Roughly an £87m plus wages spend. We can start worrying when Fulham, Wolves and another group of small clubs do the same.
You cannot fault the ambition West Ham have, but the place has been a blackhole or retirement home for talented football players. Every year it feels like they make tonnes of signings that are brilliant on paper, but put the West Ham shirt on and they either immediately breakdown in training, or decide they don't need to try anymore. Having said that, someone needs to explain the financial disparity to me, between us and West Ham, because I can't (be bothered to) work it out. 1. TV Monies and revenue streams are likely around equal. 2. Gold and Sullivan do not seem the type to pump their own money into the club again and again and again for either capital adequacy, liquidity or investment purposes, so they can't be too different from Mike Ashley. 3. Debt, if they aren't putting millions upon millions in themselves, and everything is roughly equal to us, then debt would be the key differentiation. However, from Gold & Sullivans time in charge of Birmingham, they seem like fairly responsible, if mediocre, owners. From the outside looking in, they tend to have one of the most professional internal set-ups in the league, even if some of their management and player recruitment choices leave something to be desired. 4. The London vs Not-London thing, we all know it takes an ignorant agent or a lack of options to drag someone away from party central, but we're not being linked with anyone, never mind signing players. It might be that anyone we speak to has southern options, but we don't fish in the same pool anyway. Does that mean the difference, aside from physically being interested in making the club successful, is purely down to sponsorship? Is the millions we lose out on in sponsorship completely castrating our commercial vehicle and ultimate growth potential to an extent that we will never compete above our current level? Newcastle benefits SportsDirect, but the relationship is 99% one way, and that is probably the real reason he can't let us go.
Is there? Chavs need trainers every 2 years... Judging from the mystery box found at my Gran's house after her funeral, dildos are a one time purchase...
Interesting take on it, but our net spend hasn't been that big in those recent seasons you mention, one of the reasons the atmosphere has been so bad. Plenty have gone out to balance the books, whilst a lot of those that came in have been loans and freebies
Sold Upton Park for a **** ton of cash to developers - got a new stadium courtesy of the tax payer - there you go....
They haven’t traditionally spent massive over last few seasons. They seem to have been storing up for a massive splurge. Either that or they’ve gone balls in this season. They are trying to shift some too to offset some of it with Antonio, Kouyate due to bring in decent fees. I think it’s great they’re having a go and Pellegrini and that quality might ensure they don’t get into strife. If it went tits and they got relegated, then obviously I’d imagine the problems would be huge. Gotta gamble a little though. How sustainable? Who knows?
Overspending looks like. We would never be near these players anyway and all know what our model is so can’t be either jealous or surprised. Everton did this last season in terms of big bucks and looking good on paper but in the end it’s Fat Shams anti football that stopped them imploding. Notice Everton haven’t spent anything like this much this year. Personally I don’t understand the overspend. Finishing 4th is all but impossible, so what’s the point? I’d rather see all clubs live within their means and develop youth. Our level of ambition or lack thereof is too much the other way mind!!
Funnily enough their two freebies could very well upstage their big money signings! Both of them would have been a big improvement for our team as well. Oh well, onwards and downwards with the fat one at the helm
They'll still do **** all this season. Wilshere will get injured, Fabianski meh, Fredericks over-rated. Don't know the other 3 players. If they are borrowing to buy players then when and how will they repay it? And what will happen when they can't borrow anymore for players in future seasons? Getting a free stadium has given them a clear advantage over many clubs though.
I can't get too bothered by any of this. They were a shambles for most of last season and the fans were all over them, they needed to do something to change the atmosphere or else they could have had to endure another hail of coins (utterly despicable behaviour). As for the players: Wilshere is a gamble and far from 'free'. He'll be on a massive chunk and given the number of options he had I'd think a few million signing on fee plus upwards of £100k per week was a starting point. 4 year contract equals £20-25 million. He could prove to be well worth it or he could spend the next few years draining money. As for the others I'd prefer Dubravka to Fabianski and Kenedy to Yarmalenko not just because I think they are better players but also because we know what they can do for us. Diop and Anderson both look very good, time will tell. If we'd blown on money on them though I wouldn't have been happy with Diop as it's like the type of player we went for in recent years (re-sale value down the line). Anderson could be a big plus though, we need a player like him in that position, a lot of money though...
I thought Wilsheres deal had a pay as you play element to it? I thought he was was a bargain if so. The issue will remain is heart in it? Does he want to be professional enough? He has managed to stay fit to a respectable standard for quite a while. However his injuries always come when he gets off the rails. Is going back to the club he supported as a boy going to help that? Can’t help feel he should have went abroad and got his head down.
