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.
|
Iron2010
3:06 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
We didn't even spend 44 in total
|
Swiss.
2:46 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
According the BBC 44m net spend. About the same as West Brom,
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41117302
10th highest.
For a team getting gates of approx 55K every game that's pathetic. Mind you if i was a gooner I'd be even more pissed off.
|
Iron2010
2:37 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
Full Claret Jacket 2:35 Fri Sep 1
The team is clearly lacking quality in several key areas which the move was supposed to enable us to resolve.
|
moorethanjustananon
2:37 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
I note that Spurs first XI cost a grand total of about £80million
It's not the spending that bothers me, there seems to be a total lack of strategy or continuity.
We didn't need to spend huge sums of money over the past 2 years (in fact our most successful signings have come at a lower transfer fee) just need to appoint a manager that aligns to the vision of the club, who can buy players which align to that vision and is capable of coaching decent players to be good / very good players week in week out.
Unfortunately Sullivan acting as a defacto director of football, making decisions either on his own whim or the whim of the manager which changes every 2-3 years is what is sending us backwards not the amount of money we spend.
|
Full Claret Jacket
2:35 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
Sums up current mentality. Its all about money spent and not the football. Maybe if we'd spent 40m on Hernandez some of you would be happy. This net spend bullshit doesnt take into account all the staged payments from previous seasons signings, signing on and agents fees either. Until some of you are willing to put in your own millions then perhaps you should accept it is what it is. Sick of the moaning about how much we havent spent.
Its what we do on the pitch that matters and that is down to the inept manager who pisses off the players and his staff. Plenty of quality there and we should be performing better.
|
Iron2010
2:27 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
On one of these threads someone posted our squad up. Our centre halves are Reid, Ogbonna, Collins and Fonte with Zab at right back. I'm really not sure if an older slower back line has ever been put together. Particularly with Noble patrolling the area in front of them. It's clear where some money should have been spent.
It's also clear that this lot are investing the minimum required to stay in the league until they can sell up when the profit share clause expires. I'm expecting a relegation scrap.
|
Alex V
2:21 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
>>> the fact is most our competitors have spent more than us
Depends who you think our competitors are. I think the only two competitors who've notably outspent us net are Watford and West Brom. Even then, had Carvalho come off we'd be right up with them. I'd guess our wage bill is still notably higher than any of our nearest competitors.
There's no doubt our net spend is lower than you might expect. I think it does require some explanation from the board. But if rumoured they did offer Bilic other players and he didn't want them, that's basically the explanation.
|
franksfat&slow&wank
10:47 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
the fact is most our competitors have spent more than us, in fact teams in the league below have spent more than us
willie was the big one we desperately needed and they failed us
promises after promises, liars
unless there is some form of controlled protest this lot will stay and continue to be dishonest to us whilst this is happening the old skool will slowly disappear and the new regime will fill the stands, exactly what they wanted
|
Trevor B
10:43 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
Hermit
I'd imagine it's pretty hard to detail the expenditure and income in the way you suggest it should be done, unless you look at the end of season accounts? as you say the actual expenditure and income per season are based on payments made/received every season as part of transfer fees spent and received which are usually paid out across the original contract length of the player.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
10:41 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
Seems like several posters are going to take Atletico's fat finger/slip in arithmetic posting of 31m outgoings instead of 41m as PROOF that the board are crooks and have tried to pretend net spend was 19m instead of 9m.
Only on WHO.
|
Hermit Road
10:39 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
This isn't an accurate portrayal.
Transfer fees are made up of an initial payment followed by staggered payments, some of which are performance related. He has given the total cost of the transfer when describing our expenditure, and the initial cost of the transfer when describing our income. This is misleading, intentionally, to portray those that 'run' the club in a favourable light.
|
scott_d
10:32 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
I find it hard to believe that there isn't a loan fee for Hart and signing on fee for Zabaleta, Marko and Hernandez.
People always talk about these hidden expenses so why aren't they included in these figures?
I'm guess that's because they aren't in the papers for Hughie to read unlike the fees and the wages (which may also be inaccurate).
|
Iron2010
10:10 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
I find it hard to believe that the Arnie transfer was a straight 25. A common theme is over stating the money we pay out whilst talking down the money that we receive.
|
Leeshere
10:06 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
Net spend of £9.2m and a wage increase of £9k per week?
|
bowboy
10:03 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
Should that be 9.2m not 19.2m or am I missimg something.
|
One Word
9:52 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
How does the £79m received from Sky fit in ?
|
chedylan 2
8:21 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
So one in one out is it?
Snodgrass and feghouli gone and no one in.
And sakho may as well have.
It looks to me they don't want to give bilic anymore money to spend because they likely will get rid soon
Perfect for them the pair of fucking delboy cunts.
|
LeroysBoots
7:55 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
So Fucking what ?
They still pretended they wanted Carvalho...there was a cost to that !
|
Your mum
7:37 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
100 per week on a keeper that wasn't a priority is dereliction of duty..
|
Alex V
5:02 Fri Sep 1
Re: Transfer spending explained in detail.
|
Interesting figures - seem genuine. Missing the signing fees for Zabaleta and Hart, but I can understand why the club wouldn't want to reveal those.
I'd like to know what happened with that dispute with Feghouli - did we pay up on the £3m or not?
|
| 
