Swansea signed 3 £10m+ players this year alone, West Ham spent £40m on 2 players to add to their 3 from last year, West Brom signed 2 this year to add to their 2, Watford signed 3 of roughly £10 to add to their 2, Stoke spent £20m on one player to add to their 2, Southampton spent £35m on 2 players to add to their 3, Leicester spent a f*** tonne, Huddersfield signed 3 in that region this summer, Everton 3 to add to their 5, Palace added a £25m player to add to their 5, Burnley signed 2 to add to their 3.Donkey Toon wrote:Mean average is pointless in this instance. What Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea et al spend is not in anyway average. I made it quite clear that for most of the teams in the league, certainly the lower half, £10m is well above the average price for a player.Sir Bobby wrote:
Good way of negating the rest of my point
We're talking about more or less the cheapest teams in the Prem here. Not the average teams, nice try though!
However, median or mode average are more relevant. Which is actually what you were suggesting because you were highlighting numbers of players signed for more than that figure and not the average of their prices.
Most teams outside the top 6 have signed 4-6 £10-20m players in the last 18 months alone. Throw in maybe 2 from the years before that and you're looking at most teams having 7 or 8 £10m players in their 10 outfield players. I'm not saying you can't find players cheaper than £10m but on the average most starters are in that region.