-
Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
And some people say Tan doesn’t back the managers, or spend any money!
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Stoke's net spend of £160m was a surprise considering where they are now.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
You can see why Swansea fans aren’t happy. The owners haven’t pumped much money into their squad.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bluebird23
And some people say Tan doesn’t back the managers, or spend any money!
Indeed some might even say our best ever owner
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Another consequence Of a having a non working Academy I suppose - many other throw money at it clubs are able to recoup some of their transfer spending by being able to sell home produced players for eight figure fees in some cases.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
Another consequence Of a having a non working Academy I suppose - many other throw money at it clubs are able to recoup some of their transfer spending by being able to sell home produced players for eight figure fees in some cases.
Producing saleable assets from the Academy is one major factor - but another is whether the club has been in the Premier League or not during the 10 year period. I imagine most clubs who have been promoted have spent more on players than they have recouped when they were later relegated (more than offset in most cases by TV money). Apples and pears in that list.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
So in ten years, we spent £85m more than we received? Am I reading that correctly? It sounds a lot, but if you say £8.5m a year, it doesn't sound quite so bad! I wonder what Stoke fans think about the amount they've splashed up the wall?
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tforturton
So in ten years, we spent £85m more than we received? Am I reading that correctly? It sounds a lot, but if you say £8.5m a year, it doesn't sound quite so bad! I wonder what Stoke fans think about the amount they've splashed up the wall?
Not sure how they worked out these figures,Warnock,Ole and Malky are supposed to have spent around £100 m each and our player Sales haven’t brought in much? These figures include signing on fees, agent fees etc, there’s no such thing as a free transfer or free loan?
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
Another consequence Of a having a non working Academy I suppose - many other throw money at it clubs are able to recoup some of their transfer spending by being able to sell home produced players for eight figure fees in some cases.
Brentford don't have an academy, but they do at least sign players who have a chance of being sold at a profit i.e. Ollie Watkins for 1.8 million and then, crucially, develop them.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
Brentford don't have an academy, but they do at least sign players who have a chance of being sold at a profit i.e. Ollie Watkins for 1.8 million and then, crucially, develop them.
Which begs the question of why do we seem to spend lots of money on players that don't get sold on for at least something similar? To lose the amount of money we have surely has to be total ineptitude?
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ianto13
Not sure how they worked out these figures,Warnock,Ole and Malky are supposed to have spent around £100 m each and our player Sales haven’t brought in much? These figures include signing on fees, agent fees etc, there’s no such thing as a free transfer or free loan?
Warnock spent around £40m, Mackay £45m and Solskjaer under £30m.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric the Half a Bee
Which begs the question of why do we seem to spend lots of money on players that don't get sold on for at least something similar? To lose the amount of money we have surely has to be total ineptitude?
A few of our signings at least could have worked out.
i.e. Murphy, Whyte, Decordova-reid could all have gone for a profit if they had kicked on.
But players like Pack, Flint, Bacuna, cunningham etc aren't likely to have any residual value to speak of towards end of their contracts.
I guess you need a mixture of both types of signings (and for some of the ones you sign to develop to actually develop), but over the last few years we've made too many of the latter IMO.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ianto13
Not sure how they worked out these figures,Warnock,Ole and Malky are supposed to have spent around £100 m each and our player Sales haven’t brought in much? These figures include signing on fees, agent fees etc, there’s no such thing as a free transfer or free loan?
We got promoted twice in that time though, which is supposedly worth £170M. I don't think the managers have spent £300M in the last 10 years.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
A few of our signings at least could have worked out.
i.e. Murphy, Whyte, Decordova-reid could all have gone for a profit if they had kicked on.
But players like Pack, Flint, Bacuna, cunningham etc aren't likely to have any residual value to speak of towards end of their contracts.
I guess you need a mixture of both types of signings (and for some of the ones you sign to develop to actually develop), but over the last few years we've made too many of the latter IMO.
Whyte kicking on? :hehe: I get your point about Murphy and Reid though.
When was the last time we signed an exciting youngster? When was the last time we signed a youngster that might need a season with the under 23s but is one for the future? We don't. It's all about the here and now, regardless of the manager. There's no forward planning. The blame for that lies with the board's transfer committee.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric the Half a Bee
Whyte kicking on? :hehe: I get your point about Murphy and Reid though.
When was the last time we signed an exciting youngster? When was the last time we signed a youngster that might need a season with the under 23s but is one for the future? We don't. It's all about the here and now, regardless of the manager. There's no forward planning. The blame for that lies with the board's transfer committee.
yes they rely far too much on the manager, who is only ever going to go for the here and now, as there's a good chance that they won't be there to reap the benefits of the ones for the future.
a director of football - and a forward thinking one is what we need for longer term success
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
yes they rely far too much on the manager, who is only ever going to go for the here and now, as there's a good chance that they won't be there to reap the benefits of the ones for the future.
a director of football - and a forward thinking one is what we need for longer term success
Absolutely, as there's bugger all football knowledge on the board, apart from the legend Tan, knower of everything.
Unfortunately I reckon they have no interest in spending extra money on a director of football, neither does Tan want someone with more say than him, possibly.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Good quick summary but transfer prices are only the start of it. It’s wages that are the killer usually
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NYCBlue
We got promoted twice in that time though, which is supposedly worth £170M. I don't think the managers have spent £300M in the last 10 years.
Its not a P&L statement its surely sales/purchases of players.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cityhammer
Its not a P&L statement its surely sales/purchases of players.
But it is a sort of ‘look how well we’re doing compared to .............’, clubs that have had a couple of promotions and all that goes with them in those ten years knock those figures into a cocked hat whereas others who’ve gone on a Viv Nicholson like spend, spend, spend yet achieved bugger all are the ones who need a long, hard look at themselves.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NYCBlue
We got promoted twice in that time though, which is supposedly worth £170M. I don't think the managers have spent £300M in the last 10 years.
No chance. Even a few of MM signings were sold afterwards for decent money.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
The article is a Wales Online type of shock, horror attention grabber, ‘ Man who earns a £1000 a week spends a lot more than a man who earns £200 a week’. Never!!!!!!!
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vindec
Stoke's net spend of £160m was a surprise considering where they are now.
Stoke had a habit of spending £10m - £20m on players who did very little and have ended up on loan elsewhere.
Stuck with players they cant sell and who are still partly on the wage bill.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric the Half a Bee
Absolutely, as there's bugger all football knowledge on the board, apart from the legend Tan, knower of everything.
Unfortunately I reckon they have no interest in spending extra money on a director of football, neither does Tan want someone with more say than him, possibly.
Trouble is, the person I've seen most often suggested as a director of football on here was Neil Warnock.
What a ridiculous state of affairs.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dml1954
Warnock spent around £40m, Mackay £45m and Solskjaer under £30m.
That’s not what Dalman and the accounts say, Dalman said the other day that Warnock spent £100m in his 3 years, where do you get your figures from?
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric the Half a Bee
Absolutely, as there's bugger all football knowledge on the board, apart from the legend Tan, knower of everything.
Unfortunately I reckon they have no interest in spending extra money on a director of football, neither does Tan want someone with more say than him, possibly.
Dalman acts as our Director of Football, with our Manager, Tan just rubber stamps and pays for deals he is persuaded are worthwhile! He has many other businesses to run including two other football clubs so does not get involved with the nitty gritty!
I think he should replace Dalman with a proven Director of Football?
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ianto13
Dalman acts as our Director of Football, with our Manager, Tan just rubber stamps and pays for deals he is persuaded are worthwhile! He has many other businesses to run including two other football clubs so does not get involved with the nitty gritty!
I think he should replace Dalman with a proven Director of Football?
I heard a podcast talking about LAFC, which Tan used to have a stake in. They were pretty progresive with their setup and had drafted in analysists and DoF type roles from other American sports (which have a much longer pedigree at this type of thing) - and it seems to have paid off as they went from nowhere to being force in the MLS in a very short time.
You'd think that Tan would have been paying attention and want to copy that model.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ianto13
That’s not what Dalman and the accounts say, Dalman said the other day that Warnock spent £100m in his 3 years, where do you get your figures from?
The actual transfer fees of the players they signed.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Almost like signing older players with no sell on value and then paying up their contracts was a bad idea!
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dml1954
Warnock spent around £40m, Mackay £45m and Solskjaer under £30m.
Warnock spent more than £40m but nowhere near £100m on transfer fees.
Might be close to £100m if you include the Sala fee, all signing on fees and agents fees on Warnock's signings though.
Glatzel £5.5m
Flint £4m
Pack £750k
Tomlin £3m
Reid £10m
Murphy £10m
Whyte £2m
Cunningham £3m
Smithies £3m
Bacuna £3m
Madine £6
Bogle £1m
Vassell £2m
Vaulks £2m
Ward £1m+
That comes to around £56m (would be £70m+ if Sala fee was included).
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
I heard a podcast talking about LAFC, which Tan used to have a stake in. They were pretty progresive with their setup and had drafted in analysists and DoF type roles from other American sports (which have a much longer pedigree at this type of thing) - and it seems to have paid off as they went from nowhere to being force in the MLS in a very short time.
You'd think that Tan would have been paying attention and want to copy that model.
Tan had a minor stake in LAFC. He probably never paid them much mind. Even if he did, who's to say he would understand?
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heisenberg
Warnock spent more than £40m but nowhere near £100m on transfer fees.
Might be close to £100m if you include the Sala fee, all signing on fees and agents fees on Warnock's signings though.
Glatzel £5.5m
Flint £4m
Pack £750k
Tomlin £3m
Reid £10m
Murphy £10m
Whyte £2m
Cunningham £3m
Smithies £3m
Bacuna £3m
Madine £6
Bogle £1m
Vassell £2m
Vaulks £2m
Ward £1m+
That comes to around £56m (would be £70m+ if Sala fee was included).
Camarasa and Arter probably didn't come cheap either. Maybe Dalman factored in wages.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heisenberg
Warnock spent more than £40m but nowhere near £100m on transfer fees.
Might be close to £100m if you include the Sala fee, all signing on fees and agents fees on Warnock's signings though.
Glatzel £5.5m
Flint £4m
Pack £750k
Tomlin £3m
Reid £10m
Murphy £10m
Whyte £2m
Cunningham £3m
Smithies £3m
Bacuna £3m
Madine £6
Bogle £1m
Vassell £2m
Vaulks £2m
Ward £1m+
That comes to around £56m (would be £70m+ if Sala fee was included).
Of those Tomlin has been a good signing (but probably only since warnock left), Smithies undoubtedly(but we already had a good enough keeper), Vaulks maybe and Ward certainly was good value for that fee.
The rest aren't great signings
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cityhammer
Its not a P&L statement its surely sales/purchases of players.
Then the figures must be wrong, because there's no way we made a profit of £85M on player sales.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NYCBlue
Then the figures must be wrong, because there's no way we made a profit of £85M on player sales.
that isn't what it is saying
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
Of those Tomlin has been a good signing (but probably only since warnock left), Smithies undoubtedly(but we already had a good enough keeper), Vaulks maybe and Ward certainly was good value for that fee.
The rest aren't great signings
I'd add :
Pack at under a million is a decent buy.
Reid we got money back .
Cunningham may come good.
Bacuna price not that bad in todays market.
Murphy has huge talent but under performs
Ward as okay and we sold him for about the same as we bought him for .
Whyte will attract a fee.
Madine price was the worse by far
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
I'd add :
Pack at under a million is a decent buy.
Reid we got money back .
Cunningham may come good.
Bacuna price not that bad in todays market.
Murphy has huge talent but under performs
Ward as okay and we sold him for about the same as we bought him for .
Whyte will attract a fee.
Madine price was the worse by far
Cunningham we paid almost £4 million for which is a lot for a championship fullback. he's in his last year of his contract, is 30 in January and has played a total of 11 games for us.
if he's going to come good as a signing for us he's leaving it pretty late.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
Cunningham we paid almost £4 million for which is a lot for a championship fullback. he's in his last year of his contract, is 30 in January and has played a total of 11 games for us.
if he's going to come good as a signing for us he's leaving it pretty late.
Tagging on to your reply...
We signed Bacuna in the January transfer window whilst we were in the Premier League - fighting against relegation.. whilst Bacuna was underperforming for Reading every week in the Championship. £3m was about 6x over the odds of what he was worth at the time. Plus he was given a 4.5 year contract for God knows what reason. Awful signing.
We didn't sell Danny Ward for "about the same as we bought him for"... His contract ran out and he joined Huddersfield on a free transfer.
Pack wasn't a "decent buy for under a million" either. It doesn't matter if he cost us nothing, he hasn't put a consistent run of games together for us since he's been here. I can genuinely only remember the away game against Derby where I thought he looked like a good player.
We have to rely on Whyte's international form for any hope of getting money for him as he's not shown anything here that will attract others to pay good money for him.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
that isn't what it is saying
OK, there's no way that we sold £85M more than we bought.
-
Re: Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NYCBlue
OK, there's no way that we sold £85M more than we bought.
You're right, there is no way.