Net spend.

[Charley Farley]

i've looked up a table showing the ins and outs at SAFC and since the 2009/10 season our net spend has been £28 million or £4.7 million per season.

Before that it was higher but these are the recent and most relevant figures listing every player to arrive and leave from the start of the 2009 transfer window.

How much is this FFP affecting our dealings, although it doesn't appear to be affecting any other teams. Is it an excuse?

So far this window our net spend is slightly less than the £6 million that Mick McCarthy got for our record low points season. This, to improve a squad that just escaped relegation.

In around 3 weeks the window closes and the players we will have are the ones who will have to take us through to January.

Dick has made it plain he needs more quality, will he (we) get it or will we see a couple of squad players added plus a loan.

First day results can be deceptive. The lads may well buck up after that mauling and start playing to their potential but it's a big risk relying on that.

Will we suddenly 'click' into a team of exciting talented players this season or will this season be the same as the last few (or worse)

If we beat Norwich will we all swing to the 'top half finish' mindset, if not are we all thinking the worst.

One thing though, continuous under investment is not the recipe for success (or even safety) and a £4.7 million net spend per season doesn't show any ambition.

Them up the road are the nearest club to compare ourselves with, size and location being similar. On teletext today they have had an £11 million offer for some French player turned down, are still in the running for Austin at £13-15 million and McClaren says he wants 3 more in this window. £36 million spent with possibly £11 and £13 million players to come taking it to £60 million. How can they do it and we can't.

Here's hoping for some good news in the next few weeks.

Figures from
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/sunderland/english-football-teams/sunderland-transfers

 

[The Ultimate Mackem]

i've looked up a table showing the ins and outs at SAFC and since the 2009/10 season our net spend has been £28 million or £4.7 million per season.

Before that it was higher but these are the recent and most relevant figures listing every player to arrive and leave from the start of the 2009 transfer window.

How much is this FFP affecting our dealings, although it doesn't appear to be affecting any other teams. Is it an excuse?

So far this window our net spend is slightly less than the £6 million that Mick McCarthy got for our record low points season. This, to improve a squad that just escaped relegation.

In around 3 weeks the window closes and the players we will have are the ones who will have to take us through to January.

Dick has made it plain he needs more quality, will he (we) get it or will we see a couple of squad players added plus a loan.

First day results can be deceptive. The lads may well buck up after that mauling and start playing to their potential but it's a big risk relying on that.

Will we suddenly 'click' into a team of exciting talented players this season or will this season be the same as the last few (or worse)

If we beat Norwich will we all swing to the 'top half finish' mindset, if not are we all thinking the worst.

One thing though, continuous under investment is not the recipe for success (or even safety) and a £4.7 million net spend per season doesn't show any ambition.

Them up the road are the nearest club to compare ourselves with, size and location being similar. On teletext today they have had an £11 million offer for some French player turned down, are still in the running for Austin at £13-15 million and McClaren says he wants 3 more in this window. £36 million spent with possibly £11 and £13 million players to come taking it to £60 million. How can they do it and we can't.

Here's hoping for some good news in the next few weeks.

Figures from
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/sunderland/english-football-teams/sunderland-transfers

I said 30m on the other thread so I was close LOL I look at net spent since short took over in 2009. 28m is a joke and the **** has got that back and more.

There you go Mr short lovers.

 

[JustMeMan]

i've looked up a table showing the ins and outs at SAFC and since the 2009/10 season our net spend has been £28 million or £4.7 million per season.

Before that it was higher but these are the recent and most relevant figures listing every player to arrive and leave from the start of the 2009 transfer window.

How much is this FFP affecting our dealings, although it doesn't appear to be affecting any other teams. Is it an excuse?

So far this window our net spend is slightly less than the £6 million that Mick McCarthy got for our record low points season. This, to improve a squad that just escaped relegation.

In around 3 weeks the window closes and the players we will have are the ones who will have to take us through to January.

Dick has made it plain he needs more quality, will he (we) get it or will we see a couple of squad players added plus a loan.

First day results can be deceptive. The lads may well buck up after that mauling and start playing to their potential but it's a big risk relying on that.

Will we suddenly 'click' into a team of exciting talented players this season or will this season be the same as the last few (or worse)

If we beat Norwich will we all swing to the 'top half finish' mindset, if not are we all thinking the worst.

One thing though, continuous under investment is not the recipe for success (or even safety) and a £4.7 million net spend per season doesn't show any ambition.

Them up the road are the nearest club to compare ourselves with, size and location being similar. On teletext today they have had an £11 million offer for some French player turned down, are still in the running for Austin at £13-15 million and McClaren says he wants 3 more in this window. £36 million spent with possibly £11 and £13 million players to come taking it to £60 million. How can they do it and we can't.

Here's hoping for some good news in the next few weeks.

Figures from
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/sunderland/english-football-teams/sunderland-transfers

Needs to be the net spend from when Ellis took over. otherwise it looks like a Malcolm McDonald review.

 

[Cest Advocaat]

i've looked up a table showing the ins and outs at SAFC and since the 2009/10 season our net spend has been £28 million or £4.7 million per season.

Before that it was higher but these are the recent and most relevant figures listing every player to arrive and leave from the start of the 2009 transfer window.

How much is this FFP affecting our dealings, although it doesn't appear to be affecting any other teams. Is it an excuse?

So far this window our net spend is slightly less than the £6 million that Mick McCarthy got for our record low points season. This, to improve a squad that just escaped relegation.

In around 3 weeks the window closes and the players we will have are the ones who will have to take us through to January.

Dick has made it plain he needs more quality, will he (we) get it or will we see a couple of squad players added plus a loan.

First day results can be deceptive. The lads may well buck up after that mauling and start playing to their potential but it's a big risk relying on that.

Will we suddenly 'click' into a team of exciting talented players this season or will this season be the same as the last few (or worse)

If we beat Norwich will we all swing to the 'top half finish' mindset, if not are we all thinking the worst.

One thing though, continuous under investment is not the recipe for success (or even safety) and a £4.7 million net spend per season doesn't show any ambition.

Them up the road are the nearest club to compare ourselves with, size and location being similar. On teletext today they have had an £11 million offer for some French player turned down, are still in the running for Austin at £13-15 million and McClaren says he wants 3 more in this window. £36 million spent with possibly £11 and £13 million players to come taking it to £60 million. How can they do it and we can't.

Here's hoping for some good news in the next few weeks.

Figures from
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/sunderland/english-football-teams/sunderland-transfers

Very good post mate and an insight as to why we are so dire year on year. I think that failure to invest heavily in real quality before Sept will result in the fans turning their attentions and anger at Short for the first time. Advocaat is s seriously experienced and talented coach and failure to back him will not go down well with the fans IMO. This is a pivotal few weeks for the owner and the club and I'm very worried for the outcome.

 

[JustMeMan]

I said 30m on the other thread so I was close LOL I look at net spent since short took over in 2009. 28m is a joke and the **** has got that back and more.

There you go Mr short lovers.

I do believe Mr short has lost interest in Sunderland And soccer. Was just abit fun for him.

 

[Reggie the Cheddar]

Why as fans are we taking this lying down?! The Club seem to think its ok to serve such dross because we keep gulping it down in our thousands home and away. We need to get our feelings know next Saturday Short needs to spend money on this club or we don't simple as, I love Sunderland unconditionally but I will not spend my hard earned cash on them unconditionally. Who's got a table cloth and a marker it's time we took a page from the geordies book and let the club know what we think of a £5m net spend.........but spell everything correctly of course!

 

[The Relic]

I said 30m on the other thread so I was close LOL I look at net spent since short took over in 2009. 28m is a joke and the **** has got that back and more.

There you go Mr short lovers.

Of course he's got it back. Why wouldn't he get it back? Sunderland AFC is not a registered charity where people walk up and donate money. Do you think any other club won't have to pay their spending back sooner or later? They all will - if they can.

 

[Rick O'Shea]

Piss poor that.

 

[The Relic]

Lombaert and Fer both got as far as the medical stage. To get them there, Ellis must have already okayed the money - well they wouldn't have come otherwise, would they? So what is this speculation about Short being tight fisted? Advocaat's clearly already got the financial backing he wants. That's old hat, it's already done. Whether or not we can attract the type of player to justify spending it is the big question. Time is running out.

 

[Charley Farley]

Needs to be the net spend from when Ellis took over. otherwise it looks like a Malcolm McDonald review.

The link I gave is there for all to draw their own conclusions.

For me, our last few seasons have mirrored the net spend and just escaping relegation suggests that we are under investing. When you think of the money coming in, TV, gate receipts, merchandising, sponsorships and things like pop concerts, £4.7 million is chicken feed.

Trying to see something positive, I don't think Dick would have come back if he was told he had £5 million to spend so hopefully we will get some next level players in.

 

[JustMeMan]

Not getting at you mara just the whole article looks like a mag wind up. Stats
taken to suit them.

 

[Brian Storm]

Nobody knows our net spend as most of our incomings and outgoings are undisclosed, even the annual figures are selective. This is fact. It's a simple question that needs to be asked, Do we bring in enough quality? Answer no.

 

[Nordic]

Lombaert and Fer both got as far as the medical stage. To get them there, Ellis must have already okayed the money - well they wouldn't have come otherwise, would they? So what is this speculation about Short being tight fisted? Advocaat's clearly already got the financial backing he wants. That's old hat, it's already done. Whether or not we can attract the type of player to justify spending it is the big question. Time is running out.

 

[Brian Storm]

Just looked at the site used for this thread wondering who they acessed all this undisclosed information, Lewis McGugan has never played for us. #****site

 

[blackcatsteve]

Its wages that kill us, no idea on the figures for last year, but I think we made 67m from the league. You obviously have tickets, concerts, advertising etc on top of that, but when Bent was here our wage bill was 58m, it has to be more than that now, it doesnt leave a lot to spend to keep even and not go further into debt.

Still bloody frustrating for us though.

 

[Tel (they/them)]

Teletext

 

[Brian Storm]

Its wages that kill us, no idea on the figures for last year, but I think we made 67m from the league. You obviously have tickets, concerts, advertising etc on top of that, but when Bent was here our wage bill was 58m, it has to be more than that now, it doesnt leave a lot to spend to keep even and not go further into debt.

Still bloody frustrating for us though.

Nail on the head mate. I believe 100% our spending restrictions are entirely wage related.

 

[Charley Farley]

Teletext

BBC text page 303

Just looked at the site used for this thread wondering who they acessed all this undisclosed information, Lewis McGugan has never played for us. #****site

It's the first time I've seen this site but they seem reasonably accurate and not sensationalist. Wickham sold for £7 million for example.
There are bound to be some inaccuracies but on the whole it gives a good overview of our dealings.
Where the fee was undisclosed it has not been added to the total, both bought and sold players. I wouldn't bet my home that everything on it is 100% true but I don't think it's far off.
It isn't just us on there, you can access other clubs transfer info.

We are supposed to have a comparatively small squad so how do other clubs compare with wages, they seem to be managing.

How are teams like WBA run, how are Hull doing finance wise, they were signing players we couldn't get. How much did they pay Huddlestone for example. Are Hull now right in the ****.

Are we run so badly.

If anything, wages should be lower here. Houses cost about a third that they do in London. £40k per week will go much further here than down south and it's much nicer here, both the area and the friendlier people.

Anyway, fingers crossed for something to be excited about these coming weeks 'til September.

 

[Tel (they/them)]

I didn't even know teletext was a thing anymore.

You know they put it all in a 'gossip' column nowadays on the BBC website right?

 

[Charley Farley]

Just found a wage league table site.

http://www.totalsportek.com/money/english-premier-league-wage-bills-club-by-club/

We are 10th at just under £70 million.


Juan. You're right, it's bbc gossip page on 303. I get it on my TV by pressing the teletext function but it's probably called something else now (I'm old)