Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

IF YOU CAN'T SIGN IN, CLEAR COOKIES FROM YOUR BROWSER CACHE

If you aren't sure how to do that, see this thread: whu606.com/discussion/7162/why-am-i-having-trouble-signing-in

If you still can't log in, email whu***@gmail.com (where *** is replaced by numbers I am sure you can work out.) giving the name of the browser and whether you are on PC or mobile device.
Categories +
Table +
PhysioRoom +

Income from player sales since 2010 (Karen Brady Twitter post)

Ok everyone I know there’s some of you that are good at researching facts!
Ms Brady has gone on Twitter to say we have spent 264 million on players since 2010
Can someone tell me how much we have brought in on players leaving since 2010!

Who’s gonna be first
«1

Comments

  • Thread title just amended to make the topic clearer ;ok
  • Thank you
  • edited February 6
    Macca, it's answered in one of the tweeted replies ;ok

    "For those asking, at a glance, we had the spend at £272m so not too far off (and £8m in their favour)

    They received £132m in fee's for same period, giving a net spend of £140m over their 8 years (£17.5m per season on average)"
  • Ahhh thanks so we have spent 17.5 mil per season
    Hmmmmm
    Thoughts?
  • I thort 20 mill average per season was bad it gets worse
    Slaven_Cups_His_Beard
  • They’ve also received £38m for the stadium but had to spend £15m on it which is net £23m.

    Add £12m extra per year for the new stadium (as DG said) that is also an extra £24m.

    The new stadium supposedly has generated an extra £47m and adding this to £132m makes £179m which means if we hadn’t moved we may have only spent £93m or £11.5m per year.
  • It doesn't look great, particularly when you consider last season alone we made over £120m in prize money and TV rights.

    Some, including Brady herself, would argue player's wages would need to be taken into consideration (we do have some big earners at the club), but in isolation, an average net spend of £17.5 per season is very low for a club looking to challenge for the top 6.
    Slaven_Cups_His_Beard
  • Which obviously we are
  • OCS

    It's more than all bar Palace outside top 6 for the last 5 years, so presumably other clubs are showing even less ambition?

    On average per season we have outspent almost all potential rivals.

    That is a fact.

    alderzJorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes
  • OCS

    It's more than all bar Palace outside top 6 for the last 5 years, so presumably other clubs are showing even less ambition?

    On average per season we have outspent almost all potential rivals.

    That is a fact.

    I honestly don't get why people keep up bring how much we spent. It has been proven time and time again that we are spending more than our "rivals".

    alderzMunichHammer
  • I can completely understand people saying we've spent poorly, and being unhappy with the transfer business generally. But not that we haven't spent.
    MoojorwhupathmanSlaven_Cups_His_Beardwelovethehammers
  • OCS

    It's more than all bar Palace outside top 6 for the last 5 years, so presumably other clubs are showing even less ambition?

    On average per season we have outspent almost all potential rivals.

    That is a fact.

    Frankly, I don't care what other teams average spend is. But out of interest, how many of those other clubs have moved from their home in search of the top 6?

    The bottom line for me is we have moved to the new stadium with a view to compete with the top 6.

    £17.5m per season will not achieve that, IMO.

    Now if we revisit these numbers in another seven years, and over that time our average spend is, let's say, £50m, then I'll applaud the board for genuinely trying to compete.
    Slaven_Cups_His_Beard
  • I understood it more as and ambition to 'compete with the other mid-table teams to get to top 6' rather than 'compete with the current/usual top 6'
    alderz
  • OCS

    It's more than all bar Palace outside top 6 for the last 5 years, so presumably other clubs are showing even less ambition?

    On average per season we have outspent almost all potential rivals.

    That is a fact.

    Frankly, I don't care what other teams average spend is. But out of interest, how many of those other clubs have moved from their home in search of the top 6?

    The bottom line for me is we have moved to the new stadium with a view to compete with the top 6.

    £17.5m per season will not achieve that, IMO.

    Now if we revisit these numbers in another seven years, and over that time our average spend is, let's say, £50m, then I'll applaud the board for genuinely trying to compete.
    We have been in the new stadium for 2 years. How long has it taken Spurs to really make a push for top 6?
    Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes
  • 20 mil will buy you one quality player these days and imo it’s not enough but ay ho it’s not my money to spend
    Slaven_Cups_His_BeardBertQuigley
  • Or even pay evras wages
  • Can you really count the championship seasons? I would just take the last season at the Boleyn onwards.
    MrsGrey
  • Stats without context are meaningless.

    Comparing apples and pears only shows that apples aren't pears.
    alderzcarsonroadboy
  • OCS

    The point of referencing other clubs is to show our spending in relation to our rivals.

    Since it is higher than almost all of them, including Leicester, who won the title, it suggests:

    a) we are as ambitious, or more, in terms of spending as our rivals

    b) just spending money isn't the answer

    Whatever was said about top 6, the situation has now changed significantly.

    It seems to me that all other teams can hope for is to be the best of the rest.

    The gap between the cost of the squads, and the money that the current top 6 have now is far too big for pretty much any club to bridge, imo.

    Even if we had new owners who were prepared to spend money like water, the FFP rules would restrict what we could manage to do; since our wage spending is above (or very near) the threshold of £67m, we would only be able to increase wages by £7m per season, outside generating funds by player sales (which would reduce our Net spend...) , increased match-day income, or commercial revenue.

    A single player on £100k p/wk would use up most of that £7m.
    alderzironmike44
  • OCS

    It's more than all bar Palace outside top 6 for the last 5 years, so presumably other clubs are showing even less ambition?

    On average per season we have outspent almost all potential rivals.

    That is a fact.

    From my post in the middle of January - thought it was worth repeating
    Net Spend last 5 Years
    ......................... Purchased Gross....Sold................Nett............AV.Per Season

    Manchester City £723,850,000 £217,750,000 £506,100,000 £101,220,000
    Manchester United £611,800,000 £174,550,000 £437,250,000 £87,450,000
    Chelsea £667,459,000 £410,450,000 £257,009,000 £51,401,800
    Arsenal £300,940,000 £116,850,000 £184,090,000 £36,818,000
    Crystal Palace £192,035,000 £56,700,000 £135,335,000 £27,067,000
    West Ham £188,450,000 £81,870,000 £106,580,000 £21,316,000
    Leicester £203,000,000 £97,750,000 £105,250,000 £21,050,000
    West Bromwich £139,850,000 £40,209,000 £99,641,000 £19,928,200
    Watford £144,200,000 £51,650,000 £92,550,000 £18,510,000
    Everton £332,600,000 £242,100,000 £90,500,000 £18,100,000
    Brighton £75,805,000 £12,000,000 £63,805,000 £12,761,000
    AFC Bournemouth £88,450,000 £24,830,000 £63,620,000 £12,724,000
    Liverpool £471,300,000 £419,080,000 £52,220,000 £10,444,000
    Newcastle United £206,300,000 £155,600,000 £50,700,000 £10,140,000
    Stoke City £101,700,000 £58,250,000 £43,450,000 £8,690,000
    Huddersfield Town £44,615,000 £14,400,000 £30,215,000 £6,043,000
    Burnley £96,850,000 £61,450,000 £35,400,000 £7,080,000
    Tottenham £341,450,000 £339,400,000 £2,050,000 £410,000
    Southampton £237,800,000 £285,550,000 -£47,750,000 -£9,550,000
    Swansea £145,575,000 £195,060,000 -£49,485,000 -£9,897,000

    Net spend doesn't tell the whole story does it ?

    Both Liverpool and Spurs have a lower net spend but have a higher rate of purchase than us by getting good returns on their outgoing transfers. Our 20 mill per annum is decidedly average , and is funded out of revenue, like most mid table clubs I reckon. With the exception of Palace, all of the clubs above us substantially outspend us, as well as 6 clubs below us in the net spend table.

  • Even if we had new owners who were prepared to spend money like water, the FFP rules would restrict what we could manage to do; since our wage spending is above (or very near) the threshold of £67m, we would only be able to increase wages by £7m per season, outside generating funds by player sales (which would reduce our Net spend...) , increased match-day income, or commercial revenue.

    A single player on £100k p/wk would use up most of that £7m.

    All this information is readily available, and yet people still claim we hide behind FFP and lie about it ;hmm
    MrsGrey
  • FFP only applies to teams under the scrutiny of UEFA for the purpose of UEFA competitions- so doesnt really apply to us at this moment in time I think.
    There is a seperate one for the premiership - I'll try and find out what its called.
  • Sorry this went weird when I was editing it - it may come out twice

    OCS

    It's more than all bar Palace outside top 6 for the last 5 years, so presumably other clubs are showing even less ambition?

    On average per season we have outspent almost all potential rivals.

    That is a fact.

    From my post in the middle of January - thought it was worth repeating
    Net Spend last 5 Years
    ......................... Purchased Gross....Sold................Nett............AV.Per Season

    Manchester City £723,850,000 £217,750,000 £506,100,000 £101,220,000
    Manchester United £611,800,000 £174,550,000 £437,250,000 £87,450,000
    Chelsea £667,459,000 £410,450,000 £257,009,000 £51,401,800
    Arsenal £300,940,000 £116,850,000 £184,090,000 £36,818,000
    Crystal Palace £192,035,000 £56,700,000 £135,335,000 £27,067,000
    West Ham £188,450,000 £81,870,000 £106,580,000 £21,316,000
    Leicester £203,000,000 £97,750,000 £105,250,000 £21,050,000
    West Bromwich £139,850,000 £40,209,000 £99,641,000 £19,928,200
    Watford £144,200,000 £51,650,000 £92,550,000 £18,510,000
    Everton £332,600,000 £242,100,000 £90,500,000 £18,100,000
    Brighton £75,805,000 £12,000,000 £63,805,000 £12,761,000
    AFC Bournemouth £88,450,000 £24,830,000 £63,620,000 £12,724,000
    Liverpool £471,300,000 £419,080,000 £52,220,000 £10,444,000
    Newcastle United £206,300,000 £155,600,000 £50,700,000 £10,140,000
    Stoke City £101,700,000 £58,250,000 £43,450,000 £8,690,000
    Huddersfield Town £44,615,000 £14,400,000 £30,215,000 £6,043,000
    Burnley £96,850,000 £61,450,000 £35,400,000 £7,080,000
    Tottenham £341,450,000 £339,400,000 £2,050,000 £410,000
    Southampton £237,800,000 £285,550,000 -£47,750,000 -£9,550,000
    Swansea £145,575,000 £195,060,000 -£49,485,000 -£9,897,000

    Net spend doesn't tell the whole story does it ?

    Both Liverpool and Spurs have a lower net spend but have a higher rate of purchase than us by getting good returns on their outgoing transfers. Our 20 mill per annum is decidedly average , and is funded out of revenue, like most mid table clubs I reckon. With the exception of Palace, all of the clubs above us substantially outspend us, as well as 6 clubs below us in the net spend table.

    We are actually 12th out of 20 clubs in average annual outlay on transfers, and also on average income from outgoing players -
    £37, 690,000.00 Ave Spend over 5 years
    £16, 374,000.00 Ave Sales over 5 years

    Top Average annual Spend - Man City - £144,770,000.00 per annum
    Bottom Average annual Spend - Huddersfield - £8,923,000.00
    Top Average Annual Income - Liverpool - £83,816,000.00
    Bottom Average Annual Income - Brighton - £2,400,000.00

    Obviously skewed due to Huddersfield and Brighton being newly promoted, but shows the real gulf in money washing around the premiership annually.
  • We all know we are referring to the PL one, calling if FFP for convenience.

    But by all means correct it ;ok

  • edited February 7
    BBB

    We'll have to agree to differ.

    Net spend doesn't tell the whole story, bu it does tell a significant story.

    Personally, I think the actual amount going out of the club is the significant figure.

    I don't really understand how you work out that 6 clubs below us substantially outspend us.

    If you are only taking gross figures, then I don't really see how that is relevant.

    Everton spent £330m to our £188m, but ended up only actually spending £90m to our £106m after subtracting player sales.

    They didn't outspend us by £140m, they simply bought £140m worth more of players.
  • FFP only applies to teams under the scrutiny of UEFA for the purpose of UEFA competitions- so doesnt really apply to us at this moment in time I think.
    There is a seperate one for the premiership - I'll try and find out what its called.

    If people are complaining that we aren't ambitious enough and want to get top 6(?) then surely it IS important that we follow UEFA law? That would be peak West Ham to get into Europe and be the first team not allowed in because of financial fair play rules.
  • Grey, if our intention was to be the best of the also-rans, then I don't see why we moved to the OS.
    FortuneseekerLukerz
  • bbb

    The figures I quoted are from the PL rules, which does apply to us.
  • OCS

    I didn't suggest it was the club's intention.

    It is my own conclusion.
  • edited February 7
    but the club's intention was to compete with the European elite and if the gap to the top 6 is a massive gulf that they can never fill, then they sold the Boleyn on the back of a pipe dream.
    billybondsbeardOldCastleSwiftWHU_Champo_league_in_7_yearsPrestonHammerLukerzswhtsFortuneseeker
Sign In or Register to comment.