Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

League One Clubs Net Spend 10Years

The Prince-e-Paul
The Prince-e-Paul Posts: 6,698
edited October 2020 in General Charlton
Just seen this for the league one. Some surprising figures. https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/revealed-doncaster-rovers-shock-net-spend-over-10-years-compared-league-one-rivals-2996000?page=6

Comments

  • paulie8290
    paulie8290 Posts: 23,345
    edited October 2020
    Only 2 clubs at minus over a 10 year period 

    Sunderland at minus £62M
    Hull at minus £13M


    Bet if that was done for Championship clubs there would be alot more with minus figures, shows the difference that clubs are working with, wasn't it Roland when selling us that said it was easier to sell a league one club, because in the championship you always lose money or words to that effect 
  • guinnessaddick
    guinnessaddick Posts: 28,781
    paulie8290 said:
    Only 2 clubs at minus over a 10 year period 

    Sunderland at minus £62M
    Hull at minus £13M


    Bet if that was done for Championship clubs there would be alot more with minus figures, shows the difference that clubs are working with, wasn't it Roland when selling us that said it was easier to sell a league one club, because in the championship you always lose money or words to that effect 
    Say what you like about Roland, but he knows his football.
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,080
    Surprised our net spend is only £1.7M per year on average for the past 10 years. 
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,776
    paulie8290 said:
    Only 2 clubs at minus over a 10 year period 

    Sunderland at minus £62M
    Hull at minus £13M


    Bet if that was done for Championship clubs there would be alot more with minus figures, shows the difference that clubs are working with, wasn't it Roland when selling us that said it was easier to sell a league one club, because in the championship you always lose money or words to that effect 
    Surely if you lose money then your net spend is larger. Sunderland and Hull are the only ones making a profit here, aren't they?
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,080
    Wait - is this looking at transfer fees spent/received or full accounts (I.e. salaries etc) over 10 years?
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,776
    It says net SPEND. Therefore a positive amount is a bad thing, surely.
    ?
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,776
    edited October 2020
    paulie8290 said:
    Only 2 clubs at minus over a 10 year period 

    Sunderland at minus £62M
    Hull at minus £13M


    Bet if that was done for Championship clubs there would be alot more with minus figures, shows the difference that clubs are working with, wasn't it Roland when selling us that said it was easier to sell a league one club, because in the championship you always lose money or words to that effect 
    Championship clubs would generally have massive positive figures because they spend more than they receive. If they have received large transfer fees from Premiership clubs then their figure would go negative.

    That's how I interpret it, or rather it's not a question of interpretation, but correct definition of language.
  • Off_it
    Off_it Posts: 28,934
    Let's face it, without any context these figures are pretty pointless. It all means nothing.
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,080
    Off_it said:
    Let's face it, without any context these figures are pretty pointless. It all means nothing.
    Christ, that’s deep for a Friday afternoon!
  • Off_it
    Off_it Posts: 28,934
    edited October 2020
    se9addick said:
    Off_it said:
    Let's face it, without any context these figures are pretty pointless. It all means nothing.
    Christ, that’s deep for a Friday afternoon!
    It's how I feel.

    I'm in SE9 too - Gissa cuddle!


  • Sponsored links:



  • Stig
    Stig Posts: 29,115
    Off_it said:
    Let's face it, without any context these figures are pretty pointless. It all means nothing.
    Nothing but clickbait.
  • Stig
    Stig Posts: 29,115
    jimmymelrose said:
    It says net SPEND. Therefore a positive amount is a bad thing, surely.
    ?
    It is impossible to say wether a spend is good or bad without considering what the spend is on. At best, all this tells us is the amount of money going in or out without looking at the goods and services that have flowed in the other direction. Spending wisely on improved infrastructure and careful building of a winning team would surely be a good thing. Spaffing money up the wall on agents, consultants, Range Rovers, river views, court cases, failed vanity experiments and nonsense like under-pitch pipes without heating is bad. Let's consider the other side of the story before getting carried away one way or another on meaningless numbers.

Categories

“Marketplace”