Championship Clubs' Net Spend This Season

[Kid in the Riot]

 

An interesting table assuming it's fairly accurate. Goes to show why (IMO) the club were looking to offload Flint in the summer for circa £5m in order to help balance the books.

Also, suggests we will still be looking to 'cash in' on one of our most valuable assets either in January or probably more likely the summer?

And I would suggest also indicates that we won't be spunking a load of cash in January (barring someone going out the door for good money) as we cannot afford to.

Thoughts?

 

https://twitter.com/Champ_Statto/status/934741359931650053

 

[Monkeh]

8 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

 

An interesting table assuming it's fairly accurate. Goes to show why (IMO) the club were looking to offload Flint in the summer for circa £5m in order to help balance the books.

Also, suggests we will still be looking to 'cash in' on one of our most valuable assets either in January or probably more likely the summer?

And I would suggest also indicates that we won't be spunking a load of cash in January (barring someone going out the door for good money) as we cannot afford to.

Thoughts?

 

https://twitter.com/Champ_Statto/status/934741359931650053

 

it doesn't suggest we are looking to "cash in" on anything at all it shows is that we are able to spend more money due to better infrastructure 

[BRISTOL86]

I thought it came out by Flint’s own admission that his head was turned by Brum for the wages?

As far as I can tell we never had any plans to sell him until he indicated he was keen to move on?  

I’m pretty sure he’ll still move on but I don’t think it’ll be in Jan. 

[Tipps69]

Do we not have more money coming into the club now, allowing us to spend more?

We’ve hardly been renowned for spending extortionate amounts & having cashed in on JK, LT recently & sorted out the wage budget, with regards to bringing in younger players who are likely to be on less than some of the more experienced players we’ve had recently.

And with all the ground redevelopments completed, it should also mean more money coming in (at least 5,000 on attendances compared to recent years). The club has grown so much over the last couple of seasons & I’m sure the club are aware of where we are at financially, I really can’t see SL giving his blessing on something that could cause us any future issues.

[Kid in the Riot]

12 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

it doesn't suggest we are looking to "cash in" on anything at all it shows is that we are able to spend more money due to better infrastructure 

So, that net spend doesn't look a bit high to you compared to other clubs with similar or better infrastructure/crowds than us ie Leeds, Derby, Norwich, Forest, Villa etc.

Norwich are a full £15m better off than us in terms of player sales, then add the fact they probably have a higher turnover than us as they get bigger crowds. That leaves a lot to spend on those all important player wages.

Is a net spend of £8m sustainable for us or is a net spend closer to £0 sustainable for us (don't know the answer myself)?

[BRISTOL86]

Another point to bear in mind is that there’s a credit of c. £11m that went into last seasons numbers for Kodjia and a windfall from the Bolasie transfer. Not sure what fees spent looks like for last season in isolation but we were surely in credit with those. 

[And Its Smith]

After the last two seasons, without that sort of investment we would have struggled again. Also I am quite sure we were in surplus last season 

[BRISTOL86]

Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

So, that net spend doesn't look a bit high to you compared to other clubs with similar or better infrastructure/crowds than us ie Leeds, Derby, Norwich, Forest, Villa etc.

Norwich are a full £15m better off than us in terms of player sales, then add the fact they probably have a higher turnover than us as they get bigger crowds. That leaves a lot to spend on those all important player wages.

Is a net spend of £8m sustainable for us or is a net spend closer to £0 sustainable for us (don't know the answer myself)?

Doesn’t tell the full picture Kid - timing is everything. Clubs are financed differently, different ambitions etc....like for like comparison very hard. 

And that’s assuming the underlying data is actually correct in the first place. 

[And Its Smith]

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

So, that net spend doesn't look a bit high to you compared to other clubs with similar or better infrastructure/crowds than us ie Leeds, Derby, Norwich, Forest, Villa etc.

Norwich are a full £15m better off than us in terms of player sales, then add the fact they probably have a higher turnover than us as they get bigger crowds. That leaves a lot to spend on those all important player wages.

Is a net spend of £8m sustainable for us or is a net spend closer to £0 sustainable for us (don't know the answer myself)?

You cannot look at isolated seasons. Also this doesnt take into account wages.  A huge factor

[Midlands Robin]

Somebody needs to show that to the sags so they get an idea what a top 6 budget really looks like. 

[JamesBCFC]

9 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

So, that net spend doesn't look a bit high to you compared to other clubs with similar or better infrastructure/crowds than us ie Leeds, Derby, Norwich, Forest, Villa etc.

Norwich are a full £15m better off than us in terms of player sales, then add the fact they probably have a higher turnover than us as they get bigger crowds. That leaves a lot to spend on those all important player wages.

Is a net spend of £8m sustainable for us or is a net spend closer to £0 sustainable for us (don't know the answer myself)?

The clubs you list have all had high net spends over the the past few seasons while ours was close to 0 both times.

I know you have never wanted LJ but trying to twist this is desperation on an embarrassing level.

[Taz]

18 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

So, that net spend doesn't look a bit high to you compared to other clubs with similar or better infrastructure/crowds than us ie Leeds, Derby, Norwich, Forest, Villa etc.

Norwich are a full £15m better off than us in terms of player sales, then add the fact they probably have a higher turnover than us as they get bigger crowds. That leaves a lot to spend on those all important player wages.

Is a net spend of £8m sustainable for us or is a net spend closer to £0 sustainable for us (don't know the answer myself)?

Not disagreeing with you at all, but my take on it is that we are in such a better position off the field than we were before the redevelopment. We can afford to spend a bit more now as there is so much more revenue coming in from all areas of the club. This is in turn being invested on the playing side of things, hence the reason we are so high on that list. 

After working so hard to make the club so self sustainable, the board wouldnt risk living on the edge so to speak, and being in a position where we "have to sell a player to balance the books."

Different take I know, but for the first time in god knows how long, I really am not worried about how the club is being run.

[red'tili'mdead]

14 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

So, that net spend doesn't look a bit high to you compared to other clubs with similar or better infrastructure/crowds than us ie Leeds, Derby, Norwich, Forest, Villa etc.

Norwich are a full £15m better off than us in terms of player sales, then add the fact they probably have a higher turnover than us as they get bigger crowds. That leaves a lot to spend on those all important player wages.

Is a net spend of £8m sustainable for us or is a net spend closer to £0 sustainable for us (don't know the answer myself)?

You really have to look at it over a longer period, rather than a single season in isolation.

The year before we were substantially in the black following the Kodjia and Bolasie sales etc.

I would imagine that over this period our net spending is still toppy, but more sustainable -esp with SL's deep pockets.

[Bar BS3]

Net spend is really only down to what funds clubs might have available, via transfer income, turnover profit, or most likely, a wealthy benefactor who is willing to bank roll signings. 

It’s largely irrelevant in comparison to wages, which are restricted and ongoing commitments that could make a clubs financial position untenable. 

Apparently we are in a pretty healthy position as far as FFP goes. 

[Cowshed]

47 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

So, that net spend doesn't look a bit high to you compared to other clubs with similar or better infrastructure/crowds than us ie Leeds, Derby, Norwich, Forest, Villa etc.

Norwich are a full £15m better off than us in terms of player sales, then add the fact they probably have a higher turnover than us as they get bigger crowds. That leaves a lot to spend on those all important player wages.

Is a net spend of £8m sustainable for us or is a net spend closer to £0 sustainable for us (don't know the answer myself)?

If BCFC is Steve Lansdown and that net spend is looked upon as operating loss the answer is yes. Mr Lansdown has the wealth to structure that loss annually, and has been.

[Webzcas]

51 minutes ago, RedDave said:

After the last two seasons, without that sort of investment we would have struggled again. Also I am quite sure we were in surplus last season 

Yep, this. 

[Buster Footman's T shirt]

I may be wrong but it is my understanding that ffp is calculated on the loss over 3 seasons. In which case we cannot really take one season in isolation in terms of overall spending.

[ZiderEyed]

Just now, Buster Footman's T shirt said:

I may be wrong but it is my understanding that ffp is calculated on the loss over 3 seasons. In which case we cannot really take one season in isolation in terms of overall spending.

I was under this impression too. Bring in the fact we sold JK and The pork pie snorter and suddenly it doesn't look so bad.

Anyway, back on topic, why do we need to sell Flint?

[ScottishRed]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

 

An interesting table assuming it's fairly accurate. Goes to show why (IMO) the club were looking to offload Flint in the summer for circa £5m in order to help balance the books.

Also, suggests we will still be looking to 'cash in' on one of our most valuable assets either in January or probably more likely the summer?

And I would suggest also indicates that we won't be spunking a load of cash in January (barring someone going out the door for good money) as we cannot afford to.

Thoughts?

 

https://twitter.com/Champ_Statto/status/934741359931650053

 

I cant research this just now but I am not sure about the accuracy of those numbers.

Sheff Wed and Reading spending more than Wolves?

[The Fat Controller]

2 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

The clubs you list have all had high net spends over the the past few seasons while ours was close to 0 both times.

I know you have never wanted LJ but trying to twist this is desperation on an embarrassing level.

It's also interesting that the OP has dismissed the relevance of net spend in the past but went on and on about how much outlay there had been since LJ took over, but now wants to talk about net spend because it doesn't compare us very favourably to other clubs in the division.

[GrahamC]

2 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

I cant research this just now but I am not sure about the accuracy of those numbers.

Sheff Wed and Reading spending more than Wolves?

My thoughts too.

Couldn't recall any major sales by Wolves this summer & thought they had spent somewhere around £40m?

[Bar BS3]

4 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

My thoughts too.

Couldn't recall any major sales by Wolves this summer & thought they had spent somewhere around £40m?

Since the beginning of last season, they have spent around £52 million out and recouped about £7million. 

 

[Kid in the Riot]

3 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

I cant research this just now but I am not sure about the accuracy of those numbers.

Sheff Wed and Reading spending more than Wolves?

I doubt they are perfect but seem fairly accurate. Reading did spend about £12m in the summer and didn't receive any major transfer fees. Wolves spent big on Neves but other than that? There are plenty of Wolves/Championship fans on the link in the OP that aren't disputing the Wolves figure.

4 hours ago, BRISTOL86 said:

I thought it came out by Flint’s own admission that his head was turned by Brum for the wages?

As far as I can tell we never had any plans to sell him until he indicated he was keen to move on?  

I’m pretty sure he’ll still move on but I don’t think it’ll be in Jan. 

Obviously this has been done to death but I think when the owner of the club comes out and names his price for a player (£5m for Flint on Radio Bristol) then I think it's safe to assume that player is for sale. I also don't think it's any secret that the club's philosophy is to 'sell high' when the opportunity arises. 

3 hours ago, Cowshed said:

If BCFC is Steve Lansdown and that net spend is looked upon as operating loss the answer is yes. Mr Lansdown has the wealth to structure that loss annually, and has been.

Yep. SL will continue to pick up the tab but he has also said that he's looking for value for money and for the club to stand on its own two feet. That means selling players at high prices to generate the income to go and buy the next potential. 

[BRISTOL86]

2 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Obviously this has been done to death but I think when the owner of the club comes out and names his price for a player (£5m for Flint on Radio Bristol) then I think it's safe to assume that player is for sale. I also don't think it's any secret that the club's philosophy is to 'sell high' when the opportunity arises. 

Yes but as I understand it, that was some time after Flint made it known that he was looking around for a new club. At that point clearly we were keen to cash in. 

I may be wrong but my understanding is that we were not in any way looking to sell Flint until he started to make noises about leaving, and we essentially called his bluff. 

I think there will always be a price for any of our players. But in January that price is going to have to be astronomical if we are still in the playoff mix. If we are still top six I can see Lansdown rolling the dice and taking the gamble.

We haven’t had a better opportunity in ten years and it could be as long again until the next one. 

[ScottishRed]

9 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Yes but as I understand it, that was some time after Flint made it known that he was looking around for a new club. At that point clearly we were keen to cash in. 

I may be wrong but my understanding is that we were not in any way looking to sell Flint until he started to make noises about leaving, and we essentially called his bluff. 

I think there will always be a price for any of our players. But in January that price is going to have to be astronomical if we are still in the playoff mix. If we are still top six I can see Lansdown rolling the dice and taking the gamble.

We haven’t had a better opportunity in ten years and it could be as long again until the next one. 

With few exceptions the old adage of ' every player has his price' still holds good, nowadays however the price can be ludicrous!

I agree with you, if we are still top six at Christmas I think some money will be spent.

[Kid in the Riot]

10 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Yes but as I understand it, that was some time after Flint made it known that he was looking around for a new club. At that point clearly we were keen to cash in. 

I may be wrong but my understanding is that we were not in any way looking to sell Flint until he started to make noises about leaving, and we essentially called his bluff.

I don't believe that to be the case. I think the club did have an eye on selling their most valuable asset, before the summer. Either way, the situation has happily resolved itself for the time being. Flint has demonstrated he is a model pro, is looking better than he did last season and has already matched his goal tally of last season! Although we have much improved revenue streams and continue to have the support of an extremely wealthy benefactor all the noises that have come out of the club in the last 2 years suggest when the opportunity arises we will again seek to maximise our profits on a player/players. Which I am fully on board with.

10 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

I think there will always be a price for any of our players. But in January that price is going to have to be astronomical if we are still in the playoff mix. If we are still top six I can see Lansdown rolling the dice and taking the gamble.

We haven’t had a better opportunity in ten years and it could be as long again until the next one. 

I have mixed feelings about splashing the cash in January. Shouldn't we continue with our ethos of buying potential? Also, wouldn't want to upset the great team spirit that is evident now. Keep doing what we're doing and the Prem may become a reality one day, but let's do it by sticking to our principles.

[JamesBCFC]

Anyone know our fee for Eliasson?

Pisano and Steele were frees, Diedhiou circa £5.5m and we got just under £3m for Tomlin.

That leaves £5.5m ish unaccounted for.

Bakers fee disputed but people reckon around £3m

Eliasson about £2m sounds right to what I remember.

 

The number for us on that list is exactly what Transfermarkt has, and they aren't too bad usually, but they have different numbers for other clubs.

There is also no source cited which means there is no point of reference for people to look at before blindly sharing it.

[JamesBCFC]

The same Twitter account also has this table

Here they say that between 4 academy players in our squad we have just over 200 appearences in the league.

 

Joe Bryan and Bobby Reid have over 270 appearences between just them.

Even assuming they both played every cup game since 2011 they and removing those games from the tally they have played more than the number in the table.

[Ian M]

Whatever went on with Flint in the Summer I am just glad he's back in the fold now as he's on target to get into double figures this season and I'd have expected less than that for the whole defence had he left. 

[Ian M]

1 minute ago, JamesBCFC said:

The same Twitter account also has this table

Here they say that between 4 academy players in our squad we have just over 200 appearences in the league.

 

Joe Bryan and Bobby Reid have over 270 appearences between just them.

Even assuming they both played every cup game since 2011 they and removing those games from the tally they have played more than the number in the table.

Could it only be Championship appearances counted?