The One and Only

[Neiler]

It would be an interesting peice of research or league table, in terms of net spend we would be higher then many even at 0.

 

[Tubey]

It would be an interesting peice of research or league table, in terms of net spend we would be higher then many even at 0.

It can't be done effectively sadly due to relegations/promotions and varying figures, along with undisclosed transfers.

I tried ^^

 

[Matt Damon]

I agree. oO I've already said most teams operate a sell to buy policy in general as they can't "do a Leeds", but again if needs be to save their arses they can go out in January and buy someone. In short, they have liquidity.

We don't. And that's the gripe I have with how our clubs run. If we're in a relegation scrap in December, where do we go?

NO. They don't. They'll use the £13million still remaining from the sales to pay off some of the debts owed to one of the major shareholders.

You're forgetting. These other clubs HAD to sell to generate revenue to pay back debt.

Villa, Sunderland and Newcastle all have.

 

[Neiler]

It can't be done effectively sadly due to relegations/promotions and varying figures, along with undisclosed transfers.

I tried ^^

I suppose it could if the criteria was at least two years in the PL it would obviously exclude the promoted teams but then they get a 50 mill windfall which is a bit distortive anyway.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

AS USUAL, very selective of you as per. Considering the last window - their net spend was minus £20million FFS!

Oh I forgot, if the timing is inconvenient you'll just ignore it before a set period won't you.

Great attempt at trying to start an argument, typical damon MO, well done.

GOT posted this :

Just like Villa, Sunderland and Bolton have (All three of who, haven't actually spent any money this summer -> http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/footba...transfers.html )

The optimum words there "THIS SUMMER".

I then replied with figures from this website : http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/sunderland-transfers.html
which clearly states that 1 player went out for £18 million, and 6 came in for a total of £23 million.

So therefor they have spent money this summer, not that they haven't spent money this summer.

Of course last season they had a net spend of minus £14 million but in the last 5 years they have a net spend of £64 million.

According to the website i'm using, feel free to correct anything it has wrong.

Because unless you can it shows that Danny is wrong and Sunderland do have a net spend this summer.

Not trying to prove him wrong, just pointing it out.

 

[chaser]

Maybe we should have sold Felli, Arteta, Jags and Baines and replaced them with several signings from bottom-half of the table clubs?

This footy business is confusing me.

 

[Hibbert&Ernie]

Chesney Hawkes?

 

[royal_blue]

Frustrations are justified here. The board and Moyes seem well aligned but how can they be? He says things that make no sense and clever fans are feeling shunted around like stupid sheep.

If we had no money or have no money, surely there should be some sort of plan to sell players for profit (like Bent) on a consistent basis and make some cash while moving forward on and off the pitch.

Instead we have seen big signings like Fellaini and Bilyaletdinov for massive fees with some half-hearted hope for investment somewhere along the line to back those signings up?

I agree with Tubey big time.

I long for a manager or a board with a real plan who get things.