Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Some Really Nerdy Stuff 08:39 - May 31 with 667 viewsBerber

This may not add up to anything, but on a wet Bank Holiday Monday when I woke up at 5.00am, I had to do something with the time. I was perusing the Transfer Markt website, and made a few comparisons of clubs that have been in the PL a while and had a few struggle this season.

It appears that the site includes returning players who had been loaned out as incomers for definition purposes, and I looked at 20/21, 19/20, 18/19 seasons.I don’t know how reliable the data is.

Southampton:
Averaged per season, 17 incomers for a net spend of £23m.

Brighton:
Averaged per season, 23 incomers for a net spend of £43m.

Wolves:
Averaged per season, 27 incomers for a net spend of £56m.

Crystal Palace:
Averaged per season, 11 incomers with a net spend of minus £10m (Wan Bissaka).

Burnley:
Averaged per season, 8 incomers for a net spend of £11m.


So what could we conclude?
Burnley have a specific model tailored to the manager, keeping it small and focused. Less resource spent on scouting, but more research and better selection to fit the system?

Crystal Palace are probably a special case. They are handily located to be attractive options for London based players from other clubs to get a loan placement. They also bring some of their own through and have a pretty low churn of players. (That may change this window as lots are out of contract).

Wolves try out a lot of players (lots of Portugese in the past as has been highlighted by pundits etc), discarding most and have a chunky but not massive net spend every year.

Brighton also churn a lot of players and spend a fair bit doing so. They have struggled consistently for a few seasons, so whilst they have stayed up, it could go either way.

Southampton don’t churn as much as other clubs, with a more stable squad, and topping up with lads from the academy. Compared to say Brighton over the past 3 years, where results have been broadly comparable, the club save up to £20m pa by scouting younger players into the academy. (No comments about Ben White please, haha).

With a squad of 25, on average you are likely to be having 8 contracts ending each year, either to re sign or replace. Arguably, we have only been seeing one academy product each year really make it into the squad, Tella this year, Smallbone last, not sure how to place Valery in that. The others have been peripheral. So we aren’t really seeing the benefit of the £20m underspend, say £10m. So are we potentially under investing in the squad by £10m each year?

I don’t really know if this makes any sense, but I’d say that we either need to see a better return from the academy, else a bit more spend on transfers in if we aren’t to continue struggling against the relegation risk.
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024