League table of transfer fees.

[FPT]

Basically, this is a table in order of expense of the whole squad, most expensive first, least expensive last.

1. Manchester City - £435.1m
2. Manchester United - £394.9m
3. Chelsea - £376m
4. Tottenham - £250.1m
5. Arsenal - £215.7m
6. Liverpool - £212.6m
7. Newcastle - £84.4m
8. Everton - £82.9m
9. Aston Villa - £81.6m
10. Southampton - £80.8m
11. Sunderland - £75.7m
12. Stoke City - £69.6m
13. West Ham - £63.6m
14. Cardiff City - £51.8m
15. Norwich - £51.1m
16. Swansea - £44.8m
17. Hull City - £41.1m
18. Fulham - £40m
19. West Brom - £30.7m
20. Crystal Palace - £24m.

As you can see, our current position seemingly fits our expenditure. Though should we complete the signing of Mitroglou, we would go up to 15th.

We are paying for 4-5 years of bargain buys; and before you start upon the easy way out and blaming Khan, you seem to forget the bids for Morrison? Defour? Moore? Mitroglou? It visible that he's happy to go into his chequebook, and it's very clear that those who blame Khan, seem to believe he negotiates the deals. Fulham is an impeccably run club, why would he change anything off the pitch that he doesn't need to? He's made funds available and doesn't need to be hands on. With the imminent signing of Mitroglou, and I believe a deal for Ravel Morrison isn't dead, we should look at what's happening on the field then off of it. The lynching blame culture that is being created at Fulham is not nice, the supporters aren't the ones I love any more; at least we could act in the grace we have been known for years ago; as it stands, we (as fans) are no different to others clubs, and that disgusts me.

[filham]

Interesting but not surprising, just confirms that the premiership is dominated by six clubs .

My immediate concern is that Fulham h ve not yet spent in transfers the reported £20m they received for Dempsey and Dembele 18 months ago and it our form shows this.
The noteable signings we have made in this period are:-

Berbatov Reported £5m
Lovebite  Reported £2m
Stek        Reported £5m
Parker    Reported  £3m
Reither   Reported  £2m

Am I correct with these figures or have we spenteleswhere.

[MJG]

Interesting but not surprising, just confirms that the premiership is dominated by six clubs .

My immediate concern is that Fulham h ve not yet spent in transfers the reported £20m they received for Dempsey and Dembele 18 months ago and it our form shows this.
The noteable signings we have made in this period are:-

Berbatov Reported £5m
Lovebite  Reported £2m
Stek        Reported £5m
Parker    Reported  £3m
Reither   Reported  £2m

Am I correct with these figures or have we spenteleswhere.

Well that's 17M of the D&D money right there, plus signing on fees for Dave, Petric, Boateng, Amore

[God The Mechanic]

Amorebieta was free, refused to renew his contract at Bilbao.

[TonyGilroy]

Seems to prove that you get what you pay for which is a pretty depressing thought and makes the whole thing kind of pointless.

[eloc]

Basically, this is a table in order of expense of the whole squad, most expensive first, least expensive last.

1. Manchester City - £435.1m
2. Manchester United - £394.9m
3. Chelsea - £376m
4. Tottenham - £250.1m
5. Arsenal - £215.7m
6. Liverpool - £212.6m
7. Newcastle - £84.4m
8. Everton - £82.9m
9. Aston Villa - £81.6m
10. Southampton - £80.8m
11. Sunderland - £75.7m
12. Stoke City - £69.6m
13. West Ham - £63.6m
14. Cardiff City - £51.8m
15. Norwich - £51.1m
16. Swansea - £44.8m
17. Hull City - £41.1m
18. Fulham - £40m
19. West Brom - £30.7m
20. Crystal Palace - £24m.

As you can see, our current position seemingly fits our expenditure. Though should we complete the signing of Mitroglou, we would go up to 15th.

We are paying for 4-5 years of bargain buys; and before you start upon the easy way out and blaming Khan, you seem to forget the bids for Morrison? Defour? Moore? Mitroglou? It visible that he's happy to go into his chequebook, and it's very clear that those who blame Khan, seem to believe he negotiates the deals. Fulham is an impeccably run club, why would he change anything off the pitch that he doesn't need to? He's made funds available and doesn't need to be hands on. With the imminent signing of Mitroglou, and I believe a deal for Ravel Morrison isn't dead, we should look at what's happening on the field then off of it. The lynching blame culture that is being created at Fulham is not nice, the supporters aren't the ones I love any more; at least we could act in the grace we have been known for years ago; as it stands, we (as fans) are no different to others clubs, and that disgusts me.

this post literally gives me a headache. transfer fees don't have to be reported, unlike wages. so this is really just a speculation. and furthermore, it doesn't even really illustrate the effectiveness of transfer fees. furthermore, this data on transfer fees doesn't show over what period of time these supposed fees are spent over. i'll be putting up a post later today that will explain the point your trying to make more accurately.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

Plus Wilkins and Curbishley

[God The Mechanic]

this post literally gives me a headache. transfer fees don't have to be reported, unlike wages. so this is really just a speculation. and furthermore, it doesn't even really illustrate the effectiveness of transfer fees. furthermore, this data on transfer fees doesn't show over what period of time these supposed fees are spent over. i'll be putting up a post later today that will explain the point your trying to make more accurately.

I thought transfer fees did have to be reported, at least in the accounts but the fee is spread across the duration of the contract.  Or at least that's what I vaguely remember from the sets of football club accounts I've seen (albeit not for nearly 18 months).

[eloc]

this post literally gives me a headache. transfer fees don't have to be reported, unlike wages. so this is really just a speculation. and furthermore, it doesn't even really illustrate the effectiveness of transfer fees. furthermore, this data on transfer fees doesn't show over what period of time these supposed fees are spent over. i'll be putting up a post later today that will explain the point your trying to make more accurately.

I thought transfer fees did have to be reported, at least in the accounts but the fee is spread across the duration of the contract.  Or at least that's what I vaguely remember from the sets of football club accounts I've seen (albeit not for nearly 18 months).

nope, if they're reported, its by the clubs, and god knows they aren't always honest when it comes to money and players.

[God The Mechanic]

nope, if they're reported, its by the clubs, and god knows they aren't always honest when it comes to money and players.

Not individually, but collectively?  Surely they have to be shown as an expense somewhere?

[eloc]

nope, if they're reported, its by the clubs, and god knows they aren't always honest when it comes to money and players.

Not individually, but collectively?  Surely they have to be shown as an expense somewhere?

They aren't reported publicly. They're sent to the FA to comply with FFP analysis, but even then I do not believe that it is broken down per transaction, rather its a "here's what we spent on bringing players in, here's what we got on selling them"

[God The Mechanic]

They aren't reported publicly. They're sent to the FA to comply with FFP analysis, but even then I do not believe that it is broken down per transaction, rather its a "here's what we spent on bringing players in, here's what we got on selling them"

Yeah, that's pretty much how I remembered it.  Possibly worded badly.

Apart from PLCs though, cos they have to report everything to their shareholders.  Though there are very few of them anymore.

[MJG]

Amorebieta was free, refused to renew his contract at Bilbao.

I know that's why I included him in that list. When I say fees for them I mean signing on fees. Frees are not free