Sandy misses Powdered Egg
comment by Mamba Number 5 (U1282) (U13041) posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Inflation in football has grown at about 1000 times the normal rate, that's a very rough estimate but still gets the point across. For instance, £5000 in 1962 would not equate to say £30m today, would it? even with inflation factored in. Not taking sides though, just throwing that in there.
-------------------------------------------------------------
That is exactly correct and the point Sandy is missing and the point I'm trying to get across - the players he is saying cost very little, is true at todays prices but not at the fees of the late 50s
Brummie, sorry mate, but teams like Chelsea are spending £25 million on players and then not even playing them, and even loaning them out. When teams supposedly spent big years back, they were all first team regulars and most become legends at the club. The modern day big hitters just spend, spend, spend for the sake of it.
£5,000 in 1962 would in no way equate to £30 million today, £5,000 would probably equate to a million at most.
£5,000 in 1962 would in no way equate to £30 million today, £5,000 would probably equate to a million at most.
-----------------------------------------------------
That's what I said
I think the point is whether Spurs spent loads more than the other big teams at the time like City and Chelsea have at times recently. No one is denying they spent money, but whether it was more than every other club or massively so I have not seen or remember any evidence of it. Funnily Everton in the 60's up to about 1970 were known as the Bank of England club and not Spurs or Liverpool.
Sign in if you want to comment
Are chelsea buying the league?
Page 3 of 3
posted on 22/8/15
Sandy misses Powdered Egg
posted on 22/8/15
comment by Mamba Number 5 (U1282) (U13041) posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Inflation in football has grown at about 1000 times the normal rate, that's a very rough estimate but still gets the point across. For instance, £5000 in 1962 would not equate to say £30m today, would it? even with inflation factored in. Not taking sides though, just throwing that in there.
-------------------------------------------------------------
That is exactly correct and the point Sandy is missing and the point I'm trying to get across - the players he is saying cost very little, is true at todays prices but not at the fees of the late 50s
posted on 22/8/15
Brummie, sorry mate, but teams like Chelsea are spending £25 million on players and then not even playing them, and even loaning them out. When teams supposedly spent big years back, they were all first team regulars and most become legends at the club. The modern day big hitters just spend, spend, spend for the sake of it.
£5,000 in 1962 would in no way equate to £30 million today, £5,000 would probably equate to a million at most.
posted on 22/8/15
£5,000 in 1962 would in no way equate to £30 million today, £5,000 would probably equate to a million at most.
-----------------------------------------------------
That's what I said
posted on 22/8/15
Where is Adebayor btw
posted on 22/8/15
I think the point is whether Spurs spent loads more than the other big teams at the time like City and Chelsea have at times recently. No one is denying they spent money, but whether it was more than every other club or massively so I have not seen or remember any evidence of it. Funnily Everton in the 60's up to about 1970 were known as the Bank of England club and not Spurs or Liverpool.
Page 3 of 3