ruthers1 0 Posted September 2, 2015 Here''s the table of net summer spending by club:City 101.3United 43.4Newcastle 42Chelsea 38.1Watford 31.6West Ham 29.6West Brom 24.8Bournemouth 23Liverpool 22.7Leicester 20.4Palace 18.5Everton 15.1Sunderland 14Spurs 12.3Arsenal 10.7Villa 9.9Swansea 9.6Norwich 3.9Stoke 3.3Southampton 3.2We''re nearly £20m behind Bournemouth and £27m behind Watford. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steelsilver 0 Posted September 2, 2015 southampton at least spent 11m+ on a top defender..other then that they had no need to spend, niether did stoke, we did need to spend..we never..for that we will go down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruthers1 0 Posted September 2, 2015 Meant to add average net spend = £23.75m per club Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted September 2, 2015 We''re certainly playing with fire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crafty Canary 490 Posted September 2, 2015 It''s not really about how much we spent net but rather about perceived weaknesses not supported. Had we acquired the Danish centre back for £3 million say, we would still have spent modestly overall however most fans would feel it had been a successful window in spite of the shambolic manner of its progress. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lharman7 39 Posted September 2, 2015 Strange, i just read a sky sports report stating that we spent 10 mill.Brady in 7 mill, Johnson out 6 mill.Surely between the undisclosed fee for Dorrans and the loan fees for Mbokani and Jarvis wouldn''t add up to 9 million?Am i missing something? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HertsCanary93 222 Posted September 2, 2015 The sky thing was just spending, it didn''t take into account money received from selling.I also assume that in both the ''net spend'' and the ''total spend'' stats, sky omitted the loan fees. £7m for Brady & £3m for Dorrans sounds about right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary Wundaboy 1,349 Posted September 2, 2015 We''re going to be in deep trouble this season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ali Dia 0 Posted September 2, 2015 [quote user="Steelsilver"]southampton at least spent 11m+ on a top defender..other then that they had no need to spend[/quote]That is nonsense. The needed to replace Alderweireld, Clyne, Schneiderlin and cover for long term injuries to Gardos and Forster.This summer they spent...£13m Virgil van Dijk£8m Jordy Clasie£5m Oriol Romeu£5m Juanmi£4.7m Cedric Soares£1.5m Cuco Martina£1.3m loan fee for Steven Caulker£1m loan fee for Maarten StekelenburgTotal Spent = £39.5mBecause of the large fees received for Schndeirlin and Clyne this summer the net fee Sky and other media show for Saints is the smallest in the league. But so what? If you buy and sell well leading have a small net spend then that is a sustainable football club. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkbroadslim 223 Posted September 2, 2015 Not sure how true it is, but someone on Twitter reckons we had the lowest spend out of all the teams in the top 6 leagues in Europe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Martin Bryant 0 Posted September 2, 2015 when norwich spent near 25million(?) they got relegated. im all for bringing in good players but trust the professionals they probably dont want to pay inflated prices for players and we have a decent enough squad anyway :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,703 Posted September 2, 2015 [quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Not sure how true it is, but someone on Twitter reckons we had the lowest spend out of all the teams in the top 6 leagues in Europe.[/quote]I think the chances of that being true are considerably less than zero. In fact, given some of the budgets at the lower end of the leagues in France, Spain and in particular Portugal, I''d say we are about mid-table.Also, if these figures are accurate, Tony Scholes at Stoke deserved a medal. But I don''t think Stoke recouped anywhere near enough to end up with a net spend that low- did they? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chicken 0 Posted September 3, 2015 "We''re nearly £20m behind Bournemouth and £27m behind Watford."That''s probably because Bournemouth haven''t sold anyone worth anything and paid £8million for a left back who''s probably worth more like £3-4 at best.Not to mention Watford have signed an entire new squad. Although many of them from other clubs owned by the same people.As said many times before - we have not needed a drastic overhaul of our squad. Despite that we have signed Mulumbu, Brady, Dorrans and Mbokani who are either already starters or will potentially be along with Jarvis, Wisdom and Kean who add strength and competition to areas that needed it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ellis206 0 Posted September 5, 2015 Quite frankly people who look at net spends are morons, especially in todays market when players are being sold for ridiculous amounts. And we definitely were not the lowest spenders in the who of European top flight leagues, we weren''t even the lowest spenders in the our league!! It was a good transfer window for us, bar signing once defender. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shyster 0 Posted September 5, 2015 [quote user="Martin Bryant"]when norwich spent near 25million(?) they got relegated. im all for bringing in good players but trust the professionals they probably dont want to pay inflated prices for players and we have a decent enough squad anyway :)[/quote]No, the squad is weak defensively and that will cost us the millions we''ve failed to spend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,598 Posted September 5, 2015 This whole thing is pretty-much a load of crap and means little - there''s no gauge on ''quality''over quantity'' - for instance Watford bought anything on 2 legs, no one knows how that will pan out. Also, we haven''t spent loads, but Bournemouth spent c£15m on two players they can''t use until the new year at best (Gradel and Mings). Others spent because they had to fill gaps where players left/were poached. We do also have Mbokani (value £6m+) signed on loan so presumably doesn''t count. These sorts of figures really don''t mean a lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fuzzar 1,701 Posted September 5, 2015 This whole thread should be left to the binner who started it and his crumby binner mates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cantiaci Canary 556 Posted September 5, 2015 I wonder if Kiev had played hard ball and we had ended up paying £10m for Mbokani the mood music around here would be a lot different.Brady, Dorrans and Mulumbu are great additions for us and many posters claimed a desire for Mbokani.Yes, a CB is needed but perhaps we can hold the fort until January? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 6, 2015 Didn''t Bournemouth spend 15 mil + wages on Mongs and Gradel? Well, that worked out great for them... transfer fees dont''t equal success Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted September 7, 2015 [quote user="ellis206"]Quite frankly people who look at net spends are morons, especially in todays market when players are being sold for ridiculous amounts. And we definitely were not the lowest spenders in the who of European top flight leagues, we weren''t even the lowest spenders in the our league!! It was a good transfer window for us, bar signing once defender. [/quote]Spot on. Some people think it works just like it does on FIFA. We could have done with another CB but despite that, it was a decent window. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
93vintage 16 Posted September 7, 2015 I quite like the fact that we haven''t gone gangbusters in a crazy hyped up market. But we''re a little bit light and will face pressure to spend in the future to replace an aging defence.At the outset we should have got a couple of cheap younger players from the lower leagues (or abroad), if only to replace Miquel and help prevent the situation we''re now in from recurring.We''ve not bought any young prospects like Adams did, so investing for the future has been postponed for another year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites