Spurs v Villa Spending

[we_all_loved_freund]

Does anybody know how villa's net spend compares to ours over, the last 4 years or so.

A Villa supporting mate reckons they are not too far behind Spurs considering that we have spent around £100 million more or so over the last few years!?!

Now, my feelings were that villa had actually spent more than us on a net basis? I was just wondering if anybody knew of any accurate figures that I could use to negate his bumbling ramblings :grin:

 

[TwoSaintsComeMarching]

Our net spend is something like 30m.. dont remember though. Theirs is less than ours, but not by much.

 

[VegasII]

Not sure, but our potassium is better than their potassium.

Yekshimesh.

 

[al_pacino]

When O'Neill left i'm sure ssn said it was pretty much even.

 

[Legacy]

 

[Spurs_Q8]

people say we spend a lot, but don't know how much we sold ...

 

[Stavrogin]

people say we spend a lot, but don't know how much we sold ...

There is one caveat to this though... When O'Neill came Villa had nothing, their squad was a mess and had retained very little value, whilst he had to buy. So it's slightly skewered for this period.

 

[roosh]

Net spend is a pretty meaningless stat, and only reveals the cashflow of clubs with regard to players.

There are other factors to be considered, when working out how much clubs spend on players. One of the first that should probably be considered, is the number of managers the club has had.

Also, the cost of the player to the club, over their "economic lifespan", that is, what the player cost, how much wages he was paid, and what his resale value was.

I'm sure there are more, but if you highlight what a misleading, and meaningless stat it is, you are sure to "win the argument", because if you are going to compare financials, then Spurs are one of the best run clubs in the league, in that regard, and the reason we can spend so much on players, is because it doesn't come down to a simple "net spend" figure.

 

[Spurs_Q8]

There is one caveat to this though... When O'Neill came Villa had nothing, their squad was a mess and had retained very little value, whilst he had to buy. So it's slightly skewered for this period.

yes, but it's the same with Santini/Jol, i think both clubs made £15m net spend for some transfer windows, and both clubs did well in transfer market ( apart from our net spend in summer 2007-2008 which we paid new spend £32m for Bent, Boateng, Kaboul & Taraabt and we dodn't get the best of them.

anyway, our net spend is slightly more than Villa until Milner Transfer.

 

[beats1]

Another important stat people forget is profit/loss, because apparently were not suppose to spend the profit we make because hardly any clubs make a profit and it wouldn't be fair

 

[leffe186]

Their figures will be slightly skewed by the ludicrous fees paid for Barry and Milner. In addition, they have a wages/turnover ratio that is far worse than ours.

 

[tooey]

i would love to know how much they pay reo-coker a week. my guess is something ridiculous like £65,000. I seem to remember when he left west ham he was highly sought after, and now....well.....

 

[mark87]

i would love to know how much they pay reo-coker a week. my guess is something ridiculous like £65,000. I seem to remember when he left west ham he was highly sought after, and now....well.....

Villa bought him for £9-10million...mugs

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

Many thanks.

I know there are lots of other factors that should be considered when looking at the amount of money each other has spent however, it surprises me how many fans of other clubs lump us in with the Chelsea, Man City and Man Utd bracket. I really think a lot of fans think we are just another carefree spending club.

 

[Lilbaz]

Yes we were fairly close to Villa in Net spend, but how much is our squad worth compared to theirs? The likes of VDV, Bale, Lennon, Modric have all got to be worth in excess of £20m each or there about's. Apart from A Young at Villa I don't see anyone else worth that amount.

 

[leffe186]

Many thanks.

I know there are lots of other factors that should be considered when looking at the amount of money each other has spent however, it surprises me how many fans of other clubs lump us in with the Chelsea, Man City and Man Utd bracket. I really think a lot of fans think we are just another carefree spending club.

If you just consider outlay then we are up there.

 

[alamo]

Hate to say it but that's fucking impressive by Arsenal - to be 26 mill up and yet still be so competitive.

 

[Mornstar]

yep, say whatever you like about arsene wenger, but his record is absolutely brilliant. For me, he's up there amongst the top 2-3 managers in world football.

 

[sloth]

Here's a great site for all this sort of info:

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

The only thing I'd say is that a more accurate depiction of club spend would be to include the amount spent on wages too.

Unfortunately I can't find a year by year average spend, but Deloittes claim a double digit increase in wages for each of the last 3 years and put a figure of 11% on the most recent year.

Some rough maths gives us the annual total for each of the last four years (I've made allowances for City's massive increase this year and so for the first year I went back I simply used the previous year's £80m figure and used that as my starting point).

If average yearly wages over four years are then added to average net transfer spend over the last five years we get a rough estimate of average yearly total spend on players over the last few years. Phew.

Here's the results:

Pos / Team / Ave Wages / Ave annual net transfer / Total Spend
1. Man City / 89.8 / 74.7 / 164.5
2. Chelsea / 144.9 / 4.3 / 149
3. Man Utd / 106.7 / 2 / 108.7
4. Liverpool / 89.1 / 9 / 98.15
5. Arsenal / 90.3 / -5.5 / 85
6. Villa / 61.6 / 12.5 / 74.1
7. Spurs / 52.26 / 18.1 / 70.36
8. West Ham / 57.7 / 6.1 / 63.8
9. Sunderland / 43.5 / 14 / 57.5
10. Everton / 42.3 / 3.9 / 46.3


With all the inaccuracies inherent in a back of the envelope style calculation like the one I just did, it nevertheless gives a far more accurate indication of the relationship between club spend and success. How the biggest spenders in the end have the greatest success. Arsenal and Utd nolonger look like such over-achievers and in fact the only clearly over-achieving club amongst the lot of them is ourselves.

Arsenal spend 20% more than us every year and yet we've narrowed the gap considerably over the last 5 years. Liverpool spend 40% more than us and they've fallen behind.

Once again the plaudits should go to Levy, but they probably won't, not outside of us fans anyway

 

[WexfordTownSpur]

Arse nal that is so so impresive:shrug: