NUFC - Spending power!

[Guest Brazilianbob]

Looking at all the buying power of the likes of West ham, Spurs, Portsmouth and Villa it now looks to me as though we can no longer match their spending power, and considering the top four looks to be a closed shop, ie Man , U, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool, we are going to struggle to finish in the top half never mind get into Europe, and I don't just mean this season.  If we are to break the stranglehold we are going to have to spend mega and bring in the likes of Davies and perhaps Richards as well as Bale.  Of those three, at best we might see Davies, but only if we buy now, because the summer will be too late and the likes of Arsenal or Chelsea will step in for him. 

[NUFC06]

Most of this clubs were bought by very rich people and they want to invest alot of money

We on the other hand cant see that happening

[Guest teepee]

i agree we need players - but i'd rather we don't just sign any player out there - at way too high prices as well.

 

the price for young is insane, so is the amount soton want for bale.

 

reserve the panic buying jan 31st  

[biggs]

the way things are now with the take over talks going nowhere because of our alleged 80 million debt and fat freds seemingley unwillingness to do a deal imho we are in deep shit .fat fred gives sourpuss a shitload of cash to waste and roeders in ability or dithering in the summer has set us back big time and how do we get out of it i wish i knew the answer. :-[

[Guest gggg]

how much have Reading spent?

[Guest andynufc84]

 

Despite that I still think NUFC have spending power, martins, duff, owen, luque in recent times - a hell of a lot money. I think the reason why he arn't going to spend in this window is down to the uncertaintly over fat fred and the halls, takeover etc etc...

 

But come the summer we will have money to spend, we always have in the past and I can't that changing.

 

My concern is that Roeder can't attract the players, I know he bought Martins and Duff but I don't think he will be able to consistently attract top quality players to NUFC. The first things good players must look at after the money is who the manager is. I'm fully behind Glenn at the minute as NUFC boss but lets face facts, he was not brought in for the long term. He was brought in until a certain Mr Shearer can step in...

 

And I can't wait till he does

 

 

 

[Rich]

i agree we need players - but i'd rather we don't just sign any player out there - at way too high prices as well.

 

the price for young is insane, so is the amount soton want for bale.

 

reserve the panic buying jan 31st 

 

I don't fully understand people saying that the likes of Young are "insanely expensive", £30M for Shevchenko at his age is what I would consider "insane".

 

Here's why (for Young):

 

a) The lad has proven himself to be a perfectly good Premiership player already in a very poor Watford team.

 

b) Unlike Shevchenko, Young's value should increase if he stays relatively on-form (much like Martins for us, even if he just does fairly well here.) I'd like to see Milner's value now after this season, and N'Zogbia/Taylor are probably worth a pretty penny - even Ramage/Hunty/Edgar will have added some value to themselves by just even playing at the top level. Granted, you get the Viana situation where a player turns out to never get a game, despite having obvious talent, and then his value dwindles.

 

c) Villa could potentially get 10 top-class years out of him, maybe even more. You won't get that when you pay £10M for a 27/28 year old. It's a long-term investment. The only way to make huge gains on young players these days is to make your own.

 

d) Young was Watford's best player... so it's like Man Utd selling Rooney or Ronaldo, or Chelsea selling Terry. By selling Young they are practically waving goodbye to the Premiership, so obviously he commands a big fee. This is much the same for the likes of Barnes and Bale in the Championship... it's not like these lads are barely getting a game, they are extremely valuable to their teams and so the price goes up. We paid £10m for Martins because he was out of the first team picture at the San Siro, imagine his price-tag the summer previous?

 

e) He's English. You'll say it won't make any odds, but having top-class English players in an English team is a massive boon and clubs like to be represented at international level. If a player does well for England then it reflects well on his club and increases the club's reputation as somewhere players will want to play. It's all relative here. Obviously buying a young, English player is expensive when you compare it to other countries, but it's a reflection of the market on a whole in this country.

 

I personally feel that this "insane" price thing is another bandwagon that everyone seems to be jumping on without giving it any proper thought. It's the market these days, folks, it's not completely illogical that Southampton want £10m for their most promising star or that Ashley Young is going for £9.5m. What would people prefer? That we spend massive money on the likes of Luque and Boumsong at a later stage of their careers?

 

I'd rather we went the young, English route that Sir Bobby seemed keen on taking us than do things the Souness way. Obviously there's a balance, and Roeder has demonstrated this so far (he's done well in terms of the ages of players he has bought, I think.) If the club has the money, then I would like to see the likes of Young/Davies/Bale/Barnes brought in here and slowly integrated into the first team (or thrust in, which will probably be the more likely scenario.) I'm not sure that they'll do too much worse than some of our more senior players, anyway.

[Lloydie]

Spending significant money is going to require serious financial jiggery pokery I'd imagine. The reason we're flush in the summer is because you get the new season's TV money and the previous season's prize money paid out then. Next season will see all clubs get a stack more TV money because of the new Sky deal, but I can see that leading to wage and transfer fee inflation rather than an influx of good players.

 

Last year we operated at a loss, and despite the European run I imagine we'll do so again this year. Fail to qualify for Europe and the prospects of big spending look even worse.  Had we not got the insurance money for Owen to cover some wages we couldn't have signed Martins. Indeed I'd bet the 5 and a bit million that brought in Duff, Sibierski and Bernard would have been more or less it. Maybe plus 2-3 million for a centre back / left back (Huth/Bridge?).

 

Our wages are currently way over 50% of our turnover, which is generally seen as the 'sane' level of wages for a club to be paying (although when we were Champions league it was about right). So I'd imagine that wages are another block to new signings - hence mooted swap deals and attempts to get Luque off the payroll. Next summer I wouldn't be surprised to see one of Martins / Owen leave.

 

The response to having no money is not to go and borrow lots and 'spend big' though. Every year a bunch of clubs try that in an attempt to get into the Champions League, and every year a bunch of clubs end up with bigger debts and the prospect of spending the next few seasons either selling their best players or signing no-one till the debts go back down to reasonable levels again. The presence of the new sugar daddies around the league (Villa, West Ham, Portsmouth, Chelsea, Reading, Wigan) is disguising the fact that these clubs are mortgaging their futures, but that's not a luxury we have.

 

The model for us is Arsenal, where an extraordinarily astute manager and some very good investments in youth have produced a viable champions league club on quite a low investment. Wenger is still handicapped by the costs of the new stadium but his transfer budgets are well under those of his rivals (Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool) and he consistently manages to sell players for good prices.

 

So no, we probably don't have much spending power, and we need to be very careful with it indeed.

[Rich]

As for the original debate at hand here - which is a very good one, too - I've had the same worries for a good while now and I remember the likes of NE5/HTL admitting that they, too, had thought about things the same way.

 

It is a worry that the Premiership currently has Chelsea, Man Utd, Aston Villa, West Ham, Portsmouth and Tottenham with seemingly endless transfer funds because of their respective owners and, in the case of the first two, massive income every year from the Champions League. Liverpool look likely to be the next to follow and Arsenal should be alright money-wise now that their stadium is complete and they're pulling in massive crowds (as well as being in the Champions League.)

 

That's 8 teams who seem to be a good deal better-off than us in the current climate; financially speaking. Thankfully, though, they all haven't overtaken us yet because it is only very recently that we seem to be complaining of money troubles (even though we spent £15m in summer, which isn't bad.) And, we still have a stonger squad than a few of the clubs on that list, although the gap is quickly narrowing.

 

How much longer will players pick us over clubs because we offer the best financial package? If the money is the same, how many players are going to want to live in Newcastle ahead of London?

 

I think Shepherd and Roeder know this already, they're not as daft as people like to think, and so we've seen investment in the Youth Academy and top-class people being brought in to run it. Luckily, we seem to have a strong U18 team for a good few seasons now and so the steady stream of "decent" players from the young 'uns should hopefully continue, which means we should be set squad-wise for a good while yet. I certanly wouldn't mind having the likes of Edgar and Huntington as 4th/5th choice centre-halves for a few seasons, if we made improvements to the starting 11.

 

If we can focus on building a top-class first 11 (preferrably a first 14/16 if funds allow it), then we should be alright - but serious measures need to be taken on the injury front because I refuse to believe it's purely down to "luck".

 

Already we've seen improvement on the "Wenger front", as Tim Krul and Charles N'Zogbia both look to be amazing purchases for the money we paid. If we can unearth a few more gems like these two in the coming years then the club should steadily improve asset-wise as we'll have a large group of players increasing in value, rather than decreasing. The obvious ideal is to buy low, sell high (although that might lead some people to jump on the board for turning us into a "selling club".) But I think that Spurs have got it right... they buy people for decent money and then offload them for a profit, Carrick being the obvious example, but the likes of Davenport have also gone for more than Spurs paid.

 

That's the way to do it these days, and it seems like Roeder knows it.

[Guest andynufc84]

 

How much have Blackburn spent??

 

Just seen on SSN, If they beat Watford they will move in to the top 10. Mark Hughes is also saying he is looking to get into the top 6.

Who says they won't??

 

They have spent next to nothing but why are they up there?

 

Because they have a good man manager who can get the best out of an average group of players, who is tactically aware, who can motivate and play the football he can with the players at his disposal.

 

Villa are going to sign a player of 9 million, NUFC have been signing players for more than that some for years now. Just cos the likes of West Ham, Villa, Portsmouth have been taken over dosen't mean as Abramovich Style dominance

 

Since the glazers have taken Man U have they spent like Chelsea, they havn't hardly spent f*ck all! These clubs have been taken over so the investors can MAKE significant amounts of money from them. Yes they will put money in but only to a certain extent. NUFC can still compete with the likes of villa, portsmouth etc..

 

When Roeder leaves we need to appoint the right man, its as simple as that.

[Rich]

How much did Man Utd pay for Carrick again? £19m or so? How much have they been bidding for Hargreaves? Evra, Vidic and Park have also joined for a decent collective sum (probably near £15m) since Glazer arrived, so they've hardly spent small amounts. Somewhere near £40m already in 18 months, on a squad that was already formidable. If they weren't winning the league I dare say that more would have been splashed as well.

 

Certainly if Bayern would sell, it would be something like £60m in 19 months. Not bad.

 

We've spent a similar amount, like, perhaps a bit more, but we're not running round bidding £20m for people still - or winning the league.

 

[Lloydie]

Have to check, but I don't think Blackburn have been pennypinching...

[Guest andynufc84]

 

We spent £16 mill on Owen, £10 mill for Luque, £10 mill on Martins and all the rest of the nackers we have signed!

 

I don't think the signings Man U have made have stemmed from the money of the Glazer family, they were spending £30 mill on Rooney and £28 million on Ferdinand long before the Glazers arrived.

 

Man U are the biggest football club in the world and I would hazard a guess they had a huge pot of money before the Glazers, who it seems are taking a hell of a lot of money out of the club. Yes they players you have mentioned below cost a lot, but thats nothing new for Man U, they havn't spent astronomical money since the Glazers arrived.

 

In general terms I don't think that throwing money at players is always the answer, it only helps if you buy the right sort of players.

You just have to look at the likes of Bolton and Blackburn, even Arsenal. I would stick my neck on the line and say we have spent more than Arsenal in recent times, yet they are a million years ahead of us!

 

For me, its all about having the right management team in place. Which since Sir Bobby we havn't. We must appoint the right management team for this football club

[Rich]

I think you've got it spot-on, Andy. My only issue was you saying Man Utd have spent "hardly fuck all", when they've spent upwards of £40m and have recently bid £20m for Owen Hargreaves and £8m for Gareth Bale. I was merely putting them in the list of clubs who have been taken over and who have far more money than we do because of their status, not necessarily because of the takeover.

[NUFC06]

 

We spent £16 mill on Owen, £10 mill for Luque, £10 mill on Martins and all the rest of the nackers we have signed!

 

I don't think the signings Man U have made have stemmed from the money of the Glazer family, they were spending £30 mill on Rooney and £28 million on Ferdinand long before the Glazers arrived.

 

Man U are the biggest football club in the world and I would hazard a guess they had a huge pot of money before the Glazers, who it seems are taking a hell of a lot of money out of the club. Yes they players you have mentioned below cost a lot, but thats nothing new for Man U, they havn't spent astronomical money since the Glazers arrived.

 

In general terms I don't think that throwing money at players is always the answer, it only helps if you buy the right sort of players.

You just have to look at the likes of Bolton and Blackburn, even Arsenal. I would stick my neck on the line and say we have spent more than Arsenal in recent times, yet they are a million years ahead of us!

 

For me, its all about having the right management team in place. Which since Sir Bobby we havn't. We must appoint the right management team for this football club

 

Agreed 101%

 

The manager is the most important thing for a football club

[Guest andynufc84]

I think you've got it spot-on, Andy. My only issue was you saying Man Utd have spent "hardly fuck all", when they've spent upwards of £40m and have recently bid £20m for Owen Hargreaves and £8m for Gareth Bale. I was merely putting them in the list of clubs who have been taken over and who have far more money than we do because of their status, not necessarily because of the takeover.

 

 

Yeah you are right when I said they have spent f*ck all I was going a bit over the top!

 

I believe in the summer we will have the money to spend.

 

If we get the right man at the helm NUFC will take off..

 

But thats from an NUFC supporter ever the eternal optimist! 

[brummie]

 

We spent £16 mill on Owen, £10 mill for Luque, £10 mill on Martins and all the rest of the nackers we have signed!

 

I don't think the signings Man U have made have stemmed from the money of the Glazer family, they were spending £30 mill on Rooney and £28 million on Ferdinand long before the Glazers arrived.

 

Man U are the biggest football club in the world and I would hazard a guess they had a huge pot of money before the Glazers, who it seems are taking a hell of a lot of money out of the club. Yes they players you have mentioned below cost a lot, but thats nothing new for Man U, they havn't spent astronomical money since the Glazers arrived.

 

In general terms I don't think that throwing money at players is always the answer, it only helps if you buy the right sort of players.

You just have to look at the likes of Bolton and Blackburn, even Arsenal. I would stick my neck on the line and say we have spent more than Arsenal in recent times, yet they are a million years ahead of us!

 

For me, its all about having the right management team in place. Which since Sir Bobby we havn't. We must appoint the right management team for this football club

 

Agreed 101%

 

The manager is the most important thing for a football club

 

Absolutely. What Arsenal have done under Wenger is awesome. Look at the players they bring through. Yeah, they may be foreign, but they mostly go through their youth set up, and turn into quality players.

 

The ones they've got at Birmingham on loan are looking quality too - Muamba, Bendtner, Larsson (although you probably noticed that last week  : ) which suggests that they've got another batch coming through.

 

Spending big when you need to, and combining it with "homegrowns" is surely the way to do it, and to keep it sustainable over the long term, not the Chelsea way

[Guest Hibbits left foot]

I dont expect any big money signings for the next few years,£75 m debt is a lot of moolah, and if smaller clubs can do better than us with less spending power it shows that our youth policy has been poor up until recently.We need a fantastic set of scouts and FFS needs to keep his fat snout out of buying/selling players.

[Guest WalkervilleMag]

I expect us to spend around £25 million in the summer.  big new wad of cash is on its way next season through the new TV deal, plus the sales of Emre,Parker,Carr,Babyaro,

[Guest Knightrider]

You don't need to be the biggest spenders in the transfer market to be successful, hasn't history told us anything. Only 3 clubs have spent more than us in the Premiership and we haven't won anything in that time. I'm not worried about our ability to spend, so long as 53,000 fans turn up week in week out and we remain in the Premiership, we'll always be in a position to spend big, I'm more concerned about who spends it. As others have said money comes a big second to the right manager being there to spend it. Imagine what Wenger could have achieved at Arsenal with our budget? Imagine what we could achieve with a Wenger, with our budget? No need to panic. Villa, West Ham and Pompey may be owned by rich people but these people do not have unlimited riches like Abramovic, their money is tied up in other ventures, that's what makes their wealth, pump it all into a football club and it will soon disappear. The spending at Villa and West Ham et all will reach a cap, I can't see Pompey spending 25m a season until as a club they can sustain that type of budget from within and that would require big gates and regular Europe, same for Villa.

 

Man Utd will always be able to spend vast sums so long as they too fill their stadium and qualify for Europe. Chelsea, well they are unique and a different kettle of fish.

 

[Dinho lad]

You don't need to be the biggest spenders in the transfer market to be successful,

 

True, but we don't have a good enough manager or scouts to spot unknown gems. >

[Guest Knightrider]

We don't and that's where we will always fall down - it is so simple and so clear, it takes the piss that no-one at the club seems to recognise this.

[Guest WalkervilleMag]

most good players in lower leagues, are now well publisized,  long gone are the days where you could get a bargin for 250k from the lower leagues, and then walk into your 1st team. 

 

Bale 10million+

Davies 9million+

 

transfer market has gone crazy.

 

Robert Lee  for 750k    wish there were a few of those out there.

[Cronky]

The Owen transfer is the one above all that has really killed us. We're not big enough to be taking the risk of £17 million plus £5 million a year on one player. Shepherd had the idea that if you get England's top goalscorer then you'll end up with England's top team, but unfortunately football is a bit more complicated than that. (Not to mention players can get injured)

 

On the area of youth development, I have wondered whether, as an area, the North East is at a bit of a disadvantage. There's a lot of athletic talent in the Black British population, which is apparent in the players coming through at other big city clubs. Tyneside doesn't have a particularly large ethnic minority population.

 

I've not forgotten Shola. But he's the exception, not the rule.

[johnnypd]

On the area of youth development, I have wondered whether, as an area, the North East is at a bit of a disadvantage. There's a lot of athletic talent in the Black British population, which is apparent in the players coming through at other big city clubs. Tyneside doesn't have a particularly large ethnic minority population.

 

I've not forgotten Shola. But he's the exception, not the rule.

 

not really. look at liverpool and its hinterland in comparison to tyneside and the north-east. they've produced successive waves of talent, from the likes of fowler, mcmanaman and mcateer, through to owen, gerrard, carragher and onto barton, nolan and rooney. in comparison we've produced shearer and carrick.