total net spend of all Premier League clubs this window

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

5 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Ok I'm being gormless here but what is it exactly net of? How can we be £6m in profit after all our purchases/loans, and only sold Buendia?

We can't, that's why these figures are utter nonsense 

[wcorkcanary 4,342]

5 hours ago, spencer 1970 said:

I'd have agred with you HSS but I saw this after they bought Lukaku >>>

Now that's what you don't call a fire sale.!!

[wcorkcanary 4,342]

5 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Aaahhh bless you - you're trying SOOOOOOOOOOOO  hard. 

And he's  still rubbish at it.

[PurpleCanary 5,585]

5 hours ago, spencer 1970 said:

I'd have agred with you HSS but I saw this after they bought Lukaku >>>

Far from Chelsea getting Lukaku for free they have sold 12 players to buy one. We sold one to buy 11.

[Branston Pickle 3,690]

2 hours ago, Canaries north said:

Any pay out to players leaving will not be counted. Giannoulis and Gibson will be out of last year's budget as that was when the contracts were signed. As for this year's loans with an obligation to buy, they will only count if we meet the obligation. 

Well, actually no - you can’t have it both ways: as far as I’m aware we weren’t obliged to sign either Gibson or Giannoulis permanently when we signed them…so they’d not have appeared in the chart last season or, by your logic, this one either.   Either you show the cost at the point it’s a potential commitment - ie include Kabak and Normann in this year’s spend at c£24m, or at the point it’s due - which for Gibson and Giannoulis at c£15m, was when the summer transfer window opened.   You can’t just exclude them because it suits - both sets of costs shouldn’t be included for the same consistency, but one of them has to be.

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Branston Pickle

[Badger 2,412]

2 hours ago, Canaries north said:

Giannoulis and Gibson will be out of last year's budget as that was when the contracts were signed. As for this year's loans with an obligation to buy, they will only count if we meet the obligation. 

You have to be consistent though - if this year's loans only count when we meet the obligation (which I agree with), surely the same must apply to Giannoulis and Gibson. 

The money was (largely - there would have been a loan fee ) spent this summer so must count.

[Canaries north 151]

15 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well, actually no - you can’t have it both ways: as far as I’m aware we weren’t obliged to sign either Gibson or Giannoulis permanently when we signed them…so they’d not have appeared in the chart last season or, by your logic, this one either.   Either you show the cost at the point it’s a potential commitment - ie include Kabak and Normann in this year’s spend at c£24m, or at the point it’s due - which for Gibson and Giannoulis at c£15m, was when the summer transfer window opened.   You can’t just exclude them because it suits - both sets of costs shouldn’t be included for the same consistency, but one of them has to be.

 

As far as I see it if promoted we had to sign them. In that case it is looked at as signed when the deal was done. If we stay up the new boys will be signed and the expenditure will be put down to this year but not until it happens. That is the way I read it. Nothing to do with wanting it both ways. 

[Canaries north 151]

Just now, Badger said:

You have to be consistent though - if this year's loans only count when we meet the obligation (which I agree with), surely the same must apply to Giannoulis and Gibson. 

The money was (largely - there would have been a loan fee ) spent this summer so must count.

Loan fees I agree 100%. Actual signing of players goes back to the contract signing date. In all honesty do I really care. No. 

[Branston Pickle 3,690]

6 minutes ago, Canaries north said:

As far as I see it if promoted we had to sign them. In that case it is looked at as signed when the deal was done. If we stay up the new boys will be signed and the expenditure will be put down to this year but not until it happens. That is the way I read it. Nothing to do with wanting it both ways. 

So you can’t see the problem here - the way you’re saying it, loan-to-buy transfers would never appear in a transfer fee paid chart.  That makes no sense, you could buy £50m worth of players that ‘didn’t happen’.  As an accountant I kind-of think that is wholly illogical.  

Edited September 1, 2021 by Branston Pickle

[Canaries north 151]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

So you can’t see the problem here - the way you’re saying it, loan-to-buy transfers would never appear in a transfer fee paid chart.  That makes no sense.

I agree it makes no sense but only because we rarely look back at last season's spend after the season has finished. Gibson was put down last season as a loan signing but should now appear as a signing. Loan fees I feel differently. We could have signed Ronaldo on loan for the season with a £20 million loan fee but it wouldn't count as we haven't signed him. Odd. 

[Badger 2,412]

Mystery solved!

They have updated the graphic (see below) - basically it is total b0ll0x as they have excluded undisclosed fees. I checked twitter and they have updated the graphic - if you look they have added excludes undisclosed fees at the bottom - it was not on the original - see OP. Obviously some of our fees were undisclosed (and others, I guess, like Palace).

My guess is that somebody has complained - hence the update - if you look they have changed other figures too. For example, on this version Palace's net spend is £28.5 million but it was only £10 million on the version this morning.

Basically a whole load of analysis rendered largely meaningless because of a dodgy system of data collection!

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12383696/how-much-did-your-club-spend

Edited September 1, 2021 by Badger
Added sentence to 2nd para

[Branston Pickle 3,690]

It’s just not fit for purpose.  And irrelevant - Messi, still one of the best footballers in the world, on a salary of £100m or whatever, wouldn’t appear on here as he was “free”.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Far from Chelsea getting Lukaku for free they have sold 12 players to buy one. We sold one to buy 11.

And - in context - both strategies make sense. 

Parma

[Essjayess 307]

5 hours ago, Badger said:

Mystery solved!

They have updated the graphic (see below) - basically it is total b0ll0x as they have excluded undisclosed fees. I checked twitter and they have updated the graphic - if you look they have added excludes undisclosed fees at the bottom - it was not on the original - see OP. Obviously some of our fees were undisclosed (and others, I guess, like Palace).

My guess is that somebody has complained - hence the update - if you look they have changed other figures too. For example, on this version Palace's net spend is £28.5 million but it was only £10 million on the version this morning.

Basically a whole load of analysis rendered largely meaningless because of a dodgy system of data collection!

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12383696/how-much-did-your-club-spend

Yep the Sky graphs are total rubbish...the graph table for Norwich transfer fees for each individual player have  big glaring omissions, ones like Angus Gunn for example have no fee info at all...feels like we got him for nothing.

[kirku 1,339]

19 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't know how this works but I assume some of the contact cancellations we have done include a pay-out to the departing player?

Absolutely - we've negotiated an early exit for the contract.

We can assume that the figure is less than their wages over the period, but it's anyone's guess as to what extent.

[Diane 500]

So for those of us who don't understand accounts as well as others,  if we don't buy or sell any more players this season, how much have we spend in this financial year so far including players fees, loans fees, mutually cancelling contracts and wages and what have we clawed back in sales and wages from departing players. I know we lost 30m due to covid so assume Emi's cash covers that? 

 

 

 

[Greavsy 2,430]

3 hours ago, Diane said:

I know we lost 30m due to covid so assume Emi's cash covers that? 

I thought Godfreys money was to cover the covid shortfall. 

[Canaries north 151]

4 hours ago, Diane said:

So for those of us who don't understand accounts as well as others,  if we don't buy or sell any more players this season, how much have we spend in this financial year so far including players fees, loans fees, mutually cancelling contracts and wages and what have we clawed back in sales and wages from departing players. I know we lost 30m due to covid so assume Emi's cash covers that? 

 

 

 

I don't think we will know until the accounts come out. It's all guess work. Only the board will know for sure. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,183]

50 minutes ago, Canaries north said:

I don't think we will know until the accounts come out. It's all guess work. Only the board will know for sure. 

I would be very surprised if our total wage bill isn't over £100 million. 

[shefcanary 2,465]

4 hours ago, Diane said:

So for those of us who don't understand accounts as well as others,  if we don't buy or sell any more players this season, how much have we spend in this financial year so far including players fees, loans fees, mutually cancelling contracts and wages and what have we clawed back in sales and wages from departing players. I know we lost 30m due to covid so assume Emi's cash covers that? 

 

 

 

Depends on whether we stay up or not.  If you go by the pundits, there is a remote (very?) possibility of us staying up so the fees payable on Normann & Kabak will never fall due and thus will not be recorded in the accounts.  Stay up and they will.  As it stands who can say? 🤷‍♂️

[Badger 2,412]

6 hours ago, Diane said:

So for those of us who don't understand accounts as well as others,  if we don't buy or sell any more players this season, how much have we spend in this financial year so far including players fees, loans fees, mutually cancelling contracts and wages and what have we clawed back in sales and wages from departing players. I know we lost 30m due to covid so assume Emi's cash covers that? 

 

 

 

We won't know until the accounts are published. We only know about last year, most of the discussion about this year is conjecture, some reasonable and some not and based upon media reports of questionable reliability.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Badger

[Badger 2,412]

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I thought Godfreys money was to cover the covid shortfall. 

Covid has affected two seasons, not just one! Because of it, revenues were reduced in 19/20 and in 20/21. 

Hopefully, this year we will see a return to normalcy.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Badger
Corrected mistake

[Move Klose 303]

On 01/09/2021 at 18:04, PurpleCanary said:

Far from Chelsea getting Lukaku for free they have sold 12 players to buy one. We sold one to buy 11.

And they were still left with players they wanted to move on:

Sarr (who saw a loan move to Furth fall through), Baker (who is now 26 and has had 8 previous loan spells) Loftus-Cheek & Barkley.

Its all well and good stock piling players and continually loaning them out but when they want to move them on permanently  they can't because players like Barkley and Loftus-Cheek are earning over £100k a week. This narrows down the clubs that can afford them. Especially when they are both coming off the back of poor loan spells.

Wasn't that long ago RLC was starting games in a world Cup for England. Well down that pecking order now.

[AJ 1,230]

2 hours ago, Move Klose said:

And they were still left with players they wanted to move on:

Sarr (who saw a loan move to Furth fall through), Baker (who is now 26 and has had 8 previous loan spells) Loftus-Cheek & Barkley.

Its all well and good stock piling players and continually loaning them out but when they want to move them on permanently  they can't because players like Barkley and Loftus-Cheek are earning over £100k a week. This narrows down the clubs that can afford them. Especially when they are both coming off the back of poor loan spells.

Wasn't that long ago RLC was starting games in a world Cup for England. Well down that pecking order now.

Sadly the pitfalls of heading to a big club too early and why I'm glad Aaron's is happy to bide his time. There's no point going to Barca or Chelsea to get loaned out and eventually sold 5/6 years later having wasted half of your career.

 

I'm always in awe of Chelsea's record of letting talented youngsters go, Salah, Lukaku being two big ones that spring immediately to mind. Hilarious really when you're signing them back for top dollar a few years later...

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

On 01/09/2021 at 10:09, Baracouda said:

Still you would think we would be in the red. Even if Gibson + Dimi are taken from last season for these figures. 4 Loans.Who have we sold past Emi. Lees Melou + Gunn + Rashica + Sargent + Tzolis > Emi fee. 

Wasn't Gunn only £2.5m, and Lees Melou a few million? 

That actually works out fine.

£37m minus the £6m surplus is £31m.

Take away £6m for Gunn and Melou is £25m.

Divide £25m by three and that's an average of £8.3m each for Rashica, Sargent and Tzolis

[PurpleCanary 5,585]

23 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Wasn't Gunn only £2.5m, and Lees Melou a few million? 

That actually works out fine.

£37m minus the £6m surplus is £31m.

Take away £6m for Gunn and Melou is £25m.

Divide £25m by three and that's an average of £8.3m each for Rashica, Sargent and Tzolis

Gunn was £5m basic plus add-ons. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

Gunn was £5m basic plus add-ons. 

Initial Fee of £2.5m I thought? 

But the add-ons guarenteed up to £5m. So I mean, yes that does make it a £5m basic fee, just paid in installments, but perhaps the source in the OP is being a bit creative and just using the initial fee. 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,585]

5 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Initial Fee of £2.5m I thought? 

But the add-ons guarenteed up to £5m. So I mean, yes that does make it a £5m basic fee, just paid in installments, but perhaps the source in the OP is being a bit creative and just using the initial fee. 

 

The basic fee is £5m. That may well be paid in installments, but then most transfers are paid that way. On top of the basic £5m there may be add-ons. The EDP’s helpful list of all the summer transfers, in and out, is clear on this.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

The basic fee is £5m. That may well be paid in installments, but then most transfers are paid that way. On top of the basic £5m there may be add-ons. The EDP’s helpful list of all the summer transfers, in and out, is clear on this.

That is what I said, that yes it is a £5m basic fee and just paid in installments.

But that as everywhere the reported that it was a £2.5m initial fee, Sky Sports may be erroneously counting it as £2.5m rather than £5m.

Why are you splitting hairs? There is no disagreement. 

As it happens the Pink'un have contributed to this confusion, on June 23rd they claim it is an initial £5m, on June 26th they claim that it is £2.5m but "could" rise to £5m. Then on 1st September they publish the list you refer to where the fee is given as £5m that could rise to £10m. 

So I don't think Archant publications have been "clear on this" at all, actually feels very much like they don't have a clue.  Meanwhile Southamptons local paper wants to throw out £5.5m and £7m as fees. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

The basic fee is £5m. That may well be paid in installments, but then most transfers are paid that way. On top of the basic £5m there may be add-ons. The EDP’s helpful list of all the summer transfers, in and out, is clear on this.

That is what I said, that yes it is a £5m basic fee and just paid in installments.

But that as everywhere the reported that it was a £2.5m initial fee, Sky Sports may be erroneously counting it as £2.5m rather than £5m.

Why are you splitting hairs? There is no disagreement. 

As it happens the Pink'un have contributed to this confusion, on June 23rd they claim it is an initial £5m, on June 26th they claim that it is £2.5m but "could" rise to £5m. Then on 1st September they publish the list you refer to where the fee is given as £5m that could rise to £10m. 

So I don't think Archant publications have been "clear on this" at all, actually feels very much like they don't have a clue.  Meanwhile Southamptons local paper wants to throw out £5.5m and £7m as fees.