st albans fox Posted 1 September 2015 Posted 1 September 2015 The dust has finally settled on another window. Anyone have the numbers on nett spend this summer compared to last summer. We didn't spend a fortune under pearsons watchful eye as he saw through his policy to give those that got us to the PL their chance. How has our apparent more expansive policy affected our expenditure?
RedSoxUK Posted 1 September 2015 Posted 1 September 2015 The dust has finally settled on another window. Anyone have the numbers on nett spend this summer compared to last summer. We didn't spend a fortune under pearsons watchful eye as he saw through his policy to give those that got us to the PL their chance. How has our apparent more expansive policy affected our expenditure? The change of manager has no correlation on expenditure. The change of Director of Football since Terry Robinson, perhaps you could compare that - but Ranieri has very little to do with buying players and selling them, he's asked who he doesn't need, he's asked who he maybe would need - the scouts have their targets, and the DoF goes through them if they're suitable. I think we've done much better than last seasons summer window, because we captured the players we've actually wanted except perhaps Aranguiz as the standout miss. And I think the net spend is around 30m?
Stadt Posted 1 September 2015 Posted 1 September 2015 FELLA DONT TALK ABOUT SPEND talk about NET SPEND
sphericalfox Posted 1 September 2015 Posted 1 September 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Leicester_City_F.C._season#Transfers
st albans fox Posted 1 September 2015 Author Posted 1 September 2015 From what I can see, we have spent 20 mill nett against 11 mill last year. No comments on whether that's on good or bad deals but the outlay doesn't seem particularly steep for a second season following a non spectacular spend last year. Krama in January has to be added to the 11 mill but we don't know what is likely to happen in jan 2016 so can't compare as yet. of course there have been links to several players in the 8/10 mill region but none have come to fruition. Could be the selling club, could be the player. Could even be our sincerity in making the deal happen. This is now our second summer transfer window and I am yet to see the owners really show they are committed to spending big to secure our PL status. No doubt our accounts for last season will return a tidy profit and they can recoup some of their investment via a dividend if they so wish. If we don't need to spend much in January, there will be a further opportunity to recover another chunk of their 100 million. For all the talk of their billion(s) and that we are a rich club with no need to sell etc, we are yet to see us really flex our muscles in the transfer market. Hopefully that's down to our standing and how attractive we currently are to that higher value player than anything else but I rather hoped this window would reveal the answers to that underlying question.
Viva Posted 1 September 2015 Posted 1 September 2015 From what I can see, we have spent 20 mill nett against 11 mill last year. No comments on whether that's on good or bad deals but the outlay doesn't seem particularly steep for a second season following a non spectacular spend last year. Krama in January has to be added to the 11 mill but we don't know what is likely to happen in jan 2016 so can't compare as yet. of course there have been links to several players in the 8/10 mill region but none have come to fruition. Could be the selling club, could be the player. Could even be our sincerity in making the deal happen. This is now our second summer transfer window and I am yet to see the owners really show they are committed to spending big to secure our PL status. No doubt our accounts for last season will return a tidy profit and they can recoup some of their investment via a dividend if they so wish. If we don't need to spend much in January, there will be a further opportunity to recover another chunk of their 100 million. For all the talk of their billion(s) and that we are a rich club with no need to sell etc, we are yet to see us really flex our muscles in the transfer market. Hopefully that's down to our standing and how attractive we currently are to that higher value player than anything else but I rather hoped this window would reveal the answers to that underlying question. Made some very good signings and seem to be making sensible steps into becoming a more established Premier League team. The longer we stay in the league, the further we can then progress. No point throwing money away now for the sake of it when we are not an established Prem team. The longer we stay in this league, the better the quality of players we will attract and hence the larger transfer fees.
skmanuk Posted 1 September 2015 Posted 1 September 2015 FELLA DONT TALK ABOUT SPEND talk about NET SPEND Er, that's what he said, wake up!
fleckneymike Posted 1 September 2015 Posted 1 September 2015 What is often overlooked is that spend is ultimately our money, we the humble fan. Clubs are spending based on future TV earnings yet that money isn't a benevolent gift from the broadcasters, it's an amount based on what they think they can sell that product for to subscribers in return. It is almost perverse the way sky use a totaliser to track the spend, this isn't a charity telethon tracking money for good causes, this is stations owned by billionaires encouraging us to celebrate the profligacy of modern sport and glorify the spending of our own money. We're complicit in our own sports self immolation.
Vacamion Posted 1 September 2015 Posted 1 September 2015 We're complicit in our own sports self immolation. PARKLIFE! (I actually agree with the point you made)
Dan Posted 1 September 2015 Posted 1 September 2015 People are far too fixated on how much gets spent, rather than what it gets spent on. We've had an excellent window in my opinion. Just compare it to a lot of the other clubs in this league.
st albans fox Posted 2 September 2015 Author Posted 2 September 2015 When the numbers come out for all the PL clubs, will be interesting to see where we sit. If we are serious about staying up, we have to spend (if not on a fee then on salary/s o fee by taking high earning players on a free). Your nett spend generally reflects where you finish in this league (unless you're Spurs). That's what I believe the stats show though I'm happy to be proved wrong. Incidentally, we are now in a period where PL club owners make money.
Viva Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 When the numbers come out for all the PL clubs, will be interesting to see where we sit. If we are serious about staying up, we have to spend (if not on a fee then on salary/s o fee by taking high earning players on a free). Your nett spend generally reflects where you finish in this league (unless you're Spurs). That's what I believe the stats show though I'm happy to be proved wrong. Incidentally, we are now in a period where PL club owners make money. I don't think Arsenal will finish bottom.
st albans fox Posted 2 September 2015 Author Posted 2 September 2015 http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1#ath The numbers are indeed interesting this summer. the lower half teams spending more than the top (as I guess you might expect given the staying up prize at the end of the campaign). Those competing for the title are the highest spenders.
Hack Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 What is often overlooked is that spend is ultimately our money, we the humble fan. Clubs are spending based on future TV earnings yet that money isn't a benevolent gift from the broadcasters, it's an amount based on what they think they can sell that product for to subscribers in return. It is almost perverse the way sky use a totaliser to track the spend, this isn't a charity telethon tracking money for good causes, this is stations owned by billionaires encouraging us to celebrate the profligacy of modern sport and glorify the spending of our own money. We're complicit in our own sports self immolation. Welcome to living in a market based economy, where risk gets rewarded. The alternative is living in Russia under Putin, who decides who get rich.
GaelicFox Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 Who gives a shit what they spent , the boys spent well
The Railway Man Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 Welcome to living in a market based economy, where risk gets rewarded. The alternative is living in Russia under Putin, who decides who get rich. Risk doesn't get rewarded, finding rich owners gets rewarded. Just ask Chelsea Man City or Portsmouth fans.
Captain... Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 What is often overlooked is that spend is ultimately our money, we the humble fan. Clubs are spending based on future TV earnings yet that money isn't a benevolent gift from the broadcasters, it's an amount based on what they think they can sell that product for to subscribers in return. It is almost perverse the way sky use a totaliser to track the spend, this isn't a charity telethon tracking money for good causes, this is stations owned by billionaires encouraging us to celebrate the profligacy of modern sport and glorify the spending of our own money. We're complicit in our own sports self immolation. A fraction of it is our money, the majority will be sponsorship and selling the rights, Sky sports package costs about £25 a month, £300 a year, BT is cheaper the tv deal next year is around £5 billion. That is 16million+ subscribers paying full price, I can guarantee that Sky don't have that many customers. There are over 10 million sky subscribers, but that includes NOW tv, There are 5million SKY + HD boxes out there, even if we assume they are all paying for Sky Sports and are paying full price, that doesn't cover half the TV money. So whilst you are right, our money is contributing to this spending spree, it is not solely our money, it is in SKY's interest to get the best players into the premier league, they can then sell the rights for more, increase its popularity get more people watching and thus sell sponsorship rights for more.
talking_goldfish Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 When the numbers come out for all the PL clubs, will be interesting to see where we sit. If we are serious about staying up, we have to spend (if not on a fee then on salary/s o fee by taking high earning players on a free). Your nett spend generally reflects where you finish in this league (unless you're Spurs). That's what I believe the stats show though I'm happy to be proved wrong. Incidentally, we are now in a period where PL club owners make money. What about Stoke or Southampton? Their Net Spend is under £4 million, are we saying they are going down this season? I for one think this has arguably been the best Transfer Window in the club's history. We've bought in quality players who (mostly) are going to improve our team. You can't ask for more than that. Incidentally, if you do want to correlate Net spend with league positions, according to the Mirror we have a Net spend of £20.4 million, putting us 9th in the league - I'd take that.
MONreborn Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 What about Stoke or Southampton? Their Net Spend is under £4 million, are we saying they are going down this season? I for one think this has arguably been the best Transfer Window in the club's history. We've bought in quality players who (mostly) are going to improve our team. You can't ask for more than that. Incidentally, if you do want to correlate Net spend with league positions, according to the Mirror we have a Net spend of £20.4 million, putting us 9th in the league - I'd take that. It could have been the best transfer window if we had kept Pearson who knows. Cambiasso would possibly still be here.
talking_goldfish Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 It could have been the best transfer window if we had kept Pearson who knows. Cambiasso would possibly still be here. And possibly he wouldn't, he didn't want to stay so he didn't. Camby-whatsit's gone. The only way this window could have gone any better is if we'd have signed a decent Right Back, although it was widely agreed that on Pearson's transfer windows we were short on a number of important positions.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 A fraction of it is our money, the majority will be sponsorship and selling the rights, Sky sports package costs about £25 a month, £300 a year, BT is cheaper the tv deal next year is around £5 billion. That is 16million+ subscribers paying full price, I can guarantee that Sky don't have that many customers. There are over 10 million sky subscribers, but that includes NOW tv, There are 5million SKY + HD boxes out there, even if we assume they are all paying for Sky Sports and are paying full price, that doesn't cover half the TV money. So whilst you are right, our money is contributing to this spending spree, it is not solely our money, it is in SKY's interest to get the best players into the premier league, they can then sell the rights for more, increase its popularity get more people watching and thus sell sponsorship rights for more. And what does sponsorship aim to do... sell things to those watching - therefore the fans ultimately pay for the sponsorship revenue as well.
Viva Posted 2 September 2015 Posted 2 September 2015 It could have been the best transfer window if we had kept Pearson who knows. Cambiasso would possibly still be here. Ifs, buts and maybes. I couldn't care less that Cambiasso has gone now. Or Pearson for that matter. Old news. We've moved on and now have a much stronger squad than we have had for a long time. We'll see what we can do with it.
st albans fox Posted 2 September 2015 Author Posted 2 September 2015 What about Stoke or Southampton? Their Net Spend is under £4 million, are we saying they are going down this season? I for one think this has arguably been the best Transfer Window in the club's history. We've bought in quality players who (mostly) are going to improve our team. You can't ask for more than that. Incidentally, if you do want to correlate Net spend with league positions, according to the Mirror we have a Net spend of £20.4 million, putting us 9th in the league - I'd take that. I suppose you need to compare squads to begin with. Stoke and soton have better PL squads than we do? So far, we have a nett outlay of 40 mill since promotion. Time will tell if that's enough to secure our PL status but it clearly shows that the owners are not going to just throw money at the conundrum.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.