How many other Prem clubs can spend 30 mill

[Bosco81]

Using my trusty excel spreadsheet I have the net spend since Randy took over to be ;

2006/7 £15M
2007/8 £19M
2008/9 £34M
2009/10 £12M
2010/11 £5M
TOTAL £85M

[Concrete John]

For example (simplifying the figures) - we got 18m for Milner, we've spent it on Bent, does not mean a net spend of zero, which is what some people think.

True, however it does mean net spend of zero other than money already invested a few years ago.  My example would be:-

Randy spends £42m in 2008, including £12m on Milner.  We then sell Milner for £18m and use it to buy Bent.  If we're then saying that the investment in Bent is the £18m less the £6m Milner profit, then we're adding the initial £12m in again unless we go back to 2008 and say "Actually, that was only £30m really." 

Basically, wherever and whenever the initial fee comes from it WAS spent already.  So that £20m that came in needs to be viewed on balance with anything subsequently spent.

And I totally agree with the point that the willingness to spend it all on one player is great and a clear sign of intent!!

[Chris Smith]

You can't talk about Randy's great investment, which I agree it has been great, and then dismiss the initial money.  Randy hasn't spent £30m since he last put his hand in his pocket - he's spent the £30m less whatever we got back for sales inbetween.

Yes, and I didn't say he had spent 30m, I said that in the same way you can't ignore the money we got for Milner, you can not ignore the money we spent on him, either.

For example (simplifying the figures) - we got 18m for Milner, we've spent it on Bent, does not mean a net spend of zero, which is what some people think.

Of course not, but if you're going to do it your way it's not really new money either.

He's been tremendous with the money he has put into the club, no complaints from me at all but if we're going to start a thread about this particular transfer window it is pertinent to put out that we made a decent profit in the last 2.

[Brend'Watkins]

Whatever way you look at it it will be perceived by 'them' (The Bishop Boy and company) that we've spent the Milner money, thus proving our sell to buy policy.

[Risso]

and you're all ignoring amortisation as well......

[pauliewalnuts]

You can't talk about Randy's great investment, which I agree it has been great, and then dismiss the initial money.  Randy hasn't spent £30m since he last put his hand in his pocket - he's spent the £30m less whatever we got back for sales inbetween.

Yes, and I didn't say he had spent 30m, I said that in the same way you can't ignore the money we got for Milner, you can not ignore the money we spent on him, either.

For example (simplifying the figures) - we got 18m for Milner, we've spent it on Bent, does not mean a net spend of zero, which is what some people think.

Of course not, but if you're going to do it your way it's not really new money either.

He's been tremendous with the money he has put into the club, no complaints from me at all but if we're going to start a thread about this particular transfer window it is pertinent to put out that we made a decent profit in the last 2.

He's shown that he's willing to carry on investing in the club, that's by far the most important point.

You're right, we can't ignore the money recouped in the previous windows, although all that did was reduce the net amount he'd invested. It has to be looked at against his record of investment since coming here, which has been amongst the best.

Regardless of the fact that we got it from selling a player, he found himself in a situation whereby he had to decide - keep this 16m pounds and make the 150m plus I've invested in this club look a bit less of a chunk of my fortune, or invest it in new players.

To see it described (not on this thread) as "recycled Milner money" makes it all look a bit simple, like it's in some way not real money.

[DeKuip]

and you're all ignoring amortisation as well......

Is that when Stanley Mortensen comes as part of the deal?

[darren woolley]

I am just gratefull to Randy for spending in this winter transfer window like most of you have said the Milner money as been reinvested on Darren Bent which will bring it's own reward if he keeps scoring and getting rid of Sidwell, Carew, and Shorey the money from them as enabled us to get Makoun and hopefully we have some put aside for maybe one or two more signings.

[Villa'Zawg]

All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.

Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.

Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!

No we didn't.

Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised.  Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.

Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).

I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.

Great post.

not so much moving the goalposts as converting them into a basketball ring. My rules, my game eh?

[pauliewalnuts]

All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.

Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.

Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!

No we didn't.

Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised.  Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.

Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).

I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.

Great post.

not so much moving the goalposts as converting them into a basketball ring. My rules, my game eh?

"My rules my game"?

Even by your own perilously low standards, that's utterly meaningless.

[Villa'Zawg]

All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.

Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.

Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!

No we didn't.

Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised.  Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.

Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).

I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.

Great post.

not so much moving the goalposts as converting them into a basketball ring. My rules, my game eh?

"My rules my game"?

Even by your own perilously low standards, that's utterly meaningless.

It terms of discussing transfer fees, it takes a unique set of "rules of the game" to arrive at the conclusion that the Milner sale raised £5m.

[pauliewalnuts]

It terms of discussing transfer fees, it takes a unique set of "rules of the game" to arrive at the conclusion that the Milner sale raised £5m.

Yes, it does, it's remarkable how if you buy something for 11, sell it for 16, you've earned 5, not 16.

How positively unique!

[Chris Smith]

We didn't sell him for £16m. We sold him for £24m it's just that they mugged us for the other £8m by giving us faulty goods in lieu of payment.

[sfx412]

Regardless of the semantics, how many other clubs will be spending 18-24 million on players like Bent, or 5-6 million on Makoun and hopefully more even yet to come.

Its also been suggested that Sunderlands Boards quick approval of the deal came about because of the cash upfront approach engineered by Randy, all of which flies in the face of those who by the looks of the above still propose we are a sell to buy club ?

[Concrete John]

all of which flies in the face of those who by the looks of the above still propose we are a sell to buy club ?

Seriously - is everyone avoiding the point, and the Randy priase, on purpose?

Everyone is happy Randy is spending and nobody believes we are sell to buy.  But is it that hard to admit we did do a bit of selling before we bought this time?