Summer 2014 Net Spends

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Sir_Red

Sir_Red

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2011
9,326
639
113
Interesting reading:

United -122
Arsenal -46
Liverpool -36
The BS -33
Man City -32
West Ham -31
Newcastle -25
Hull -25
QPR -21
WBA -13
Palace -11
Chelsea -10
Leicester -10
Sunderland -10
Burnley -8
Villa -6
Swansea -1.5
Stoke -0.5
Spurs +6
Southampton +31

Especially when you consider rumours that we had £60m excluding player sales available and that before selling Suarez Rodgers said that he was going to make the signings to date regardless. So, questions are

1) has Rodgers really spent the Suarez money? With the exception of buying Mario (who would not have been bought if we had kept Suarez)

or

2) is it still there for us to spend in January?
 
Sir_Red said:
Interesting reading:

United -122
Arsenal -46
Liverpool -36
The BS -33
Man City -32
West Ham -31
Newcastle -25
Hull -25
QPR -21
WBA -13
Palace -11
Chelsea -10
Leicester -10
Sunderland -10
Burnley -8
Villa -6
Swansea -1.5
Stoke -0.5
Spurs +6
Southampton +31

Especially when you consider rumours that we had £60m excluding player sales available and that before selling Suarez Rodgers said that he was going to make the signings to date regardless. So, questions are

1) has Rodgers really spent the Suarez money? With the exception of buying Mario (who would not have been bought if we had kept Suarez)

or

2) is it still there for us to spend in January?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
I think we will do business in January too, assuming the right player is available, no need to #panicbuy and #panicloan like Man Utd <laugh>
 
Money is always lost from "Football" during transfers.

Legal Fees
Administrative Fees
Taxes
Agent Fees
Sign On Bonuses

A varying % is lost. If you sell £100mill of players, there may only be £80mill to reinvest after paying fees.

That "36 mill" we spent- if you add in all the fees we spent over the summer to sell Suarez, etc, is probably closer to £50mill... We not have spent all our predicted £60mill but I bet we're close. Plus, our wage bill is almost certainly higher- do we know that the 60mill didn't include wage increases too?




I highly doubt we spend a lot in January.
 
Milk said:
Money is always lost from "Football" during transfers.

Legal Fees
Administrative Fees
Taxes
Agent Fees
Sign On Bonuses

A varying % is lost. If you sell £100mill of players, there may only be £80mill to reinvest after paying fees.

That "36 mill" we spent- if you add in all the fees we spent over the summer to sell Suarez, etc, is probably closer to £50mill... We not have spent all our predicted £60mill but I bet we're close. Plus, our wage bill is almost certainly higher- do we know that the 60mill didn't include wage increases too?




I highly doubt we spend a lot in January.
Click to expand...

If we're there or thereabouts (which I hope we will be) we'll spend if the right player(s) is/are available.
 
Gerrez said:
Ar we going to have a sweepstake on how long Tobes takes to come back with his "neutral accountants" view?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bother, as I just wanted to read the piece smart arse
 
Sir_Red said:
Interesting reading:

United -122
Arsenal -46
Liverpool -36
The BS -33
Man City -32
West Ham -31
Newcastle -25
Hull -25
QPR -21
WBA -13
Palace -11
Chelsea -10
Leicester -10
Sunderland -10
Burnley -8
Villa -6
Swansea -1.5
Stoke -0.5
Spurs +6
Southampton +31

Especially when you consider rumours that we had £60m excluding player sales available and that before selling Suarez Rodgers said that he was going to make the signings to date regardless. So, questions are

1) has Rodgers really spent the Suarez money? With the exception of buying Mario (who would not have been bought if we had kept Suarez)

or

2) is it still there for us to spend in January?
Click to expand...

so my impressions thus far;

1. Arsenals high net spend is looking good value. they bought Chambers, Debuchy, Ospina, Sanchez and only waste money on Welbeck. Vermealen went out for 15mil too

2. Liverpools numbers are skewed obviously. 9 players in.... total of something like 125mil spent and 81 or so taken in. not including loan fees.

I don't really agree with 34, i think its more like 44mil

3. seeing city below evertons net send (if accurate) shows ffp can work but only when a punishment is meated out.

4. chelsea must be laughing at how much moeny they hauled in as they now look champions elect from 3rd place for a whole 10 mil?

finally...... utd 122 mil..... 60mil is diamria, 7.5mil is falcao. 27 is shaw. 16 mil is rojo, blind is 14mil and herrera was 29mil = 153.5mil. bebe, buttner, evra and welbeck are 20 or so mil and i've no clue about their loan fees either 122 might be close
 
Red Hadron Collider said:
If we're there or thereabouts (which I hope we will be) we'll spend if the right player(s) is/are available.
Click to expand...

I'm also willing to be if there is a 20mil player available we'll spend 20mil.

if there's a good 10mil player thats what we'll do....

its indeed down to right player and a budget per window
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
4. chelsea must be laughing at how much moeny they hauled in as they now look champions elect from 3rd place for a whole 10 mil?
Click to expand...

What can we do when there are ******s out there prepared to spend £122m on Luiz, Lukaku, Mata and De Bruyne, none of which would have even played for Chelsea <doh>

We need Financial Sensible Play, although that would also make Man Utd far less "entertaining"
 
astroturfnaut said:
What can we do when there are ******s out there prepared to spend £122m on Luiz, Lukaku, Mata and De Bruyne, none of which would have even played for Chelsea <doh>

We need Financial Sensible Play, although that would also make Man Utd far less "entertaining"
Click to expand...

true true...

luiz was a joke fee. Lukaku fee was daylight robbery. I know everton like him and all that but nobody else wanted him at all and still they screwed everton with a huge fee, Mata fee was i'd say a party at stamford bridge when utd agreed that fee.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
so my impressions thus far;

1. Arsenals high net spend is looking good value. they bought Chambers, Debuchy, Ospina, Sanchez and only waste money on Welbeck. Vermealen went out for 15mil too

2. Liverpools numbers are skewed obviously. 9 players in.... total of something like 125mil spent and 81 or so taken in. not including loan fees.

I don't really agree with 34, i think its more like 44mil

3. seeing city below evertons net send (if accurate) shows ffp can work but only when a punishment is meated out.

4. chelsea must be laughing at how much moeny they hauled in as they now look champions elect from 3rd place for a whole 10 mil?

finally...... utd 122 mil..... 60mil is diamria, 7.5mil is falcao. 27 is shaw. 16 mil is rojo, blind is 14mil and herrera was 29mil = 153.5mil. bebe, buttner, evra and welbeck are 20 or so mil and i've no clue about their loan fees either 122 might be close
Click to expand...

44mil is what transfermarket are stating but they have Suarez down as £65mil, which as we know is more barca bulls**t
 
Sir_Red said:
44mil is what transfermarket are stating but they have Suarez down as £65mil, which as we know is more barca bulls**t
Click to expand...

I looked at sky sports and they had 75mil for suarez but the outgoing fees were less. like 8mil for can which is wrong.

In the end if we had 60mil to spend and took in 75mil then we should have no issue with that net spend of 44mil.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
4. chelsea must be laughing at how much moeny they hauled in as they now look champions elect from 3rd place for a whole 10 mil?
Click to expand...

As much as I don't like it, you have to admire and appreciate the approach that Chelsea took after the FFP stuff was announced. They've assessed it and decided to buy a **** load of quality young players before FFP kicks in. They've then sent them all out on loans knowing full well they could sell them at later date if and when they need to generate financial income. As they've sold them, they've not only signed first team players but also more youngsters to repeat the process. Its well played by Chelsea really, Man City should have looked to do this with their billionaires too! Of course, there is no way they anticipated someone paying so much for Mata, Luiz, Lukaku and De Bruyne!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back