Interesting

[Esmond Million's Bung]

This is from August, I wonder how it will look after the January window?.

 

 

 

WHAT IS A 'NET SPEND`?

In Football, a net spend is the amount of money a club has spent on transfer fees minus the amount raised in player sales. For example, if a club buys one player costing £5m but sells another player for £4m, their net spend is £1m. 

 

WHO ARE THE CHAMPIONSHIP`S BIGGEST / LOWEST NET SPENDERS? 

Aston Villa are the Championship`s highest net spenders of the summer so far. New manager Roberto Di Matteo`s net spend is £11.9m. Surprisingly, Bristol City are second with a net spend of £6.6m. 

Newcastle United are the lowest net spenders despite splashing the cash this summer However, The Geordies have made a transfer window profit of £12.8m by selling players giving them a net spend of minus £12.8m. It is similar situation with Norwich, who have a net spend of minus £9.4m. 

At the time of writing, Blues` net spend is £700,000. Of course, the below table will change between now and the end of the transfer window on August 31 - but this is a good indication of the money that has been spent so far. 

CHAMPIONSHIP NET SPENDERS LEAGUE TABLE

Aston Villa (£11.9m)
Bristol City (£6.6m)
Sheffield Wed (£5.6m)
Huddersfield Town (£3.7m)
Cardiff City (£3.5m)
Wigan Athletic (£2.6m)
Preston North End (£1.6m)
Ipswich Town (£1.5m)
Rotherham United (£1.1m)
Fulham (£1.08m)
Barnsley (£1m)
Birmingham City (£0.7m)
Burton Albion (£0.4m)
Brighton (-£0.1m)
Wolves (-£0.8m)
Nottingham Forest (-£1m)
Reading (-£1.3m)
Leeds United (-£2.7m)
QPR (-£4m)
Derby County (-£4.5m)
Blackburn Rovers (-£5.5m)
Brentford (-£6m)
Norwich City (-£9.4m)
Newcastle United (-£12.8)

 

[chipdawg]

This was prior to selling Kodjia, Ayling and Agard iirc, so I imagine we're still in transfer profit. But it does highlight that Johnson has been backed by the board/owner

[Major Isewater]

10 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

This is from August, I wonder how it will look after the January window?.

 

 

 

WHAT IS A 'NET SPEND`?

In Football, a net spend is the amount of money a club has spent on transfer fees minus the amount raised in player sales. For example, if a club buys one player costing £5m but sells another player for £4m, their net spend is £1m. 

 

WHO ARE THE CHAMPIONSHIP`S BIGGEST / LOWEST NET SPENDERS? 

Aston Villa are the Championship`s highest net spenders of the summer so far. New manager Roberto Di Matteo`s net spend is £11.9m. Surprisingly, Bristol City are second with a net spend of £6.6m. 

Newcastle United are the lowest net spenders despite splashing the cash this summer However, The Geordies have made a transfer window profit of £12.8m by selling players giving them a net spend of minus £12.8m. It is similar situation with Norwich, who have a net spend of minus £9.4m. 

At the time of writing, Blues` net spend is £700,000. Of course, the below table will change between now and the end of the transfer window on August 31 - but this is a good indication of the money that has been spent so far. 

CHAMPIONSHIP NET SPENDERS LEAGUE TABLE

Aston Villa (£11.9m)
Bristol City (£6.6m)
Sheffield Wed (£5.6m)
Huddersfield Town (£3.7m)
Cardiff City (£3.5m)
Wigan Athletic (£2.6m)
Preston North End (£1.6m)
Ipswich Town (£1.5m)
Rotherham United (£1.1m)
Fulham (£1.08m)
Barnsley (£1m)
Birmingham City (£0.7m)
Burton Albion (£0.4m)
Brighton (-£0.1m)
Wolves (-£0.8m)
Nottingham Forest (-£1m)
Reading (-£1.3m)
Leeds United (-£2.7m)
QPR (-£4m)
Derby County (-£4.5m)
Blackburn Rovers (-£5.5m)
Brentford (-£6m)
Norwich City (-£9.4m)
Newcastle United (-£12.8)

 

Whilst we have been comparatively big spenders ( not now Shirley ) I think it must be put into perspective that we were down to à playing staff of fifteen I believe at the end of last season .

We needed massive investment in the playing squad . 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

8 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

This was prior to selling Kodjia, Ayling and Agard iirc, so I imagine we're still in transfer profit. But it does highlight that Johnson has been backed by the board/owner

And I read somewhere but cannot now find it that we have in fact the 6th highest playing budget in the division now.

 

[BCFC_Dan]

People get too hung up on transfer fees.

If you're buying, as we mainly have been, players who are young and hopefully on their way up, the transfer value can be recouped later by selling the player on (yes I know we often balls this bit up somewhat).

In theory the likes of Magnusson, Brownhill, O'Dowda and Engvall are going to at least hold their values over the next few years and unless we let their contracts run down without selling them then our net outlay on them will be at most zero.

Wages are where the big outlay is and what makes the difference. Wages are where the club is really spending money because they're not going to get it back unless the team gets promoted. Wages are generally lower for younger players than more experienced ones.

Therefore it might look as though we've spent a lot whereas some other team may have brought in a load of experienced players on free transfers without spending a penny. Look at the wages, however, and they may well be spending a lot more than we are, and that's money that they have little hope of ever recovering.

[BCFC_Dan]

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

And I read somewhere but cannot now find it that we have in fact the 6th highest playing budget in the division now.

 

Not according to the latest Swiss Ramble blog on Ipswich town published today. We're somewhere in the middle on wages. Obviously that's done on accounting figures which are going to be a few months out of date at best, but I'm not aware of a better source.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

7 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

Not according to the latest Swiss Ramble blog on Ipswich town published today. We're somewhere in the middle on wages. Obviously that's done on accounting figures which are going to be a few months out of date at best, but I'm not aware of a better source.

That's last seasons.

[BCFC_Dan]

6 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

That's last season.

Yes I know. Do you have more up to date figures?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Just now, BCFC_Dan said:

Yes I know. Do you have more up to date figures?

I read it somewhere a couple of days ago but can't find it, it might have been in a magazine in a hospital waiting room, it's been a hectic couple of weeks.

if you think about it, most clubs have seriously been cutting back ahead of losing or lessening parachute payments, so Newcastle, Norwich, Villa (all relegated teams of course), Sheff Weds and Brighton and then us with our increased revenue streams, transfer dealings, increased wage bill, I don't see it as a great leap personally, it sort of makes sense, nobody outside of the 5 teams I mentioned have splashed the cash in the way that we have.

[BRISTOL86]

So after Kodjia we must have been almost bottom of that table, prior to January. 

[JHAGa]

2 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

So after Kodjia we must have been almost bottom of that table, prior to January. 

 

£11M Kodjia and £5M for Bolasie, £1M? for Albert and £1.5M for Ayling, Agard and Williams.

[Super]

2 minutes ago, JHAGa said:

 

£11M Kodjia and £5M for Bolasie, £1M? for Albert and £1.5M for Ayling, Agard and Williams.

Won't include Bolasie and Albert.

[Mr Popodopolous]

47 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

And I read somewhere but cannot now find it that we have in fact the 6th highest playing budget in the division now.

 

I find that hard to believe under FFP- Newcastle, Villa, Norwich all ahead obviously, Brighton probably as they've been at this longer. Derby have probably have bigger revenues, Sheff Wed and Leeds likewise. There are surely more I have forgotten, but QPR still had big excesses there's another, Wolves seems like they would have a higher wage bill. Midtable wages here would be my guess.

[City Ben]

15 minutes ago, Super said:

Won't include Bolasie and Albert.

Well, I guess it's up to us if it does or not. I don't think "Net Spend" has a proper definition. 

In my view certain of our spend will have been facilitated by the income we have received/ will receive in consideration for those two. Thinking about it that way, and based on the rationale behind considering a "net spend", I think it makes sense that we would include those amounts. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I find that hard to believe under FFP- Newcastle, Villa, Norwich all ahead obviously, Brighton probably as they've been at this longer. Derby have probably have bigger revenues, Sheff Wed and Leeds likewise. There are surely more I have forgotten, but QPR still had big excesses there's another, Wolves seems like they would have a higher wage bill. Midtable wages here I suspect.

Bigger revenues maybe, Derby have spent roughly the same as us but also released a lot of big earners, Leeds have spent a lot less than us and again have released a lot of big earners, QPR have spent fairly modestly but have unloaded shedloads of huge earners, Wolves again roughly the same as us spent but lots of high earners released. I suspect that only BCFC out the highlighted clubs have significantly increased their wage bill.

 

[Jack Dawe]

46 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

People get too hung up on transfer fees.

If you're buying, as we mainly have been, players who are young and hopefully on their way up, the transfer value can be recouped later by selling the player on (yes I know we often balls this bit up somewhat).

In theory the likes of Magnusson, Brownhill, O'Dowda and Engvall are going to at least hold their values over the next few years and unless we let their contracts run down without selling them then our net outlay on them will be at most zero.

Wages are where the big outlay is and what makes the difference. Wages are where the club is really spending money because they're not going to get it back unless the team gets promoted. Wages are generally lower for younger players than more experienced ones.

Therefore it might look as though we've spent a lot whereas some other team may have brought in a load of experienced players on free transfers without spending a penny. Look at the wages, however, and they may well be spending a lot more than we are, and that's money that they have little hope of ever recovering.

So what we might be struggling with is juggling the short term with the long term. We are attempting to manage both this season, and in part, next season and or the one after (when Moore, O'Dowda, Brownhill etc all bloom into excellent Championship players), at the same time. Is this too much to ask of a "young coach"?

The recruitment pillar might pay dividends in the long run, but is it getting in the way of the here and now?

Would it be better to have an experienced coach to keep both plates spinning simultaneously? And pay more out on wages to give us a better chance to establish ourselves first (we might now be doing this with January's signings).

I really don't know the answer to any of this.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Bigger revenues maybe, Derby have spent roughly the same as us but also released a lot of big earners, Leeds have spent a lot less than us and again have released a lot of big earners, QPR have spent fairly modestly but have unloaded shedloads of huge earners, Wolves again roughly the same as us spent but lots of high earners released. I suspect that only BCFC out the highlighted clubs have significantly increased their wage bill.

 

I am not doubting what you say, I just find it hard to believe. That graphic about Ipswich had Reading wage bill and Fulham wage bill in excess of £30m too- I do though find it hard to believe our wage bill in a League with a lot of big cliubs who have been at this level for some time, has suddenly shot up to 6th.

I am also firmly of the belief that FFP would not allow such a dramatic increase, do we have the revenue within FFP to cover such wages?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I am not doubting what you say, I just find it hard to believe. That graphic about Ipswich had Reading wage bill and Fulham wage bill in excess of £30m too- I do though find it hard to believe our wage bill in a League with a lot of big cliubs who have been at this level for some time, has suddenly shot up to 6th.

Fulham have spent a bit but yet again the high earning players that left is immense, Ipswich have spent next to nothing but again released a lot of players, bear in mind that probably out of our outgoing players only Kodjia was on proper championship wages and I suspect GON is probably earning more than he did whilst he was here.

 

[chipdawg]

2 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

And I read somewhere but cannot now find it that we have in fact the 6th highest playing budget in the division now.

 

I'd be surprised if that's true but we've undoubtedly invested in the playing squad recently 

[Olé]

16 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

This is from August, I wonder how it will look after the January window?.

I posted this in another thread at the weekend - it's not net spend, so it's just outgoings, but it is up to date to the weekend, including league position.

As mentioned elsewhere, Wednesday fans have been all over this on Twitter arguing about whether their manager has done enough for their spending... 

[daored]

Had been thinking about our spend over the last couple of days, but for different reasons.

The club had to invest heavily in the squad this summer due to the lack of players we had the previous season. My concern is slightly two fold.

Firstly if we go down, we face a huge summer of rebuilding I'm not sure how many of our players will be prepared to drop to league 1. Could see 10-15 players leaving quote easily.

Secondly, if we do stay up and Johnson remains as manager , are we likely to see a number of players wanting to leave , due to rumours of fall out  between players and manager.

I think it's likely we'll see another summer of many transfers in and out this year 

[Olé]

Updated view of spending versus league position as of today - with or without undisclosed amounts (left table or right table), depending whether you trust TransferMarkt valuations, which look suspiciously like they come from Football Manager.

[Reigate Red]

I understand the argument that we are playing catch up from last seasons small squad but to my mind that is unforgiveable. Blackburn have not spent anything FFS

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 hour ago, Olé said:

Updated view of spending versus league position as of today - with or without undisclosed amounts (left table or right table), depending whether you trust TransferMarkt valuations, which look suspiciously like they come from Football Manager.

Yeah but for the past 5 months we keep having to play against teams that come on "did you expect a result against them?".

 

[TheCulturalBomb]

People want Ashton out but we have bought quality players, some young with good experience and plenty of potential for this club to take us further. With a proper manager, I'll say it once and I'll say it again, we can get promoted.