I certainly don't doubt your figures but maybe you could provide a list to back up your claim.Jimscho wrote:Those figures are a load of ********.Read my posts on here re Gray and Keane for truer figures and no figure for Taylor believed to be £6m and you will see we have spent more than we have got in.
Our net spend this window
Re: Our net spend this window
-
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:21 pm
- Been Liked: 217 times
- Has Liked: 97 times
Re: Our net spend this window
How do you work that out ? If we had a transfer budget before we sold these players then surely we should of added some more on for making such an healthy profit . Even if it was an extra 10 million its better than nothing
-
- Posts: 18776
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 7701 times
- Has Liked: 1593 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Our net spend this window
Perhaps our 'transfer budget' also allows for us to address the need for incomings in January.
-
- Posts: 821
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:34 pm
- Been Liked: 405 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
- Location: Rawtenstall
Re: Our net spend this window
The list at post 2 is quite accurate on the purchases so about £40m spent excluding agents fees and I assume there may be signing on fees.The figures I dispute is the 48.5m for sales as these are nearer £32/33m if you include Darikwa sale.As I have pointed out a number of times to the point of boredom some of these fees are subject to certain events happening in the future so not guaranteed and United got just over £6m.We have possibly spent £8m more this window than received.We may also have had to pay Brentford some of the Gray fee,I don't know.We may also have to pay Leeds some money in the future for Wood and Taylor.KRBFC wrote:I certainly don't doubt your figures but maybe you could provide a list to back up your claim.
-
- Posts: 11255
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3635 times
- Has Liked: 2241 times
Re: Our net spend this window
How do you know they are accurate?Jimscho wrote:The list at post 2 is quite accurate on the purchases so about £40m spent excluding agents fees and I assume there may be signing on fees.The figures I dispute is the 48.5m for sales as these are nearer £32/33m if you include Darikwa sale.As I have pointed out a number of times to the point of boredom some of these fees are subject to certain events happening in the future so not guaranteed and United got just over £6m.We have possibly spent £8m more this window than received.We may also have had to pay Brentford some of the Gray fee,I don't know.We may also have to pay Leeds some money in the future for Wood and Taylor.
Re: Our net spend this window
Good post, maybe you could have replied to my question in the OP without the previous unnecessary attacks. After all, I only asked a question based on figures I'd read on Sky.Jimscho wrote:The list at post 2 is quite accurate on the purchases so about £40m spent excluding agents fees and I assume there may be signing on fees.The figures I dispute is the 48.5m for sales as these are nearer £32/33m if you include Darikwa sale.As I have pointed out a number of times to the point of boredom some of these fees are subject to certain events happening in the future so not guaranteed and United got just over £6m.We have possibly spent £8m more this window than received.We may also have had to pay Brentford some of the Gray fee,I don't know.We may also have to pay Leeds some money in the future for Wood and Taylor.
-
- Posts: 821
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:34 pm
- Been Liked: 405 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
- Location: Rawtenstall
Re: Our net spend this window
I don't but I think they are more accurate than the £48m -£50m that keeps being quoted on here.Bordeauxclaret wrote:How do you know they are accurate?
-
- Posts: 11255
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3635 times
- Has Liked: 2241 times
Re: Our net spend this window
Ah right. It's just when you said it was quite accurate I assumed you knew.
-
- Posts: 821
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:34 pm
- Been Liked: 405 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
- Location: Rawtenstall
Re: Our net spend this window
I did apologise for that and I meant it.My mistake was trying to read the message board on my phone and because of my eyesight got a bit cross eyed and attributed the post to you rather than RV.The eyesight problem is genuine.I go to matches with my son and 3 grandchildren but I can't make out who the individual players are and often have to watch replays on TVs as I don't see them clearly at the game.KRBFC wrote:Good post, maybe you could have replied to my question in the OP without the previous unnecessary attacks. After all, I only asked a question based on figures I'd read on Sky.
This user liked this post: KRBFC
-
- Been Liked: 1 time
- Has Liked: 947 times
Re: Our net spend this window
Can we spend a few quid less and have a less sh*t sponsor ruining our shirts?
-
- Posts: 740
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:24 pm
- Been Liked: 189 times
- Has Liked: 130 times
- Location: York
Re: Our net spend this window
A football club is a business and needs to make living - sums up your intelligenceKRBFC wrote:A football club isn't even comparable to owning a business to make a living.
Keeping the existing squad on a level playing field has used up the entire £110M plus whatever we had remaining from last year? Simply not true at all, our wage bill is absolutely nowhere near £110M plus the money left over from last season.
Keeping the entire squad on a level playing field - you or I have no idea what was paid to players as bonuses for staying in the premier. You don't always need to inflate wages - businesses can make other cash incentives to players
I have not stated our wage bill is near 110mill. We have no idea as to what the true running costs of the club are. Our end of year accounts are not detailed enough to determine those figures.
You are so full of ill informed and poorly researched observations.
Re: Our net spend this window
You were the one who said we spent the entire lot on keeping the players on a level playing field which would suggest you are the ill informed one.iluva64 wrote:A football club is a business and needs to make living - sums up your intelligence
Keeping the entire squad on a level playing field - you or I have no idea what was paid to players as bonuses for staying in the premier. You don't always need to inflate wages - businesses can make other cash incentives to players
I have not stated our wage bill is near 110mill. We have no idea as to what the true running costs of the club are. Our end of year accounts are not detailed enough to determine those figures.
You are so full of ill informed and poorly researched observations.
-
- Posts: 740
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:24 pm
- Been Liked: 189 times
- Has Liked: 130 times
- Location: York
Re: Our net spend this window
You numpty,
I'm not the one quoting figures....you are. 110 mill is I assume from your post no.1
You have no idea as to wether we received that figure as our end of year accounts aren't due until next year
I'm not the one quoting figures....you are. 110 mill is I assume from your post no.1
You have no idea as to wether we received that figure as our end of year accounts aren't due until next year
Re: Our net spend this window
Sunderland received over £100M and they were relegated, £110M is about what we'll receive for our finish last season. We may not have received it all yet because its not paid upfront in one payment. You fkn numptyiluva64 wrote:You numpty,
I'm not the one quoting figures....you are. 110 mill is I assume from your post no.1
You have no idea as to wether we received that figure as our end of year accounts aren't due until next year


-
- Posts: 740
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:24 pm
- Been Liked: 189 times
- Has Liked: 130 times
- Location: York
Re: Our net spend this window
such an immature retard
Re: Our net spend this window
No response? What a f**king numpty you areiluva64 wrote:such an immature retard

-
- Posts: 740
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:24 pm
- Been Liked: 189 times
- Has Liked: 130 times
- Location: York
Re: Our net spend this window
the response was above.......you can add illiterate to my post65 as well
-
- Posts: 4400
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:39 pm
- Been Liked: 724 times
- Has Liked: 673 times
- Location: Wexford, Ireland. via Nelson.
Re: Our net spend this window
Why net and not Gross?
-
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:27 pm
- Been Liked: 138 times
- Has Liked: 115 times
Re: Our net spend this window
So, are we saying that we have spent about the same as we have received from transfers this summer?
That means we have whatever was left over from last season's PL money PLUS the 110 million we get this time round, right?
I know that several players will be on improved deals, and there will be bonuses paid out for staying up, but it feels as though we have a lot of cash sloshing around now?!
5m is ringfenced for the disabled facilities. Have the concourses / toilets / catering facilities been improved at all? That's something I would like to see a few million spent on...giving a bit directly back to the fans / improving the match day experience a bit?
That means we have whatever was left over from last season's PL money PLUS the 110 million we get this time round, right?
I know that several players will be on improved deals, and there will be bonuses paid out for staying up, but it feels as though we have a lot of cash sloshing around now?!
5m is ringfenced for the disabled facilities. Have the concourses / toilets / catering facilities been improved at all? That's something I would like to see a few million spent on...giving a bit directly back to the fans / improving the match day experience a bit?
-
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 9:30 pm
- Been Liked: 201 times
- Has Liked: 35 times
- Location: Norfolk
Re: Our net spend this window
Another gormless happy clapper trying to desperately spin things to justify their persistent delusions. Your figures very conveniently include speculative valuations when it suits you and conveniently downgrades transfer monies coming in when it suits you. You are also conveniently in denial over the amounts saved on wages on leaving players and players released.
Oh and the biggest convenience of all.....the fact that whatever way you try to spin it, as a club we did not spend in net amounts anywhere near the amounts spouted about by Garlick before the transfer market opened.
The lack of an experienced CB to challenge for a starting position , let alone as cover is just plain stupidity especially as we have had the whole year to do something about it. Tarks may be good but as a Prem CB he is inexperienced, Long doesn't cut it and is simply not good enough. We are one serious injury away from real trouble. No-one can seriously tell me that the other defenders we have that are full backs can be good enough to cover as a Prem CB at the present moment.
We have cash in abundance or should have or serious questions need to be asked to have recruited properly for CB. The Board should hang their head in shame for taking such a needless risk. Absolutely disgraceful. Yes we have made some decent signings, some not so good but they could have and should have been better. I truly do support my team and have done so all my life but stop blindly following every message drummed out that SD and the Board are Gods who can do no wrong.
Oh and the biggest convenience of all.....the fact that whatever way you try to spin it, as a club we did not spend in net amounts anywhere near the amounts spouted about by Garlick before the transfer market opened.
The lack of an experienced CB to challenge for a starting position , let alone as cover is just plain stupidity especially as we have had the whole year to do something about it. Tarks may be good but as a Prem CB he is inexperienced, Long doesn't cut it and is simply not good enough. We are one serious injury away from real trouble. No-one can seriously tell me that the other defenders we have that are full backs can be good enough to cover as a Prem CB at the present moment.
We have cash in abundance or should have or serious questions need to be asked to have recruited properly for CB. The Board should hang their head in shame for taking such a needless risk. Absolutely disgraceful. Yes we have made some decent signings, some not so good but they could have and should have been better. I truly do support my team and have done so all my life but stop blindly following every message drummed out that SD and the Board are Gods who can do no wrong.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:35 pm
- Been Liked: 194 times
- Has Liked: 16 times
Re: Our net spend this window
It's almost like the posters downgrading the money received for Keane & Gray think this is a good thing??? Maybe if we were not so quick to the deals we could have waited and easily made another £10-15m profit. You only have to look at the crazy money being banded about today.
Re: Our net spend this window
We could. But if Everton had signed someone else, we could easily have made £10-£15m less profit. Or no profit at all, if no offers came in that were acceptable to Keane. You never know what would have happened.PutTheWheelieBinsOut wrote:It's almost like the posters downgrading the money received for Keane & Gray think this is a good thing??? Maybe if we were not so quick to the deals we could have waited and easily made another £10-15m profit. You only have to look at the crazy money being banded about today.
Re: Our net spend this window

We apparently have received just £18M of the quoted £30M fee for Keane. Poor businessdsr wrote:We could. But if Everton had signed someone else, we could easily have made £10-£15m less profit. Or no profit at all, if no offers came in that were acceptable to Keane. You never know what would have happened.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:35 pm
- Been Liked: 194 times
- Has Liked: 16 times
Re: Our net spend this window
Yes it would be a tragedy to have Keane in our team for Palacedsr wrote:We could. But if Everton had signed someone else, we could easily have made £10-£15m less profit. Or no profit at all, if no offers came in that were acceptable to Keane. You never know what would have happened.

-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:43 pm
- Been Liked: 94 times
- Has Liked: 32 times
Re: Our net spend this window
No poor business just poor understanding by youKRBFC wrote:![]()
We apparently have received just £18M of the quoted £30M fee for Keane. Poor business
We had a 25% sell on to pay to Manutd and5m is add ins only payable to us we he has played a number of games, so 18m is what we got deal with it
Re: Our net spend this window
Poor understanding? I just said we received £18M for Keane of the quoted £30M. You then confirmed we received £18M for Keane and stated the reason why. You said the exact same thing as me then said I misunderstood? Surely that makes you misunderstood too?RattyClaret wrote:No poor business just poor understanding by you
We had a 25% sell on to pay to Manutd and5m is add ins only payable to us we he has played a number of games, so 18m is what we got deal with it

-
- Posts: 17385
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3569 times
- Has Liked: 7848 times
Re: Our net spend this window
Was it ever £30million?
Re: Our net spend this window
Quoted as £30M but we have only received £18M at this moment in time.boatshed bill wrote:Was it ever £30million?