Tyrique George

[Snibbo]

I really do wonder about the motivation or mindset of posters who continually take pot-shots at the Khans. They've invested £863 million in the club. To call this a "shoestring budget" is either wilful ignorance or deliberate mischief making.

They deserve the utmost gratitude for funding a huge infrastructure project around 2019.

But in the context of the present day and transfer spending, the reality is we've consistently seen, for several years now, below-average spending, at a level that matches the club's own revenue surplus after the payment of wages.

So they're not, nowadays, investing in the team. This is empirical data, not a mindset.

And yet we're always at or very close to the maximum allowable spend under PSR. I'm happy we're not under the threat of points deductions such as Forest, Leicester etc. And our transfers have generally been good to excellent in the last 5 years or so.

[Angus Telford]

And yet we're always at or very close to the maximum allowable spend under PSR.

You speculate.
I don't believe that's the case now.

And our transfers have generally been good to excellent in the last 5 years or so.

I'd query that too. We've one of the oldest and least valuable squads in the league, on relatively high wages, hovering around lower mid-table. Could be worse, but far from excellent.

[Count Flapula]

I really do wonder about the motivation or mindset of posters who continually take pot-shots at the Khans. They've invested £863 million in the club. To call this a "shoestring budget" is either wilful ignorance or deliberate mischief making.

They deserve the utmost gratitude for funding a huge infrastructure project around 2019.

.

It's exactly a phrase like this why you get called out for wilful ignorance / deliberate mischief making.

If you think they paid once back in 2019 then you don't really understand how financing a large scale construction project works.

But I think you do understand - yet choose to phrase it inaccurately to enforce your opinion about the SK/TK.

They are probably still paying for the Riverside, and as per many large scale construction projects which kicked off in 2019 (pre-COVID and global economic down turns), costs for this redevelopment have increased by multiple millions of pounds since then - which put the Buckingham group out of business. The Khans didn't decide to pay in 2019 and not invest in FFC since then - they've committed to a significant an ongoing 6 year investment that has increased in cost and complexity considerably since 2019.

FWIW I agree with you that it's a huge shame we didn't sign George and I have some sympathy and agree with some of your complaints about how we conducted our business this summer (we simply should not leave all of our main business to the last minute - missing out on a CM a result of this and I have concerns the way we conduct transfers may be a large driving factor in Silva deciding not to renew his contract) - however your takes are often so endlessly reductive and disrespectful due to your own frustrations that you tank your own arguments.

I can get on board with having issues with how we conducted our transfer business overall, but to extrapolate that into the Khans no longer continuing to have a vested interest in the future of this club (as you have said on many occasions) is a bit of a leap at best, and IMO just overly disrespectful.

Also, you do some back-of-***-packet calculations about net transfer spends and opine that the Khans spend "below average" and are not investing in the team, then present these statements are empirical data.

What does "below average" mean when all PL clubs can spend only based on revenues and size? We are a "below average" sized PL club with according revenues so we are able to invest and spend accordingly.

Isn't empirical data not that we spent 117% of our revenue of the last accounted season on player wages, transfer/agents fees and amortisation costs? How's 117% an underinvestment?

[Angus Telford]

What does "below average" mean when all PL clubs can spend only based on revenues and size? We are a "below average" sized PL club with according revenues so we are able to invest and spend accordingly.

Isn't empirical data not that we spent 117% of our revenue of the last accounted season on player wages, transfer/agents fees and amortisation costs? How's 117% an underinvestment?

You'll have to forgive me not replying to all of this which, whilst well-balanced in some places, reads largely like an opinion-based rant at me.

On the questions of fact -

By "below average" I meant the amount of our aggregate net spend over the last three years is lower than the average for the PL. I should have added that it's also below the average for the residual 14 clubs after removing the top 6.

The 117% figure is somewhat a red herring in this context. The accounts will include spending on infrastructure, and the amortisation of transfer fees spent 4-5 years ago. As I said, I don't dispute that the Khans have invested in these items/periods, and I've repeatedly and explicitly said they deserve our utmost gratitude for this. My point is that no one should be under the misapprehension that they're presently (ie, in the last few years) funding the improvement of the team - the evidence very strongly indicates that they aren't.

[Count Flapula]

What does "below average" mean when all PL clubs can spend only based on revenues and size? We are a "below average" sized PL club with according revenues so we are able to invest and spend accordingly.

Isn't empirical data not that we spent 117% of our revenue of the last accounted season on player wages, transfer/agents fees and amortisation costs? How's 117% an underinvestment?

You'll have to forgive me not replying to all of this which, whilst well-balanced in some places, reads largely like an opinion-based rant at me.

On the questions of fact -

By "below average" I meant the amount of our aggregate net spend over the last three years is lower than the average for the PL. I should have added that it's also below the average for the residual 14 clubs after removing the top 6.

The 117% figure is somewhat a red herring in this context. The accounts will include spending on infrastructure, and the amortisation of transfer fees spent 4-5 years ago. As I said, I don't dispute that the Khans have invested in these items/periods, and I've repeatedly and explicitly said they deserve our utmost gratitude for this. My point is that no one should be under the misapprehension that they're presently (ie, in the last few years) funding the improvement of the team - the evidence very strongly indicates that they aren't.

The 117% quoted was from Kieran McGuire and is solely related to transfer fees, salaries, agent fees and amortised transfers i.e. totally to do with investing in the squad, so how can that be a red herring when talking directly about whether the Khans are under-investing in the squad (i.e. transfers and wages)? Any spend on infrastructure such as the Riverside isn't included in that figure as far as I'm aware.

Salaries, agent fees and transfer fees are current spends (or, at least the last accounting year). We are also paying off amortised fees from previous seasons but whatever way you try to slant it to suit your opinion, 117% is inarguable empirical data to show they are investing 117% of our revenue into player and transfer related costs. Your opinion they are not investing based on your own wet finger calculations isn't empirical data.

Granted, I do agree this summer I suspect we do have funds left over due to our transfer "strategy" of gambling everything on getting all our business done on knock down deadline day deals this season. Which, in the context of the CM role, we failed at.

[hopper]

When it comes to PSR, salaries are such a huge part of it - but we often focus only on transfer fees and net spend.

Supposedly 85% of our revenue is currently being spent on salaries, so we must have a high wage bill. The price of experience. What we are saving in transfer fees is going on wages. I imagine Iwobi, Leno, Andersen, Raul, Adama, ESR, Tete, Robinson are all on pretty high wages.

[Angus Telford]

The 117% quoted was from Kieran McGuire and is solely related to transfer fees, salaries, agent fees and amortised transfers i.e. totally to do with investing in the squad, so how can that be a red herring when talking directly about whether the Khans are under-investing in the squad (i.e. transfers and wages)? Any spend on infrastructure such as the Riverside isn't included in that figure as far as I'm aware.

That KM 117% figure references our 2024 accounts, which in turn cover the 22/23 accounting period, which in turn, given we've players on 4-5 year contracts, references amortisation from fees paid as far back as the 18/19 season. My own calculation is absolutely "empirical data", it's just a different calculation referencing partially different datasets (revenue and wages from the 2025 accounts, transfer fees paid from Transfermarkt). I've already explained why I don't think amortisation of fees from up to seven seasons ago is relevant to a discussion about our current/recent spending policy - seems we disagree on that particular point, so happy to leave it there.

[Lighthouse]

Having broken our transfer fee twice now. My feeling is as it isn't my money and without actually having any idea what the fees really were or the wages actually are. That the investment in the team has been pretty good. While keeping within the laws of the league who don't want anybody outside to top teams to compete anyway.

Opinions are interesting but we do have this theme of attacking the owners for making the side compete in the top half without doing what many teams do and spend the sort of money that will come back to haunt them in the future.

So we have the situation where we come away with a transfer window and squad far superior to the one we had before. Obviously injury and evidence of actually how players play in the Prem will be the deciding factor. But there is simply no argument that this is the best squad we have had since we have been in the Prem. Yes I know people don't like it and want more and want bigger. But for now it will interesting how we get on.

Needless to say we still have to compete in a corrupt system run by officials on the pitch who are at best ignorant or corrupt. But we didn't need George, speculation about expenditure and wages are just that. So never really know what the point of debating figures when you don't know what they are until the up to date accounts are released.

[Count Flapula]

That KM 117% figure references our 2024 accounts, which in turn cover the 22/23 accounting period, which in turn, given we've players on 4-5 year contracts, references amortisation from fees paid as far back as the 18/19 season. My own calculation is absolutely "empirical data", it's just a different calculation referencing partially different datasets (revenue and wages from the 2025 accounts, transfer fees paid from Transfermarkt). I've already explained why I don't think amortisation of fees from up to seven seasons ago is relevant to a discussion about our current/recent spending policy - seems we disagree on that particular point, so happy to leave it there.

I'm pretty sure we're spending a considerably higher amount on wages since 2023 for our players across the board (and if you're using Transfermarkt for your info on wages then that tells me all I need to know on how accurate and all encompassing those calcs will be: not even factoring in signing on fees/goal/assist/performance/win/other bonuses).

Also, our amortised transfer fees will have gone up considerably since 2023 with more Premier League and less Championship transfer windows to factor in, so cant really see that supporting your view that the Khans are no longer investing close to PSR limits / no longer interested (which you did say on a few occasions).

This summer we may not have made a Joao/Mitro type sale to balance to books but we did have an additional £35m PSR allowable losses headroom due to being in the Prem for 3 years so balances that out somewhat. Also seems we have some funds we failed to spend on a CM in time but that was due to leaving our business too late (judging by the Danilo rumours) as opposed to your perceived lack of appetite to spend money / Khans not investing.

So you're right, seems we do disagree on that point at least. Agree with you on George though as I say.

[Angus Telford]

I'm pretty sure we're spending a considerably higher amount on wages since 2023 for our players across the board

So just to clarify, it was your/KM's 117% figure that was based on the 22/23 season accounts - odd that you're now challenging their validity as a data source. In any case, where I've referred to the accounts, I've used the more recent 23/24 season numbers. I doubt wages have substantially increased significantly (say, more than 5-10%) year-on-year since then - why would they?

Not even sure why we're arguing about numbers now anyway, since you seem to fundamentally agree we had space for more investment in recent years, just based on different reasoning. So somewhat wondering why I got "called out for wilful ignorance / deliberate mischief making", "back-of-***-packet calculations" and being "endlessly reductive". But hey ho.

[Hatch007]

Normally I tend to agree with Angus on things. But for me, Wilson is too proven and George too unproven to be worth the risk on the price. If it was Traore they were after, I would have taken a net 10m or so gamble. But Wilson is one of our greatest goal threats and goals are ultimately what win you points, not vice versa

So you're the one? 🤣

[Count Flapula]

So just to clarify, it was your/KM's 117% figure that was based on the 22/23 season accounts - odd that you're now challenging their validity as a data source. In any case, where I've referred to the accounts, I've used the more recent 23/24 season numbers. I doubt wages have substantially increased significantly (say, more than 5-10%) year-on-year since then - why would they?

Not even sure why we're arguing about numbers now anyway, since you seem to fundamentally agree we had space for more investment in recent years, just based on different reasoning. So somewhat wondering why I got "called out for wilful ignorance / deliberate mischief making", "back-of-***-packet calculations" and being "endlessly reductive". But hey ho.

Interesting take on what I said. Where am I challenging the validity of the KM figures? Get the feeling at this stage you are just making up points to argue against.

KM says we spent 117% of revenue in 2023, I'm saying we're spending more on wages across the board since then so how is that the Khans not investing even in the last few years, compared to a few years ago when you seem to suggest they started to under invest? How in any way does that suggest I'm now challenging those figures?

Wages will have increased across the board as the squad moved on players we had in the Championship on Championship wages / increased a lot of that group we've kept's wages significantly upon contract renewals / brought in better calibre players on higher wages. The floor will have been raised significantly.

The only exception where we have not spent close to PSR limits will most likely being this summer but that is down to (IMO) leaving all their transfer business too late - the latter part of this point we both agree on.

I've said the same thing on each post - it wasn't that hard to misinterpret, yet you've somehow managed to glean a different meaning. Your debating style reminds me a lot of Statto who used to post on here.

FWIW it wasn't me who called you out for wilful ignorance originally - it was another poster that you then responded to with the comment about the Riverside, which I also believe was you being wilfully ignorant.

Anyway, my point hasn't changed and we disagree. Think I'm going to bail on this rather than continue to go in circles.

[I Ronic]

Having broken our transfer fee twice now. My feeling is as it isn't my money and without actually having any idea what the fees really were or the wages actually are. That the investment in the team has been pretty good. While keeping within the laws of the league who don't want anybody outside to top teams to compete anyway.

Opinions are interesting but we do have this theme of attacking the owners for making the side compete in the top half without doing what many teams do and spend the sort of money that will come back to haunt them in the future.

So we have the situation where we come away with a transfer window and squad far superior to the one we had before. Obviously injury and evidence of actually how players play in the Prem will be the deciding factor. But there is simply no argument that this is the best squad we have had since we have been in the Prem. Yes I know people don't like it and want more and want bigger. But for now it will interesting how we get on.

Needless to say we still have to compete in a corrupt system run by officials on the pitch who are at best ignorant or corrupt. But we didn't need George, speculation about expenditure and wages are just that. So never really know what the point of debating figures when you don't know what they are until the up to date accounts are released.

I'm in full agreement with the above and I'll repeat something I posted last week. Our team was better in all areas in the first half and equal in the second, last week against Chelsea. Shocking decisions robbed us again for the second week in a row of winning games against far more expensive opposition. The three additions have arrived in my opinion just at the right time. Not affected by those decisions and joining a squad who must be itching to get back on the field to put matters right and beyond the reach of further crap from officialdom.