Sam Byram Sunderland bound

[raven_5]

They have a very similar net spend you are right, the big difference being we are having to shed a lot more players to match their outgoings.

They are spending 100m to replace 7 or 8 players, we are spending the same to replace 15-16 players.

And why is that? Do we need 16 players? No. 7-8 decent signings every summer should get us a solid squad.

 

[Banks]

And why is that?

You know why that is because we are ran like a joke outfit.

 

[raven_5]

You know why that is because we are ran like a joke outfit.

Exactly. The money available are decent IMO, but even if we got Di Fanti 40m he would still made a mess out of it.

 

[Banks]

Exactly. The money available are decent IMO, but even if we got Di Fanti 40m he would still made a mess out of it.

That's nice but I wasn't debating this at all

 

[DrewC]

Don't think fans perception is influenced by location tbh.

Missed the point players like living in London

 

[raven_5]

That's nice but I wasn't debating this at all

You were debating that we don't spend enough. I think you are wrong, we've spent more than a few clubs that finish constantly above us.

 

[Banks]

You were debating that we don't spend enough. I think you are wrong, we've spent more than a few clubs that finish constantly above us.

Name them

 

[raven_5]

Name them

Swansea, WBA, Stoke. Crystal Palace are also in a better position now.

 

[OohBaldyBally]

And why is that? Do we need 16 players? No. 7-8 decent signings every summer should get us a solid squad.

7-8 decent signings every summer?!?

How many clubs make 7-8 decent signings every summer?

 

[raven_5]

7-8 decent signings every summer?!?

How many clubs make 7-8 decent signings every summer?

Not many make only 1 decent signing per season like we do.

 

[Banks]

Swansea, WBA, Stoke. Crystal Palace are also in a better position now.

I already mentioned you would have a case for WBA.

Stoke have a net spend of approx. 89m, we have a net spend of 61m. Also Stoke came up with no debt whereas we had debt. So you are incorrect.

 

[raven_5]

I already mentioned you would have a case for WBA.

Stoke have a net spend of approx. 89m, we have a net spend of 61m. Also Stoke came up with no debt whereas we had debt. So you are incorrect.

We had a 61m net spent only in our first two season back in the Prem mate.

 

[Banks]

We had a 61m net spent only in our first two season back in the Prem mate.

You cant use our budget against us when Stoke were in the championship but then say Stoke are doing better when they haven't been in the league as long, that's having your cake and eating it.

 

[raven_5]

You cant use our budget against us when Stoke were in the championship but then say Stoke are doing better when they haven't been in the league as long, that's having your cake and eating it.

So it doesn't matter if we had a 40m influx already when they got back to the Prem? Ok then.

 

[Banks]

So it doesn't matter if we had a 40m influx already when they got back to the Prem? Ok then.

Or about 60m of debt as well?

 

[ironman]

I already mentioned you would have a case for WBA.

Stoke have a net spend of approx. 89m, we have a net spend of 61m. Also Stoke came up with no debt whereas we had debt. So you are incorrect.

Plus they bought the worst right back ever Phil the useless c Bardsley

 

[raven_5]

Or about 60m of debt as well?

So? What's the relevance in that?

 

[Banks]

So? What's the relevance in that?

So you don't think a clubs level of debt has any impact upon what It can offer in wages?

 

[raven_5]

So you don't think a clubs level of debt has any impact upon what It can offer in wages?

No.
http://www.totalsportek.com/money/english-premier-league-wage-bills-club-by-club/

 

[Craggsy-SAFC]

We have bid accepted for Sam Byram according to this https://audioboom.com/boos/3297155-...m-s-potential-move-away-from-leeds-utd#t=0m5s