Total spend on transfer fees

[vavaboom]

New article on the Beeb website, has a table that is quite an eye opener O.O

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19416223
Millions spent since Jan 2003

• 1. Chelsea 673
• 2. Man City 572
• 3. Liverpool 414
• 4. Man United 352
• 5. Tottenham 350
• 6. Arsenal 214
• 7. Aston Villa 201
• 8. Sunderland 187
• 9. Newcastle 174
• 10. Everton 129
• 11. West Ham 123
• 12. Wigan 110
• 13. Fulham 107
• 14. Portsmouth 100
• 15. Birmingham 92
• 16. Blackburn 87
• 17. Stoke 84
• 18. Bolton 76
• 19. Middsbrough' 71
• 20. West Brom 64
• Source: Deloitte

I suppose a big factor in our expenditure is our ever changing manager situation, which leads to new players being brought into to suit him. According to these boys, only 2 million behind manU

 

[onthetwo]

would be interesting to see the net spending figs - we'd be a lot further down the table i reckon.

 

[vegassd]

In 2003 we finished 10th in the league.
Top 6 were United, Arsenal, Newcastle, Chelsea, Liverpool, Blackburn. City were 9th.

So we spent less than Liverpool and Chelsea but finished above them last season.
We spent more than Arsenal but have closed 7 positions on them.

 

[parklane1]

And they are fans who say Levy does not back our managers.

 

[Rout-Ledge]

A large proportion of that was spent in the space of two consecutive windows...(summer 08 and Jan 09)

 

[leffe186]

If that's net then it's interesting, if not then it tells a different story. Perfectly understandable though, it involves at least two or three major overhauls of a squad, and ignores wages.

 

[sloth]

New article on the Beeb website, has a table that is quite an eye opener O.O

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19416223
Millions spent since Jan 2003

• 1. Chelsea 673
• 2. Man City 572
• 3. Liverpool 414
• 4. Man United 352
• 5. Tottenham 350
• 6. Arsenal 214
• 7. Aston Villa 201
• 8. Sunderland 187
• 9. Newcastle 174
• 10. Everton 129
• 11. West Ham 123
• 12. Wigan 110
• 13. Fulham 107
• 14. Portsmouth 100
• 15. Birmingham 92
• 16. Blackburn 87
• 17. Stoke 84
• 18. Bolton 76
• 19. Middsbrough' 71
• 20. West Brom 64
• Source: Deloitte

I suppose a big factor in our expenditure is our ever changing manager situation, which leads to new players being brought into to suit him. According to these boys, only 2 million behind manU

For me these kinds of articles are a bit of a joke, because the message people receive is different to the facts presented.

First of all that's the gross spend rather than the net spend. The net spend is £113m. If you then apply a valuation to our current £25 man squad you'l find it's worth more than £113m and so we're up on that count.

Second of all, technically, yes, that may well be the total gross spend on transfer fees, but imo most people will read it as spend on players, which it clearly is not.

If you took it to be spend on players you'd ask how come we can spend almost the same amount on players on Man U and yet have none of their success?And this is the kind of tripe the dick-head ex-pro pundits and sports journos will typically trot out.

It leaves aside that Man Utd currently spend something like £50m a year more than us on player wages. Think about it, They have spent £50m a year more than us on players for 9 years, that's almost half a billion more than us in current terms.*

We don't even come close to spending the kind of cash on players that Arsenal, Utd, City, Chelsea, and Liverpool do. We only spend a little more historically than Villa.

Then there's the difference between expenditure (wages) which you'l never get back, and investment (player purchases) which if you're Levy you make an over-all return on.

Basically, transfer fees are something like a 1/5th or less of the total a club spends on players each year. It's nonsense to consider them in isolation. And even if you do you have to see it in the context of an investment rather than as an expenditure.

Anyway here's an article I did on the subject a couple of years back:http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/ind...spend-on-players-over-the-last-5-years.65692/

* Reality is that due to inflation it's likely to have been more like £250m more than us, however because we're talking in relative terms imo it's fine to think of it in today's money.

 

[Bing]

Pretty much as expected.

2003 date is a bit arbitrary...all very well saying ManUre have only spent 2 mil more than us but they had a cracking side to begin with and had spent the previous 10 years building it.

Most surprising thing for me is how much Pool spend...they seem to spend a shitload but who exactly do they buy? Torres is prob their only top drawer big money move...of course if your spending 35 mil on Carroll your prob gonna be up there.