ForeverCarefree
If she said it's Chelsea or me. Would you miss
- Messages
- 21,634
- Reaction score
- 12,177
Pinching this from Twitter because I thought it worthy of discussion.
Chelsea's net spend has substantially fallen in last 2 seasons to £21m annual average, compared to £65m for 2011-15. Gross spend has increased from £103m to £112m, but sales have risen from £38m to £91m. There was £213m spending in the summer (Morata, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Rüdiger).
There's a fairly lengthy analysis of of our financial position here click on the tweet to view the full thread.
Looking purely at the net transfer spend, which more than a few people have picked up on recently, it raises the question.
Why are the club spending so little (by our standards) on strengthening the first team?
We've seen a continuing shift of mindset towards transfers over the last 5 years or so but we're at a stage now where we are almost trying to break even on transfer fees in/out.
Given the expectations on the managers but also the expectations of the fans of wanting the team to be competitive and winning trophies most seasons is success going to be sustainable if we continue to see a hard line approach to transfers, especially when you look at the sums being invested by the two Manchester clubs?
We're seeing it again even this winter transfer window.
£35m fee was touted to have been agreed for Barkley in the summer, something happens and it doesn't go through and then it's done and dusted within in a couple of days of the window opening with £20m apparently saved. Good business on the surface of it but could Barkley of possibly have been fit during December maybe even late November to help with the busy schedule? Purely speculating but it's possible isn't it?
There's no secret that we're looking to boost our forward options, especially after a club first of three successive 0-0 draws on the bounce. Apparently we're looking to take Andy Carroll on a six month loan. Minimal investment from the club and the short termism possibly indicative of how much longer we can expect Antonio to be with us too?
So do us Chelsea fans have to wake up to the realisation that the free spending days of yesteryear with Roman are gone? Is this just "short term" from the club, looking to hold back some fund given the large investment required to build the new stadium? Or perhaps we haven't seen "value" in player availability over the last two years and the next big splurge is only a transfer window away?
Chelsea's net spend has substantially fallen in last 2 seasons to £21m annual average, compared to £65m for 2011-15. Gross spend has increased from £103m to £112m, but sales have risen from £38m to £91m. There was £213m spending in the summer (Morata, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Rüdiger).
There's a fairly lengthy analysis of of our financial position here click on the tweet to view the full thread.
Looking purely at the net transfer spend, which more than a few people have picked up on recently, it raises the question.
Why are the club spending so little (by our standards) on strengthening the first team?
We've seen a continuing shift of mindset towards transfers over the last 5 years or so but we're at a stage now where we are almost trying to break even on transfer fees in/out.
Given the expectations on the managers but also the expectations of the fans of wanting the team to be competitive and winning trophies most seasons is success going to be sustainable if we continue to see a hard line approach to transfers, especially when you look at the sums being invested by the two Manchester clubs?
We're seeing it again even this winter transfer window.
£35m fee was touted to have been agreed for Barkley in the summer, something happens and it doesn't go through and then it's done and dusted within in a couple of days of the window opening with £20m apparently saved. Good business on the surface of it but could Barkley of possibly have been fit during December maybe even late November to help with the busy schedule? Purely speculating but it's possible isn't it?
There's no secret that we're looking to boost our forward options, especially after a club first of three successive 0-0 draws on the bounce. Apparently we're looking to take Andy Carroll on a six month loan. Minimal investment from the club and the short termism possibly indicative of how much longer we can expect Antonio to be with us too?
So do us Chelsea fans have to wake up to the realisation that the free spending days of yesteryear with Roman are gone? Is this just "short term" from the club, looking to hold back some fund given the large investment required to build the new stadium? Or perhaps we haven't seen "value" in player availability over the last two years and the next big splurge is only a transfer window away?
) which means that either Wenger has just completely and utterly failed to capitalize on his available spending, or the Arsenal board are happy making large profits and don't really care that much about being title competitors. Considering the revenues they're making, the idea that they won't give their top players wages comparable to the top players in the league (and are willing to see them leave for almost nothing as a result) seems to suggest that they are not really interested in being at the top table of European football.