Just seen this, which is eye-opening for all sorts of reasons. However, the immediate thing that leaps from the page is that we're 8th from bottom in terms of the lowest costs of Championship squads, and I bet the vast majority of us would have said we'd be bottom 3 before seeing it. Looking at the relative performances this season of some of the teams below us in this table is a good reflection of how badly we've invested in our squad, relative to them. The obvious caveat is that this data will largely relate to last season, as it's taken from latest published accounts, but I doubt that there'll be a vast difference in rankings if current season stats were available. The promoted teams (Hull, Peterborough and Blackpool) will no doubt have invested in squads on promotion, and I suspect the relegated Premiership teams plus Derby would show a fairly sizeable drop for the current season.
I suspect it will be the acquisition cost shown for intangible assets of each club, which will equate to the transfer values of players at the time they were acquired. Even a club with a policy of 'undisclosed' fees can't avoid showing the total costs within this figure. Academy developed players, etc will have a value of zero in this regard.
So if money is everything to do with league positions we should be finishing 8th from bottom.....So based on that we've underachieved...
People say the board doesn't spend. They're wrong, but they just want something else to bash them with. However, what I do agree with, is how poorly we have spent our money on - or in positions we desperately needed. Glaring obvious one being experience in midfield.
There's pretty much a perfect fit of 3 mini-leagues, in terms of invesment level: Below £10m - 8 teams, of which we're the highest spending. £10-50m - 8 teams >£50m - 8 teams At each break point there's a relatively large jump to the next team. In the top group, you could pretty much create two more splits as you move up the ranking list. Stoke are a stand out, as they're no longer funded by parachute payments, but are still in the top 3. QPR, as @Durkar Red mentions, are surprisingly low on the list. Without investigating further I'd guess this is down to a mix of youth development and free transfers of older players.
As alluded in another post QPR may have some older players signed on free transfers. Suspect they'll be paying big wages to these.
It doesn't give a complete picture, as logically we'd need to look at salary costs alongside this to get a better idea. I think we'd be further down the list of that particular league table. Free/nominal fee transfer players might attract significant wages. Charlie Austin at QPR would be a good example.
QPR only spent 1.5m last Summer in transfers but signed Austin, Johanson on permanent and Andre Ward on loan those 3 are reported to be on circa £50k a week between them and Jeff Hendrick on £35k
If the data largely relates to last season, then we over achieved. Didn't we... Cost wise 8th from bottom and we finished 5th. I suspect when the comparison is made to next accounts, we have massively underachieved, as Conway said we have increased spending this season. And are now witnessing our @rses falling out the championship.... That about right?
We overachieved by any available measure last season, and our transfer spend won't have been significantly different from that shown in the table. The data we have available for analysis of this type will always be a year out of date, but the analysis is still interesting to see.
Which is why I get frustrated that we splash big fees on gambles rather than investing in a few more frees and loans of quality and experience. One each of Solbauer and a Matty James instead of a single Patrick Schmidt.
Do the most recent set of published accounts say we spent 8.8m on player transfers though? (Is that what they are saying ?)
It is the original purchase cost of the playing squad at the end of last season. It is not the Written Down Value (the original cost less amortisation based upon the length of the contract signed by the player when he arrived). The figure does not include any value for players who have come through the academy, and it would not include the value of any players who signed a second contract, following the expiry of their initial contract. (I do not know whether there are any of these). I do not know where the figures for West Brom and Swansea come from, as they have not yet published their accounts. The figure for QPR is wrong.
This is the source figure from our accounts. Pretty static over the two seasons with similar additions and disposals. £4.3m was the value of player purchases in the year ending 31/05/21. One thing that the figure won't include is any loan players, even if a fee was paid for them, as they're not assets of the loaning club.