For the money we have spent

Lucky1985

Midfield
Lads, can we get a little perspective here? Since we drew yesterday I people have been complaining that we aren't good enough for the money we have spent on almost every thread. The thing is, you're only telling half the story. We spent nearly £4M because we sold nearly £20M, which is over £16M worth of 'talent' leaving the club more than the next closest team.

I understand that you're disappointed, we all are. but please stop using the money we have spent as a stick to beat the club with.

Team - Money Out - Money In - Net Spend

Portsmouth £149,000 £0 £149,000
Burton £0 £0 £0
Shrewsbury £0 £0 £0
Plymouth £0 £0 £0
Southend £0 £0 £0
Blackpool £0 £0 £0
Fleetwood £0 £0 £0
Doncaster £0 £0 £0
Oxford £0 £0 £0
Gillingham £0 £0 £0
Wimbledon £0 £0 £0
Walsall £0 £0 £0
Luton £0 £0 £0
wycombe £0 £0 £0
Rochdale £0 £149,000 -£149,000
Charlton £0 £430,000 -£430,000
Bradford £0 £608,000 -£608,000
Bristol £0 £756,000 -£756,000
Barnsley £594,000 £1,670,000 -£1,076,000
Coventry £0 £1,220,000 -£1,220,000
Scunthorpe £0 £1,460,000 -£1,460,000
Accrington £0 £1,620,000 -£1,620,000
Peterborough £648,000 £3,330,000 -£2,682,000
Sunderland £3,870,000 £19,790,000 -£15,920,000



Source: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/league-one/transfers/wettbewerb/GB3
 
Lads, can we get a little perspective here? Since we drew yesterday I people have been complaining that we aren't good enough for the money we have spent on almost every thread. The thing is, you're only telling half the story. We spent nearly £4M because we sold nearly £20M, which is over £16M worth of 'talent' leaving the club more than the next closest team.

I understand that you're disappointed, we all are. but please stop using the money we have spent as a stick to beat the club with.

Team - Money Out - Money In - Net Spend

Portsmouth £149,000 £0 £149,000
Burton £0 £0 £0
Shrewsbury £0 £0 £0
Plymouth £0 £0 £0
Southend £0 £0 £0
Blackpool £0 £0 £0
Fleetwood £0 £0 £0
Doncaster £0 £0 £0
Oxford £0 £0 £0
Gillingham £0 £0 £0
Wimbledon £0 £0 £0
Walsall £0 £0 £0
Luton £0 £0 £0
wycombe £0 £0 £0
Rochdale £0 £149,000 -£149,000
Charlton £0 £430,000 -£430,000
Bradford £0 £608,000 -£608,000
Bristol £0 £756,000 -£756,000
Barnsley £594,000 £1,670,000 -£1,076,000
Coventry £0 £1,220,000 -£1,220,000
Scunthorpe £0 £1,460,000 -£1,460,000
Accrington £0 £1,620,000 -£1,620,000
Peterborough £648,000 £3,330,000 -£2,682,000
Sunderland £3,870,000 £19,790,000 -£15,920,000



Source: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/league-one/transfers/wettbewerb/GB3
What a silly argument. We can't beat half the teams in League 1 because we used to have Fabio Borini and Didier Ndong? OK.
 

blackcat1983

Goalkeeper
I hate this net spend argument.

It doesn’t matter how much we made from player sales, we have still bought players to the value of £4m.
The issue is a bit confusing for some people as it's not straight forward. You can't just look at the figures and expect it to tell a story.

Basically, what lies behind those net spend figures is the fact that we've had to make a massive clear out to clear our wage bill, and therefore needed to bring in more players than almost all clubs in this league, that's why our spending is higher. Most other clubs retained almost all of their squad which has been built up slowly over a number of years, and therefore didn't need to acquire half a squad like us! However, if they had lost half their squad, they would also have had to reinvest some of the Salesian order to acquire.

We were in a different position to every other team in this league in that we had players on premier league wages as we dropped into this division. That was-and still is- a challenge that no other club in this division has to face. We're still in a bad position with the likes of Cattermole and Oviedo on high salaries, but these are problems that were inherited from the previous regime. It's something that we have to make right as and when we can. These players are most likely taking up a massive percentage our our wage budget and the club has done a great job getting the number of players in that it has, on sustainable and sensible wages, whilst still handicapped by these high earners.

To put things into perspective. We could retain all players at the end of this season, sell none. Have a net spend of £0. Yet it would be exactly the same squad as we have now. What would we moan about then? It's an irrelevant statistic unless it's discussed in context.
 

KittenMittens

Central Defender
The perspective we need is that we've spent 6x as much as anyone else in the division. The fact that only 4 teams had the luxury to spend money on transfer fees at all tells it's own story.

Not only have we brought in higher priced players than anyone else, but we've also signed the best free agents for the division (theoretically) too. We have blown everyone out of the water in terms of transfer spend, and while I think there's always going to be teams that organically grow together after a couple of years in this division, we should be comfortably in an automatic promotion place at worst by now. 18 draws. EIGHTEEN. The only team with more in the top four divisions are Stoke with 20, languishing in 16th in the Championship.

We are playing like Stoke, despite having the theoretical resources of a Man City/Man Utd for our division. The inability to finish teams off or hang on to a lead, or put pressure on other teams until we're absolutely desperate, is pretty poor.
 

blackcat1983

Goalkeeper
What a silly argument. We can't beat half the teams in League 1 because we used to have Fabio Borini and Didier Ndong? OK.
It's not a silly argument at all. It's completely sensible argument. In fact it's blatantly obvious.

Lets pretend we had a team of cars instead of players. If I have a team of 11 2018 top spec Aston Martins, and my mate has ten 2018 top spec Mercedes cars. At the end of the year,I can't afford all my cars, so I sell 9 Aston Martins, for £19.79M to relieve some of the debts I'd accrued and replace with 9 much cheaper 2015 Skoda's spending £3,870,00. My mate doesn't spend anything because he already has all his cars. Does this mean that MY squad squad of cars is better than his because I spent £3,870,000 and he spent nothing?

It's completely irrelevant.
 
It's not a silly argument at all. It's completely sensible argument. In fact it's blatantly obvious.

Lets pretend we had a team of cars instead of players. If I have a team of 11 2018 top spec Aston Martins, and my mate has ten 2018 top spec Mercedes cars. At the end of the year,I can't afford all my cars, so I sell 9 Aston Martins, for £19.79M to relieve some of the debts I'd accrued and replace with 9 much cheaper 2015 Skoda's spending £3,870,00. My mate doesn't spend anything because he already has all his cars. Does this mean that MY squad squad of cars is better than his because I spent £3,870,000 and he spent nothing?

It's completely irrelevant.
Your mate only had a squad of Hyundais to begin with though.

Us losing what little talent we had in the Championship (and there's quite a few £££'s worth that we didn't actually have than), doesn't make us any less talented those that were below us.
 
Last edited:

Top