£80m to spend if we make CL, £50m if we don't. At least its more realistic than the usual £200m reports people fall for every summer.
Every year we get floods of "X club have X million to spend in the transfer market" stories even though that absolutely isn't how budgeting for transfers actually works. It's total nonsense.
The transfer fees clubs pay to other clubs is only part of the cost of the transfer, along with wages (which takes up more than half the total cost) and ancillliary costs like agent fees, image rights payments, etc. So you could have two players who carry the same signing fee but who actually cost wildly different amounts. And by extension you could spend the same
actual amount every year but have that be represented as very different amounts in terms of transfer fees and net spend per transfer window.
The way journalist present these "transfer budget" stories makes it sound like there's one pot of money for the transfer fee part of signings and another entirely separate pot of money for everything else, with the two being completely unrelated to each other. That isn't how it works. Clubs plan and limit spending based on total cost per year, not the small portion of it they happen to agree to give to the selling clubs in a given year.
The only way to actually know the figure we'll end up spending on transfer fees in advance would be to know the total financial space available including wages and ancilliary costs, know all the players we intend to sign, know how the total cost of signing each of them will happen to break down in terms of all these seperate parts, then work backward from there to get the abritrary amount in transfer fees this summer's signings will equate to.
Or you could do what these journalists actually do and say the range our "net spend" happens to fall within every year is our transfer budget for this year.