More like you've worn that bit out from copying my dance moves ..... goodness gracious old schools on fire
Just for you Ristac, transfers fees for all the Premier Clubs as listed on Transfermarkt.com over the past 3 years. Those clubs with an * are those that have spent at least one season out of the EPL during the 3 years. We have a net spend of £150.88 million, making us the 7th highest net spenders during the period ( we are the 9th highest spenders and 10th highest for transfer money received). Chelsea and Scum are both the highest net spenders and highest spent on transfers fees, although Chelsea have recouped more than 4 times more than Scum in transfer fees received. Of the clubs that have been in the EPL for the last 3 years, Leicester are the second lowest overall spenders at £4.34m, although even this figured is dwarfed by the business that Brighton have done, having made a net profit on transfer fees over the past 3 years of £55.53m. Bournemouth are the only other club to have made an overall profit on transfer fees, who following their relegation from the EPL, had sales of £84m the following season. Of the clubs that have maintained their presence within the EPL for the 3 year period, Palace, Leicester, Brighton and Southampton have all spent under £150m over the past 3 years, whilst Newcastle, Palace and Scum are the only 3 clubs to have total sales of less than £60m, with Newcastle having total sales of less than £3m. Not including the figures for clubs that haven't been in the EPL for the past 3 years, then the average total money spent on transfers per club is £271m, the average total money received on transfers per club is £120m, and the average net spend per club on transfers is £151m
I think the thing that surprised me the most when putting the figures together, is that we have spent more than Liverpool, recouped less than Liverpool, and thus have a net spend of £30m more than Liverpool. I just naturally presumed that their figures would be a lot higher. Guess I was also surprised at how much Scum had spent and how little they had recouped, given how poorly they have performed compared to the rest of the so called "big 6" Whilst there will be an element of both free transfers and the fact they had already accumulated a vast majority of their players, when looking at the previous 10 years of transfer business for Liverpool, they have on average a net spend of £27m per season, having spent a total of £914m and recouped £640m during that 10 year period, and thus their net spend for the past 3 years has only increased by £13m per season, with them averaging a net spend of £40m during the time we have been back in the EPL. In 4 of those 10 seasons, they have transfer income in excess of what they paid out. Of the remaining 6 seasons, they had one where their net spend was over £125m, the other 5 seasons were net spends of between £23m-£54m per season
But as a perennial top four side Liverpool don’t need to replace many players each seaso whereas we probably need five quality signings per season
Oh I agree Eire, that why I went and looked back over a further 10 years, just to see what they had done during that time, given that they had 5 managerial changes during that period. The reasons I made specific mention to Liverpool is that even when you compare them to the perennial top 6 sides , they have still over the last 3 years spent £100m less than Spurs and Arsenal, £170m less than City and Scum and £350m less than Chelsea, so I wasn't comparing our situation to Liverpool, or saying we should be as good or if not better, just that I was surprised at how little they had spent in comparison to the teams that they typically compete with
