Transfer league | Vital Football

Transfer league

R

Rexn

Vital Champions League
They have been pretty quick in updating:
http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html

We now stand at the top of the league for transfer surplus.

Even Everton whose Bill Kenwright is always claiming poverty, has a better net spend.

The ones that stand out for me are Sopurs who have reinvested the cash from the likes of Berbatov, Bale and Modric.

It's also interesting to see how far we are behind the clubs promoted in recent years. I wonder how many excuses we can find for not being able to compete with the likes of Palace, Hull, Southampton, Norwich, Cardiff, Stoke, West Brom and Swansea.
 
I think Ashley's Newcastle united has been panned and mocked in the media today. I think the rest is really up to the fans to make a point. The results in the coming weeks will decide matters here methinks.
 
Officemonkey - 3/9/2013 17:28

How can we get this table across to the masses though and make the relevant people see?
Click to expand...
Hopefully, this is a start for you, due to go live at 9am:
http://www.newcastle.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=331219
 
This is the biggest inditement of Fat Mike I have ever seen!
Over the last 5 years, we have the lowest net spend of the 20 premier league clubs and have made a profit on transfers of £25MM in that period.
Even if you exclude the Andy Carroll sale of £35MM (and assume that we made the same purchases), we would only move-up to 16th place in the table.

And to see that over the last 5 years, Stoke City have spent £116MM net (£23MM per season) more on players than we have.

We need to explain this table to every Newcastle fan in the world. This is not "being sensible with the money and balancing the books". This is milking the club dry.
This is everything which a football chairman can't do. It's an absolute disgrace.
 
Rexn - 3/9/2013 21:22

Officemonkey - 3/9/2013 17:28

How can we get this table across to the masses though and make the relevant people see?
Click to expand...
Hopefully, this is a start for you, due to go live at 9am:
http://www.newcastle.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=331219
Click to expand...

Excellent piece! We need to get that shared amongst as many people as possible
 
Good point about Stoke. However, what I see is a coherent transfer policy, rightly or wrongly.

They seem to have bought seasoned professionals with a view to guaranteeing survival. They have tended to be players who would be expendable were they to have been relegated and have benefited from investing their Premier League income.

And thanks OM. It was your idea - I hope I did it justice.
 
Apart from the clubs run by the oil rich sheikh and the Russian thief, it is an eye opener for a 5 year period of transactions. On the anniversary of our highest ever gate at SJP it just shows: Sell your best player (Hughie G) and the fans will still turn up in their droves.
 
Rexn - 3/9/2013 21:22

Officemonkey - 3/9/2013 17:28

How can we get this table across to the masses though and make the relevant people see?
Click to expand...
Hopefully, this is a start for you, due to go live at 9am:
http://www.newcastle.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=331219
Click to expand...

Another dagger in the place where Ashley's heart should be.

Lovely stuff that Rexn!
 
I think Stoke's money has been very poorly invested. They've only received £8million in five years for all the players they've sold and released (44 in total). That's shocking management.

There has to be a balance in there somewhere though?

Looking at the teams around us at the bottom, Spurs investment looks relatively low, but they invested a net £75million in the 3 years prior to this table.

Arsenal have obviously been paying for their brand new stadium for years, and are showing they mean serious business now the shackles are off. It's not much of a stretch of the imagination to think that Wenger could easily have spent more this transfer window had he been a little less strict with his buying criteria. They could easily have had Suarez or even Cabaye this window, which would have pushed them into a net spend position (and ironically making ASHLEY's net surplus even greater).

Everton had been forced by the banks to heavily reduce their overdraft and loans and had to do it by player sales the last few years.

Crystal Palace are new to the Premier League, along with Cardiff, whilst Norwich and Swansea are only a year more experienced, with West Brom the perennial yo-yo club with low gates.

All that leaves in the bottom half is Fulham, who have managed to recoup £10million net last season, no doubt so that Al Fayed could recover some millions before he sold.

There seem to be sound and understandable reasons why all these clubs are in the bottom half, but why are we even in that half, never mind bottom?

We aren't paying off a new stadium.
We have the third highest gate in the country.
We don't owe the banks anything.
We do have debt to Ashley, but that is interest free and is payable as and when. There is no pressure to pay that loan immediately.

I think we can all understand that people who make investments in clubs will want to make a reasonable return, and rightly so, but Ashley is the only one who has the bare faced cheek to not even pretend he wants to run it as a football club.

We're just a shell to be used to promote his brand so he can clean out tens of millions per year, and all he has to do is employ some unscrupulous cohorts to lie and cover for him, so he and they can get away with it.

Can we really continue to pretend as a fan base that it's ok to put up with this?
 
This is in no way in defence of the regime, so apologies in advance but in my reckoning, the likes of the promoted teams will always have a season where they can spend due to the wage bill being low to start on promotion, only for the spending to slow.

Without looking at any trend, I would guess as the wage bill rises the transfer spend drops if a team manages to stay in the league and gain no higher than mid table regularly.

Exceptions to that rule would include the tramps and Spurs.

However, the point that stumps us is the wage bill. How can ours continue to rise if we've been dropping high earners for the past 3 or 4 seasons?
 
I love the analysis Plats.

TNMW, I may be wrong but with the trends over the last few years for increased TV money, both transfer spend and wages can increase.

As for our wages, the accounts are potentially misleading depending on how they are constructed.

Some clubs will include signing on fees as wages, some as costs. Some include loyalty bonuses when a player moves on. Some will pay loaned players and pay the player whilst others will get a loan fee and let the loaning club pay the wages.

Our last published wage bill includes several players no longer on the books,Smith, Xisco, Ba, Best, Lovenkrands, Harper, Simpson, Perch, Guthrie, Kadar, Forster and Ranger. They include Ba's signing on fees plus loyalty bonuses for those whose contracts expired plus those who were sold without requesting a transfer.
 
True, he also pockets the extra TV money over and above last year's profits. Also, if he sells anyone in January, and some have suggested Cabaye will be looking at moving then after this summer's treatment, he will still be able to offset previous NUFC losses against any profit for tax purposes.
 
The wage bill on our accounts doesn't make sense. Lord knows what Ashley throws in there to keep that surplus down.
 
Rexn - 3/9/2013 23:11

I love the analysis Plats.

TNMW, I may be wrong but with the trends over the last few years for increased TV money, both transfer spend and wages can increase.

As for our wages, the accounts are potentially misleading depending on how they are constructed.

Some clubs will include signing on fees as wages, some as costs. Some include loyalty bonuses when a player moves on. Some will pay loaned players and pay the player whilst others will get a loan fee and let the loaning club pay the wages.

Our last published wage bill includes several players no longer on the books,Smith, Xisco, Ba, Best, Lovenkrands, Harper, Simpson, Perch, Guthrie, Kadar, Forster and Ranger. They include Ba's signing on fees plus loyalty bonuses for those whose contracts expired plus those who were sold without requesting a transfer.
Click to expand...

Oops, didn't see this post. He must have put everything he could possibly crow bar into pay costs into that last set of accounts. Xisco and Smith were on stupid money and Ba was on a good whack. I wonder if there was some pay off to get the dangerous Barton out of the club?

It'll be interesting to see the next set of accounts pay wise. Certainly in the ones after that for 2013/14 we won't be anywhere near 50% ratio to turnover. Possibly 40%, which 'should' leave lots of scope for player purchases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.