• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Centre Forward thread

Finney Is Back said:
I went off in search of some figures since the PL started.... Quite difficult to find much but I found this on net transfer spend (this is now a year old so a few movements since - i.e. we've probably now moved above Stoke and Sunderland but I think Palace might've crept above us as they spent quite big the summer just gone).

The Premier League net spend on transfers by clubs since 1992/93 season (£M):

1,343 Emirates Marketing Project
1,205 Chelsea
1,076 Man Utd
790 Liverpool
484 Arsenal
422 Everton
255 West Ham
250 Fulham
250 Leicester
241 Aston Villa
234 Sunderland
232 Saudi Sportswashing Machine
220 Stoke
203 Tottenham
198 Bournemouth
192 Crystal Palace
182 Watford
151 Southampton
126 Middlesbrough
124 Brighton

That comes from here by the way: https://www.themag.co.uk/2020/08/th...e-1992-93-Saudi Sportswashing Machine-united/

Of course that also includes the first 8 years under Sugar, though I'm pretty sure we were always amongst the top 5 or 6 spending clubs under Sugar.

I'll see if I can find anything for revenue (seems to be a little harder).
Click to expand...

What has net spend got to do with what i said?

Everyone knows we invested in the training ground and stadium more than on the pitch.

The reason that people think levy did a good job is because despite the net spend being lower than a lot of teams. We were still good on the pitch. Maybe not winning trophies, but became cl regulars and got to semis and finals regularly.
 
Last edited:
The biggest issue is stability and how you manage growth. It’s not easy evolving an organisation when it’s growing. We used to have a transfer strategy that worked by buying promising players for lowish prices and most (almost all) we’d improve.

The problems occurred when we needed to buy a better calibre of player. We can’t so easily integrate promising players anymore. We need players who are ready to play at CL level. Making that strategic switch hasn’t been easy.

The second issue is stability. With 4 managers in 3 years we are missing some stability. We need to work through the squad and the manger of the day shape players for his system and get rid of surplus players. That takes time especially since Poch signed a few Turkey at the end.

For all the ENIC flak, when Levy was more central to transfers before Poch moved from coach to manger, we performed far better in the transfer market. Levy and his team provided the consistency that hopefully Paratici can replace now.
 
SpurMeUp said:
The biggest issue is stability and how you manage growth. It’s not easy evolving an organisation when it’s growing. We used to have a transfer strategy that worked by buying promising players for lowish prices and most (almost all) we’d improve.

The problems occurred when we needed to buy a better calibre of player. We can’t so easily integrate promising players anymore. We need players who are ready to play at CL level. Making that strategic switch hasn’t been easy.

The second issue is stability. With 4 managers in 3 years we are missing some stability. We need to work through the squad and the manger of the day shape players for his system and get rid of surplus players. That takes time especially since Poch signed a few Turkey at the end.

For all the ENIC flak, when Levy was more central to transfers before Poch moved from coach to manger, we performed far better in the transfer market. Levy and his team provided the consistency that hopefully Paratici can replace now.
Click to expand...

We really miss pleat and sherwood. Not a popular opinion, but pleat could pick a player and sherwood produced the best players from the academy.
 
Lilbaz said:
We really miss pleat and sherwood. Not a popular opinion, but pleat could pick a player and sherwood produced the best players from the academy.
Click to expand...
Sherwood didn’t coach anyone
He acted as a liaison basically Between the age groups
Unless I’m mistaken
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Sherwood didn’t coach anyone
He acted as a liaison basically Between the age groups
Unless I’m mistaken
Click to expand...

He worked with them and they liked him. That's coming not from me but someone who was at the academy that didn't make it.

By the by, we need to get back to that. We did lose good youth coaches to liverpool etc...
 
Lilbaz said:
He worked with them and they liked him. That's coming not from me but someone who was at the academy that didn't make it.

By the by, we need to get back to that. We did lose good youth coaches to liverpool etc...
Click to expand...
We did for sure
But you don’t see the fruit of the ones that replace them until their developed of course
We had some great coaches
 
Bedfordspurs said:
We did for sure
But you don’t see the fruit of the ones that replace them until their developed of course
We had some great coaches
Click to expand...

Agree. We haven't given opportunities as much as we should. Loans and game time.

2 years ago who'd have thought skipp would be possibly our best player?
 
Lilbaz said:
We really miss pleat and sherwood. Not a popular opinion, but pleat could pick a player and sherwood produced the best players from the academy.
Click to expand...

Losing Alex Inglethrope (to Liverpool) was when the academy starting to fall. Losing John McDermott (to England) cemented it. They were the two guys (along with Chris Ramsey) who built the whole thing up from about 2005 (Frank Arnesen appointments IIRC)
 
Lilbaz said:
What has net spend got to do with what i said?

Everyone knows we invested in the training ground and stadium more than on the pitch.

The reason that people think levy did a good job is because despite the net spend being lower than a lot of teams. We were still good on the pitch. Maybe not winning trophies, but became cl regulars and got to semis and finals regularly.
Click to expand...
The comment you replied to stating that our turnover has been similar to Everton’s was this one:

“sorry should have clarified. Don't have a WANT to spend. we've spent closer to Everton since the inception of the PL than any of the big 5.”

I was therefore showing that actually our spending has been significantly less than theirs (as well as a bunch of other lower turnover clubs).

Re: us instead spending on the stadium…. There was me thinking that we has £850 million of interest bearing loans?
 
Finney Is Back said:
The comment you replied to stating that our turnover has been similar to Everton’s was this one:

“sorry should have clarified. Don't have a WANT to spend. we've spent closer to Everton since the inception of the PL than any of the big 5.”

I was therefore showing that actually our spending has been significantly less than theirs (as well as a bunch of other lower turnover clubs).

Re: us instead spending on the stadium…. There was me thinking that we has £850 million of interest bearing loans?
Click to expand...

Not sure where the £850m figure comes from. But ok. £850m left of £1.4bn spent.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1389460131868463108

Not the right thread. I'll carry this on in the enic thread, if i can find it.
 
Last edited:
Lilbaz said:
Hasn't icardi had massive problems off the pitch?
Click to expand...

He has, and what seemed like a fairly public conflict with Conte.

For me he's also mainly a poacher, goalscorer, not that much else. That's great if what you need is a central striker to put away the great chances you're creating. I think we need more. As an option to Son I think it could work. We're relying a lot on both Kane and Lucas for both deeper play and creativity, ball retention, being a target for longer balls etc.

If Icardi can do all that at least as well as Lucas, fair play, if not replacing either Kane or Moura with him (rotation, injury, sub, whatever) seems to me to quite likely end up rather... Soldado.
 
braineclipse said:
He has, and what seemed like a fairly public conflict with Conte.

For me he's also mainly a poacher, goalscorer, not that much else. That's great if what you need is a central striker to put away the great chances you're creating. I think we need more. As an option to Son I think it could work. We're relying a lot on both Kane and Lucas for both deeper play and creativity, ball retention, being a target for longer balls etc.

If Icardi can do all that at least as well as Lucas, fair play, if not replacing either Kane or Moura with him (rotation, injury, sub, whatever) seems to me to quite likely end up rather... Soldado.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
AdamB said:
Will be amazed/shocked/angered if we get to Feb 1st without a CF signing. We have a creative DoF now so I'm confident we'll land one
Click to expand...

We had that same DoF in the much easier summer transfer window and chose to invest in other areas of the squad, not trying to be contradictory but I wonder if Conte sees it as more of an issue than Nuno did.

It’s quite bewildering that we’re still at this stage of knowing that inevitable injuries / form issues with Kane and Son render us ineffective as an attacking unit, however it’s painted.

I’ll be more hopeful of getting a forward in if we can sell Bergwijn. If we don’t make any moves and do see Stevie B deployed as a 9 in important games out of necessity it’s going to be a rough ride (through no fault of his own).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back