Transfer figures question

[SpurSince57]

Ah, yes. There was something nagging away at me but I just couldn't put my finger on it.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

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.

I don't think your figures are right. I make it Redknapp has spent about 97.5m and recouped 62.5 and of that only 22m was players he bought. Of the players brought in during his time that remain only Kaboul, Kranjcar, Walker, Sandro and maybe VDV would have definitely appreciated in value by maybe 25-30m in total.

It is not entirely irrelevant either, as a club like ours needs a manager who can get and and value to the club's balance sheet - as this thread shows how relative that is when it comes to success. But this has to be balanced off with what Redknapp has undoubtedly done better than any of our recent managers, and that is team build.

Redknapp's profit/loss sheet might not be the best in terms of actual player trading, but what must be factored in is a season of CL football, which adds another what £40m to his account and maybe another to come (+£40m).

And overall, we could sell Modric and Bale (in the same way Arsenal have sold all their best players in recent years) and we would all of a sudden be looking at a nett gain of what £30m since 2006 ?

Which is credit to all this involved in the the general acquisition of players over the last few years (since 2006). Comolli, Jol, Ramos, Levy & Redknapp (not to mention the guy who signed Sandro whose name I forget).

Good business really, but Arsenal's transfer nett gain spend is incredible in this day and age absolute testament to the advantage of a fantastic coach who is capable of adding enormous value to his clubs balance sheet. 15 years of CL football, trophies and a profit on player trading. Incredible really.

 

[SpurSince57]

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:

That was the point about clubs who have spent comparable money. Given that City have spent almost six times what we have, net, never mind the insane wages they pay, it's pretty amazing that we're still in touching distance of them.

 

[SpurSince57]

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.

Why?

 

[Blake Griffin]

as i posted before ...

in:
defoe £15m
palacios £12m
chimbonda £3m
keane £12m
walker £4m
naughton £4m
crouch £9m
bassong £8m
kranjcar £2.5m
kaboul £5m
sandro £6m
vdv 8m
khumalo £1.5m
pienaar £3m
coulibaly £1.5m
parker £5m
falque ?
saha ?

total = 99.5m

out:
ghaly £1m
zokora £8.5m
taarabt £1m
bent £16.5m
o'hara £5m
kpb £4m
gunter £2m
hutton £4m
palacios £6m
chimbonda £2m
keane £3m
crouch £10m
pav £8m

total = 71m

so let's just say £30m over 7 transfer windows which has technically taken us from bottom to 3rd, pretty good and well within the means of the club. now consider arsenal's wage bill has always being considerably higher than ours(last season's totals being £91m:£125m) then you can get a more accurate reflection on who has spent what.

 

[sloth]

He's dead right:

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

No he isn't he's dead wrong!!

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 did this thread last year:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=65692

Since when Man City have moved up the list.

Basically looking at net transfer spend on it's own is daft.

First of all it's a fraction of the total spend on players. If you consider we spend about £16m a year on transfer fees, but that that figure is dwarfed by the £80m or so on wages, you can see that focussing on that aspect of a player's cost over the major one is plain daft.

As it stands Arsenal are spending £16m a season less than us on players, but £30m a year more on wages. That's £14m a year more than us they spend on their players.

So in fact we've closed the gap spending less each year on the team than they do.

 

[SpurSince57]

No he isn't he's dead wrong!!



I did this thread last year:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=65692

Since when Man City have moved up the list.

Basically looking at net transfer spend on it's own is daft.

First of all it's a fraction of the total spend on players. If you consider we spend about £16m a year on transfer fees, but that that figure is dwarfed by the £80m or so on wages, you can see that focussing on that aspect of a player's cost over the major one is plain daft.

As it stands Arsenal are spending £16m a season less than us on players, but £30m a year more on wages. That's £14m a year more than us they spend on their players.

So in fact we've closed the gap spending less each year on the team than they do.

It's dead right if you look solely at the transfer fees, and Bomber did ask for simple ins and outs figures.. As I pointed out in a later post (as did others), those don't give anything like the whole picture.

 

[sloth]

It's dead right if you look solely at the transfer fees. As I pointed out in a later post (as did others), those don't give the whole picture.

Yes I saw that afterwards. I responded having just seen the OP and your first reply.

But anyway he was dead wrong as his words were relayed to us by Bomber, we haven't spent more each year on players than they have, we've spent considerably less.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

If you look at current squads though, I bet our nett wage spend isn't as far apart as it used to be. Anyone got any ideas as to the figures ?

 

[Blake Griffin]

spurs £91m
arsenal £124m

"Funnily enough, the gap between Arsenal’s wage bill and Tottenham’s of £33 million is exactly the same as the difference in 2005. Go figure."

 

[sloth]

If you look at current squads though, I bet our nett wage spend isn't as far apart as it used to be. Anyone got any ideas as to the figures ?

We spent £90m in the year we played in CL, but there's some question marks over whether that then reduced to more typical levels this year. In other words they increased due to bonus clauses which weren't activated this year.

We anyway got a few of our high earners off our books this summer and in January.

I read somewhere recently that Arsenal's spend on players has jumped to closer to £130m (I think it came out of their recent Supporters Trust meeting). Their fans were up in arms about it, complaining that average players like Djorou were on £60k and comparing that to what our top earners get.

So my guess is that the gap is wider than ever, I reckon they could have spent as much as £50m more than us on wages this current year.

 

[Tiffers]

Arsenal's net expenditure is lower than spurs mainly because of the high value of their sales fabregas, nasri, clichy, adebyaor

 

[SpurSince57]

So my guess is that the gap is wider than ever, I reckon they could have spent as much as £50m more than us on wages this current year.

Shortly after the Emirates opened Mihir Bose did a piece suggesting that a substantial chunk of the extra income it generated was instantly eaten up by wages. I've been looking for it to find the exact figures but so far haven't succeeded.

 

[vegassd]

It doesn't really matter if you include wages or not. We have bought good players and they have sold good players and now we are better than them.

As fans we don't support our teams because they are making a profit. We support them to watch good football and win things. Profitability has it's rewards of course, but if those rewards can't be translated into success then what's the point?

 

[StartingPrice]

Arsenal's net expenditure is lower than spurs mainly because of the high value of their sales fabregas, nasri, clichy, adebyaor

Toure...

 

[double0]

We've had to spend that money to catch up to the privileged table eaters we were so far behind Arsenal and Chelsea what other way could it be done but to spend money. The most commendable thing about our transfer policy is we've spent money within our means nothing to be ashamed off.

Arsenal moaning just makes me laugh. The question needs to be asked...why haven't they spent money? They have the 2nd/3rd whatever richest Russian on their board, the revenue from the Emirates dwarfs ours. Tottenham are punching above their weight compared to whats around us...we should be pretty proud of how we've competed those-far.

 

[SlickMongoose]

spurs £91m
arsenal £124m

"Funnily enough, the gap between Arsenal’s wage bill and Tottenham’s of £33 million is exactly the same as the difference in 2005. Go figure."

Where did you find these figures please?

 

[Chapel Hill Hotspur]

Where did you find these figures please?

That's off the website http://swissramble.blogspot.com/, I believe.

Usually pretty reliable (the writer is a Gooner though)

 

[rabbikeane]

The Spurs numbers seems correct from my recollection

 

[RobinLeonard]

Chelsea is the biggest loser, paying big fees and huge wages for a very average squad.