Buying the league?

[Silvas' left eyebrow]

Didn't Leicester out spend all the teams in the Championship to gain promotion ?

they probably did......as I said of course you buy the league!

All the way down the football pyramid....

I am waiting for all the negative Salford city stories"...no history. Bought their football league status...loads of clubs with real history left behind in the national league.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Dave Kidd, that respected ( yeah I know) journo from the Sun says we've spent 1.5bn on transfers since 2008. Really?

Yes, £1.495bn according to Transfermarkt. The spending for 08/09, 09/10 & 10/11 were when we needed to completely overhaul our playing squads. Only 1 player bought before 08/09, Joe Hart, survived into the 2011 cup final and 11/12 title winning teams. So this is why they have chosen this year as the starting point for their calculations as it is the most damning from their perspective. We outspent other teams by more than 2 to 1 in this period (£440m vs £92m Utd, £191m Dippers, £164m Chelsea), however we bought 24 players to their combined 39. This brought us to the level of being competitive.

Since 2011, we have been spending at an avg of £135m per season, Chelsea at £130m, Liverpool £100m and Utd £115m which isn't a lot of difference.

 

[ancoats]

i love the old chest nut buying the league hahahahahaha from the 1960s football change and rich owners invested their money into football and clubs, united and liverpool had a backer and money from outside of football louis edwards the butchers and liverpools littlewoods pools and all the top teams had a wealthy owner ??????

then we have the 1992 skysports premier league and manchester united they was a partnership hand in hand and printing money with a subscription fee every month, united knew they had cornered the market and nobody could touch them, they was being beamed into homes around the world every week forget everybody was treaded the same with live games that was bollocks and sky fucked over the other 19 clubs with broken promise of being on tv every week hahaha you had to be playing united if you was ever on live in their prime slots and super sunday

so fuck them and if they think football and revenues money being generated from gate figures is based on that they are puppets ??? all the top clubs in the premier could open the gates for free its that small the revenues club make today

 

[waspish]

Yes, £1.495bn according to Transfermarkt. The spending for 08/09, 09/10 & 10/11 were when we needed to completely overhaul our playing squads. Only 1 player bought before 08/09, Joe Hart, survived into the 2011 cup final and 11/12 title winning teams. So this is why they have chosen this year as the starting point for their calculations as it is the most damning from their perspective. We outspent other teams by more than 2 to 1 in this period (£440m vs £92m Utd, £191m Dippers, £164m Chelsea), however we bought 24 players to their combined 39. This brought us to the level of being competitive.

Since 2011, we have been spending at an avg of £135m per season, Chelsea at £130m, Liverpool £100m and Utd £115m which isn't a lot of difference.

What about the last 2 seasons

 

[Rammyblues]

I fucking love it, hope we buy it every year, the rest can go fuck themselves. Puts us again in pot 1 for CL if we are still in it. Salty fucking tears. Better than having to sell SWP to stay afloat.

 

[ccr]

I fucking love it, hope we buy it every year, the rest can go fuck themselves. Puts us again in pot 1 for CL if we are still in it. Salty fucking tears. Better than having to sell SWP to stay afloat.

Ar'nt we still spending the money we got for SWP on players now ?

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

I have had this argument with many of my friends, about us buying the Premier League. My argument has always been name me 1 team that has not bought the league, none of them could name me any team that has not bought the league. It is now impossible to play a squad of totally home grown players, except maybe in the lower leagues.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yes, £1.495bn according to Transfermarkt. The spending for 08/09, 09/10 & 10/11 were when we needed to completely overhaul our playing squads. Only 1 player bought before 08/09, Joe Hart, survived into the 2011 cup final and 11/12 title winning teams. So this is why they have chosen this year as the starting point for their calculations as it is the most damning from their perspective. We outspent other teams by more than 2 to 1 in this period (£440m vs £92m Utd, £191m Dippers, £164m Chelsea), however we bought 24 players to their combined 39. This brought us to the level of being competitive.

Since 2011, we have been spending at an avg of £135m per season, Chelsea at £130m, Liverpool £100m and Utd £115m which isn't a lot of difference.

2008 is also the date of the ADUG takeover, so it's not unreasonable even if it's probably deliberate so as to include the "get in before FFP" spending rush.

The average is quite surprising in how close it is - thanks for that.

 

[goalmole]

See my post on the Wolves thread Karen. They have stated that they aim to compete with the top clubs for top players this summer. They are the real deal and not prepared to stand still. This season was good but in their words, they didn't buy Wolves to finish 7th. This is just the start and they are already making big inroads into China (all our games are screened live there), Mexico as we signed Mexican national hero Raul Jimenez and of course, Portugal!

They are also investing heavily in the infrastructure of the club with big improvements to the training ground, laying replica pitches to the Molineux playing surfaces and plans to rebuild Molineux as a 50K seater. We have a waiting list of 5K for season tickets alone!

Get ready for loads of shit coming your way if you start winning things, which would be great (the winning, not the shit) because that would mean another of the entitled clubs being pushed out. It would also mean that the league would be a lot more competitive which is exactly what the rag dipper journos don't want.

 

[jrb]

True. :-)