misleading info though
clubs below us in most cases have spent more on their squads but over a greater period of time. Obviously newly promoted clubs are going to feature fairly high so they can compete.
Posted By: Brandonio on March 14th 2013 at 18:58:07
Message Thread
- Dear Wrath, my faith has been restored, some excellent discussion below...... (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 14, 18:07:05
- 12th highest net transfer fees (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 14, 18:24:14
- how much? (n/m) (NCFC) - Jumbo1, Mar 14, 20:49:39
- transfer fees and wage bills.......we live in the real world. (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 14, 18:35:53
- also how many PL owners are poorer than ours?.... (n/m) (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 14, 18:36:58
- You are right. But we are still 12th highest net on fees. fees aren't everything. (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 14, 18:44:42
- misleading info though (NCFC) - Brandonio, Mar 14, 18:58:07
- The clubs being where they are probably indicates money wasted (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 14, 19:03:01
- Southampton's spend is unreal... 37 million :o (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 14, 18:49:36
- QPR 42 million :o (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 14, 18:51:20
- misleading info though (NCFC) - Brandonio, Mar 14, 18:58:07
- You are right. But we are still 12th highest net on fees. fees aren't everything. (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 14, 18:44:42
- also how many PL owners are poorer than ours?.... (n/m) (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 14, 18:36:58
- 12th highest net transfer fees (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 14, 18:24:14
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.