by SCIAG »
02 Aug 2015 16:43
paddy20 SCIAG YateleyRoyal 
at using the Pozzos as a yardstick.
If they can do it, we can do it. Maybe they can do it more reliably, but all the same.
If you'd like more examples, Burnley paid a combined £2m for Barnes, Vokes, and Ings (including only £350k for 20 goal Vokes), Swansea paid £900k for the front three that got them promoted, Southampton paid £1m apiece for Lambert and Sharp, Leicester's two main strikers cost them £1m between them. Grant Holt cost Norwich £400k, Cardiff and Hull both went up without having a player score 12 goals, even Bournemouth "only" paid £3m for their main striker.
It's just not true at all that you need to spend £4m on a 20-goal striker to get promoted - most promoted teams don't. £1m seems to be about the going rate but you can pick them up for less.
Can you name one??
Surely this question isn't asking what I think it's asking? I named eight teams who got promoted without a £4m striker hitting 20 goals for them in the very post you quoted.
Do you want me to name strikers who will score 20 goals in the Championship soon who also won't cost much? I can't do that, but I know they exist. I know it will probably rain on at least 5 days in March 2020, but I couldn't tell you which days.
As for the suggestion that the market for Championship strikers has undergone a huge change in the last two or three years, I'm not sold. Most teams aren't paying £3m for strikers even now. The summer that Blackburn got fleeced for Jordan Rhodes, Burnley signed Ings and Vokes for less money and subsequently got promoted off the back of their goals. Yeah, McCormack has bumped the roof up again, but that has been a fairly isolated incident.
