Forum
{{ post.commentCount }}

Didn't find anything.

European Clubs Transfer Net Spend Since 2014/15
Gennady 1 year ago
Manchester United, Russia 265 3377

Well this is pretty insane... or is it, considering the amounts clubs pay now for the players.

Discuss.

European Clubs Transfer Net Spend Since 2014/15👀

Posted by FootyRoom on Thursday, July 19, 2018
0
Comments
tuan_jinn 1 year ago
Manchester United, Netherlands 185 6466

Insane,

A bit surprise and a bit NOT with Real. The last few season they have been very efficient, thanks to the transfer before that.

And the numbers are calculated from the last 3 seasons which also happen to be the craziest sh!t of all time in term of ridiculous transfer fees. Cases like Pogba, Lukaku, Dembele, Neymar, Virgil... just retarded...

I feel sad for our team though...

0
Emobot7 1 year ago
399 9807

Real Madrid barely bought player in the last 3 year, not even suprised to see them so far away from the top 10. :P Also, its impressive to see Chelsea is nowhere close the top either while Arsenal are in there. :U

0
legends16 1 year ago
Chelsea, England 38 768

@Emo
I love how our Antonio Conte managed to make great players put of modest signings like Marcos Alonso, or existing loaned players like Victor Moses, instead of splashing the cash. Although we really could and should have invested more in the last transfer window.

I like how we are not spending so much now, but at the same time I wish we had bought Alisson, even at that price, instead of Liverpool. It looks certain that courtouis will leave this summer, and if he doesn't then one of the world's best goalkeepers goes out on a free next summer. We are now being linked with Petr Cech, which much as I love the guy is ridiculous.

2
iHEARTfootball 1 year ago Edited
Manchester United 35 773

I'm not very good with numbers. Can someone explain to me what the negative sign means? Does this mean the amount spent beyond the expected budget, or just the amount spent? At the moment, I'm assuming Real Madrid's 55.6m is an indication of them making a profit out of their transfers, rather than splashing the cash?

0
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

I'm not very good with numbers. Can someone explain to me what the negative sign means? Does this mean the amount spent beyond the expected budget, or just the amount spent? At the moment, I'm assuming Real Madrid 55.6m is an indication of them making a profit out of their transfers, rather than splashing the cash?

SunFlash 1 year ago
Manchester United, USA 16 3016

@iHeart

That is correct. They sold quite a few of their bench players for high prices (e.g. Morata, Jese, etc) and replaced them on the cheap with youngsters because the starting 11 was in such a state of solidity.

West Ham being in there is pretty funny I suppose. Have a net spend in the top 10 of the world and still get pitch invasions midgame, owners must be tearing their hair out.

2
tuan_jinn 1 year ago
Manchester United, Netherlands 185 6466

@SunFlash: exactly hahaha.

0
Emobot7 1 year ago
399 9807

@legends Yep, thats right. ;)

0
Tuanis 1 year ago
Deportivo Saprissa, England 82 2251

As if this wasn't disappointing enough, if we compare this spending vs trophies won then United would be the biggest loser here.

Also, what are Watford and W. Ham doing there? lol

1
Emobot7 1 year ago
399 9807

@tuanis Obviously, Watford and West Ham main problem must be not selling enough player.

0
Marcus2011 1 year ago
Chelsea FC, England 271 6076

Eventually markets will find the equilibrium and transfer sums will be lower, ofcourse subject to laws of macroeconomics.

I am also pleased to see that people who used to accuse us of buying trophies are doing exactly that themselves hahaha

1
the_bald_genius 1 year ago
10 1579

Wow milan spends more than liverpool. Smh......

0
quikzyyy 1 year ago
Arsenal 407 7699

finally we spend the moneyyyyy

0
tuan_jinn 1 year ago
Manchester United, Netherlands 185 6466

We are the biggest loser.

Gotta thanks Mou for the Europa League though :(.

0