Of the three teams promoted to The Premier League

[Riversider]

Which team do you think has the best chance to survive ?
For me it's Aston Villa , then it would be Sheffield United then Norwich,
Can see Villa surviving with Brighton looking most likely to drop out.

[Camel Club]

I agree with you regarding Brighton. If it wasn't for their brave (foolish?) decision concerning their manager I think you could make a strong case for all three promoted clubs to go straight back down. I just can't see Sheffield United surviving. Norwich may turn out to be a surprise package but might struggle with the strength of their squad. As for Villa I like the fact they've signed Jota from Birmingham. When we picked up the point we needed against Brentford to qualify for the play-offs a couple of years ago I thought he bossed the game for Brentford and can understand why Dean Smith has gone back for him.

[FFC1987]

I think Villa have one of the biggest tasks to be honest. Lots of loans and players needed in to fill and will possibly lose key players from last year. I think Norwich are in probably the best position with United likely to drop again.

[Fernhurst]

It seems such a short time from that quite wonderful day at Wembley to our relegation and Villa taking our place.
Will Villa do better than us next season, starting with Spurs away? Will look on with interest and a touch of envy.
Think they may have a slightly better chance but quite frankly hope they plummet.
Would it be the first time if all 3 promoted teams came down again??

[simplyfulham]

I think it's hard to look past Norwich as being the best of the 3.

There is the obvious that they finished as champions, but they also have the most experience and depth in the squad and management.

Sheffield may suffer a little stage fright and Chris Wilder is fairly inexperienced at that level.

As for Villa...  how some of you lot think they're going to be contenders? They don't have a back 4. The full backs are old and aren't up to it and the centre halves again don't have experience of playing at a high enough level. And then there's all the loan players they need to replace! They might do it but it's a big ask at this point.

As for Brighton, don't underestimate Graham Potter. He was absolutely fantastic for Swansea considering the sh*t show he had to deal with there. It's a very good appointment and if he can survive the initial bedding in period, they've got a strong investment for the next few years in Graham Potter.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Norwich City I feel will do better than the other two. But whatever happens all three will make a far better fist of it than Fulham.

[Riversider]

I think it's hard to look past Norwich as being the best of the 3.

There is the obvious that they finished as champions, but they also have the most experience and depth in the squad and management.

Sheffield may suffer a little stage fright and Chris Wilder is fairly inexperienced at that level.

As for Villa...  how some of you lot think they're going to be contenders? They don't have a back 4. The full backs are old and aren't up to it and the centre halves again don't have experience of playing at a high enough level. And then there's all the loan players they need to replace! They might do it but it's a big ask at this point.

As for Brighton, don't underestimate Graham Potter. He was absolutely fantastic for Swansea considering the sh*t show he had to deal with there. It's a very good appointment and if he can survive the initial bedding in period, they've got a strong investment for the next few years in Graham Potter.

Sorry, what experience do Norwich City have ?

[Bassey the warrior]

I hope Norwich and Sheff Utd stay up. Two good footballing sides who've worked miracles. Would be funny if Villa went down.

[Statto]

I'd love villa to go down but they'll be fine. They'll do everything right that we did wrong. Their most important player on loan was El Ghazi and they've already signed him on a perm. Compare that to our pursuit of Mitrovic last summer which we took 7-8 weeks longer to finalise. They've also moved quickly to sign Jota, whom their manager knows from his Brentford days. I suspect they'll make Abraham or Mears or some of the other loanees permanent as well. Their other signings will be done quickly, largely from English clubs and driven by the manager rather than some numpty's computer game. Simple.

[bog]

I hope Norwich and Sheff United stay up. I think Norwich to be a good club. And I like the Blades boss. Worked his way up from humble beginnings. Good luck to them.  :54:


092.gif 

[@jolslover]

I'd love villa to go down but they'll be fine. They'll do everything right that we did wrong. Their most important player on loan was El Ghazi and they've already signed him on a perm. Compare that to our pursuit of Mitrovic last summer which we took 7-8 weeks longer to finalise. They've also moved quickly to sign Jota, whom their manager knows from his Brentford days. I suspect they'll make Abraham or Mears or some of the other loanees permanent as well. Their other signings will be done quickly, largely from English clubs and driven by the manager rather than some numpty's computer game. Simple.

Signing from English clubs as a positive ... How many of Wolves signings were from English clubs? Who did the best out of the newly promoted teams?

[Lyle from Hangeland]

Aston Villa look to be the FFC of the new PL season.

[Statto]

I'd love villa to go down but they'll be fine. They'll do everything right that we did wrong. Their most important player on loan was El Ghazi and they've already signed him on a perm. Compare that to our pursuit of Mitrovic last summer which we took 7-8 weeks longer to finalise. They've also moved quickly to sign Jota, whom their manager knows from his Brentford days. I suspect they'll make Abraham or Mears or some of the other loanees permanent as well. Their other signings will be done quickly, largely from English clubs and driven by the manager rather than some numpty's computer game. Simple.

Signing from English clubs as a positive ... How many of Wolves signings were from English clubs? Who did the best out of the newly promoted teams?

By my calculations they signed 11 players -
2 from other English clubs (Afobe, Traore)
4 loans from the preceding season made permanent (Vinagre, Bonatini, Boly and Jota)
3 from Portugal, obviously familiar to Nuno and/or Mendes (Moutinho, Patricio and Jimenez)

Only 2 were signed from other leagues - Dendoncker (Belgium) and Otto (Spain)

So the majority were players that already knew the English leagues and of those that didn't, most were players the manager and DoF knew from their home country, Portugal

In other words not random, unknown computer game signings

[The Rock]

You can't compare. We spent 100m and should have been 9-10th.

These other teams are better owned and managed. The Khans are sort of a joke.

United won't make it. Villa and Norwich 50/50 - they have a solid base, but not like Wolves. It's more and more clear to see. Newcastle has a net spend 0 and everyone hates that Ashley fellow, yet they talk of Top 10 rather than League two.

[The Rational Fan]

You can't compare. We spent 100m and should have been 9-10th.

These other teams are better owned and managed. The Khans are sort of a joke.

United won't make it. Villa and Norwich 50/50 - they have a solid base, but not like Wolves. It's more and more clear to see. Newcastle has a net spend 0 and everyone hates that Ashley fellow, yet they talk of Top 10 rather than League two.

It is absolutely delusional to think £100m is enough to avoid relegation these days even if you recruit well. The four least expensive squads ended up as the bottom four, well done to Brighton and Cardiff for getting ahead of us, but the other 16 teams have clearer spent more money on buying players.

Of the 17 teams that stayed up, Brighton probably had the cheapest. Brighton spent £79m and Fulham spent £104m. Fulham spent £22m on Mitro, £6m on Bryan (ie replacing Tagget) and £76m improving the squad. From what i can see Fulhams £76m was better spent than Brighton's £79m, but the real difference between the teams is Brighton's existing squad was better especially around the CB area.

Choose any team in the top 16 and it's easy to see they had more money than Fulham. The media doesn't want to tell the truth, that most teams position were very close to how much they spent. If i'm wrong finding an exception would be easy. I beat you cannot.

[Statto]

You can't compare. We spent 100m and should have been 9-10th.

These other teams are better owned and managed. The Khans are sort of a joke.

United won't make it. Villa and Norwich 50/50 - they have a solid base, but not like Wolves. It's more and more clear to see. Newcastle has a net spend 0 and everyone hates that Ashley fellow, yet they talk of Top 10 rather than League two.

It is absolutely delusional to think £100m is enough to avoid relegation these days even if you recruit well. The four least expensive squads ended up as the bottom four, well done to Brighton and Cardiff for getting ahead of us, but the other 16 teams have clearer spent more money on buying players.

Of the 17 teams that stayed up, Brighton probably had the cheapest. Brighton spent £79m and Fulham spent £104m. Fulham spent £22m on Mitro, £6m on Bryan (ie replacing Tagget) and £76m improving the squad. From what i can see Fulhams £76m was better spent than Brighton's £79m, but the real difference between the teams is Brighton's existing squad was better especially around the CB area.

Choose any team in the top 16 and it's easy to see they had more money than Fulham. The media doesn't want to tell the truth, that most teams position were very close to how much they spent. If i'm wrong finding an exception would be easy. I beat you cannot.

We had the 5th highest net transfer spend in the PL last season. In fact only Liverpool and Chelsea spent substantially more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47817930

[Andy S]

To be brutally honest all three are likely to return to the championship. Any team already up there has a real advantage even Brighton

[Lyle from Hangeland]

You can't compare. We spent 100m and should have been 9-10th.

These other teams are better owned and managed. The Khans are sort of a joke.

United won't make it. Villa and Norwich 50/50 - they have a solid base, but not like Wolves. It's more and more clear to see. Newcastle has a net spend 0 and everyone hates that Ashley fellow, yet they talk of Top 10 rather than League two.

It is absolutely delusional to think £100m is enough to avoid relegation these days even if you recruit well. The four least expensive squads ended up as the bottom four, well done to Brighton and Cardiff for getting ahead of us, but the other 16 teams have clearer spent more money on buying players.

Of the 17 teams that stayed up, Brighton probably had the cheapest. Brighton spent £79m and Fulham spent £104m. Fulham spent £22m on Mitro, £6m on Bryan (ie replacing Tagget) and £76m improving the squad. From what i can see Fulhams £76m was better spent than Brighton's £79m, but the real difference between the teams is Brighton's existing squad was better especially around the CB area.

Choose any team in the top 16 and it's easy to see they had more money than Fulham. The media doesn't want to tell the truth, that most teams position were very close to how much they spent. If i'm wrong finding an exception would be easy. I beat you cannot.

We had the 5th highest net transfer spend in the PL last season. In fact only Liverpool and Chelsea spent substantially more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47817930

It wages that matter the most, not transfer fees. Teams with higher wages statistically win more games. That said, we didn't master the transfer market last year... it managed us.

[The Rational Fan]

You can't compare. We spent 100m and should have been 9-10th.

These other teams are better owned and managed. The Khans are sort of a joke.

United won't make it. Villa and Norwich 50/50 - they have a solid base, but not like Wolves. It's more and more clear to see. Newcastle has a net spend 0 and everyone hates that Ashley fellow, yet they talk of Top 10 rather than League two.

It is absolutely delusional to think £100m is enough to avoid relegation these days even if you recruit well. The four least expensive squads ended up as the bottom four, well done to Brighton and Cardiff for getting ahead of us, but the other 16 teams have clearer spent more money on buying players.

Of the 17 teams that stayed up, Brighton probably had the cheapest. Brighton spent £79m and Fulham spent £104m. Fulham spent £22m on Mitro, £6m on Bryan (ie replacing Tagget) and £76m improving the squad. From what i can see Fulhams £76m was better spent than Brighton's £79m, but the real difference between the teams is Brighton's existing squad was better especially around the CB area.

Choose any team in the top 16 and it's easy to see they had more money than Fulham. The media doesn't want to tell the truth, that most teams position were very close to how much they spent. If i'm wrong finding an exception would be easy. I beat you cannot.

We had the 5th highest net transfer spend in the PL last season. In fact only Liverpool and Chelsea spent substantially more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47817930

What matters is transfer fees since promotion (including the last season's spending in Championship)? In the spending figure that matters we were 18th, and not 6th. If spending this season was all that mattered then Tottenham would have overachieved if they came 19th.

Fulham spent £17.61m in the year it got promoted and £104.85m since promotion until 1st Feb 2019, that is £122.61m which is 18th in the EPL.

Spending since final season in Championship and time in Premier League (not including Summer 2019 spending)

9   Leicester    £330.12m (EPL position 9th)
10   Southampton   £313.7m (position 16th)
11   Watford   £237.59m (position 11th)
12   Bournemouth   £201.62m (position 14th)
13   Crystal Palace   £199.97m  (position 12th)
14   Newcastle United   £151.03m  (position 13th)
15   Brighton & Hove Albion   £145.45m (position 17th)
16   Burnley    £126.04m (position 15th)
17   Wolves   £123.18m (overachiever if official figures are correct)
18   Fulham   £122.46m (£17.61m in 17/18 and £104.85m in 18/19)
19   Huddersfield Town   £100.72m (position 20th)
20   Cardiff City   £57.48m (position 18th overachieved)

Notice all the teams except Cardiff spent £100m, so at least two that spent over 100m must get relegated.

Cardiff, Fulham and Huddersfield spent the least since promotion and they got relegated.

[@jolslover]

I'd love villa to go down but they'll be fine. They'll do everything right that we did wrong. Their most important player on loan was El Ghazi and they've already signed him on a perm. Compare that to our pursuit of Mitrovic last summer which we took 7-8 weeks longer to finalise. They've also moved quickly to sign Jota, whom their manager knows from his Brentford days. I suspect they'll make Abraham or Mears or some of the other loanees permanent as well. Their other signings will be done quickly, largely from English clubs and driven by the manager rather than some numpty's computer game. Simple.

Signing from English clubs as a positive ... How many of Wolves signings were from English clubs? Who did the best out of the newly promoted teams?

By my calculations they signed 11 players -
2 from other English clubs (Afobe, Traore)
4 loans from the preceding season made permanent (Vinagre, Bonatini, Boly and Jota)
3 from Portugal, obviously familiar to Nuno and/or Mendes (Moutinho, Patricio and Jimenez)

Only 2 were signed from other leagues - Dendoncker (Belgium) and Otto (Spain)

So the majority were players that already knew the English leagues and of those that didn't, most were players the manager and DoF knew from their home country, Portugal

In other words not random, unknown computer game signings

They only signed Afobe due to a clause - they sold him straight away.
All those loan signings were from outside English football at first.