If IIRC we spent more on xfers in the summer of 2011 than the previous 99. Then in 2012 spent more than the previous 100 summers, breaking our xfer record twice.
Surely that was just down to the level we are now operating at and the tumps of TV money coming through the door....the only measure of whether we spent sensibly is what we spent compared to our Premier League peers and the outcomes of that spending. In Laudrup's first transfer window we were one of the smallest spenders in the Prem, as befits our status, yet achieved a major trophy and a top 10 finish = good value
The Guardian reported that there were 8 teams that spent less than our £17.89m - Everton, Stoke, Norwich, Wigan, Newcastle, Fulham, Reading and WBA respectively. So good value with a Top 10 finish and a trophy.
The deal for ki was done by the club, the wheels were already in motion Do you really Think laudrup wanted him then sent him on Loan ? Same with bartley,signed by the club, we had two scouting systems and that was something all parties were happy with.. Un til laudrup rightly or wrongly brought in JDG to replace KI and amat to replace bartly .
It was the bony transfer that scewd those figurer though wasnt it? I know for a fact the club wanted a marquee signing to take us into europe, we paid more than we wanted and huw stated this and he felt uncomfortable spending it, im not sure who wanted bony the most the club or laudrup. We Will never Find out the answer to that one But a fair point you make trav
Norway, Bony was signed in 2013 not during Laudrup's first window. So, no the Bony transfer does not skew the figures.
Norway, Ki was not loaned out by Laudrup during his first season with us - he played centre back in the League Cup final if you recall. Also, Laudrup did not bring in JDG to replace Ki. JDG had already been signed on loan before we signed Ki.
8 other teams spent less than us according to Taffvalerowdy, so no we weren't. And in now way could you describe it as "hardly no money at all".
The Guardian lists our purchases as follows: Chico £2.2m Proctor £0.0m Bartley £1.14m Michu £2.26m Pablo £6.16m Ki £6.12m In addition, it lists JDG and Shecter as loan signings, albeit no "cost/fee" reported. The Guardian sourced the data from transfermarkt.co.uk
Sorry trav got confused to which season we were talking about. In that case i stand corrected. But the ki deal was done by the club not laudrup , we used 2 scouting set ups with laudrup in agreement of the system. JDG was laudrups player and his prefered choice, the only reason ki featured as we now know is because somebody wrote in a minimum game clause , hence why the following season he was out on Loan with JDG back on Loan to cover. I dont Think laudrup wrote in that clause or would have agreed to it. He was promises games at swansea but in his second season laudrup wouldnt gaurentee it. Something im guessing that didnt go down too well . Ki may have been presented to us after laudrup but that deal was in motion before hand. Im aware of the ti,e Lines we Are talking about now trav ! ..
I should add that while of fees were a bit higher 2012 our wages were still joint bottom with reading, combinee tje two and i bet we end up below alot of those 8 teams.
Can't blame them for selling at those vastly overrated prices. £100m for five or six players from a team that finished one place above Stoke is crazy.
Well no doubt they Are losing a few too many but as pointed out earlier ypu tend to reap what you sow at this level. Both us and Southampton have been victims of our success.
Here; http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=2513&teamTabs=transfers ....but just checked it and yeah, you're right..for some reason they left out Ki's fee (£6m?) will edit my post
Here; http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=2513&teamTabs=transfers ....but just checked it and yeah, you're right..for some reason they left out Ki's fee (£6m?) and Bartley's (£1m?) will edit my post
