Transfer window list of CCC clubs expenditure

[NickG]

The echo tonights lists every club in CCC's in's and out's.

 

I was surprised at how few clubs have bought anyone so looked to see who the top net spenders were. This is based purely on disclosed transfer fees, not signing on fees, wages or undisclosed etc.

 

The biggest spenders were Notts Forest followed by...us!

 

I appreciate it means little on its own but seemed bit ironic

[IronCitySaint]

The echo tonights lists every club in CCC's in's and out's.

 

I was surprised at how few clubs have bought anyone so looked to see who the top net spenders were. This is based purely on disclosed transfer fees, not signing on fees, wages or undisclosed etc.

 

The biggest spenders were Notts Forest followed by...us!

 

I appreciate it means little on its own but seemed bit ironic

 

Especially considering how we keep being told how hard up we are.

[Dannyboy_Saint]

Bare in mind that the 3 relegated clubs while not spending much have instead invested the money they would have spent on keeping the players they have their on the books for another year on premiership wages.

[Professor]

Especially considering how we keep being told how hard up we are.

Its only fans on here who say the club 'has no money'.

What we are told by the club - is that past excessive expenditure has been curbed, new budgets have been agreed and that the finances are now on a sound basis, which they would not have been if the previous board's plans had not been changed. Maybe the plans would have changed anyway if Leon Crouch had remained in the chair, but either way, working within a budget so that you match expenditure to income is not the same as being skint. Lots of families do it all the time.

[dubai_phil]

Its only fans on here who say the club 'has no money'.

What we are told by the club - is that past excessive expenditure has been curbed, new budgets have been agreed and that the finances are now on a sound basis, which they would not have been if the previous board's plans had not been changed. Maybe the plans would have changed anyway if Leon Crouch had remained in the chair, but either way, working within a budget so that you match expenditure to income is not the same as being skint. Lots of families do it all the time.

 

Shame Alisdair Darling can't work out that bit of logic though:-)

[um pahars]

Its only fans on here who say the club 'has no money'.

What we are told by the club - is that past excessive expenditure has been curbed, new budgets have been agreed and that the finances are now on a sound basis, which they would not have been if the previous board's plans had not been changed. Maybe the plans would have changed anyway if Leon Crouch had remained in the chair, but either way, working within a budget so that you match expenditure to income is not the same as being skint. Lots of families do it all the time.

 

I may have to do a M on you and hold that in some notebook thingy to throw back at you at some point.

 

Despite the savings, our finances are not on a sound basis!

[ottery st mary]

Its only fans on here who say the club 'has no money'.

What we are told by the club - is that past excessive expenditure has been curbed, new budgets have been agreed and that the finances are now on a sound basis, which they would not have been if the previous board's plans had not been changed. Maybe the plans would have changed anyway if Leon Crouch had remained in the chair, but either way, working within a budget so that you match expenditure to income is not the same as being skint. Lots of families do it all the time.

 

Prof Please if you can, I believe you may have some association with whats going on at the mad house. (If not you usually have a strong view from the club point of view)

Honest question if you have a view..

 

What a lot of people have asked on this web and some of my friends who go regularly to games. WHY buy/loan two players who were not going anywhere and will take some time to get fit and then match fit and THEN may not be good enough. Wages for both anywhere between 2-6 grand a week in total for two players they could have loaned in Nov/Dec/Jan when they had proved their match fitness. Cost unecessary as they did not appear to be wanted elsewhere. Pulis and Gasmi. It really puzzles me at this level when we have plenty at the club. If you do not know or do not have a view just ignore me. But thanks in anticipation. I really want Saints to succeed.

Edited 2 September, 2008 by ottery st mary

[alpine_saint]

Its only fans on here who say the club 'has no money'.

What we are told by the club - is that past excessive expenditure has been curbed, new budgets have been agreed and that the finances are now on a sound basis, which they would not have been if the previous board's plans had not been changed. Maybe the plans would have changed anyway if Leon Crouch had remained in the chair, but either way, working within a budget so that you match expenditure to income is not the same as being skint. Lots of families do it all the time.

 

Reasonable post, but I am pretty certain that the budget and planning wasnt accounting for 15,000 gates..

[PokingFun]

Reasonable post, but I am pretty certain that the budget and planning wasnt accounting for 15,000 gates..

 

15,000 on Saturday is not a realistic guide I suspect as it was:

 

A) On Sky, and

B) Against lowly opposition who brought only a couple of hundred fans themselves.

 

I would expect an average gate this season of in the region of 17-18k. Not sure how that compares to last year and I guess much will depend on how results fare between now and xmas.

[Minsk]

If anyone has the opportunity, time and inclination could you please type up the full list from the Echo for those of who live a bit too far away to be able to buy it.

 

Or if anyone could point me to where this info may be found elsewhere this would also be helpful.

 

Ta in advance.

[polegategavin]

The echo tonights lists every club in CCC's in's and out's.

 

I was surprised at how few clubs have bought anyone so looked to see who the top net spenders were. This is based purely on disclosed transfer fees, not signing on fees, wages or undisclosed etc.

 

The biggest spenders were Notts Forest followed by...us!

 

I appreciate it means little on its own but seemed bit ironic

 

Nick,

 

according to a web site I have found this morning we are actually 6th in the spenders list, behind Nottm Forest, Burnley, Bristol City, Sheff Utd and Coventry, with Wolves just behind us.

 

However, it is amazing how many of the clubs have 'undisclosed fees' which could be any sum, and all but one of Wolves transfers in are like this and I suspect that they have spent more than anyone with the actually fees paid.

 

However, there are 8 clubs who it appears have spent nothing on new signings and a further 5 who spent less the £300,000. So we either have taken a big risk on Schneirdelin (as he is the fee we paid) or we aren't as badly placed as has been portrayed.

 

Obviously, what this doesn't include is the wages paid by each club and the quality of players that have left (not used in squad in our case) that were available to each club last season.

 

Interesting none the less.

[Window Cleaner]

Its only fans on here who say the club 'has no money'.

What we are told by the club - is that past excessive expenditure has been curbed, new budgets have been agreed and that the finances are now on a sound basis, which they would not have been if the previous board's plans had not been changed. Maybe the plans would have changed anyway if Leon Crouch had remained in the chair, but either way, working within a budget so that you match expenditure to income is not the same as being skint. Lots of families do it all the time.

 

 

Hmm I told them all that yesterday, not many believed me apparently.

It's a hard job being a voice of reason on this forum, too many of them live in football manager fantasy worlds.No-one but no-one seems to want to take into account how much all those "loans" last season cost us, how much Hone,Hoos,McMenemy,Dulieu,Wiseman et al were probably milking us for, whether it be in salaries or expenses or whatever. They only see players in and out as savings,the rest is just bumph to them. I'd wager that collectively the directors were milking us for well over a million a year. Probably down to about a quarter of that now.

When you take a player on a year's loan you usually have to pay a fee,

find him somewhere to live, pay for English lessons for the wife, get her some home help etc etc, all that costs a fortune. Bet the cost of Vignal alone was

well over a million £ last season, all found that is,he played about 20 or so games I think,50K a game, not bad at all, money down the drain now but at least we've put a stop to all that; Mettomo, a few quid a week no doubt but with accomodation,travelling fees, a little dob for signing on ,probably cost

about 150K for absolutely sod all.When you look at last years half yearly account player and coaches cost is a staggering 6.6 million, the players weren't on an average of 7K a week so a lot of money was going down

the drain for odds and sods. That has been stopped.

[Scummer]

So we either have taken a big risk on Schneirdelin (as he is the fee we paid) or we aren't as badly placed as has been portrayed.

 

It also depends how much we have paid for Scheiderlin. I've seen several amounts mentioned.

[polegategavin]

It also depends how much we have paid for Scheiderlin. I've seen several amounts mentioned.

 

My point was that he is our only signing with a transfer fee, and is why NickG was claiming we were 2nd in the transfer spending list. If this is so then it is either a gamble or we can afford it.

 

What is also interesting is that QPR (claimed to be the richest club in the country, from owner wealth on Sunday night!) spent £250,000 on transfer fees. So we have spent in excess of the richest club in Britain allegedly.

 

As I stated in my earlier reply the figures take no account of the wages paid etc, I'm sure this would be a far more interesting statistic if it would ever become public.

[NickG]

error

 

...

[NickG]

My point was that he is our only signing with a transfer fee, and is why NickG was claiming we were 2nd in the transfer spending list. If this is so then it is either a gamble or we can afford it.

 

What is also interesting is that QPR (claimed to be the richest club in the country, from owner wealth on Sunday night!) spent £250,000 on transfer fees. So we have spent in excess of the richest club in Britain allegedly.

 

As I stated in my earlier reply the figures take no account of the wages paid etc, I'm sure this would be a far more interesting statistic if it would ever become public.

 

I think its ironic thats all, not claiming it is an accurate reflection of all monies spent as I said in my first post but it is interesting that we have not been outspent on one aspect

[Minsk]

I have no idea of what figures are being quoted for which teams but as has been said by someone else.........

 

Spiderman was our only paid for transfer and that is a sum RISING TO 1.2m. I doubt we paid anywhere near that amount up front. If, for example, we only made a downpayment of 300k where would that put us?

[aintforever]

I have no idea of what figures are being quoted for which teams but as has been said by someone else.........

 

Spiderman was our only paid for transfer and that is a sum RISING TO 1.2m. I doubt we paid anywhere near that amount up front. If, for example, we only made a downpayment of 300k where would that put us?

 

Whatever the downpayment it is still a financial commitment of up to 1.2m on an untried player - something a club on the verge of admin wouldn't do.

[Ash]

Whatever the downpayment it is still a financial commitment of up to 1.2m on an untried player - something a club on the verge of admin wouldn't do.

A large part of that could be based on a return to the Premiership, and if that happens we won't have the same worries.

[Weston Super Saint]

15,000 on Saturday is not a realistic guide I suspect as it was:

 

A) On Sky, and

B) Against lowly opposition who brought only a couple of hundred fans themselves.

 

I would expect an average gate this season of in the region of 17-18k. Not sure how that compares to last year and I guess much will depend on how results fare between now and xmas.

 

LOL

 

So, we played pretty badly against 'lowly' opposition and got soundly beaten, and yet strangely you expect this result to actually increase the average gate

[Oz]

average home attendance this season is 4,000 down on last season

 

17,000 now - 21,000 last season