| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent 07:26 - Feb 27 with 3261 views | noggin |
Yes it's a huge amount of money, when you see it written down in isolation. However, the sad reality is, it's not nearly enough to buy a squad of players capable of competing in the PL in 2025. That was the task facing the club at the start of the season. This season, and last, are clear proof that a PL ready squad costs much more.
We can criticise individual performances and KM's tactics, but using the 140 million as a stick to beat the club with, is failing to put it into context. The money in the PL is obscene and sadly 140 million is peanuts. |  |
| |  |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:41 - Feb 27 with 2407 views | sotd78 |
Exactly. When Man City spent more than that in January alone you get to see how little 120 million buys.
What we mostly have done is buy younger, resellable talent that we can rebuild with. The older players are mostly either top Championship talent who may help us get promoted again or loans that can be returned. Of the three teams that got promoted we were possibly seen as the weakest. We may well finish the strongest of the three. That may be all we can expect. Follow the process? |  |
| Blue shirts/white shorts - sotd78 |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:44 - Feb 27 with 2380 views | cressi |
130 million more than Luton spent and with the so called messiah in charge most people expected a bit more we have got worse only club in the football league not to win a game in 2025. |  | | |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:47 - Feb 27 with 2339 views | noggin |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:44 - Feb 27 by cressi |
130 million more than Luton spent and with the so called messiah in charge most people expected a bit more we have got worse only club in the football league not to win a game in 2025. |
Why the Luton comparisons? They're bottom of the Championship. | |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:51 - Feb 27 with 2306 views | cressi |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:47 - Feb 27 by noggin |
Why the Luton comparisons? They're bottom of the Championship. |
Because we spent 130 million more I personally expected a bit more one home win all season. Nobody can feel we have bought well overall. | | | |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:51 - Feb 27 with 2307 views | ibbleobble |
I think it’s more the handicap around the £140m investment, no? As in, that’s the amount you come up with as reward for being promoted and it’s a small fortune for a club our size, which is a big investment and deemed enough but it’s not. Either way, expectation is heightened especially after KM dispelled the myth that was floating around for years under MM that your wage structure determines where you finish in the league. | | | |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:03 - Feb 27 with 2204 views | SaffronWaldenBlues |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:47 - Feb 27 by noggin |
Why the Luton comparisons? They're bottom of the Championship. |
Because they spent nothing last season and were about as competitive as we have been this season. Although you are right to highlight that they have sunk this season, and given the investment we’ve made I’d say that would be unlikely for us to do the double drop at least.
My main gripe with what we’ve paid out is that we’ve simply paid over the odds for a lot of players who are Championship quality, and that is already their ceiling and as okay as some have done in spells this season, I’d argue Muric, Palmer, O’Shea, Townsend, Greaves, Clarke, Smodicz and Johnson are not Premier League quality players, nor will they be. Hutchinson and Phillogene have room for improvement, and Delap is but that’s not enough to justify the sort of fees we’ve paid. If we’d have spent that sort of money on these same players in the Championship we’d probably be a bit surprised. On the upside we should have a team good enough for a top 7 finish at worst next season but if we do come back up we can’t try this again. |  |
| An East Anglian Town overtaken by Londoners |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:07 - Feb 27 with 2172 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:51 - Feb 27 by cressi |
Because we spent 130 million more I personally expected a bit more one home win all season. Nobody can feel we have bought well overall. |
You're telling me Luton spent £0 last season? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:15 - Feb 27 with 2107 views | WeirdFishes |
I disagree somewhat, we’re not a million miles away points wise and think if we’d invested the money better we’d have more points.
Ndiaye (Everton) and Sarr (Palace) were both cheaper than Clarke, Omari and Jaden for example. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:18 - Feb 27 with 2066 views | FrimleyBlue |
For me it's not about the money making us a solid prem side. You're not gonna do that.
But with the money spent did we improve our chances of staying up over the players who got us up and this where the jury is out. |  |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:19 - Feb 27 with 2079 views | noggin |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:15 - Feb 27 by WeirdFishes |
I disagree somewhat, we’re not a million miles away points wise and think if we’d invested the money better we’d have more points.
Ndiaye (Everton) and Sarr (Palace) were both cheaper than Clarke, Omari and Jaden for example. |
Were those players available to us? We had 2 very short windows to buy a squad of players and so could only bring in players that were available, within budget and who were willing to come. [Post edited 27 Feb 8:19]
| |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:29 - Feb 27 with 2002 views | Blue_In_Boston |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 07:41 - Feb 27 by sotd78 |
Exactly. When Man City spent more than that in January alone you get to see how little 120 million buys.
What we mostly have done is buy younger, resellable talent that we can rebuild with. The older players are mostly either top Championship talent who may help us get promoted again or loans that can be returned. Of the three teams that got promoted we were possibly seen as the weakest. We may well finish the strongest of the three. That may be all we can expect. Follow the process? |
Why mention Man City, were not competing with them? Use Fulham, Wolves, Palace etc, teams we would be fighting against to stay up. | | | |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:30 - Feb 27 with 1991 views | Zx1988 |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:19 - Feb 27 by noggin |
Were those players available to us? We had 2 very short windows to buy a squad of players and so could only bring in players that were available, within budget and who were willing to come. [Post edited 27 Feb 8:19]
|
Let's not forget their wages as well.
The way I see it, we've assembled a squad of high-potential players who (hopefully) won't be agitating for a move in the summer if we go down.
As good as the likes of Ndiaye and Sarr may be, I'd hate for next summer to be full of Gnonto-style transfer shenanigans and disruption, as Leeds had last time they got relegated. | |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:31 - Feb 27 with 1975 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:29 - Feb 27 by Blue_In_Boston |
Why mention Man City, were not competing with them? Use Fulham, Wolves, Palace etc, teams we would be fighting against to stay up. |
The Fulham, Wolves and Palace squads are all light years ahead of us in terms of spend. You can pick any team you like in the Prem, including the ones below us. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:32 - Feb 27 with 1974 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:15 - Feb 27 by WeirdFishes |
I disagree somewhat, we’re not a million miles away points wise and think if we’d invested the money better we’d have more points.
Ndiaye (Everton) and Sarr (Palace) were both cheaper than Clarke, Omari and Jaden for example. |
Of course the money could have been spent better but you simply can't use the likes of Ndiaye or Sarr as examples.
Their wages would be 2X/3X what any of those three are on and they simply would not have come to us. Don't forget Ndiaye actually left Sheff U in the summer that they got to the PL.
Players want financial stability, there are currently 17 clubs that can provide them a very good opportunity to play and stay in the league.
It's essentially two different divisions when it comes to recruitment ... the 17 PL clubs and the promoted three. | | | |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:32 - Feb 27 with 1962 views | WeirdFishes |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:19 - Feb 27 by noggin |
Were those players available to us? We had 2 very short windows to buy a squad of players and so could only bring in players that were available, within budget and who were willing to come. [Post edited 27 Feb 8:19]
|
They’re just examples to illustrate it is possible we might have been able to recruit better. We signed O’Shea over Brentford and Wolves so I think it’s fair to suggest we could sign players over other teams. | |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:38 - Feb 27 with 1900 views | positivity |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:32 - Feb 27 by WeirdFishes |
They’re just examples to illustrate it is possible we might have been able to recruit better. We signed O’Shea over Brentford and Wolves so I think it’s fair to suggest we could sign players over other teams. |
not many; if you give a player a choice between a stable premiership team and the rank outsiders, then 9 times out of 10 they'll choose the stable team. especially if they're premiership proven | |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:49 - Feb 27 with 1860 views | Crawfordsboot |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:30 - Feb 27 by Zx1988 |
Let's not forget their wages as well.
The way I see it, we've assembled a squad of high-potential players who (hopefully) won't be agitating for a move in the summer if we go down.
As good as the likes of Ndiaye and Sarr may be, I'd hate for next summer to be full of Gnonto-style transfer shenanigans and disruption, as Leeds had last time they got relegated. |
Exactly right!
The costs for the season are wages plus the element of amortised transfer fees. Our budget is well below established clubs and we have had to spend much of it to assemble a squad leaving our salaries element well below established clubs, thereby limiting our ability to attract players.
Getting established in the Premiership will take a few runs at it before we have a squad strong enough. Alternatively it’s a one off gamble of spending a huge amount up front, and risk going bust if it fails. |  | | |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:54 - Feb 27 with 1837 views | Churchman |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:19 - Feb 27 by noggin |
Were those players available to us? We had 2 very short windows to buy a squad of players and so could only bring in players that were available, within budget and who were willing to come. [Post edited 27 Feb 8:19]
|
Spot on. Trying to beat the club up over ‘paying over the odds’ etc - based on what? It isn’t like that. The moanup mob will wheel out better players for less but that’s as illogical as saying if you can buy a Delap whose value has increased by X why couldn’t they do that with every player brought in?
If you say take Leicester, they signed a bloke called Skipp for £23.5m who they think is rubbish. Is he more or less rubbish than our players? Faes signed for £15 three years ago when fees were far lower. I think he’s a total liability, but somebody at LCFC thought not.
Saints signed a good keeper for more than our two combined. Did that help them? Has his value gone up or down? Everyone’s favourite Downes who seems to be disgruntled and done zilch this season - worth the £££ or not? In other words, bringing in players carries risk. You can try and minimise it but we are talking human beings with all that goes with it, including injury risk (Ogbene). Fees reflect exactly what you point out.
‘We paid less for Davis and Hirst etc’. Yes, we did, but we were in a totally different place then. You cannot compare the two. Our whole L1 team cost less than Stansfield, playing in L1, who cost £15m. Is it guaranteed he’ll be able to play in the Premier League? I think he might, but nobody knows. It’s about risk. A lot depends on who is behind him should BCFC make it in the next year or two.
Would it have been better to ‘do a Luton’? Well I don’t remember too many on here shouting ‘don’t sign anybody, keep the cash’. We can all be wise after the event. I’m 100% on hindsight, just like every human being bar Trump, if indeed that stain is one.
Mistakes? The club has made loads. Funnily enough in my working world I did too. It’s part of being proactive and doing something. ITFC have tried to bridge a gap. An enormous one. We will probably fall short. But we tried. |  | | |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:58 - Feb 27 with 1814 views | WeirdFishes |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:32 - Feb 27 by Bellevue_Blue |
Of course the money could have been spent better but you simply can't use the likes of Ndiaye or Sarr as examples.
Their wages would be 2X/3X what any of those three are on and they simply would not have come to us. Don't forget Ndiaye actually left Sheff U in the summer that they got to the PL.
Players want financial stability, there are currently 17 clubs that can provide them a very good opportunity to play and stay in the league.
It's essentially two different divisions when it comes to recruitment ... the 17 PL clubs and the promoted three. |
They’re just examples, I get wages come into play.
I’m just suggesting that it’s conceivable we could have spent the money differently and had more points. | |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 09:31 - Feb 27 with 1715 views | Durovigutum |
It's like the £350m a week on the side of a bus. Looks a huge number when put in the context of everyday people's finances but is a drop in the ocean for a national government budget.
It is also like saying your mortgage payment is a waste of money and forgetting that the money spent brings utility (somewhere to live) and an asset (the house) and isn't just a payment out like wages (or petrol into a car) while also forgetting that wages still need to be paid on top of that money. |  | | |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 10:30 - Feb 27 with 1582 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 08:58 - Feb 27 by WeirdFishes |
They’re just examples, I get wages come into play.
I’m just suggesting that it’s conceivable we could have spent the money differently and had more points. |
My aunty could've spent differently and had bowlocks attached. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 10:46 - Feb 27 with 1522 views | WeirdFishes |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 10:30 - Feb 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
My aunty could've spent differently and had bowlocks attached. |
It’s fine to not agree with me, there’s no need to be a tw@t about it though. | |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 10:51 - Feb 27 with 1499 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 10:46 - Feb 27 by WeirdFishes |
It’s fine to not agree with me, there’s no need to be a tw@t about it though. |
I deliberately gave a silly response to highlight the silliness of yours.
With hindsight you can literally say ANYTHING could've been better if we'd done X instead. It's a facile and pointless exercise. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 10:54 - Feb 27 with 1477 views | WeirdFishes |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 10:51 - Feb 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I deliberately gave a silly response to highlight the silliness of yours.
With hindsight you can literally say ANYTHING could've been better if we'd done X instead. It's a facile and pointless exercise. |
How is it silly to suggest we’ve invested poorly and by doing so differently would have every opportunity to have had a better season?
You don’t like that my opinion is different to yours and don’t know how to deal with it without resorting to childish digs. | |
| |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 12:37 - Feb 27 with 1305 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| People keep banging on about the 140 million quid spent on 10:54 - Feb 27 by WeirdFishes |
How is it silly to suggest we’ve invested poorly and by doing so differently would have every opportunity to have had a better season?
You don’t like that my opinion is different to yours and don’t know how to deal with it without resorting to childish digs. |
Childish comments deserve childish digs.
Saying "it’s conceivable we could have spent the money differently and had more points" is the sort of view a child might have (if perhaps not in those words).
It's just a nothing phrase, barely even worthy of discussion. Literally every team in every league in the world could say "it’s conceivable we could have spent the money differently and had more points." Equally "we could have spent the money differently and had less points" works just as well.
It's basically hindsight extraordinaire. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
