The 'ammers

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

More than we spent if that’s the question you were really asking!

It wasn't!! I wanted you to give a figure. 

[Midlands Yellow 3,985]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Cardiff went the middle way last season - they spent £32 million having been promoted to the Premier League (not including anything they may pay in the tragic case of Emiliano Sala).

They were promptly relegated and now sit 12th in the Championship. 

That is true but we were so much better than them in getting promoted. I wonder what Farke would have got for £32 M in the summer.

[Aggy 755]

8 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

It wasn't!! I wanted you to give a figure. 

It’s hard to say nowadays as you’ve got agents fees, staggered payments etc. And someone (edit: you Thirsty!) made a very fair point above about Cardiff last year - spent “middle ground” money and have ended up effectively in the worst of both worlds - not staying up and now with some players they probably wish they hadn’t got taking up bigger money than they can afford.

I think most teams who come up probably need at least three “quality” signings. And I think they’ll probably cost you (headline transfer fee only) maybe 5-10mil each at least. So 20-25 mil. Possibly less if you buy well. Obviously that amount isn’t going to get you Messi, but if you buy well you can probably bring in three players who will improve your first team enough to give you a proper fighting chance.

Edit 2: the “decent” (and I was paraphrasing) figure to which Brady might have been referring though I do not know.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Aggy

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

8 hours ago, Aggy said:

It’s hard to say nowadays as you’ve got agents fees, staggered payments etc. And someone (edit: you Thirsty!) made a very fair point above about Cardiff last year - spent “middle ground” money and have ended up effectively in the worst of both worlds - not staying up and now with some players they probably wish they hadn’t got taking up bigger money than they can afford.

I think most teams who come up probably need at least three “quality” signings. And I think they’ll probably cost you (headline transfer fee only) maybe 5-10mil each at least. So 20-25 mil. Possibly less if you buy well. Obviously that amount isn’t going to get you Messi, but if you buy well you can probably bring in three players who will improve your first team enough to give you a proper fighting chance.

Edit 2: the “decent” (and I was paraphrasing) figure to which Brady might have been referring though I do not know.

Aggy, I couldn't put a number on what we should have spent, but for us the limiting factor is wages as much as or more than the transfer fees. A crude example, but three £10m players cost more than one £30m player.

[Aggy 755]

54 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Aggy, I couldn't put a number on what we should have spent, but for us the limiting factor is wages as much as or more than the transfer fees. A crude example, but three £10m players cost more than one £30m player.

I don’t disagree and my post above begins by saying it’s very difficult to put a figure on what “decent money” is, because it’s not just the headline transfer fee that needs to be taken into account.

My point is merely that most clubs will need at least three improvements to their first team when they come up. As Midland suggests above, those with a weaker squad when they come up might need more. But I think if you’ve got a decent squad and then bring in three players with first team prem standard quality, you give yourself a good chance of staying up. You might get them cheaper, but a player who will improve a premier league first xi nowadays is likely to demand a headline transfer fee of 5-10 mil at least.