- Dec 8, 2006
- 1,510
- 1,689
Arse nal that is so so impresive:shrug:
The way that the manager does his dealings means that is so much less pressure of the business side of the club. It's vastly impressive.
Arse nal that is so so impresive:shrug:
Hate to say it but that's fucking impressive by Arsenal - to be 26 mill up and yet still be so competitive.
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.
Arse nal that is so so impresive:shrug:
The way that the manager does his dealings means that is so much less pressure of the business side of the club. It's vastly impressive.
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.
Hate to say it but that's fucking impressive by Arsenal - to be 26 mill up and yet still be so competitive.
no it doesn't they spend far more on wages. Wages i might add they then get spent on houses and tax and cars and whores and unsuccessful high court gagging orders... they spend MORE than us but a masssive amount of that leaks out of football.
Think you've undervalued Villa there, but our squad is definitely worth more.
So? Still a ridiculously good stat when compared to Chelsea or the Mancs
Maybe, but then so is everyone's. Not sure why you pick them out especially instead of us.
You do know don't you, that they've spent £73.5m (approx) more than us on players in the last five years?
That doesn't strike me as ridiculously good, especially when you consider our relative successes over that period.
I 'picked' them out because i was surprised to see that given their success the relative outlay was impressive.
And I apologise if I misread the figures its a monday after all - but where did you get 73.5 from?
It looks impressive because it's only looking at one aspect of player cost. If you look at the true spending on players in the last five years you'll see that Arsenal have spent roughly 20% more than us each year which is in total about £70m more than us.
I started another thread where I posted a more accurate player expenditure table:
http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=65692
But then that's also relative to turnover.
Last season on it's own their turnover was more than that £73.5 million higher than ours.
Not your fault, in retrospect it wasn't clear at all. Earlier in the thread I linked to another thread I started today (quoted below for reference) in which average player spend takes into account the amount spent on wages as well as transfers.
Basically Arsenal spend a considerable amount of their kitty for players on wages, hence they buy fewer but retain more.
The long and the short is that once the total player spend is summed the table looks somewhat different. In fact Arsenal spent a grand total of £425m on transfers and wages in the last five years, whereas we spent £351.5m in the same period. In other words they spent £73.5m more than us on players over the last five years.
It makes them the 5th biggest Premier League spenders in the last five years. Whereas we're the 7th biggest, just slightly behind Villa.
That's a good point. I think it's fair to say Arsenal are the model for how to run a club well. But, I think we are also. We both spend well within our means, it's just our means are less than there's.