|
|
Post by barcaontrent on Sept 2, 2015 11:55:19 GMT
2013/14 Net spend = £ 5 million
2014/15 = £ 0.5 million
2015/16 = £3 million
This shows that transfer fees wise, we have invested £8.5 million over 3 season. Whilst our cheap signings might prove to come good as they did last season as well as our marquee signings, this left me with three questions.
1) How are we shopping in the supposed next level now, as these figures suggest we aren't?
2) How do we break into the next level with this sort of spending?
3) Is Hughes really being backed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 11:58:54 GMT
I'll never understand people's obsessions with high transfer fees. If Hughes is getting players like Diouf or Bojan for pennies then why not just keep doing what we are doing. I want to see our club sign great players, not spend lots of money. The latter doesn't guarantee the former like plenty on here seem to think  |
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Sept 2, 2015 11:59:44 GMT
You will shortly receive a number of emails that state that net spending on transfer fees does not correlate with success and that free transfers are ace
|
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Sept 2, 2015 12:00:19 GMT
I'll never understand people's obsessions with high transfer fees. If Hughes is getting players like Diouf or Bojan for pennies then why not just keep doing what we are doing. I want to see our club sign great players, not spend lots of money. The latter doesn't guarantee the former like plenty on here seem to think This was sent as I was typing !! |
|
|
|
Post by barcaontrent on Sept 2, 2015 12:00:58 GMT
I'll never understand people's obsessions with high transfer fees. If Hughes is getting players like Diouf or Bojan for pennies then why not just keep doing what we are doing. I want to see our club sign great players, not spend lots of money. The latter doesn't guarantee the former like plenty on here seem to think Your less likely to sign great players for free, not that we haven't |
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Sept 2, 2015 12:06:58 GMT
I'll never understand people's obsessions with high transfer fees. If Hughes is getting players like Diouf or Bojan for pennies then why not just keep doing what we are doing. I want to see our club sign great players, not spend lots of money. The latter doesn't guarantee the former like plenty on here seem to think Your less likely to sign great players for free, not that we haven't In simple terms you are 100% correct In reality, how much you spend on transfer fee's and salaries will, over time, correlate with where you will finish in the table Our approach is 'unique' in that we seem to have built a strategy around players who are at the end of their contracts. Of course in reality they are not free and we will have spent some of the money on paying them the 'fee' directly. The key question is, over time, is it sustainable and where does it leave you squad wise (arguably in our case, for every Diouf you get a Bardsley) so then the question is does it become a false econonomy being stuck with a larger percentage of duffers. |
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Sept 2, 2015 12:07:51 GMT
Its a completely wrong argument.
Last season we spent 70% of income on Players salaries which made us 2nd highest in the league behind QPR.
Our income has increased but so has the size of the squad. I think we will be close to 70% again this season and just about be breaking even.
That ALL that counts. This Net transfer spending bollocks is just one part of the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 12:11:19 GMT
You will shortly receive a number of emails that state that net spending on transfer fees does not correlate with success and that free transfers are ace It's been consistently shown for decades that net spending DOES correlate with success! Look at the teams at the top of the table and then look at the teams at the bottom. What's the difference? Net spend! |
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 2, 2015 12:12:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by blakngreen on Sept 2, 2015 12:12:01 GMT
I have come to hate the phrase "net spend" this summer. Some of the worst posts have included this little gem.
The trouble is it doesn't include everything as the phrase suggests, especially when a lot of costs are hidden by clubs. The end of year finances tend to be a better judge.
I agree that you can't keep buying good players for peanuts and that players that cost a lot don't necessarily work out. The crux of the matter is to spend when you have to and save when you can. Neither on there own is sustainable and justifiably causes concern amongst fans.
Still with potentially the biggest windfall to come at the end of this season it is kind of strange that we haven't tried to ensure our survival more.
That's a big set of balls some one in the board room has.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Sept 2, 2015 12:12:52 GMT
Its a completely wrong argument. Last season we spent 70% of income on Players salaries which made us 2nd highest in the league behind QPR. Our income has increased but so has the size of the squad. I think we will be close to 70% again this season and just about be breaking even. That ALL that counts. This Net transfer spending bollocks is just one part of the equation. The clever bit is that I would imagine that overall the figure is moving in our favour and that with the money going up stratospherically again sooon the 70% will be on a downward curve. Overall we are fiscially cute but the question remains, given the sums of money others are prepared to shell out (on fees and salaries) will we be able to continue to outperform on the field of play |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 12:16:28 GMT
Its a completely wrong argument. Last season we spent 70% of income on Players salaries which made us 2nd highest in the league behind QPR. Our income has increased but so has the size of the squad. I think we will be close to 70% again this season and just about be breaking even. That ALL that counts. This Net transfer spending bollocks is just one part of the equation. That's because our income is so low;One of the lowest in the EPL.Though wages are 70% of income, total wages were 15th in the EPL so they are not the most attractive. The real issue is how much the owners could put into the club but aren't. We have had FFP quoted but these rules are being relaxed as they are very difficult to enforce legally? |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 2, 2015 12:17:40 GMT
Maybe in future when we rock up to discuss terms when signing a player, and the selling club wants £5million, we offer them £10 million - as that will keep the people on the Oatcake happy?
This omits show much we spend on 'frees' (as Peter Coates continually tells us).
Don't players and agents try and recoup a similar amount to the normal market transfer fee as part of any signing deal. Maybe we paid say £3 million for Johnson. Maybe £6-8 million for Diouf. £4-5 for Affelay? It's all not public (compared to a deal between two clubs), but it's all money spent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Sept 2, 2015 12:19:48 GMT
Fuck 'net spend' and inflated transfer fees.
Right now, who would you rather have up front?
Bournemouth's Callum Wilson or Man United's '39m+ man', Martial?
The sums of money involved in the game right now are mental...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 12:23:01 GMT
Fuck 'net spend' and inflated transfer fees. Right now, who would you rather have up front? Bournemouth's Callum Wilson or Man United's '39m+ man', Martial? The sums of money involved in the game right now are mental... If he has a damn good season this year I dare say his fee won't be far off that! |
|
|
|
Post by barcaontrent on Sept 2, 2015 12:23:39 GMT
People seem to be misunderstanding me. Of course i don't want us to spend stupid money on players who clearly aren't worth it. What I'm saying is how can we get to the next level with this sort of investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 12:24:21 GMT
Maybe in future when we rock up to discuss terms when signing a player, and the selling club wants £5million, we offer them £10 million - as that will keep the people on the Oatcake happy? This omits show much we spend on 'frees' (as Peter Coates continually tells us). Don't players and agents try and recoup a similar amount to the normal market transfer fee as part of any signing deal. Maybe we paid say £3 million for Johnson. Maybe £6-8 million for Diouf. £4-5 for Affelay? It's all not public (compared to a deal between two clubs), but it's all money spent. As these fees are spread over the life of the contract it isn't spent yet! That's why clubs find it so attractive, because Affelay's £4m will be £1m each year i.e. £3m will fall into those years when the t.v. monies flow in(assuming we're not relegated). |
|
yerwot
Youth Player
Posts: 435
|
Post by yerwot on Sept 2, 2015 12:24:37 GMT
The so-called 'free' signings of players at the end of their contracts aren't free in reality, it just means the player and agent get a chunk of money rather than the selling club - probably less than the selling club would get but still hell of a lot more than I earn in a lifetime
|
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Sept 2, 2015 12:25:46 GMT
It's all a bit symptomatic of a desire for instant gratification.
I'd much rather we continue with a mixed approach: some polishable diamonds, potential, some experience {Johnson} and the odd transfer busting Shaqiri signing {who still has resale value}.
We're already at 'a' next level in terms of purchases to where we were a couple of years ago.
Evidenced by the international depth of the squad, the increasing asset value {potential} of Bojan, Arnautovic, Muniesa etc.
And we're now selling our players to Champions League Clubs...
Even those harshly regarded as surplus by some {Bardsley, Sidwell, Odemwingie, Walters} don't feel like Deadwood, more victims of our improvement.
Our current crop of players will attract bigger and better quality players, we're becoming a credible and viable option.
I trust Hughes and co. to know a player and we've proved that we can play the long game in pursuing targets.
The signing of Shaqiri provides the answers to your 1,2,3.
I don't buy into the assumption that Hughes isn't being backed.
He's signed up to a long term deal and all the indications {for me} are that there is/was and will be good cash on offer, but thankfully Hughes is only using it for what he deems to be the right signing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Sept 2, 2015 12:26:22 GMT
People seem to be misunderstanding me. Of course i don't want us to spend stupid money on players who clearly aren't worth it. What I'm saying is how can we get to the next level with this sort of investment. Big performances from Bojan, Shaq, Arnie, Diouf, etc - that's how...  |
|
|
|
Post by barcaontrent on Sept 2, 2015 12:29:02 GMT
People seem to be misunderstanding me. Of course i don't want us to spend stupid money on players who clearly aren't worth it. What I'm saying is how can we get to the next level with this sort of investment. Big performances from Bojan, Shaq, Arnie, Diouf, etc - that's how... big ask for all four to big firing, will be awesome when that day comes and feel sorry for the team that we come up against when that happens |
|
|
|
Post by barcaontrent on Sept 2, 2015 12:30:15 GMT
It's all a bit symptomatic of a desire for instant gratification. I'd much rather we continue with a mixed approach: some polishable diamonds, potential, some experience {Johnson} and the odd transfer busting Shaqiri signing {who still has resale value}. We're already at 'a' next level in terms of purchases to where we were a couple of years ago. Evidenced by the international depth of the squad, the increasing asset value {potential} of Bojan, Arnautovic, Muniesa etc. And we're now selling our players to Champions League Clubs... Even those harshly regarded as surplus by some {Bardsley, Sidwell, Odemwingie, Walters} don't feel like Deadwood, more victims of our improvement. Our current crop of players will attract bigger and better quality players, we're becoming a credible and viable option. I trust Hughes and co. to know a player and we've proved that we can play the long game in pursuing targets. The signing of Shaqiri provides the answers to your 1,2,3. I don't buy into the assumption that Hughes isn't being backed. He's signed up to a long term deal and all the indications {for me} are that there is/was and will be good cash on offer, but thankfully Hughes is only using it for what he deems to be the right signing. the shaq signing was covered by selling two of our best players |
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Sept 2, 2015 12:31:46 GMT
It's all a bit symptomatic of a desire for instant gratification. I'd much rather we continue with a mixed approach: some polishable diamonds, potential, some experience {Johnson} and the odd transfer busting Shaqiri signing {who still has resale value}. We're already at 'a' next level in terms of purchases to where we were a couple of years ago. Evidenced by the international depth of the squad, the increasing asset value {potential} of Bojan, Arnautovic, Muniesa etc. And we're now selling our players to Champions League Clubs... Even those harshly regarded as surplus by some {Bardsley, Sidwell, Odemwingie, Walters} don't feel like Deadwood, more victims of our improvement. Our current crop of players will attract bigger and better quality players, we're becoming a credible and viable option. I trust Hughes and co. to know a player and we've proved that we can play the long game in pursuing targets. The signing of Shaqiri provides the answers to your 1,2,3. I don't buy into the assumption that Hughes isn't being backed. He's signed up to a long term deal and all the indications {for me} are that there is/was and will be good cash on offer, but thankfully Hughes is only using it for what he deems to be the right signing. the shaq signing was covered by selling two of our best players It's still a next level signing no matter how it was funded. |
|
|
|
Post by barcaontrent on Sept 2, 2015 12:34:19 GMT
the shaq signing was covered by selling two of our best players It's still a next level signing no matter how it was funded. Of course it is but since we had made £18m from sales it was covered |
|
|
|
Post by samblano on Sept 2, 2015 12:41:39 GMT
I'll never understand people's obsessions with high transfer fees. If Hughes is getting players like Diouf or Bojan for pennies then why not just keep doing what we are doing. I want to see our club sign great players, not spend lots of money. The latter doesn't guarantee the former like plenty on here seem to think SHIT BIN PLEASE |
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 2, 2015 12:42:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by Kjones9 on Sept 2, 2015 12:42:08 GMT
People seem to be misunderstanding me. Of course i don't want us to spend stupid money on players who clearly aren't worth it. What I'm saying is how can we get to the next level with this sort of investment. By having a quality recruitment team and signing players like you have as your profile picture. |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 12:42:14 GMT
It's still a next level signing no matter how it was funded. Of course it is but since we had made £18m from sales it was covered That's the point! CPFC signed Cabaye(a next level signing) but they didn't sell their next level player, Bolasie to fund it! |
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Sept 2, 2015 12:52:07 GMT
2013/14 Net spend = £ 5 million 2014/15 = £ 0.5 million 2015/16 = £3 million This shows that transfer fees wise, we have invested £8.5 million over 3 season. Whilst our cheap signings might prove to come good as they did last season as well as our marquee signings, this left me with three questions. 1) How are we shopping in the supposed next level now, as these figures suggest we aren't? 2) How do we break into the next level with this sort of spending? 3) Is Hughes really being backed? There is only so much money in the club, so you can choose between 2 scenario's (or a middle ground) 1) Sign quality players on free's, because you can afford their wages with transfer fees saved 2) Sign crappier players who are in contract, hence attract a fee, but pay less wages The option of spending huge money on transfer fees for quality players (high wages) will result in either a bankrupt club or a smaller squad, which we'll all moan about when injuries and suspensions hit Personally I am pretty happy with our transfer activity over the last few years. My personal opinion is that we should have signed a better CB than Wolly as back up and perhaps replaced N'Zonzi better than we have. But I also appreciate that Hughes is much better than me in the transfer market, so I am inclined to trust his judgement |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 12:56:45 GMT
Of course it is but since we had made £18m from sales it was covered That's the point! CPFC signed Cabaye(a next level signing) but they didn't sell their next level player, Bolasie to fund it! 1) did we want to sell N'Zonzi or Begovic? No2) did we need to sell them to cover the shaq signing? No - they are 2 entirely seperate issues3) did we actively try to keep both players by offering them new contracts before the final year? Yes4) was it them who refused to sign them? Yes5) was that because of us penny pinching and not offering what they asked for? No6) was it because of their "ambition" to play at the Highest level (or sit on the bech in bego's case)? Yesus selling those 2 players has aboslutely nothing, zilch, 0%, nada, sod all to do with how we funded the shaq deal! you're just throwing 2 things in together which are completely unrelated in any way simply because you think it backs up your point.....it doesn't! we didn't have to sell anyone to buy shaq, we didn't want to sell those players to buy shaq. they CHOSE to go after we'd done what we could to try to keep hold of them. now, given the club we are this will always happen i.e. we will have a couple of players of real quality, they will be spotted and we will have to sell them to bigger clubs (if Shaq and Bojan have great seasons then don't kid yourself, they'll be off next summer as well. they're not here because they want to play for the mighty Stoke, they're her as it's a good shop window. end of! EVERY player says the fans, club, management of whatever club they're at the time is the "Best setup ever", "No fans like it anywhere else" etc. etc. repeat to fade, it's simple PR) as they will want to move on. all we can then do is use any profit we make to continue investing in higher quality players than we already have left....if you don't think that Johnson, Affelay and Shaqiri and higher quality than we have then you're not on this planet if you want, from now on we'll just let players like N'Zonzi and Bego go for free, then our net spend goes up and we win the league yeah??? when Southampton spent 90 odd mill a couple of years back (just after they'd sold some of their best players) did their fans go mad because their net spend was so low (due to it being offset by the outgoings)? do you think they were up in arms about penny pinching??? it's called business mate, it's how it works! |
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Sept 2, 2015 12:57:44 GMT
What is this ''next level'' you keep talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Sept 2, 2015 12:58:49 GMT
It's all a bit symptomatic of a desire for instant gratification. I'd much rather we continue with a mixed approach: some polishable diamonds, potential, some experience {Johnson} and the odd transfer busting Shaqiri signing {who still has resale value}. We're already at 'a' next level in terms of purchases to where we were a couple of years ago. Evidenced by the international depth of the squad, the increasing asset value {potential} of Bojan, Arnautovic, Muniesa etc. And we're now selling our players to Champions League Clubs... Even those harshly regarded as surplus by some {Bardsley, Sidwell, Odemwingie, Walters} don't feel like Deadwood, more victims of our improvement. Our current crop of players will attract bigger and better quality players, we're becoming a credible and viable option. I trust Hughes and co. to know a player and we've proved that we can play the long game in pursuing targets. The signing of Shaqiri provides the answers to your 1,2,3. I don't buy into the assumption that Hughes isn't being backed. He's signed up to a long term deal and all the indications {for me} are that there is/was and will be good cash on offer, but thankfully Hughes is only using it for what he deems to be the right signing. the shaq signing was covered by selling two of our best players Even if that's the case {and none of us know whether Shaq would have been purchased even if N'Zonzi could have been pursuaded to stay. And we don't know how that income was apportioned across all the deals this summer.} All Clubs will sell to buy to an extent, it's normal. As TheBrit says, I don't think it alters the fact that Bojan, Shaqiri, Johnson and even Afellay are 'next level' signings. There are few players in the {imaginary} level above them, and more expensive players may not be better quality but will attract the homegrown premium. We are just starting to shop from the top shelf, but again it's a team game I wouldn't want us to become a hostage to fortune, over a big established ego. And I wouldn't want to see us spend for success at the cost of the Clubs's financial health. |
|
