I've been working my way through the websites showing the transfer activity for each Club in our League next Season. In the figures below the first one shows the number of players that have been signed and the figure in brackets shows the number of players who have left the Club. A minus shows the gross amount spent and a plus shows the profit made on the transactions done thus far. Like our transactions a lot of fees paid might be undisclosed and so the information may not be precise but at least it gives us a rough picture as to what could be happening out there. Villa 2 (4) £0. Bristol City 2(3) -£5.10 mill. Derby 2(5)+£15.90 mill. Forest 2(4)-£727k Reading 2(10) £0. Wednesday 2(4) -£9.95mill. Fulham 3(9) +£4.45 mill. Hull 3(11) + £11.65 mill. Birmingham 4(4) - £4.89 mill. Brentford 4(5) -£2.21 mill. PNE 4(3) -£996k. QPR 4(4) £0 Sunderland 4 (12) + £23.51 mill. Ipswich 5 (11) -£935k. Middlesbrough 5 (10) -£468k. Sheffield Utd 5 (7) -£1.26 million Norwich 6 (15) + £8.71 mill. Barnsley 7 (11) + £1.40 mill. Bolton 7 (8) £0. Cardiff 7(7) -£1.53. Millwall 7 (19) £0. Leeds 8 (9) - £10.25 mill. Wolves 8 (12) -£18.73 mill. Burton 17 (19) - £304k Looking at the figures as far as I'm concerned it shows us in a fairly good light compared to some and who knows by the time we get to the Coventry game we could be second behind Burton in the number of players signed. Four Clubs re- Bristol City, Wednesday ( Rhodes), Leeds and Wolves have spent quite an amount on signings and Fulham, Derby, Hull, Norwich and Sunderland appear to have sold some of their better players to raise a fair amount of brass. Hull, Borough and Sunderland have also got the parachute money to fall back on. How do we feel having seen those figures.?
There is an aggregated figure of around 20 million that separates us and Wolverhamptonwolverines. How will this translate into points per pound and league position? When you start thinking about it like that, it makes you realise how silly it's all got. They should be knocking on the door this season, but will they? I very much doubt it. Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk
That's right. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. I've altered the Villa figure to two because they've brought Sam Johnstone ( keeper) in on loan from Man Utd now to add to John Terry who is on a free.
Looking at Wolves in closer detail their Portuguese Manager Nuno Santos is taking a big gamble by bringing in three players from the Portuguese League re- Neves a midfielder at £15.22 mill from Porto, Miranda a centre back from Rio Ave for £ 2.55 mill and Willy Bolly another centre back on loan from Porto. His only other outlay has been £969k on left back Barry Douglas from Konyaspor. He's brought in three frees as well , namely Ayeh a right back from Braunschweig and another centre back Ryan Bennett and keeper John Ruddy who were both released by Norwich so nearly £18 mill has been spent on two players who might with a bit of luck take some time to acclimatise and could hopefully struggle to initially get up to speed with life in the Championship.
Not sure Nuno Santos has much input into who Wolves sign tbh. Sent from my iPad using Barnsley FC BBS Fans Forum
That's just transfer fees though isn't it? The bigger differential is probably the wage outlay on these players. Interesting read tho, ta
It's the probable fee we have received for Roberts re-£3.40 million less what we could have paid to sign Mallan, Lindsay, McGeehan, Pinnock et al. As I said in my original post we can't query any of the figures because a lot of the fees are "undisclosed". Having looked at the facts available I feel a little more relaxed knowing that we have conducted more business than most and if the current rumours are to be believed when and not if we bring more in, we could be right up there with regards to being one of the more pro-active Clubs in the League. We've just got to hope they can all blend together in readiness for the 5th August.
But is it really fair to compare the figures in this way when in reality a lot of the signings we are making now are to replace players sold in January? Most clubs who sold their striker in January wouldn't be 7montgs down the line and have no replacement. So when we replace him eventually your chart will show that we look so pro-active because we've spent money on a player, in reality we are just spending the cash from 7 months ago when we banked it. Same with a right back etc. In fairness the January transfer window and this one has to be put together as one for us because it is one phase, we are replacing the players now that we sold then
No purpose in going over old ground. We know only too well why our better players choose to leave us. It has nothing to do with training/managerial methods, support or facilities it purely down to bits of paper with the Sovereigns head printed on them. It's as simple as that.!
I agree ST all it is, is a snapshot of what's happening now. Looks as though most Clubs are like us.! There have been around 119 incomings and circa 178 outgoings (not including loans) but that could balance itself out before the big kick off. Problem is we all look to be chasing the same rare asset re- prolific strikers.!
I see what you're saying but my point was that they aren't all like us or in the same boat because they didn't sell their squad in January without replacing them. The majority need to replace the players they have lost in the last month. We need to replace a destructive 7 months which puts us at a significant disadvantage