Tweet
<SPAN class=data>02/02/2007 3.08</SPAN>
<SPAN class=titolo>Big Deal? The Premiership Transfer Window Dealings</SPAN> <SPAN class=sommario>So the window is closed until the end of the season, meaning each club must make do with the players they've got as they make that push for glory or battle to stave off relegation.</SPAN>
<DIV class=articoloTesto><DIV class=articoloFoto><DIV class=articoloFotoCornice id=Articolo_divArticolo><DIV id=Articolo_ei1_p1>
<DIV id=Articolo_ei1_p2>The previous year-round free-for-all is wistfully recalled by many a manager and fan, while the twice-a-year open window system is often reviled as artificial, restrictive, and hugely damaging to the cash-flow of smaller clubs.</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
It is also claimed that the January window in particular is not a good time to buy: it is perceived to be a sellers' market, with prices often inflated because the buying clubs are, almost by definition, desperate to recruit mid-season for whatever reason - a crippling injury list, calamitous run of form, imminence of relegation, etc.
A perusal of the business done by Premiership clubs in the past month reveals that Arsenal and Chelsea were the only two not to bring in anybody new. But whereas Guners boss Arsene Wenger always maintained he would not be shopping in the January window, Blues counterpart Jose Mourinho made it clear he would like to buy if only he was allowed to.
Middlesbrough and Newcastle recruited one player apiece; Everton and Manchester United two each.
The club doing the most business were Sheffield United, whose turnover of 15 players represented the signing of five and the offloading of ten, several of them on loan.
The clubs bringing in the most new players were generally those struggling to avoid relegation. Watford brought in eight, West Ham six, Wigan and Sheffield United fibe each. Charlton signed four new faces. An exception to this trend were Liverpool, who despite lying third felt the need to bolster their squad by bringing in seven new faces.
However, the most interesting buying was done by West Ham, whose Icelandic owners clearlyecided to gamble on buying their way out of the relegation mire. The Hammers spent £16.5 million on six new players (leaving aside their wages, which in the case of Lucas Neill, for example, are hardly trifling).
Aston Villa were responsible for the biggest single deal, spending £8 million (rising to £9.65 million) on Watford's Ashley Young. The Hammers were next, lavishing £6 million (rising to a possible £7.5 million) on Matthew Upson in the most controversial deal of the month.
Birmingham City were reluctant sellers, and it is unlikely Upson - who joined the Blues four years ago after failing to command a regular first-team place at Arsenal - will be warmly welcomed back at St Andrews.
Following Upson's departure to West Ham, Blues chairman David Gold (who ironically grew up supporting the Hammers) could not resist a swipe at the centre-back. Gold claimed Upson had used "player power" to get the move he wanted.
A club statement made it clear how Birmingham felt about that.
Gold said: "This [Birmingham's unwillingness to sell] is not and never had been about money. It was always about Matthew doing the right thing and honouring his contract, as we did when he was out injured for the past year. Twenty-five per cent of the profit on this deal goes to [former club] Arsenal so this is not a big money deal for us. This is simply about player power."
It would indeed be ironic if Upson's new club (18th in the Premiership) swapped places with his old one (2nd in the Championship) when t
<SPAN class=titolo>Big Deal? The Premiership Transfer Window Dealings</SPAN> <SPAN class=sommario>So the window is closed until the end of the season, meaning each club must make do with the players they've got as they make that push for glory or battle to stave off relegation.</SPAN>
<DIV class=articoloTesto><DIV class=articoloFoto><DIV class=articoloFotoCornice id=Articolo_divArticolo><DIV id=Articolo_ei1_p1>
<DIV id=Articolo_ei1_p2>The previous year-round free-for-all is wistfully recalled by many a manager and fan, while the twice-a-year open window system is often reviled as artificial, restrictive, and hugely damaging to the cash-flow of smaller clubs.</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>It is also claimed that the January window in particular is not a good time to buy: it is perceived to be a sellers' market, with prices often inflated because the buying clubs are, almost by definition, desperate to recruit mid-season for whatever reason - a crippling injury list, calamitous run of form, imminence of relegation, etc.
A perusal of the business done by Premiership clubs in the past month reveals that Arsenal and Chelsea were the only two not to bring in anybody new. But whereas Guners boss Arsene Wenger always maintained he would not be shopping in the January window, Blues counterpart Jose Mourinho made it clear he would like to buy if only he was allowed to.
Middlesbrough and Newcastle recruited one player apiece; Everton and Manchester United two each.
The club doing the most business were Sheffield United, whose turnover of 15 players represented the signing of five and the offloading of ten, several of them on loan.
The clubs bringing in the most new players were generally those struggling to avoid relegation. Watford brought in eight, West Ham six, Wigan and Sheffield United fibe each. Charlton signed four new faces. An exception to this trend were Liverpool, who despite lying third felt the need to bolster their squad by bringing in seven new faces.
However, the most interesting buying was done by West Ham, whose Icelandic owners clearlyecided to gamble on buying their way out of the relegation mire. The Hammers spent £16.5 million on six new players (leaving aside their wages, which in the case of Lucas Neill, for example, are hardly trifling).
Aston Villa were responsible for the biggest single deal, spending £8 million (rising to £9.65 million) on Watford's Ashley Young. The Hammers were next, lavishing £6 million (rising to a possible £7.5 million) on Matthew Upson in the most controversial deal of the month.
Birmingham City were reluctant sellers, and it is unlikely Upson - who joined the Blues four years ago after failing to command a regular first-team place at Arsenal - will be warmly welcomed back at St Andrews.
Following Upson's departure to West Ham, Blues chairman David Gold (who ironically grew up supporting the Hammers) could not resist a swipe at the centre-back. Gold claimed Upson had used "player power" to get the move he wanted.
A club statement made it clear how Birmingham felt about that.
Gold said: "This [Birmingham's unwillingness to sell] is not and never had been about money. It was always about Matthew doing the right thing and honouring his contract, as we did when he was out injured for the past year. Twenty-five per cent of the profit on this deal goes to [former club] Arsenal so this is not a big money deal for us. This is simply about player power."
It would indeed be ironic if Upson's new club (18th in the Premiership) swapped places with his old one (2nd in the Championship) when t