Last year we supposedly had a £50M warchest that wasn't touched, this year we have a £70M warchest

[Bergkamp's Brain]

guess how much of that we will spend?

[Nicosia Gooner]

[Mo Britain less Europe]

it was said to be £70 million (to include fees and wages), net of any transfer income, before the £30 million a year deal with Puma was announced and before the extra transfer revenue from Cesc Song, which many have assumed would also be available. Silent Stan and Idiotboy have (surprise, surprise) not confirmed this.

Arguably we should have £110 or even £120 million available.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

clubs are buying players. If we get rid of lots of the deadwood why do we have to include wages from our transfer pot? Why can't those wage savings just be used on the new players?

£70m including wages ain't going to go very far.

[Peter]

And are counted as outgoings each year in the club accounts. Counting them as spending in tne transfer sense is total ****.

Fees and wages are separate things, budgeted for separately.

[Classic Jorge]

Including wages

[Maravilloso Marvo]

[Billy Goat Sverige]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

I take it you're a director of the company? With your interest in the finances, and all?

[Chief Arrowhead]

http://www.awimb.com/legacy.php?t=getfile&id=2406&private=0

[Bergkamp's Brain]

I'm afraid you missed the point, Charles

[The Tony]

[redgunamo]

we don't pay the biggest transfer fees because the wages would then be too high.

I mean, if you sign a ¤50 million player then you have to pay him like one.

[redgunamo]

[Mo Britain less Europe]

[The Rob2]

[Peter]