Transfer figures question

bomberH · Feb 25, 2012

Van Persie made a comment today, as others have, that we've spent lots over the last few years and that's basically why we're third.

Does anyone have a comparison for us and Arsenal over the last few years, re ins and outs figures. I'm sure we've spent more but would be interested to see how much more. Cheers.

SpurSince57 · Feb 25, 2012

He's dead right:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html

SlickMongoose · Feb 25, 2012

Of course, I always think that wage costs should be included in those tables. They're still an expense of attracting better players, just like transfer fees.

SpainSpur85 · Feb 25, 2012

SlickMongoose said:
Of course, I always think that wage costs should be included in those tables. They're still an expense of attracting better players, just like transfer fees.

I agree, if you look at that link above, it shows we spend on average 20 million more a season. But if you include their wage bill that's 30/40 milllion more a season it kinda ruins their argument :whistle:

Locotoro · Feb 25, 2012

bomberH said:
Van Persie made a comment today, as others have, that we've spent lots over the last few years and that's basically why we're third.

Does anyone have a comparison for us and Arsenal over the last few years, re ins and outs figures. I'm sure we've spent more but would be interested to see how much more. Cheers.

I wouldnt be surprised to see that they have actually spent more than us

Friedal - Free
Walker - 4.5m
King - Youth
Kaboul - 6.5m
BAE - 3.5m
Parker - 5.5m
Modric - 16.5m
Bale - 10m
Lennon - 1m
VDV - 8m
Adebayor - Loan

Total 55.5m

Szczesny - Youth
Gibbs - Youth
Sagna - 11m
Vermaelen - 10m
Mertesacker - 10m
Arteta - 10m
Wilshire - Youth
Song - 1m
Walcott - 12m
Gervinho - 11m
RVP - 2.75m

Total 67.75m

Just as I suspected our first team was bought for a lot less than Arsenal's. I would imagine their salry bracket is considerably higher than ours too. The myth is a fallacy.

That doesnt include the utterly useless and expensive buys either team has made over the last few years. For every Bentley there's an Arshavin so i guess it evens itself out.

dontcallme · Feb 25, 2012

Because our wage bill is lower we have more to spend on transfers.

We can't go buying top stars in their prime so have to buy the best of the teams below us. Naturally, they then command a high fee as nobody wants to sell their best players for cheap.

Modric, Berbatov, Carrick, Kaboul, Bale, Lennon, BAE and Walker would all make very large profits (some already have) on what we paid for them so their transfer fee doesn't really matter that much.

It was reported that Liverpool were paying Joe Cole 100k a week. He played 20 games for them and is currently on loan to Lille. They paid him over £5m for his season at Liverpool and I'd guess that Lille aren't paying him his full wage.

VDV was reported as being on 50k a week plus a £7m transfer fee. He has so far cost us £12m. If we sold him we'd recoup most of that money anyway. VDV has also been a much better player for us than Cole has for Liverpool (only Nickchrissi disagrees).

The transfer fee only tells a part of the story. Buying some for £5m and apying him 100k a week is more expensive in the long run than a £10m signing on 50k.

hellava_tough · Feb 25, 2012

Include the wage bills and we might have a debate

bomberH · Feb 25, 2012

SpurSince57 said:
He's dead right:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html

I can't open that for some reason. Does it include players sold like Berba and Carrick?

Locotoro said:
I wouldnt be surprised to see that they have actually spent more than us

Friedal - Free
Walker - 4.5m
King - Youth
Kaboul - 6.5m
BAE - 3.5m
Parker - 5.5m
Modric - 16.5m
Bale - 10m
Lennon - 1m
VDV - 8m
Adebayor - Loan

Total 55.5m

Szczesny - Youth
Gibbs - Youth
Sagna - 11m
Vermaelen - 10m
Mertesacker - 10m
Arteta - 10m
Wilshire - Youth
Song - 1m
Walcott - 12m
Gervinho - 11m
RVP - 2.75m

Total 67.75m

Just as I suspected our first team was bought for a lot less than Arsenal's. I would imagine their salry bracket is considerably higher than ours too. The myth is a fallacy.

That doesnt include the utterly useless and expensive buys either team has made over the last few years. For every Bentley there's an Arshavin so i guess it evens itself out.

Interesting. I think we might've had a few more pricey duds though?

Rocksuperstar · Feb 25, 2012

SpurSince57 said:
He's dead right:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html

The Woolwich = selling club :whistle:

ryantegan · Feb 25, 2012

I wonder how ours would look if we sold our best players for £40m in the summer?

oh but we didnt did we?

tobi · Feb 25, 2012

Didn't Bale cost £5m total?

I thought the add ons were wiped because they owed us money.

lennon4england · Feb 25, 2012

In the times today they had a comparison of our spending against theirs since Harry took over. We were -£54.7 million and they were +£24.7 million.

Not sure whether they mean we are 54 million up, and them 24 million down or vice versa. I'm sure someone on here can work it out...

I can't remember any big transfers since Harry took over? Only really the first January transfer window he had where we bought Kaboul, Defoe, Keane, etc.

SpurSince57 · Feb 25, 2012

Yes, it gives net spend but doesn't include wages. As others have already pointed out, the picture is incomplete because we're paying our players less. Per season, though, we've spent slightly less than Liverpool and only a little more than Villa and Sunderland. Even Stoke have spent over £11m per season. Why isn't RvP complaining about them?

Of course, this may be a coded message to Wenger and the Arsenal board. Stump up for some proper players or the only contract I'm signing is with City!

fieryjack · Feb 25, 2012

ryantegan said:
I wonder how ours would look if we sold our best players for £40m in the summer?

oh but we didnt did we?

This.
Fuck `em anyway. Sounds like somebody is making excuses already.

StartingPrice · Feb 25, 2012

tobi said:
Didn't Bale cost £5m total?

I thought the add ons were wiped because they owed us money.

I think so.

lennon4england said:
In the times today they had a comparison of our spending against theirs since Harry took over. We were -£54.7 million and they were +£24.7 million.

Not sure whether they mean we are 54 million up, and them 24 million down or vice versa. I'm sure someone on here can work it out...

I can't remember any big transfers since Harry took over? Only really the first January transfer window he had where we bought Kaboul, Defoe, Keane, etc.

This...it just depends on when you want to go back and draw a line. He is wanting to draw one when they weren't spending much and we were spending a lot. If we bring the line forward, like to when 'Arry took over, or back enough, I'm sure we can quite easily show they have spent more than us.

And the combined transfer fee and wage bill, as others have said.

I think it is brialliant, actually, the stupid Goons players are saying everything to strengthen our lots resolve. It is obvious they are scared of us...you cna always tell when a team is - they spend the run-up to the match stating over-and-over, emphatically, that they aren't scared, while getting their excuses (like this one) in first :grin:

3Dnata · Feb 25, 2012

This is another thing that gets me about the gooners.
They go on about what we've spent in transfer fees and what a great economist Arsene is (they don't argue that so much now) but they pay massive wages.
Djorou is on £50,000 a week.
Yes we have spent more on transfer fees but it is not a simple equation when wages and all are added in.

Wheeler Dealer · Feb 25, 2012

The impressive stats relate to Redknapp's transfer deals here. A man who is normally associated with reckless spending has to date spent £145m, but recovered £130M. net spend over 3 years at £15m. In comparrison Ramos spent £135m and recovered £82m, with a net spend £51.5M.
In defence of Ramos, Bale, Modric, Kaboul and BAE are included in his spend, although £31m of recovered sales via Berbatov counteract this a little.

In regard to prudent management over the last 3 years, Redknapp/ Levy's business has been excellent in terms of balancing the books, whilst team remaining competitive.

nidge · Feb 25, 2012

Wouldn't us spending more money over the last 6 years make sense considering how far we had to come to get into third. We couldn't have exactly gone from mid table obscurity to top4/title challengers without spending money.

What we have done better than almost all teams in the league is spending money on the right players at the right time.

It just sounds little sour grapes and making excuses for why they are currently 10 point behind us. Lets be honest if the arse were willing to spend some money then they could have bought VDV, Kaboul, Lennon, Bale and Modric but Wenger's stubbornness when it comes to keeping average players on very high wages means he isn't able to keep his best players whilst to it with players that can really make a difference.

All I can say is long may it continue. :lol:

gibbospurs · Feb 25, 2012

They spent 50m in the summer!! lol.

nightgoat · Feb 25, 2012

SpurSince57 said:
Per season, though, we've spent slightly less than Liverpool and only a little more than Villa and Sunderland. Even Stoke have spent over £11m per season. Why isn't RvP complaining about them?

Because Arsenal are above Liverpool, Villa, Sunderland and Stoke in the table and aren't about to play them this weekend... :up:

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

Transfer figures question

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Copacetic

Well-Known Member

Prince of Zamunda

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Isn't this fun? Isn't fun the best thing to have?

Block 33 Season Ticket holder :)

Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sand gets everywhere!!!!!

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Similar threads