There have been more than a few articles of late censuring our spending this season. Several people have pointed out that other teams in our division have spent quite heavily but none of them have received the same level of criticism that we have. Our reputed outlay has been quoted anywhere between 10 - 15 million pounds which, although a sizeable amount, by todays standards is certainly not that huge.
What seems to have been forgotten is that some teams in our division recently received huge amounts of money for gaining promotion to the Premier league and three years of parachute payments. West Ham, Birmingham and Blackpool, are getting 48 million each spread over three years, whilst Portsmouth Burnley and Hull are in their second year of payments of 12.37 million per year, all well in excess of any money we have spent.
Money
posted on 3/10/11
£10-15, Montreal Fox? There was a Derby fan on here the other day insisting it was £20m!
These whingers are very selective in what news they read/listen to. Few of them paid any attention to the fact that Sven made a net *profit* in his first transfer window, meaning that his 12-month spend is actually around £2m less than the fees clocked up in the summer – one of the reasons estimates of our outlay vary so much.
Rival fans with the attention spans of a goldfish also have cumulative totals in their heads that include one of more fees from deals that never happened. We did not, of course, spend a penny on Mackail-Smith, Maynard or Jelavic, but there are fish swimming around with the idea fixed in their heads that we spent up to £9m on one of these three (in fact, the £9m that Rangers rejected for Jelavic wasn't even our bid!)
With so much business done these days on an 'undisclosed fee' basis, it's impossible to be sure, but I think we've probably spent about £15m since May 2010, ie in *three* transfer windows. By dole queue standards, this is a vast amount of money, but in football terms it's a modest total. It's less than 40% of the sum Spurs turned down from Chelsea for Modric.
I can see why Derby and Forest fans are so frustrated, but they need to look closer to home to see why their clubs are skint. I would suggest in both cases that it has something to do with the (lack of) value for money that Billy Davies extracted from the transfer market – and absolutely nothing to do with Leicester.
posted on 3/10/11
In the last season or two you've seen Coventry, Forest and Derby fans protesting against their respective boards for a lack of investment. You're not telling me that some of their moaning and taking the moral high ground against us is motivated by envy.
It's true, however, that everyone would rather succeed in a manner of sustainable growth rather than high risk investment. I'd have been happy to have kept Nigel P for a season or two longer to see if he could have taken us that extra step, but that wasn't to be. It would be more rewarding following a Blackpool model than a QPR.
None of us know how this will eventually turn out and what the Thai's long term motives will prove to be. I must say that it is so far, so good, but we can only wait and see.
Putting myself in the mind of an outsider I can understand that I'd rather see Peterborough succeed than "big spending" Leicester. As I'm a Leicester fan I say who cares as long as we're successful.
posted on 3/10/11
The way I see it is, we've been short on cash for the majority of our 126 years, had to suffer administration and have mostly had to put up with slow workmanlike players as our fan favourites. if Leicester fans get success because of this wealth then we'll have earnt it having put up with what we have.
posted on 3/10/11
And it will mean just as much as it would had we got no money.