt and Buckley).The trick is to build a squad with a view to getting promoted within two years. If you fail in that timeframe the best players will go.
Rather than tinkering around the edges we need to substantially rebuild now with a view to having a real go for it this season and next. To have a chance I could easily see us bringing in 8 to 10 players and at least half costing £1m+
Anything less and the chances of developing sufficient momentum after last season are pretty slim.
For what it's worth I think we will do exactly that with a blend of young talent and old heads. I can also see us selling a number of players currently considered "established" in order to create the space for new blood.

 

[BensGrandad]

Paul Konchesky... Just something I've heard.

Dreadful player one footed and no positional sense. Please no

Some managers must disagree as he has played 478 games in his career mostly at our level or above. The drawback would be his age, 34, and it would only be for 1 year but a better bet than Chicksen.

 

[Icy Gull]

ps: IG was implying that TB hadn't coughed up , unlike Derby. Given that he keeps signing off on historically high player budgets and million pound signings and he insists he will continue to do so then this doesn't stand up.

That is exactly what I was implying but only in relation to the season just gone. I know you keep telling me that we spent more than ever last season but I am finding it very very difficult to believe that we spent anywhere near what Derby spent last season. We will only know when we see the relevant accounts and I won't be brow beaten into accepting that we were competitive with Derby last season on wages and transfer fees paid unless I see it in black and white!