Throw in £50m for Declan Rice and I don't think we can call the market subdued.
Possibly but with only a few weeks left til the new campaign, most clubs still haven’t done anything.
We’re three weeks away from the new season.
Arsenal have spent £8m
Brighton have spent £1.5m (and made £11m, a net spend of -£10m)
Villa, Burnley, Palace, Everton, Leicester, Man Utd, Newcastle, Sheffield Utd, Southampton, WBA have spent nothing and sold no one.
Chelsea have spent £100m plus (including Ziyech) but made £74m so net is only £25m.
Fulham have spent £11.5m.
Leeds have spent £25m.
We’ve spent £12m but sold Lovren for the same, so net 0.
City have spent £80m but recouped £45m so net £35m.
Spurs have spent £32m making Lo Celso permanent, but they did that ages ago.
West Ham spent £16m making Soucek permanent.
Wolves have spent nothing and made £16m profit.
So you’ve got three clubs with a significant net spend on recent transfers (City, Chelsea, Leeds), and even then it’s not vast. Two clubs who’ve made loan deals permanent. Fulham and Arsenal with net spends of £10m or so. Us with a net spend of 0, ten clubs who’ve done no business at all, and wolves and Brighton who’ve made a profit.
The difficulty in some ways is getting the money moving around the system. Small clubs need the money to buy the weaker players from the bigger clubs to give the bigger clubs the money to buy the better players from the smaller clubs etc
It’s not a non-existent market but it’s plainly somewhat subdued, so far.
