Paying big transfer fees is a mug's game. It's dead money on top of big wages. I have no problem with the concept of paying above-average wages to attract and retain good players, funded by avoiding paying pointless large transfer fees. We should be focusing on signing players with a year left on their contracts, ideally a maximum of 2 years, to keep outgoing transfer fees as low as possible. A £20m fee plus £75k/week for a 4-year contract is a £35m total outlay or just under £9m a year. A £10m outlay plus a £90k/week is a £28m outlay over 4 years, which is £7m/year. Multiply that saving by 5 players and that's £10m/year or £40m saved over 4 years. Provided that we can manage the FFP implications that's a far better business model for a club our size.
But it must be coupled with a good scouting network to pick up good players from abroad and from lower divisions here with low transfer fees and a resale value. That's where we are really falling down. Think Mulumbu, Olsson, Dorrens, Odemwingie, Phillips, Yacob, Fletcher - all very low transfer fees.
Yes we may have to still shell out big transfer fees for one or two key players, especially strikers, but that's manageable.
I'm therefore not too hung up on whether our transfer budget is £40m, £30m or £50m because I'd far rather see it invested in wages rather than on big transfer fees.
If we could sell Evans for £25m-plus and buy Smalling for £15m or Shawcross for £10m as a replacement on similar wages then that's £10m to £15m which can be used elsewhere. Similarly buying Andre Gray for the apparent £10m price rather than buying Deeney for £25m makes far more sense.
I don't get the club's concern over paying around £7m for Charlie Taylor at tribunal, especially with resale value. It strongly suggests that we have an even better value alternative lined up.
