B'mouth, Villa, Watford, West Ham.....

[Bill 1,788]

I wonder what their excuse is ?

Didn't spend enough money ?

Not have a rich 'hinvestor ?

I am not sure what our wage bill is, but any loss of income of around £60m will hit any of them hard.

A comment from Henri Lansbury should make it a bit clearer, though not to the usual 'whiners' I suspect

"“The whole club is run in such a way that they can take relegation. They look after the football club. So to go down is not as severe or as risky for them as with others who plough in money and put themselves in financial difficulties in a bid to stay up.”"

So maybe those habitual whiners would care to tell us how we should now make up that £60m shortfall - when the wage level would have been far higher had the numpties had their way

 

ps we can't sell players as that shows a lack of 'hambition'

 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Bill

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

I think you'll find that Watford spend very conservatively with their biggest fee being £8m this season, and £11.5m last season.

They made a substantial profit on transfers last season after selling Richarlison for £40m.

Their net spend in the past 5 years is negligible.

[Bill 1,788]

13 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I think you'll find that Watford spend very conservatively with their biggest fee being £8m this season, and £11.5m last season.

They made a substantial profit on transfers last season after selling Richarlison for £40m.

Their net spend in the past 5 years is negligible.

or,

Watford – £125.69m

West Ham – £187.49m

Bournemouth – £176.95m

Aston Villa – £166.65m

https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/the-20-premier-league-clubs-ranked-by-net-spend-over-last-five-years/

 

[Terminally Yellow 2,330]

32 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I think you'll find that Watford spend very conservatively with their biggest fee being £8m this season, and £11.5m last season.

They made a substantial profit on transfers last season after selling Richarlison for £40m.

Their net spend in the past 5 years is negligible.

They spent c.£30m on Ismail Sarr.  

https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/17825048.watford-announced-signing-ismaila-sarr-rennes/

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,413]

TVB is on the right lines, but the timescale is a little bit out. Watford's net spend over the last two seasons is negligible (almost zero) thanks to the sale of Richarlison, but their net spend over the last five years is over £120m, thanks to a big spend 2015-2018.

[Bill 1,788]

The point here is not so much what has been spent, though it does show that alone is not always a guarantee of remaining in the PL

but the effect on most clubs once they are relegated..... fcked

So the question remains, what is the worth of  few seasons in the PL if it means  ending up like so many. Half empty stadiums with little prospect of returning to the PL.

Now, I am not saying that it is an absolute ie either one or the other

But we need to recognise that for us to stay in the PL we need to be operating a different system to those. And that takes time.

[Mason 47 1,161]

Watford also have the benefit of the asset-swapping that their owners do in their little gang of clubs.

Ultimately the odds of us finishing in the bottom 3 this year were objectively high. We chose to see if a kooky, different way could see us through and unfortunately nothing went quite right and it fell down- and I do believe that we'll go into the new season in the Championship stronger for the trials of this year.

[Mr Angry 1,369]

13 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

Watford also have the benefit of the asset-swapping that their owners do in their little gang of clubs.

They’ve only got 2.

[Mason 47 1,161]

3 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

They’ve only got 2.

My mistake, I thought they had more.

I'm not saying Watford necessarily owe their current status to the owners, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say their lower average spend isn't due in part to their networking.

[Bill 1,788]

16 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

Watford also have the benefit of the asset-swapping that their owners do in their little gang of clubs.

Ultimately the odds of us finishing in the bottom 3 this year were objectively high. We chose to see if a kooky, different way could see us through and unfortunately nothing went quite right and it fell down- and I do believe that we'll go into the new season in the Championship stronger for the trials of this year.

No.

We knew that a drop in income of £60m  would be difficult to manage back in the Championship, so the idea of not making a shortfall far bigger bys spending money we didn't have was not 'kooky'. merely good business sense.

This way we survive to fight another day - reckless spending would see us join Stoke, Swansea, Hull, Boro, H'field and so may other washed up clubs struggling to keep the head above the water after spending beyond their means

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Mason 47 said:

My mistake, I thought they had more.

I'm not saying Watford necessarily owe their current status to the owners, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say their lower average spend isn't due in part to their networking.

spend includes wages

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

or,

Watford – £125.69m

West Ham – £187.49m

Bournemouth – £176.95m

Aston Villa – £166.65m

https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/the-20-premier-league-clubs-ranked-by-net-spend-over-last-five-years/

 

Assuming that's true, £25m a year net spend on transfers isn't huge when top flight football is worth £100m+ extra revenue per year. 

Relative to income, they aren't huge spenders.

I repeat what I said, Watford aren't particularly big spenders. And that's exactly what I thought we'd spend, something like £25m.

[Bill 1,788]

that rather still misses the point, which is what happens to that club when the £100m income drops to £40m

As there seems to be an assumption that everything is balanced up at the end of the season - it is not, it is far from it as these figures show

Calculations from the season end 18/189 have three of those clubs having outstanding transfer payments as in total

B'mouth £76m

West Ham £70m

Watford £50m

and it should be noted that these are net figures - what is still owed, after what is owed to them, has been taken off

So perhaps someone could explain to me how this kind of debt is to be met in the Championship

and maybe some of the whining numpties could further explain why it would be ok for us to be in this position
 

https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-much-each-premier-league-club-owes-in-remaining-transfer-fees/

[Mason 47 1,161]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

No.

We knew that a drop in income of £60m  would be difficult to manage back in the Championship, so the idea of not making a shortfall far bigger bys spending money we didn't have was not 'kooky'. merely good business sense.

This way we survive to fight another day - reckless spending would see us join Stoke, Swansea, Hull, Boro, H'field and so may other washed up clubs struggling to keep the head above the water after spending beyond their means

Perhaps I should have put that part in inverted commas, I was essentially agreeing with you. We could easily have spent upwards of £100m and had no more of a guarantee of staying up than what we did, it is 'kooky and different' when compared to the norm and particularly the more recent trends of selling the family silver for a raffle ticket.

[South Sider 114]

7 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I think you'll find that Watford spend very conservatively with their biggest fee being £8m this season, and £11.5m last season.

Haha what?

You're just making stuff up again.

[Indy 3,017]

I don’t think we’re too far away from salary caps and squad limitations in all divisions.

Totally agree with Bill, it’s all too easy to say spend money, the other considerations are......do our primary big money players want a move to a small yo-yo club, if we’re to entice them inevitably we’ll have to pay more in wages to attract them. Will they accept relegation clauses, will we be able to off load them if we needed to! 
I really like what Webber and Farke have done in bringing in key younger players to cover those who will probably depart, meaning they are already part of our youth and coaching system and will know what’s expected. 
 

Sinani, Sitti, McCallum, Mumba (when complete) to mention a few this year, but add to those from summer and previous seasons we have a sound young base.

And before those go bleating about only having potential, just look at a Idah v Duda, Duda value was said at about 20 million, but Idah has more quality in his performances.....you can’t buy motivation, but you can lead young players to be motivated by showing them what it’s all about, how far they can go if the focus on continuing improvement by self motivation to prove themselves.

I’m far more excited about next season waiting to see our own youngsters succeed than spending millions on the likes of Duda, Drmic, RVW or Naismith.

[Dr Greenthumb 721]

9 hours ago, Bill said:

I wonder what their excuse is ?

Didn't spend enough money ?

Not have a rich 'hinvestor ?

I am not sure what our wage bill is, but any loss of income of around £60m will hit any of them hard.

A comment from Henri Lansbury should make it a bit clearer, though not to the usual 'whiners' I suspect

"“The whole club is run in such a way that they can take relegation. They look after the football club. So to go down is not as severe or as risky for them as with others who plough in money and put themselves in financial difficulties in a bid to stay up.”"

So maybe those habitual whiners would care to tell us how we should now make up that £60m shortfall - when the wage level would have been far higher had the numpties had their way

 

ps we can't sell players as that shows a lack of 'hambition'

 

How many clubs inthe premiership are “self funded” and how many get relegated? They can’t all challenge for the title!

[Making Plans 873]

Fact is though, there will be 17 Clubs staying up who spent more than us.

[Indy 3,017]

39 minutes ago, Making Plans said:

Fact is though, there will be 17 Clubs staying up who spent more than us.

You can’t spend what you don’t have, we had debt to pay! I’m always lost on spending shed load, surely it’s about assembling a team capable of promotion and then staying there within our means?

If fans are that fed up with it, then don’t pay for season tickets or start a new movement to force the owners out! Accept or protest.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, South Sider said:

Haha what?

You're just making stuff up again.

£125m net spend over 5 years in the Premier League is a lot then is it? 

What a turnip you are. 

[All the Germans 1,057]

13 minutes ago, Indy said:

You can’t spend what you don’t have, we had debt to pay! I’m always lost on spending shed load

What I don't understand is in 'normal' life, when companies or individuals spend beyond their means, take on debt that they cannot service and end up in difficulty, it is derided and looked down upon, however, when it comes to football, it's what we should be doing? 

[South Sider 114]

18 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

£125m net spend over 5 years in the Premier League is a lot then is it? 

What a turnip you are. 

What??

Either you replied to the wrong person or you're making stuff up. Again.

Where did I mention anything about net spend? This was about you making up 'facts' to support your oddly conceived point.

[Uncle Fred 526]

I fear for Villa if the go down , at least they will fall foul of the fair play rules

[Herman 8,977]

37 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

£125m net spend over 5 years in the Premier League is a lot then is it? 

What a turnip you are. 

Does this include wages or just transfer fees?

For example they could have got a player for a pound but he wanted a million a week to get him through the door.

[Herman 8,977]

15 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

I fear for Villa if the go down , at least they will fall foul of the fair play rules

Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, Making Plans said:

Fact is though, there will be 17 Clubs staying up who spent more than us.

A totally meaningless comment that misses the point.

That being what happens to those that don't stay up

With a couple or so notable exceptions, those that come down do not remain as challengers to go back up, but collapse, then stagnate a few places above the Championship relegation battle

Or not, as with Portsmouth, Sunderland, Bolton

So where is the benefit of risking it all to stay a few (extra) seasons in the PL. As all those millions simply disappear into the pockets of players and agents.

If clubs came down with something tangible based on their longevity in the PL, and were in roughly the same financial position (or better) than when they went up, then fine.  But the evidence is clear that time spend in the PL means the consequent wrecking of the club when relegation inevitable happrs.

We will have avoided that destruction by taking realistic and safety first approach. In the meantime we continue to develop players at a relatively affordable cost......................... something I suspect fans of Stoke, H'field. Boro and Hull must be wishing their clubs had done

,

Edited July 5, 2020 by Bill

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

24 minutes ago, South Sider said:

What??

Either you replied to the wrong person or you're making stuff up. Again.

Where did I mention anything about net spend? This was about you making up 'facts' to support your oddly conceived point.

What's the source of your constant anger South Sider? 

Did your ex wife take everything in the divorce? Or have you never found a girl willing to put up with your micropenis? 

[Bill 1,788]

6 minutes ago, Herman said:

Does this include wages or just transfer fees?

For example they could have got a player for a pound but he wanted a million a week to get him through the door.

That is the net transfer fee

 What they have spent minus what they have received

[NFN FC 1,041]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

That is the net transfer fee

 What they have spent minus what they have received

Jeez! How much are nets these days? 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

10 minutes ago, Herman said:

Does this include wages or just transfer fees?

For example they could have got a player for a pound but he wanted a million a week to get him through the door.

That's the difference between what they gave received in transfer fees and what they have outlayed in transfer fees.