Which club had the best transfer window?

With all the business done, which club made the best signings that will improve their team the most?
Although Nottingham Forest have clearly had the busiest window, I doubt they’re going to trouble the European places so I haven’t included them.

I’ll go with:

  1. Man City
  2. Chelsea
  3. spurs
  4. Arsenal
  5. Newcastle
  6. Man U
  7. West Ham
  8. Liverpool

Which club had the worst window?

  1. Leicester
  2. Bournemouth
  3. Aston Villa
  4. Crystal Palace
  5. Everton
  6. Wolves
  1. Chelsea
  2. City - by virtue of Haaland
  3. Man U
  4. Arsenal
  5. Spurs

Beyond that not paid too much attention. Isak was a potentially good capture for Newcastle and West Ham spent a lot.

Worst window has to be Leicester by a mile.

1 Like

Not sure I rate Chelsea’s business quite that high.

They’ve spent £260m and still look like a squad that needs a lot of work. The midfield has been strengthened with a Juventus reject who was available for next to nothing only 6 months ago.

They’ve signed a new left back when they already had 3. They’re going into the season with Mendy still as their number one, an injury hit midfield that needed refreshing anyway and the solution to their huge issue at striker was to loan out their £100m signing and bring in a 33 year old player who is inferior to the one they’ve loaned out.


Other records included:

  • Premier League clubs spending more than Spain’s La Liga, Italy’s Serie A and the German Bundesliga combined
  • Chelsea spending more in one window than any other club in Premier League history
  • Manchester United smashing their own summer spending record
  • Nottingham Forest signing more players in one summer than any other British club in historical
1 Like

Was Auba that put chelsea over the edge imo. Unfortunately I think he’ll do well and be the difference they’ve been lacking in recent weeks.

I can’t look at any team and say they had a perfect or near perfect window but I think Chelsea have the least gaps in their squad. City similar they just did less and focused more on sales.

A mammoth amount money played out this window. enthralling to see how many clubs are more robust. Our first team lot more powerful but we could lack depth. City more well built then Rest …despite the outgoing/. Chelsea sanction lots players but had to replace some & Auba is a stopgap , Man Utd some decent signings but a lot went out, spurs are a bit better squad wise. Spurs have a ageing squad though. I think We the weakest depth Wise overall . Liverpool not sure yet either. Squad wise they very young squad as well.

Completely agree, If Kovacic is not fit their midfield looks really average, not really sold on Gallagher, Kante and Jorghingo as pivots

Just realised they signed Zakaria who is also a DM, but still…


Chelsea and United both spent a lot but spent poorly IMO. More competently run sides would have had transformative windows for that kind of money.

City and Arsenal both spent really well in the business they conducted. Arsenal should have added one more player.

Spurs had a mediocre window, in that they added depth but not enough (similar to Arsenal) but also didn’t add a single player who truly elevates their first eleven.


West Ham

Rest I don’t give a shit about

could have been us if we didn’t have a month without signing anyone, City top of the list just because of Haaland

1 Like