The main point though is in response to some numpty who came on here a few weeks back and started a thread entitled "even Spurs spend more than us". Well here's a little factoid for you all. We have spent more (net) in 2006 than the following clubs put together:
Tottenham
Manchester United
Arsenal
Maybe even Everton too.
In 2006 we've spent £25.9m net (possibly rising to £31m depending on the performance related bonuses for Agger and Pennant).
The mancs have actually had a net positive cashflow from transfers (£8m, dropping to £4m if they pay the full £18m on carrick).
Arsenal has had a net spend of just £1m at best, at worst they have had a positive cashflow from transfers upto around £6m (depending on what to believe on the cash element of the cole transfer and how much they've paid for Rosicky). Bring Walcott into the equation and we've still spent more than them.
Spurs is a bit more difficult to sort out. They sold Carrick for £14m (upto £18m) and signed berbatov for approx £12m, Didier Zokora £8.5m so from that it's a net of at best £6.5m spend, (dropping to £2.5m if they get all the carrick money). They've also bought mido from roma but I can't find a fee, nor for pekhart another of their signings.
So from that the three together have spent less than £10m net between them.
And just for a laugh if you add in everton's expenditure (who also have spent more than the above three, if you include the bonus payments dependent on success (stop laughing at the back)) it still comes in as less than our expenditure.
No bad for a club who "can't compete financially".
