SPL Transfer Fees over past 5 seasons

[TheEastTerrace]

Hibs the fourth biggest spenders according to these stats

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/celtic/295669-what-has-your-team-spent-on-transfers-in-the-last-five-years/

[Hibbyradge]

That's interesting and points to a good future.

Our debt is under control and our infrastructure is in place.

Future transfer fees we receive, can be used to strengthen the team.

This decade could hold some exciting times for Hibbies. :thumbsup:

[Elephant Stone]

That's interesting and points to a good future.

Our debt is under control and our infrastructure is in place.

Future transfer fees we receive, can be used to strengthen the team.

This decade could hold some exciting times for Hibbies. :thumbsup:

That's as long as crowds stay at the same level, which looks unlikely at the moment. Hopefully people show a bit patience and realise that they've got a pretty massive part to play as well.

[Jack]

Oh no! That’s terrible news.

The sack the board, they never do enough to back the manager, folk will be gutted. :na na:

Blasphemy!

[greenlex]

Can't be right.
We never pay fees. I read it on here.
That's right innit? :confused:

[Beefster]

In context, according to that, we've made a surplus in transfer dealings of £15m over those 5 years. Other than Hearts (£11m), no-one else made over £3m.

I don't think the figures can be used to make the case for or against the argument about the Board not being willing to spend, tbh.

[greenlex]

In context, according to that, we've made a surplus in transfer dealings of £15m over those 5 years. Other than Hearts (£11m), no-one else made over £3m.

I don't think the figures can be used to make the case for or against the argument about the Board not being willing to spend, tbh.

If those figures are correct of course they can. How many times have you seen posts over the years stating we rake transfer fees in and spend nothing preferring to pick up frees and trialists?

[Hibbyradge]

In context, according to that, we've made a surplus in transfer dealings of £15m over those 5 years. Other than Hearts (£11m), no-one else made over £3m.

I don't think the figures can be used to make the case for or against the argument about the Board not being willing to spend, tbh.

All our money has been spent.

Some on transfer fees, some on salaries and some on debt and infrastructure.

It's not like we've got £millions in the bank.

[Spike Mandela]

So taken as an average we made over £3m pounds a year and spent less than £300,000 per year.

Over 90% of transfer income spent on debt and infrastructure.

[Beefster]

If those figures are correct of course they can. How many times have you seen posts over the years stating we rake transfer fees in and spend nothing preferring to pick up frees and trialists?

We knew already that some fees were paid (Maka, O'Brien, Nish, Riordan, Rankin etc) so that's not new.

What I meant was that the figures could be used to argue the case that we do, indeed, pay transfer fees but could equally be used to argue the case that we pay proportionately less of the money we take in than anyone else (i.e. 8%). It's pointless arguing about it because both views are equally valid IMHO.

[frazeHFC]

Who cost Hearts all the money? Skacel etc?

[Monts]

Who cost Hearts all the money? Skacel etc?

It tell you further down the article.

One being the hilarious saga of Mauricio Panilla :greengrin

[Sammy7nil]

Can't be right.
We never pay fees. I read it on here.
That's right innit? :confused:

Yeah we plough a MASSIVE 10% of fees gathered back in to buying players :confused:
I know we have paid signing fees and higher wages but the ratio of transfer money ploughed back in to the team is simply wrong.

[yekimevol]

i believe this just a shame it was on crap !!