Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I was chatting to a colleague about our recent success, and he said that we're doing well because we have the luxury of owners that are wealthy enough that we can pummp money into player transfers. This got me thinking that two of our biggest signings aren't even the ones making the difference at the moment. So I came up with two Saints first teams based on how much they cost us, or didn't cost us, to show him:

 

Expensive:

 

Davis, Clyne, Lovren, Yoshida, Fox, Cork, Wanyama, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Mayuka, Osvaldo

 

Cheap:

 

Boruc, Chambers, Fonte, Jos, Shaw, Morgan, JWP, Lallana, Guly, Davis, Lambert.

 

Obviously you could mess about with the formations, and include players like Martin, Barnard, Lee and Forte, as well as some more youngsters like Rowe, Isgrove, Stephens et al, but I suggested the cheap side would currently beat the expensively assembled side.

 

What do you think? Which would win?

Posted
Is 1m expensive? even in L1. To me expensive is any player above the 8m marque. Any decent player nowadays is around 4-6m.

 

Against turnover yes it is expensive. Our Turnover in L1 was around £10m, high by league one standards, so Lamberts transfer fee alone was 10%, factor in wages and you're probably talking 15-20%. How many L1 clubs spend £1m on players?

Posted

Take the point about spending £1m in L1. It was, and remains, a huge sum. But the relevant point for the OP is that we paid £1m for a player who is first choice and performing highly in the Premier League. Thats cheap by anyone's measure

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...