Sheffield Wednesday's SHOCK net spend over 10 years compared to Cardiff City and Watford

Interesting Read

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...2994305?page=1

And some people say Tan doesn’t back the managers, or spend any money!

Stoke's net spend of £160m was a surprise considering where they are now.

You can see why Swansea fans aren’t happy. The owners haven’t pumped much money into their squad.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Good quick summary but transfer prices are only the start of it. It’s wages that are the killer usually

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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?