Jump to content
Kevin Carr's Gloves

Transfer net spend league.

Recommended Posts

No idea what you are talking about it is there clear as day. :blush2:

 

:razz:

 

Some class quotes on that site btw. Want to root out my old copies of Colemanballs now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had that one bookmarked for a while, quality statting.

 

More interesting to me is to order by the gross spend figures, rather than net, which takes away the players that fall into your lap and fetch outrageous prices, and shows what clubs are investing/reinvesting in their squad, whether the money came from players sold, or from their sugar daddy.

 

Chelsea £592

Manchester City £557

Liverpool £392

Manchester United £317

Tottenham £303

Arsenal £199

Aston Villa £190

Sunderland £151

Newcastle £149

Everton £106

Fulham £86

Bolton £81

Wigan £77

Blackburn Rovers £75

West Bromwich Albion £74

Stoke City £72

Wolves £57

QPR £25

Norwich City £16

Swansea £12

 

So Spurs still spend more than Arsenal, no matter how good Arsene is at recouping outlay.

 

Liverpool have still spent more than Man U even when you disregard the £85m they got back from Ronaldo.

 

For all them money Al Fayed throws at Fulham, comparatively little of it is seen on the field.

 

And Villa fans should be howling at their expensive flops far more than we should.

Edited by Happy Face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk Sport have done an updated Net Spend thing, beginning in 2006 (they've mentioned Arsenal's Stadia move as a reason for this)

 

http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/130323/premier-league-net-spend-figures-club-revealed-2006-when-arsenal-moved-s-194227

 

1. Man City £427m

2. Chelsea £233m

3. Liverpool £124m

4. Villa £92m

=5. Man U £88m

=5. mackems £88m

7. Stoke £80m

8. QPR £72m

9. Spurs £65m

10. West Ham £56m

11. Fulham £26m

12. Southampton £14m

13. West Brom £12m

14. Norwich £10m

15. Swansea £4m

16. Everton £2m

17. Wigan £5m+

=18. Newcastle £8m+

=18. Reading £8m+

20. Arsenal £40m+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to take wages into account, otherwise its very limited in its use.

Well, I can't imagine the truly surprising ones (mackems, Villa & Stoke) will be paying sufficiently small wages to balance out the exorbitant transfer fees they've paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can't imagine the truly surprising ones (mackems, Villa & Stoke) will be paying sufficiently small wages to balance out the exorbitant transfer fees they've paid.

 

It'd probably shift things about a bit for Arsenal. I still struggle to believe that our wage cap is about £40k and that we get the players we do though... it's good talent spotting that, they're good and hungry. Furthermore, we were paying £100k+ several years back. Kinda weird that we've regressed so far in that sense (definitely good, just strange).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd probably shift things about a bit for Arsenal. I still struggle to believe that our wage cap is about £40k and that we get the players we do though... it's good talent spotting that, they're good and hungry. Furthermore, we were paying £100k+ several years back. Kinda weird that we've regressed so far in that sense (definitely good, just strange).

Our flat rate may well be around the £40k, but I'd imagine that Ashley will lean to incentivised pay structures. I've no doubt that someone like Crouch* at Stoke will be on more than the majority of our players, and that Bent and Gyan were on more when they were at sunderland. Now I'm sure Arsenal benefit from their scouting system, pulling Fabregases and Glichies from obscurity, then paying them a moderate wage. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the saving they made on them are wiped out by the wages paid to the players that they've signed and who've flopped (Chamakh et al).

 

It's like we've found our niche. We're signing players who're good enough to improve our 1st team without outclassing them to such a degree as to have them immediately looking for the door, and all without breaking the bank. Arsenal may rule the roost when it comes to hatchlings, Wigan may unearth the odd gem, but ours is a system that befits the league position we can expect for the foreseeable future; Upper-midtable, pushing for a Europa League spot.

 

Fully fit, our 1st team is surely one of the top 6 or 7 in the league? Surely?

 

And of those 1st teamers, the overwhelming majority have been bought since the Graham Carr lead charge began. In fact it's only really Krul and Taylor who aren't.

 

*Crouch is on £45k, Bent was on £35k & Gyan on about the same.

Edited by The Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post - I wonder to what extent it'll change when/if we ever want to push on from upper mid-table. I suppose that might come about if we manage to fluke a CL spot in the coming years.

 

I keep reading in the press that our team are top-5 material, presumably meaning that we're on a comparable level to the lowest of Spurs, Chelsea and Arsenal - probably Arsenal in truth. I don't think we're quite there yet so your 6th/7th is about right. Liverpool/Everton level (though I fancy we're better than both in true reflection).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our issues are two fold for me. One is the depth and the second, the issue of keeping stars like Cabaye, Sissoko, Debuchy content if you're not actually challenging for league titles. Will Europa and domestic cups be enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to tell with the domestic cups as we never seem to bother with them.

 

On the other hand, would they actually get into title winning teams? Certainly they could be squad players for some of them, and Cabaye could probably be a regular even at ManU, but I wonder how attractive the diminished sense of importance would be. Also the club seems to be nailing it's colours to the 'positive French image' mast which might continue to be a draw for them.

 

Winning Europa would be a big plus though, if we could manage that - our success in that competition this year will probably help with convincing them that the league position is an anomaly. If we returned to top 5 or 6 next year, I think they'll be satisfied for the most part. To be frank though, I'm surprised we still have Cabaye.

Edited by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the makems could charge everyone who came through the turnstiles their gate receipts would increase dramatically,but if they attempted this,10,000 fewer `fans' would attend games.

Fuck off man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the makems could charge everyone who came through the turnstiles their gate receipts would increase dramatically,but if they attempted this,10,000 fewer `fans' would attend games.

 

what has that got to do with this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could only find Gross totals for this period (03/04-12/13), but it's interesting to see that while Newcastle's Gross spend is comparable to the mackems, our Net spend isn't anywhere near.

 

Our Avg league position in very similar to Fulham, who are our closest neighbours in the Net spend per season column.

 

spend.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount Villa and the mackems have spent to assemble poor quality squads is mental. Interestingly they also have a manager in common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×