|
|
Post by partickpotter on Apr 24, 2014 16:25:13 GMT
I guess I should not be surprised by this in that we've not sold any players for big sums recently, but the fact we are 4th place in the Premier League table for net spenders in the past 5 years is quite shocking!  Link behind this table is here(edit - image now added. Note also that there looks to be some errors in the data used to create the table. So some of the underlying detail may be wrong but the overall picture seems fair enough) |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Apr 24, 2014 16:28:43 GMT
Surprised - given how much we've spent over the last 3 transfer windows.
I guess this is the main reason why MH is here and our spending has been significantly reduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batfink on Apr 24, 2014 16:45:20 GMT
We are 9th biggest spenders
We are 18th income wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 17:24:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 24, 2014 17:30:25 GMT
Yes, the value of our player sales is shocking, really. On the plus side we have not sold the "crown jewels" (Shawcross, Bego etc.) on the minus side we have got the square root of bugger all for the squad players we have moved on. We have managed to acquire a reputation (to some extent deserved) of not being the place to go to for clubs wanting players to improve their squads.
Hopefully, under Hughes, things will change. You can certainly see why Coates wanted more young players brought in with playing potential and potential resale value.
|
|
|
|
Post by StokeyMan on Apr 24, 2014 20:26:32 GMT
I noticed that too. Maurice Edu - £4m - Thought it was actually like £500k? Michael Kightly - £3m - Was it not £2m? Wilson Palacios - £8m - Thought Crouch was £8m and Palacios £6m with Tottenham covering some wages for £2m extra? Jack Butland - £5m - Sure it was £3.5m. Or am I making this up? Either way, we still have a SHOCKING transfer record - despite holding on to our better players. |
|
|
|
Post by StokeyMan on Apr 24, 2014 20:26:57 GMT
I noticed that too. Maurice Edu - £4m - Thought it was actually like £500k? Michael Kightly - £3m - Was it not £2m? Wilson Palacios - £8m - Thought Crouch was £8m and Palacios £6m with Tottenham covering some wages for £2m extra? Jack Butland - £5m - Sure it was £3.5m. Or am I making this up? Either way, we still have a SHOCKING transfer record - at least we are holding on to our better players. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2014 20:33:03 GMT
Last season we didn't spend what they're claiming but it was still about 13/14 million. The net spend in the TP era was pretty massive.
|
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Apr 24, 2014 21:17:10 GMT
The Edu figure is wrong. To balance it out though there is no fee attached to Danny Higginbotham, Tom Soares, Agent Sonko, Andrew Davies or Michael Tonge, which by my reckoning must make £8M+. No mention of a fee for Marc Wilson either; was that a straight swap for Lennie and Kitson? I thought there was quite a fee involved too. How ever you look at it though our transfer dealings were totally unsustainable. The board gave magnificent backing to the manager. We spent £136M more on players than Newcastle Utd. For a club playing in a stadium with only 27,500 seats it was a mental outlay which would surely have ended in financial ruin if it had continued. |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Apr 24, 2014 21:34:37 GMT
Regardless of the net spend, there is supposed to be a direct correlation between salary bill and league position. If this is true our reluctance to pay higher wages could be the main restriction to our progress. Could of course be a load of rollacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Apr 24, 2014 21:36:01 GMT
Some people tend to forget we were promoted with an average championship side that drastically needed investment, we couldn’t sell anyone at the time cause they were worth bugger all so a massive intake of players was needed, add to that players didn’t really want to know when Stoke came calling so we were realistically left with the scraps that other premiership teams didn’t want who we had to pay big prices and big wages to entice them to come here, quite a few of them failed to make any impact and had hardly any sell on value which kind of distorts the whole “transfer league table”. If we’d have started off with even a hint of a premiership team (not even squad) it might have been different. On balance I think we’ve done pretty well out of Sir Peters investment and come to think of it so has Sir Peter. Gouranga.  |
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Apr 25, 2014 7:56:19 GMT
I also think the sales are inaccurate. Correct me if i am wrong but didn't we basically recoup £8m off the Tuncay and Olofinjana sales? Surely we have sold bits a bobs over the 5 years to make up a bit more?
|
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Apr 25, 2014 8:24:09 GMT
You have to look at these spending figures in context. As Albert points out, after promotion in 2008 we were so far behind the dead ball line the first team squad was going to need hefty investment.
Hull, Cardiff, Swansea and West Brom have all spent £50 odd million in the last 5 years, despite not being in the Prem for the whole period.
If we look at the first team squad that took the field against Bolton in August 2008, what would it have been worth compared to the current squad? If we were to sell Bego, Ryan, N'Zonzi, Huth, Adam and even players like Pieters and Arnautovic, we might expect at least half that £90M net spend back.
PC and his team have run the club superbly. A huge investment and commitment has seen them build us into a real Premier League club with excellent facilities and an academy. Investing in the playing staff to keep us in the league is part of that programme. I wonder if even Peter Coates himself believed Tony Pulis in 2008 when he said that his plan was to keep us in the Prem for 3 years and then push on. I'm not sure I thought that would happen or was even possible!
If the Coates family decide to sell (heaven forbid), they would get a decent return on SCFC.
|
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Apr 25, 2014 8:28:44 GMT
As Albert says we were promoted very largely via the loan system. .great deal of money with no long term future.
Absolutely no youth team policy.
We then had to spend big just to be average.
|
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 25, 2014 9:24:24 GMT
We already knew we were up there with the big spenders didn't we?
The issues as mentioned above relate to no resale value or youth development to compensate for this.
Anyway, let's hope MH gets more than a packet of wine gums to spend this window.
If he can maintain his value for money ratio on a bigger budget then we should have a significantly stronger side next season.
Onwards and upwards!
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Apr 25, 2014 9:44:29 GMT
I think we are moving much closer to a collapse in transfer fees, players wages and the costs of watching football.
There are clear benefits to the supporter when this happens and it could possibly level the playing field in terms of clubs in a position to win things.
Although Peter Coates isn't saying the same thing, he has already suggested the present status quo is not sustainable.
I think the above will happen gradually or even suddenly, either way it will bring sanity back into football.
|
|
|
|
Post by thfc6061 on Apr 25, 2014 10:01:34 GMT
Spurs in 17th place.
So much for those hundred of millions we're supposed to have spent then.
|
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Apr 25, 2014 10:07:36 GMT
Spurs in 17th place. So much for those hundred of millions we're supposed to have spent then. But you have spent it. Didn't you get some back for some welsh bloke? |
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Apr 25, 2014 11:33:22 GMT
Spurs in 17th place. So much for those hundred of millions we're supposed to have spent then. Is that a wind up? £310m spent in 5 years, there is no "supposing" about it. Luckily you managed close to £100m for one player. Thank the lord for extremely over-inflated prices  |
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 25, 2014 11:54:00 GMT
Some people tend to forget we were promoted with an average championship side that drastically needed investment, we couldn’t sell anyone at the time cause they were worth bugger all so a massive intake of players was needed, add to that players didn’t really want to know when Stoke came calling so we were realistically left with the scraps that other premiership teams didn’t want who we had to pay big prices and big wages to entice them to come here, quite a few of them failed to make any impact and had hardly any sell on value which kind of distorts the whole “transfer league table”. If we’d have started off with even a hint of a premiership team (not even squad) it might have been different. On balance I think we’ve done pretty well out of Sir Peters investment and come to think of it so has Sir Peter. Gouranga. Fine but why is it that every other club promoted since 2008 are below us in the spend table - some way, way off spending anywhere near as much? I'm going to take some persuading that we came up with a much more inferior squad than anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Apr 25, 2014 12:06:17 GMT
Some people tend to forget we were promoted with an average championship side that drastically needed investment, we couldn’t sell anyone at the time cause they were worth bugger all so a massive intake of players was needed, add to that players didn’t really want to know when Stoke came calling so we were realistically left with the scraps that other premiership teams didn’t want who we had to pay big prices and big wages to entice them to come here, quite a few of them failed to make any impact and had hardly any sell on value which kind of distorts the whole “transfer league table”. If we’d have started off with even a hint of a premiership team (not even squad) it might have been different. On balance I think we’ve done pretty well out of Sir Peters investment and come to think of it so has Sir Peter. Gouranga. Fine but why is it that every other club promoted since 2008 are below us in the spend table - some way, way off spending anywhere near as much? I'm going to take some persuading that we came up with a much more inferior squad than anyone else. I think we did and we've managed to drag a lot of others down to our level. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Apr 25, 2014 12:25:46 GMT
You are spot on - some strange stuff in their data. A bit annoying because this is an interesting area and understanding how we sit in relation to other clubs, particularly "peer" clubs, as well as our absolute net spend is important. Why - because it is one of the factors that will affect future transfer activity. Errors apart, I think the overall picture looks about right - and to my mind is rather concerning as a postive net spend, to my simple mind, equates to an increase in club debt. And debtors only have so much patience or appetite for indulging losses! |
|
|
|
Post by Mint Berry Barks on Apr 25, 2014 12:30:09 GMT
You can see why Coates and co are quite rightly throwing money into the academy. We simply need to start producing some talent ourselves for our club to be sustainable.
Hull are the big surprise though.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Apr 25, 2014 13:43:13 GMT
Some people tend to forget we were promoted with an average championship side that drastically needed investment, we couldn’t sell anyone at the time cause they were worth bugger all so a massive intake of players was needed, add to that players didn’t really want to know when Stoke came calling so we were realistically left with the scraps that other premiership teams didn’t want who we had to pay big prices and big wages to entice them to come here, quite a few of them failed to make any impact and had hardly any sell on value which kind of distorts the whole “transfer league table”. If we’d have started off with even a hint of a premiership team (not even squad) it might have been different. On balance I think we’ve done pretty well out of Sir Peters investment and come to think of it so has Sir Peter. Gouranga. Fine but why is it that every other club promoted since 2008 are below us in the spend table - some way, way off spending anywhere near as much? I'm going to take some persuading that we came up with a much more inferior squad than anyone else. Stoke: Nash, Cort, Wilkinson (Buxton 21), Shawcross, Dickinson, Lawrence (Pugh 90), Delap, Whelan, Cresswell, Fuller, Sidibe (Ameobi 90). Subs Not Used: Simonsen, Pearson. That's our team that won promotion, 4 of those are still premiership players 3 with Stoke, Shawcross was a raw talent Wilko wouldn't get a game in any other prem team and Whelan would have struggled to do so apart from his last few months form. None of the others went on to be succesful for another prem team when sold with only Leon Cort signing for a premiership team. To justify the spending - we're still a premiership side. Gouranga. |
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Apr 25, 2014 20:03:17 GMT
Fine but why is it that every other club promoted since 2008 are below us in the spend table - some way, way off spending anywhere near as much? I'm going to take some persuading that we came up with a much more inferior squad than anyone else. Stoke: Nash, Cort, Wilkinson (Buxton 21), Shawcross, Dickinson, Lawrence (Pugh 90), Delap, Whelan, Cresswell, Fuller, Sidibe (Ameobi 90). Subs Not Used: Simonsen, Pearson. That's our team that won promotion, 4 of those are still premiership players 3 with Stoke, Shawcross was a raw talent Wilko wouldn't get a game in any other prem team and Whelan would have struggled to do so apart from his last few months form. None of the others went on to be succesful for another prem team when sold with only Leon Cort signing for a premiership team. To justify the spending - we're still a premiership side. Gouranga. I am in agreement with Albert and in addition to what was said above and in relation to what you said Mark, which other teams promoted around the time we were, have maintained status for the same amount of time? There is little point in comparing 5 years of spend here and 2/3/4 years at other clubs. Hull spending £56m in 2 and a half years is a pretty good comparison though. |
|
|
|
Post by scfc2014 on Apr 26, 2014 1:41:19 GMT
I blame pulis i do what does he think he was playing at
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 26, 2014 20:01:39 GMT
Some people tend to forget we were promoted with an average championship side that drastically needed investment, we couldn’t sell anyone at the time cause they were worth bugger all so a massive intake of players was needed, add to that players didn’t really want to know when Stoke came calling so we were realistically left with the scraps that other premiership teams didn’t want who we had to pay big prices and big wages to entice them to come here, quite a few of them failed to make any impact and had hardly any sell on value which kind of distorts the whole “transfer league table”. If we’d have started off with even a hint of a premiership team (not even squad) it might have been different. On balance I think we’ve done pretty well out of Sir Peters investment and come to think of it so has Sir Peter. Gouranga.
That's fair comment to a point but then you have to realise that nearly half of TP's total spend came AFTER we had established ourselves as a Premiership midtable side for the THIRD season running and was spent AFTER we had reached our first FA Cup Final in our history.
We had already come a pretty good side.
The spending prior to that point can easily be justified, the spending AFTER that point, well that's a little more difficult to excuse, isn't it?
|
|
