Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Transfer Spending Policy
- Thread starter whitelion
- Start date
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
Without wanting to be "that guy", isn't EVERY signing seen as "value for money" by the club.....otherwise they wouldn't pay it.
As the other thread about "bribes" shows - think some underestimate how much players cost.
Most PL Clubs ask for a loan fee/signing on bonus for a player.
Most PL Clubs ask for a loan fee/signing on bonus for a player.
- Thread starter
- #4
I think a lot of clubs pay "over the odds" for various reasons.
Making a statement of intent (pleasing the fans).
In order to secure a player in a bidding war.
Etc etc.
Nixonator
Well-known member
You would need to quantify what 'sensible' and 'break the bank' mean in actual figures.
There is clearly money available. Sensible for me would be spending every penny of it without TB having to subsidise losses. What we are clearly trying to avoid are ridiculous contracts that could get us in trouble down the line.
There is clearly money available. Sensible for me would be spending every penny of it without TB having to subsidise losses. What we are clearly trying to avoid are ridiculous contracts that could get us in trouble down the line.
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
Other. Tony Bloom knows what he's doing, he's had a very detailed database on footballers for years, it's how he's earned his fortune. We're in good hands and I'm completely relaxed about the forthcoming season.
daveinprague
New member
As it is. Sensible. Some teams that have thrown money at the premier have had disastrous consequences.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Spending the most money doesn't guarantee success, as evidenced by last season. I think the club do get value for money, the majority of the time, so let it continue.
brightonrock
Dodgy Hamstrings
- Jan 1, 2008
- 2,482
Surely it'll be a mix. Tony will never be the type to overspend - quibbling over a million or so for a left back (eg Suttner) might seem overly frugal but it frees up that cash for a striker. We'll want money to be spent in the right areas, and the fact a good #9, #10 or winger tend to come at a premium, means we'll be looking at loans, frees and bargains in other areas.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
true, but unless you've got something special going on, not spending money when you have £100m coming in isnt going to bring success either.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I believe the key is getting value for money, which is what I said.
Nixonator
Well-known member
Possible in every position other than a front man.
If we're trying to get value for money in that area (as we seem to have been doing with TA) then we'll be starting another season with 3 strikers.
martin tyler
Well-known member
- Jan 25, 2013
- 5,964
The club will already have a rough idea what they are going to spend and how many players that needs to cover.
We will only pay what we think a player is worth but there are wages to consider, whether the person signing on will fit into any wage structure if we are relegated, are they willing to take a pay cut if so. Obviously agents are not keen on this sort of thing. Lots of complicated issues before any one player signs on the dotted lines
We will only pay what we think a player is worth but there are wages to consider, whether the person signing on will fit into any wage structure if we are relegated, are they willing to take a pay cut if so. Obviously agents are not keen on this sort of thing. Lots of complicated issues before any one player signs on the dotted lines
Blackadder
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Went for Hybrid as I do believe we should have sensible spending but I would like to push out the boat for that elusive striker that could provide the goals that keep us up.
There's also the odd situation like with Andy Carroll to Liverpool for £35 million. They needed a striker to replace Torres and everyone knew they had £50 million in the bank from the sale of him to Chelsea.
£50 million for Torres was bad enough, although I personally feel the pressure Torres felt having cost so much is ultimately what led to his failure to perform, but Andy Carroll for £35 million back then was never going to represent anything close to value for money.
The_Viper
Well-known member
This was my thought process as well, teams don't NEED a big time striker to stay up, but it really, really helps.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
This. People like to go on about how much money has ploughed into the club (c£0.25bn last time I looked), whereas I'm probably more impressed by the way he spends his money, rather than the amount. That said, I think the options could be better put, as there really isn't anything remotely resembling VFM out there now; there might be in a comparative sense, but the PL/English football bubble keeps on inflating. It'll burst at some point, but I don't know how or when.