Newcastle Are The Premier League’s Big Spenders

As the Premier League gets ready to kick-off tomorrow, the club that is at the very top of the charts as far as net spend in the transfer market this summer is Newcastle United on £33.5M, and that’s more just less than £10M ahead of the next club – Liverpool.

So Mike Ashley has kept his word and given the Newcastle Board some big money to spend – and hopefully the spending is not yet over,  and we still need to bring in Charlie Austin and a few more players yet – before Newcastle are finished.

Mike Ashley Sky Sports West Ham Match May 2015

Mike Ashley on Sky Sports – pledging transfer money for the summer

Net spend is the money being paid out on transfers minus money coming in from them – and Newcastle have no money coming in – from any outgoing transfers – not yet anyway.

So it looks like it’s £33.5M is what we have paid out for the three top players we have brought in so far this summer – Gini Wijnaldum, Aleksandar Mitrovic and Chancel Mbemba, and the first two are the third and fourth highest transfer fees for Newcastle United in their history.

They are behind only Michael Owen – £17M from Real Madrid in 2005 – and Alan Shearer – £15M from Blackburn in 1996.

The figure also includes almost £500K for 19 year-old striker Ivan Toney signed earlier this week.

The official figures are quoted as Georginio Wijnaldum (£4M), Aleksandar Mitrovic (£13M), Chancel Mbemba (£8.4M) and young Ivan Toney (£479K).

Here’s the graph that shows the top five net spending clubs.

net spend

Newcastle have spent £33.5M  on incoming transfers and that’s 5th in the list of gross transfer spending with Liverpool top of that list with £77.6M.

But it’s always the net spend that is the important transfer figure.

We are hoping that net spend could go up by more than £15M or more before the end of the transfer window on 31st August, with Newcastle bringing in up to three more players.

Here’s hoping.

Comments welcome.

29 comments so far

  • Blackley and Brownlie

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM

    Comment #1

    Formation debates … out

  • lochinvar

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM

    Comment #2

    Suspect the calculations will look a little bit different as and when we export some players ( Cisee ? ) elsewhere.

  • Brian Pinas

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:28 PM

    Comment #3


    You’re right, but for me the formation shows how the players will line up without the ball, when defending.

  • Brian Pinas

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:30 PM

    Comment #4

    Won’t last long. Expect Liverpool to splurge on Lacazette next. How many strikers do they need btw?

  • Blackley and Brownlie

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:33 PM

    Comment #5

    How are you going to know where the players should be when you’re defending? The opposition will control the ball and mastermind their own attacks. How are you going to predict that at the start of the game snd for the 90? Why would you be interested in ordering a formation for something you can’t predict. The game is about adapting minute to minute if not second to second. Is it a Fifa thing?

  • Brian Pinas

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:36 PM

    Comment #6


    I don’t think so. I don’t play FIFA either. Managers talk about getting back into your shape when defending. It’s not an exact science though of course. Players have to use their own intelligence as well. That’s what keeps the tactical side of the game interesting.

  • Jamseyd24

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:38 PM

    Comment #7

    A long way to go before everyone is finished buying and selling.

  • lukes26

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:42 PM

    Comment #8


    Mr Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

    Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

  • TacoFlavoredKisses ForMyBen-arfa

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:45 PM

    Comment #9

    i would love to see how these numbers look over the past 8 years since ashely got here. Something tells me we be very close to the end of the other side of that list.

  • Novocastrian66

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:46 PM

    Comment #10

    Still not enough. We need more quality I and ditch some of the dross. Gouffran, Williamson, Obertan,and Cisse need to be upgraded.

  • GeordieinOhio

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:47 PM

    Comment #11

    For god sake can we stop with the “we still need Charlie Austin” im pretty sure most of us would rather have quality defenders first and a speedy forward than Charlie Austin….on the spending ….the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City etc etc, spent money seasons ago building their squads, Im not saying they will not spend this window but as Jamsey said ” A long way to go before everyone is finished buying and selling.”…I just dont see us spending anymore this window…but i hope i am wrong!!


    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:48 PM

    Comment #12

    We need Charlie Austin

  • Brian Pinas

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:49 PM

    Comment #13



  • OneAlanShearer

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:50 PM

    Comment #14

    I wouldn’t hold your breath over signings. Spent the budget. Only way we are spending is if we sell first and/or someone gets injured. Nothing has changed. Sign just enough to stay up.

  • Tsunki

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:53 PM

    Comment #15

    Taco – that’s the real point right there. Mike’s getting no props from me just for a knee jerk reaction to nearly going down the pot last season.


    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:54 PM

    Comment #16

    Timing is fun haha

    I’d still have Austin though on a serious note. Also don’t think it’s a valid excuse that if he came in we couldn’t afford another CB

  • hibbit

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:55 PM

    Comment #17

    we need a cb cover for rb a first team lb a lot more then an overpriced cf

  • Blackley and Brownlie

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:55 PM

    Comment #18

    Why do bloggers find it interesting to set out formations and debate them if they’re simply about getting into shape when defending? That’s something for managers to sort out. Sometimes theyll bring centre forwards back to defend corners. It’s a yawn. They might decide for the first phase to sit off their defenders and let them have the ball. In another phase they might decide to press their defenders high and give them no space or time. They might see the opposition having some success in a particular area and try to counteract it. (Pardew used to see it far too late.) When bloggers debate formations, you can never see whether their formation is good or bad, right or wrong. It goes untested because there are so many positional variations during a game. It seems a pointless exercise. Just saying I don’t get it and interested to hear views.

  • Blackley and Brownlie

    Aug 7, 2015 at 4:59 PM

    Comment #19

    I’d rather have Austin first, full backs second (for years our CB’s have never had good full backs to play alongside), and a good winger (get rid of Cabella and get in someone who scores and assists).

  • TacoFlavoredKisses ForMyBen-arfa

    Aug 7, 2015 at 5:00 PM

    Comment #20

    The only props you can give Fatty is for being consistant in is tranfer plans

    1. Do the bare minimum to avoid the drop
    2. Buy for resale value
    3. ONLY buy when you are convinced you are getting a good deal

    Thats the entire plan. So while it is possible Austin can come in, it will only happen if they sell or feel they are getting good value with regards to the tranfer. It has nothing to do with whether the team needs him. This is why the low ball EVERY club out there. they set an internal price and do not go a penny over it. If QPR gets desperate and lower the price to that threshold theyll buy him, they will never just pony up the extra $$$

  • afro

    Aug 7, 2015 at 5:05 PM

    Comment #21

    Austin is always mentioned if it a transfer news…

  • GeordieinOhio

    Aug 7, 2015 at 5:07 PM

    Comment #22

    @Blackley and Brownlie

    I was thinking about that the other day…and when was the last time we had a strong back four ? I agree with you on the “get rid of Cabella” …

  • robertsleftfoot

    Aug 7, 2015 at 5:45 PM

    Comment #23

    I thought Benteke cost £32mill??

  • jayphoto

    Aug 7, 2015 at 5:51 PM

    Comment #24

    Thought man city had spent 60m?? On sterling and Delph

  • loonie-toon

    Aug 7, 2015 at 6:03 PM

    Comment #25

    Can anyone tell me how much we paid for Patrick klivert ??

  • loonie-toon

    Aug 7, 2015 at 6:04 PM

    Comment #26

    Thought wat 19 million

  • Moonraker15

    Aug 7, 2015 at 7:24 PM

    Comment #27

    Liverpool brought in 49 Mil for Sterling so their net spend is less (atm)

  • Ravostag

    Aug 7, 2015 at 8:37 PM

    Comment #28

    No strikers only centre backs needed

  • Adywakey

    Aug 7, 2015 at 10:58 PM

    Comment #29

    23&24 that’s why it’s called NET spend – RTFQ


You must log in to post a comment.