Football Forum | Ticket Forum | Off-Topic Forum | All

Athletico Easthamico 12:02 Fri Sep 1
Transfer spending explained in detail.

Hughie, eerrr righto....

A senior source close to the club has revealed the true investment this summer spending insisting claimed transfer fees received this summer or wages released have often been inflated in media reports while inbound wages of new players were often under estimated.

Given the chance to reveal the true figures the senior source revealed:

Summer Spending Inbound

Pablo Zabelta Free Transfer on wages £70,000 per week

Joe Hart Season long loan on wages of £100,000 per week

Marko Arnautovic £25m with add ons on wages of £65,000 per week

Javier Hernandez £16m transfer fee on wages of £135,000 per week

Total Spend £31m Wages of £370,000 per week or £19.24m per year

Summer Outbound dealings

Havard Norveit Transfer fee £4m received Wages of £40,000 per week released

Darren Randolph Transfer fee £5m received Wages of £20,000 per week released

Ashley Fletcher Transfer Fee of £4m received Wages of £16,000 per week released

Robert Snodgrass £1m loan fee means all the £50,000 per week wages is released

Gokhan Tore End of loan releasing £40,000 per week of wages released

Jonathan Calleri End of loan £40,000 per week of wages released

Sofiane Feghouli £3.8m Transfer Fee received Wages of £60,000 per week released

Enner Valencia £5m Transfer fee received Wages of £40,000 per week released

Alvaro Arbeloa Retired at end of contract Wages of £55,000 per week released

Transfer Fees in = £21.8m

Outgoing wages released £361,000 per week or £18.77m per year

Net transfer Spend totals £19.2m

Net increase of player wages of £59,000 per week this summer or £3m per year

kirok1 8:59 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

Three sixty - I'm not saying he was sensible for doing it, just that there was a certain amount of integrity in wanting Duxbury and co found out. If he'd just come out and said it, you can be sure they'd have sued him.
In terms of Bilic's position, I only brought it up to cover the possibility that the theory of board interference is in any way warranted.
I DO think there is a certain level of input but I can't see how Bilic's actions suggest he's not in control. He was apparently asked to make changes to his coaches and refused. Sounds like he's in control of his team. Which suggests he's the one at fault.
I had no trouble believing Zola was out of his depth or that Grant was a disaster. I hated Allardyce and everything about him and wanted to see us go places with Bilic. But so far, after one heck of a first season, he looks like taking us down,

Texas Iron 8:10 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

Good Thread...

Well done the ITK posters...for exposing real numbers

It's Only Money...We need serious long term investor owners to rise above mid-bottom table...

Current owners just happy with 6% a year loan fees and balancing the books on annual basis...window dressing for Billion Quid sale ...

Very smart...but not going to lift us up the table or get better football ...

And Bilic is their cheap option

Another poor season for fans...!!!

Full Claret Jacket 8:04 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

Players like Hart, who was a bargain for the money involved, raise the profile of the club significantly. Whether or not he is at the top of his game still, he is well known worldwide and still an England international.
For the likes of Brady and the marketing teams, signing players like this are great for selling the club.

As I said before, I'd prefer the signings were based on a need and the style we want to play rather than scattergun approach with whoever might do a job.

The keeper position wasn't a priority for us but several on here were blaming the board and manager last year for not having a 'top' keeper.
Now we sign one who has been one of the best Premier League keepers (albeit on loan), it's all wrong.

13 Brentford Rd 8:02 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

NEXT LEVEL

threesixty 7:52 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

"Could we not see Bilic quit and sue on the same grounds? "

yeah, if you never want another job in football!

Curbs probably hasn't even run a bath since that...

kirok1 6:39 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

Valencia, £12m btw. Hence the difference in the figures from others.
The website is pretty clear.

kirok1 6:36 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

None of these accounts seem to take everything into account, for want of a better phrase.
We know that last year's spending was crap. Yes, they bought a number of players but not exactly value for money when they have now mostly gone.
Figures from http://www.transferleague.co.uk/west-ham/english-football-teams/west-ham-transfers

2010-11 In £14.2 out £1.8m £12.4m net
2011-12 In £6.9m Out £6m net spend 0.9m
2012-13 In £19.75m Out £1.5 net spend £18.25m
2013-14 In £25m out £0. Net spend £25m.
2014-15 In £29.75m out £3.5m Net £26.25m
2015-16 In £39.7m out £11m in. Net £26.7m
2016-17 In £55.8m out £35m Net £20.8m
2017-18 In £38.7m out £32.4m Net £6.33m

Now, many of those outgoings actually ended up being released, free youth players, 'elderly' endings or contract endings.
But they've never exceeded £30m investment. Never.
This data gives figures for some undisclosed fees. This goes further than many published sets of data as they don't take into account those fees.

So, this year, with such a challenge presented by the opening fixtures going so wrong, we've spent on three players and brought in two others on freebies. Yes, none of this data includes signing on fees. But the board seem to fall back in unseen costs to justify their position. I'm choosing to ignore that. ALL players cost money and many of those released may have seen a better renumeration if they'd been invested in and retained.
Back to the transfers though. Total cost, £38.7m.
Sales, at £32.3m or so.
So, in a season following a chronic underperformance, the board brought in very little and saw the overall squad depth thinned markedly.
They went for an almost Reknappesque strategy of freebies and a couple of bigger trades. But in the end, the barrow boy tendency means they spent VERY little.
Are theories about prepping for Bilic's end true? Well, they've almost certainly brought it about. But they still haven't pulled the trigger.
Are they clearing out dead wood? Possibly. But it makes little sense to do it and leave the weak squad even weaker. Otherwise, what has the new guy got to utilise?
It makes bugger all sense unless they are the lying little weasels they've been portrayed.
I know many on here still slag off Curbs for suing after he resigned due to being undermined. But I still felt him justified when we found out the lies being spun to justify selling players.
Whatever you think of Curbs, isn't the present situation a facsimile?
Could we not see Bilic quit and sue on the same grounds? After all, they cannot be said to have backed him. Unless you are a TV pundit who doesn't look beyond the end of their nose...

The Stoat 5:46 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

It's all fuckin' outrageous what these tossers earn nowadays


Joe Hart = Two Bob

threesixty 5:23 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

Alex V
(£2m loan fee + £5m wages)

that's the problem though isnt it?
We got in 6m for randolph, spent 7m on hart for 1 yr of use.

Because Hart isnt much better than Adrian, one of then is going to leave us because they are both no.1 keepers.

So we kind of needed to sell Adrian if anything rather than Randolph. Take the money and use it for Carvahlo.

Or just not do the Hart deal and keep the current keepers. Because in reality our problems arent really keepers at all.

Just seems all rather short sighted. Feels like they got Hart because they thought he was a bargain rather than we really needed him. And now they are over committed in spending and cant make the deal that would really have improved us.

On top of that, players like Carvahlo make other players want to join. Because good player like playing with other good players. it makes your job easier. So it just feels like a missed opportunity.

Mart O 5:20 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

'sports franchise'

FOMB.

Jasnik 5:06 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

Jonathan Calleri End of loan £40,000 per week of wages released - WTF ...... 40k ... mental

nychammer 4:53 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

and the fee we got for Payet? All spent on Fonte and Snodgrass? any extra should have been available to spend during the summer window so take that into account.

Alex V 4:33 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

I agree we shouldn't be paying anyone £100k a week. But if you take Randolph as a £6m gain (£5m fee + £1m wages) and Hart as a £7m investment (£2m loan fee + £5m wages) it adds up to Hart costing us a million this season. At face value that's a good deal for us.

Of course some would say it leaves us empty-handed at the end of it, and of course we'd all prefer a longer-term solution, but on the other hand it does give us a year to properly scout or promote the keeper we want to invest in for the next few years. A short-term solution for now, with the challenge to find a long-term solution for next Summer.

Hold a team meeting with all the staff in the recruitment department, lay out the requirements, and set them off to work. A great idea except that we don't have a recruitment department.

kylay 4:29 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

This is the kind of shit that makes me loathe these owners. I have never witnessed such absolute muppets in charge of sports franchise. I've seen many organizations run by greedy, soul-sucking corporate fucksticks who don't really care about the product on the pitch or who are simply incompetent. It's the fact that these owners are clearly running this for their financial gain and somewhat incompetently while bleating on in the press about how much they care and how much they sacrifice to keep the club going. Charlatans of the highest order, and west ham fans deserve better than to be told it's raining whilst the owners piss all over us.

threesixty 4:13 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

So Randolph cost us 20k a week and we've gone and spent 100k on a keeper we dont own who's marginally better than Adrian, yet couldnt cough a few mill extra for carvalhlo.

You've got to laugh!

I think I'm just gonna sit back this season and just enjoy the the bollocks of it all. I expect Bilic to see out his contract, us to win a few games to keep him in the job. Us to ship goals like they're going put of fashion as well.

i expect to not be able to watch 75% of the match of days on telly. And we may get 12/13th this season but only be 4 points aways from 18th or so.

rinse and repeat this year.

Alex V 3:59 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

likemydreams 3:57 Fri Sep 1

Well they're in a different position to us. They're spending from a low wage base to try and survive, but spreading their risk among multiple players that they can take back down with them. Seems fairly sensible to me.

likemydreams 3:57 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

Alex V 2 21 - what about Bournemouth Huddersfield

13 Brentford Rd 3:48 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

No, it's total spend and not enough.

I just read the OP again and it's unbelievable really.
Claiming incomings and wage savings have been inflated, but fees payed and new wages have been deflated by the media.
He then goes on to publish the same figures that were reported.

Utter CUNTS!

Alex V 3:33 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

>>> According the BBC 44m net spend.

Those figures are not net.

13 Brentford Rd 3:09 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

So he claims outbound transfer fees have been exaggerated and then publishes the same fees that we have all been using to comment and criticise.

This is blatant excuses from the club's spin doctor just as the window closes.
An insult to all fans intelligence.

Full Claret Jacket 3:06 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.

moorethanjustananon 2:37 Fri Sep 1

Agree with this. I dont think we are lacking loads of quality-at least not when compared to many other sides. Lacking some depth as weve cleared out but really lacking a gameplan to use the qualities we have and a strategy which identifes the players ideal for way we want to play. These players dont need to cost 50m a piece, they just need to be a good fit and not Sullivan punts.

Page 1 - Next