Beware the premier league

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

M

munksyb

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
439
Reaction score
1,127
The 3 promoted clubs from last season all relegated
All were in the bottom 3 of spending on players
Luton the lowest
Blades 2nd lowest
Burnley 3rd lowest

The 3 relegated last season
Leicester promoted
Leeds play off final
Southampton play off final

Those going up fearful off overspending in previous seasons and what they will have to spend for next season
Those relegated from the premier
Worried about legacy spending problems

The promotion to the premier is a minefield, as is relegation from it,
Even those who avoid relegation or benefit from success within it are woried
E.g.
Man Citee
Everton
Florist
Villa
Maybe Manure
And there will be others
 

munksyb said:
The 3 promoted clubs from last season all relegated
All were in the bottom 3 of spending on players
Luton the lowest
Blades 2nd lowest
Burnley 3rd lowest
Click to expand...
Not correct on either expenditure or transfer balance.

On expenditure
20. Luton £25m
19. Everton £35m
18. United £55m
17. Palace £60m
...
12. Burnley £105m
...
3. Man City £220m
2. Spurs £235m
1. Chelsea £403m

Leeds and Coventry both outspent Luton; Leicester outspent Everton and Luton.

On net spend
20. Brighton +£75m
19. Wolves +£70m
18. Everton +£36m
17. West Ham +£20m
16. Fulham -£12m
15. United -£15m
14. Luton -£24m
...
12. Burnley -£102m
...
3. Spurs -£130m
2. Arsenal -£155m
1. Chelsea -£171m

Burnley have got some serious work to do to shore up their finances.
 
Balham Blade said:
Not correct on either expenditure or transfer balance.

On expenditure
20. Luton £25m
19. Everton £35m
18. United £55m
17. Palace £60m
...
12. Burnley £105m
...
3. Man City £220m
2. Spurs £235m
1. Chelsea £403m

Leeds and Coventry both outspent Luton; Leicester outspent Everton and Luton.

On net spend
20. Brighton +£75m
19. Wolves +£70m
18. Everton +£36m
17. West Ham +£20m
16. Fulham -£12m
15. United -£15m
14. Luton -£24m
...
12. Burnley -£102m
...
3. Spurs -£130m
2. Arsenal -£155m
1. Chelsea -£171m

Burnley have got some serious work to do to shore up their finances.
Click to expand...
Would imagine the wage bills of the three promoted teams were the three lowest though? Might not be the same next season, although Leicester have financial problems.
 
AWetFlannel said:
Would imagine the wage bills of the three promoted teams were the three lowest though? Might not be the same next season, although Leicester have financial problems.
Click to expand...
Almost certainly, the only side whose wages will be anywhere near the bottom three would be Brentford. They're likely to be the lowest payers in the league after Ipswich next season and if the Brazilian chap they signed to replace Toney doesn't hit the ground running they may be in real trouble.
 
Balham Blade said:
Not correct on either expenditure or transfer balance.

On expenditure
20. Luton £25m
19. Everton £35m
18. United £55m
17. Palace £60m
...
12. Burnley £105m
...
3. Man City £220m
2. Spurs £235m
1. Chelsea £403m

Leeds and Coventry both outspent Luton; Leicester outspent Everton and Luton.

On net spend
20. Brighton +£75m
19. Wolves +£70m
18. Everton +£36m
17. West Ham +£20m
16. Fulham -£12m
15. United -£15m
14. Luton -£24m
...
12. Burnley -£102m
...
3. Spurs -£130m
2. Arsenal -£155m
1. Chelsea -£171m

Burnley have got some serious work to do to shore up their finances.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, do you have a link for the figures please?
 
The saddest thing here is that Luton spent less than us but recruited better. Townsend and Barkley were absolute steals. Luton were always going to struggle in the summer as they had to invest a lot of money into bringing Kenilworth Road up to Premier League standards, which now seems grossly unfair as they're now back in the Championship as a result.
 
The published table of agents’ fees from feb23 to feb24 shows Chelsea and Man City both spent over 60 million on fees to agents. Man United spent the 3rd highest, Liverpool the 4th etc. Down to us in 19th and Luton the lowest.

I’d assume this is a reasonable indicator of actual spend by each club on players (transfers, contract renewals and wages), as I’d guess the agent takes a cut every time a player signs anything, and that the bigger it is the more the agent gets.

If you look at the final league positions and compare it to the table of agents’ fees, you can get an idea of who performed at, above or below expectations. Half the clubs have a final league position that varies from the relative amount they spent on agent fees by just ONE place. Most are within 3 places. A handful are 5 places away.

The top 10 spenders occupy ALL the top 10 spots in the final league table. Except 1. Crystal Palace managed to sneak into TENTH place, ONE POINT ahead of Bournemouth (who were the 9th highest spender on agents’ fees).

The bottom 3 spenders finished … as the bottom 3 in the league.

There were some very obvious underperformers (Man U, Chelsea, Forest). But just looking at these financial ‘disaster’ stories, the underperformance of the top spending side (Chelsea) has seen them plummet not one, or two, but a whole FIVE places down to … 6th in the league.

Weirdly, Crystal Palace top the table on +5 positions as the biggest over-performer. Arsenal did quite well, as the 2nd best over-performer, overperforming by 3 spots above their 5th place in the agents’ fees table - but it wasn’t enough to overtake City, who spent nearly 3x what Arsenal did.

Hardly anyone managed to finish 3 places above their position in the agents’ fees spending table. So if you have the lowest player budget in the league, you know that you would need to be one of the TOP THREE performing clubs (in relative terms) to avoid relegation.

To be more than ONE place above the relegation spots, you’d need to be THE TOP PERFORMER (relative to budget) in the entire league.

If you’re a chairman of a newly promoted side, and you know right now your budget is the smallest in the league, would you triple your spending, with a 300% rise in outlay, to move up to being the 18 highest budget, knowing that still means the most likely outcome is … you will probably finish 18th? And then you’ll face points deductions for spending beyond your means, as well as future financial issues as the loans spiral out of control ..,

Final League Position Relative To Position In Table Of Spending On Agents’ Fees:
Palace +5
Arsenal +3
Brighton +3
Villa +2
Luton +2
Liverpool +1
Tottenham +1
Newcastle +1
Brentford +1
West Ham +1
Everton +1
Man City +1
Sheffield United -1
Fulham -1
Burnley -1
Bournemouth -3
Wolves -3
Man Utd -5
Chelsea -5
Forest -5
 
Rufus Smalls said:
Not only the spend ratio ballooning, but 23 points between 1st and 4th in the Premiership.

Is that a record at all ?
Click to expand...

2019-20 season 33 points between first and third/fourth.

Liverpool 99 points with Man U and Chelsea both on 66 points.
 
The money needed to survive is bonkers. You either have to gamble on staying up and making a huge loss by overspending and risking FFP or you just don't compete and then suffer comments from the likes of Spurs fans and the national media saying "We should be banned from promotion".

All the money is going to agents and players wages. Ticket prices are sky high even though that contributes only a tiny modicum of revenue for the majority the PL teams.

Something is seriously wrong with the lack of regulation but hopefully this will change with the new rules to eventually come in if it's allowed.
 

Tony_Kaufman said:
The saddest thing here is that Luton spent less than us but recruited better. Townsend and Barkley were absolute steals.
Click to expand...
With hindsight yes, probably, certainly Barkley suited them and played well. But can you imagine the meltdown on here if we'd signed them? Townsend had a trail at Burnley before joining Luton. Especially if it been at the expense of say Souza or Slimani.
 
MunksyB was a regular on the S24SU.com, the bustling online forum for Sheffield United fans. Known for his passionate yet coherent posts about the club, he usually sparked interesting discussions. But one Monday afternoon, something seemed off.

He created a new thread titled "Beware the premier league" The post was an incomprehensible rant about how much money clubs spent, filled with odd numbers, unrelated facts, and bizarre theories linking transfer fees to lunar cycles.

Kozzy_is_my_Dad was the first to comment, "MunksyB, mate, you alright? This post is all over the place."

MojoMuffin chimed in next, "Did you hit the pub a bit too hard tonight, MunksyB? This doesn’t make any sense."

Davalon, usually the forum’s voice of reason, tried to be diplomatic. "MunksyB, maybe it's best to take a break and revisit this in the morning. We’re concerned."

Hours passed with no reply from MunksyB. The next morning, the forum buzzed with speculation. Kozzy_is_my_Dad, MojoMuffin, and Davalon exchanged private messages, genuinely worried about their friend.

Finally, MunksyB responded. "Hey everyone, sorry about last night. Went out with some old mates and had a few too many. Didn't realize I posted until I saw the notifications this morning. Apologies for any confusion or worry."

Relieved, Kozzy_is_my_Dad replied, "Glad to hear you’re okay, mate. We were just concerned. We all have those nights!"

MojoMuffin added, "No worries, MunksyB! Just glad you're fine. Let's get back to discussing how we can actually afford a decent goalkeeper next season."

Davalon closed the thread on a light note, "Good to have you back, MunksyB. Maybe next time, just post about the lunar cycles in the off-topic section!"

The camaraderie and support on S24SU.com showed that, beyond the banter and debates, the fans were like family, always ready to look out for one another.
 
DifferentClass said:
Won't be long before they introduce election/reelection sadly.
Click to expand...
You'd like to think that the fans would band together against that like the European Super League but I definitely agree that club owners of the establishment would probably be happy to go that way.

I do wonder what the PL will look like in 10 or 20 years.
 
Davalon said:
You'd like to think that the fans would band together against that like the European Super League but I definitely agree that club owners of the establishment would probably be happy to go that way.

I do wonder what the PL will look like in 10 or 20 years.
Click to expand...

Hopefully it won't have Man U, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham and Chelsea in it. In order to save the game at domestic level, the money clubs have to go. You shouldn't need to be spending £150 million plus just to survive, most clubs simply can't afford that. It shouldn't be about the money, it needs to get back to being about the game. Competitive games between evenly matched teams with officials that are unbiased and unaffected by the occasion.

Bring on the Super League and let clubs like us get back to events on the pitch being first and foremost, not the pantomime it currently is. Let them build their modern stadiums and sanitize the fuck out of it. Make kit wearing compulsory and be sure that no one sings or stands up. It's more about that than the game, the tourist followers love it and they're the target audience so let them have it. I hate Wembley, Cardiff's the same and Old Trafford was much better with the old Stretford End. I hope we never rip the guts out of the Lane because that would be the end. We need to get back to football being a game for the masses, played in the community and not a rich mans plaything.

UTBFTP 👊👊👊
 
Last edited:
sheepbridge said:
With hindsight yes, probably, certainly Barkley suited them and played well. But can you imagine the meltdown on here if we'd signed them? Townsend had a trail at Burnley before joining Luton. Especially if it been at the expense of say Souza or Slimani.
Click to expand...
There wouldn't have been any meltdown for me. Both are proven Premier League quality players with bags of experience. They were both free with wages being the only stumbling block, which we don't seem willing to pay to permanent players, but will pay for loanees.
 
Kozzy_is_my_Dad said:
MunksyB was a regular on the S24SU.com, the bustling online forum for Sheffield United fans. Known for his passionate yet coherent posts about the club, he usually sparked interesting discussions. But one Monday afternoon, something seemed off.

He created a new thread titled "Beware the premier league" The post was an incomprehensible rant about how much money clubs spent, filled with odd numbers, unrelated facts, and bizarre theories linking transfer fees to lunar cycles.

Kozzy_is_my_Dad was the first to comment, "MunksyB, mate, you alright? This post is all over the place."

MojoMuffin chimed in next, "Did you hit the pub a bit too hard tonight, MunksyB? This doesn’t make any sense."

Davalon, usually the forum’s voice of reason, tried to be diplomatic. "MunksyB, maybe it's best to take a break and revisit this in the morning. We’re concerned."

Hours passed with no reply from MunksyB. The next morning, the forum buzzed with speculation. Kozzy_is_my_Dad, MojoMuffin, and Davalon exchanged private messages, genuinely worried about their friend.

Finally, MunksyB responded. "Hey everyone, sorry about last night. Went out with some old mates and had a few too many. Didn't realize I posted until I saw the notifications this morning. Apologies for any confusion or worry."

Relieved, Kozzy_is_my_Dad replied, "Glad to hear you’re okay, mate. We were just concerned. We all have those nights!"

MojoMuffin added, "No worries, MunksyB! Just glad you're fine. Let's get back to discussing how we can actually afford a decent goalkeeper next season."

Davalon closed the thread on a light note, "Good to have you back, MunksyB. Maybe next time, just post about the lunar cycles in the off-topic section!"

The camaraderie and support on S24SU.com showed that, beyond the banter and debates, the fans were like family, always ready to look out for one another.
Click to expand...
That AI will never catch on.
 
Balham Blade said:
Not correct on either expenditure or transfer balance.

On expenditure
20. Luton £25m
19. Everton £35m
18. United £55m
17. Palace £60m
...
12. Burnley £105m
...
3. Man City £220m
2. Spurs £235m
1. Chelsea £403m

Leeds and Coventry both outspent Luton; Leicester outspent Everton and Luton.

On net spend
20. Brighton +£75m
19. Wolves +£70m
18. Everton +£36m
17. West Ham +£20m
16. Fulham -£12m
15. United -£15m
14. Luton -£24m
...
12. Burnley -£102m
...
3. Spurs -£130m
2. Arsenal -£155m
1. Chelsea -£171m

Burnley have got some serious work to do to shore up their finances.
Click to expand...

Your figures on United are saying we brought in 40 million on the sales of N'Diaye and Berge.
Is this wrong? wasn't it reported as about 20 million for N'Diaye and 10 million for Berge?
EDIT: Just read further down that you've adjusted for actual fees not reported fees, not sure how a website can know exact figures.

According to transfermarkt.co.uk

Our expenditure was £66.95 million less £30.9 million on sales = £36.03 net spend

It has our transfer expenditure as
£21.55 million on Archer
£17.3 million on Hamer
£12.5 million on Vini Souza
£5.8 million on Austin Trusty
£4.6 million on Beni Triore
£2.7 Anis Slimane
£2.5 Ivor Grbic
Total £66.95 million less £30.9 million brought in with the sales of N'Diaye and Berge.

Our net spend on transfers was higher than Brighton, Wolves, Everton, West Ham, Fulham and Luton
However of course this is very misleading because the wages at those clubs will be massive.

Even the high profile free transfers at Luton, Townshend and Barkley,
will show as a ZERO transfer expenditure but you suspect they'll both be on at least 70K a week.

Also as mentioned by Steve Bettis in his recent interview, clubs like Brighton and Southampton hardly spent any thing on transfers for years.
What they were able to do is sell a player or 2 for £70 or £80 million, enabling them to spend £120 million on players but their net spend was zero.
Our problem is we've never had tried and tested excellent PL standard players, meaning we never receive bids of £70 million for any of our players.
 
Last edited:
Sheffsteel said:
Your figures on United are saying we brought in 40 million on the sales of N'Diaye and Berge.
Is this wrong? wasn't it reported as about 20 million for N'Diaye and 10 million for Berge?
EDIT: Just read further down that you've adjusted for actual fees not reported fees, not sure how a website can know exact figures.

According to transfermarkt.co.uk

Our expenditure was £66.95 million less £30.9 million on sales = £36.03 net spend

It has our transfer expenditure as
£21.55 million on Archer
£17.3 million on Hamer
£12.5 million on Vini Souza
£5.8 million on Austin Trusty
£4.6 million on Beni Triore
£2.7 Anis Slimane
£2.5 Ivor Grbic
Total £66.95 million less £30.9 million brought in with the sales of N'Diaye and Berge.

Our net spend on transfers was higher than Brighton, Wolves, Everton, West Ham, Fulham and Luton
However of course this is very misleading because the wages at those clubs will be massive.

Even the high profile free transfers at Luton, Townshend and Barkley,
will show as a ZERO transfer expenditure but you suspect they'll both be on at least 70K a week.

Also as mentioned by Steve Bettis in his recent interview, clubs like Brighton and Southampton hardly spent any thing on transfers for years.
What they were able to do is sell a player or 2 for £70 or £80 million, enabling them to spend £120 million on players but their net spend was zero.
Our problem is we've never had tried and tested excellent PL standard players, meaning we never receive bids of £70 million for any of our players.
Click to expand...
For a start, the fees reported on Transfermarkt are in Euros so that needs adjusting and you're correct that there's a lot of guesswork and speculation. Ramsdale, for instance, is still reported at €21.6m on there despite Bournemouth's accounts confirming that we paid £12.6m for him (£16.75m gross less the sell-on clause).

From everything on here it's clear that the fees for most of our incomings last summer are seriously overstated on there. I think the true picture is something like this:
£18m on Archer
£11m on Hamer (variables: up to £15m)
£7m on Vini Souza (basic £6m, triggered appearance bonuses take it to £7m, additional variables up to £10.5m)
£5m on Austin Trusty
£2.5m on Beni Traoré (variables: up to £4m)
£2m on Ivor Grbic
£1.2m Anis Slimane (variables: up to £2m)
That's a total of £46.7m incoming. I added on a bit for loan fees and other triggered variables.

We sold Ndiaye for £20m and Berge for £15m, both incorrectly reported (again) on TM.
 
Balham Blade said:
For a start, the fees reported on Transfermarkt are in Euros so that needs adjusting and you're correct that there's a lot of guesswork and speculation. Ramsdale, for instance, is still reported at €21.6m on there despite Bournemouth's accounts confirming that we paid £12.6m for him (£16.75m gross less the sell-on clause).

From everything on here it's clear that the fees for most of our incomings last summer are seriously overstated on there. I think the true picture is something like this:
£18m on Archer
£11m on Hamer (variables: up to £15m)
£7m on Vini Souza (basic £6m, triggered appearance bonuses take it to £7m, additional variables up to £10.5m)
£5m on Austin Trusty
£2.5m on Beni Traoré (variables: up to £4m)
£2m on Ivor Grbic
£1.2m Anis Slimane (variables: up to £2m)
That's a total of £46.7m incoming. I added on a bit for loan fees and other triggered variables.

We sold Ndiaye for £20m and Berge for £15m, both incorrectly reported (again) on TM.
Click to expand...
£18m on Archer is a bit of a weird one as well, with the mandatory sell back it is in effect a loan unless we had stayed up, so you could say that it should/shouldn't be included in the net spend depending how you look at it. I'm not sure what that sell back amount is, Villa will basically give us our money back and we took his wages off their books for a season or if there is some profit in there for them too. Certainly it is different from the other real permanent signings when looking at net spend.
 

Booker4 said:
The money needed to survive is bonkers. You either have to gamble on staying up and making a huge loss by overspending and risking FFP or you just don't compete and then suffer comments from the likes of Spurs fans and the national media saying "We should be banned from promotion".

All the money is going to agents and players wages. Ticket prices are sky high even though that contributes only a tiny modicum of revenue for the majority the PL teams.

Something is seriously wrong with the lack of regulation but hopefully this will change with the new rules to eventually come in if it's allowed.
Click to expand...
Well said.

Fancy working for a company where the owners actually plan to break all the financial rules in order to just survive.

It’s a disgrace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Foxy
  • Sticky
Fantasy Premier League / EFL Fantasy League 24/25
Replies
10
Views
2K
Lupa The Noa
Lupa The Noa
bibbity bobbity boo
Premier League Players Of The Season
Replies
2
Views
581
JPBrods
JPBrods
dublin 10 blade
Premier league Records
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
BladesOnToast
BladesOnToast
1973Blade
United away in the Premier League
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
1973Blade
1973Blade
originaltrueblade
It’s not that we get tired
Replies
11
Views
1K
Nagima
N

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom