Value for money - Tottenham v West Ham

[Pleat_Out]

Have to laugh at the muppets over on KUMB consoling themselves (or trying to) with stuff like:

What is it with our fans. Sp*rs played a team that cost about 80 million. They had a bench that probably cost 50 million.

The argument being: well how could we compete with these big spenders?!? Except, they can't even really grasp at this straw. I make it:

Gomes - 7m
BAE - 1.5m
King - Trainee
Dawson - 3m
Corluka - 7m
Modric - 14m
Huddlestone - 1.5m
Palacios - 7m
Lennon - 1m
Defoe - 7m
Crouch - 7m

Admittedly there might be a few add ons for the younger players but our first XI today more or less cost around 57m. And that hasn't even been the regular XI for most of the season, given no Modric. Really, it has probably been closer to the 50m mark for most of the season.

Meanwhile, that West Ham starting XI today cost:

Green - 2m
Upson - 6m
Illunga - 3m
Tomkins - Trainee
Parker - 7m
Kovac - 2m
Behrami - 5m
Faubert - 6.5m
Collison - Trainee
Franco - Bosman
DiMananti - 6m

Total = 37.5m

LOL. No wonder they are skint!

 

[TwoSaintsComeMarching]

Also what annoys me about the whole money debate is that we dont spend by borrowing. All our spending comes from turnover, and hence we have very minimal debt. Also, when people say we are the second biggest spenders in the league - they dont look at NET spend, which is the figure that tells the whole story.

 

[jurgen]

I thought they meant value for money in terms of the 11 footballers they put out and paid to watch barely looked a pub side.

 

[donny1013]

They drew with Chelski though. Stupid argument really. We beat Citeh 3-0 and their team was more expensive than ours.

 

[Samson]

Also what annoys me about the whole money debate is that we dont spend by borrowing. All our spending comes from turnover, and hence we have very minimal debt. Also, when people say we are the second biggest spenders in the league - they dont look at NET spend, which is the figure that tells the whole story.

Transfer fees are always promoted as a sign of spend above wages, which is misleading. Getting Fabregas for free is brilliant, but the Scum are still paying him, and have always paid him, a prince's ransom.

It's little commented on that Benitez gave all his senior players a wage bump in the summer. I get the feeling that, having added 20million to the wage bill, he was shocked to find that that 20million wasn't available to spend on other players.

 

[StartingPrice]

How many of Barcas CL winning team last year came through their youth set-up?

 

[phil]

Have to laugh at the muppets over on KUMB consoling themselves (or trying to) with stuff like:



The argument being: well how could we compete with these big spenders?!? Except, they can't even really grasp at this straw. I make it:

Gomes - 7m
BAE - 1.5m
King - Trainee
Dawson - 3m
Corluka - 7m
Modric - 14m
Huddlestone - 1.5m
Palacios - 7m
Lennon - 1m
Defoe - 7m
Crouch - 7m

Admittedly there might be a few add ons for the younger players but our first XI today more or less cost around 57m. And that hasn't even been the regular XI for most of the season, given no Modric. Really, it has probably been closer to the 50m mark for most of the season.

Dawson and Reid cost £8 million, allegedly £4m each. Defoe cost £7m first time around but cost considerably more when re-signed from Portsmouth (reportedly £12-£15m?). Palacios cost £14m.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

How many of Barcas CL winning team last year came through their youth set-up?

Valdes, Pique, Puyol, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Messi.

Add to that the emerging Bojan, Pedro and Muniesa and you have undoubtedly the best youth system football has ever seen.

They do spend big every now and then. Ibrahimovic, Eto'o, Henry, Toure, Chygrinskyi, Alves and Abidal all cost big, but it's more thet've earnt the right to make superstar signings like that by creating a superb team already without it. Let's not forget that a certain superb Spaniard at Arsenal is also a Barca academy alumni.

 

[StartingPrice]

Valdes, Pique, Puyol, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Messi.

Add to that the emerging Bojan, Pedro and Muniesa and you have undoubtedly the best youth system football has ever seen.

They do spend big every now and then. Ibrahimovic, Eto'o, Henry, Toure, Chygrinskyi, Alves and Abidal all cost big, but it's more thet've earnt the right to make superstar signings like that by creating a superb team already without it. Let's not forget that a certain superb Spaniard at Arsenal is also a Barca academy alumni.

:up:

My question was realy kinda rhetorical, but thanks:grin: Ibrahamociovh (Scissor Throwermg was actually acquired in a swap for Eto'o (allowing for Barca giving Inter a cash adhjustment). But, yeha, buying big to fill out a team produced by youth system is not the same as just spending a huge amount on almost every player (cf Real Madrid).

ps PHIL: if my memory serves me well, Daws was a bit of a make-wieght in the Reid deal, and it was more like Reid - £5 mill, Daws £3 mill - but my memory could be faulty.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I knew it was rhetorical, I just love an opportunity to rave about Barca, they've been my second team pretty much since they boasted a midfield of Rivaldo, Luis Enrique and Figo.

 

[bubble07]

we had 40m worth of player who were all fit but couldn't even make our bench!

 

[ValenciaYid]

They're using whats commonly known in scientific and academic circles as "the clutching at straws theory". Its a well publicised theory (see The Lancert, 1984, series4, P.16) that is used to work out why something you love so much, embarrsses you beyond belief, simliar to E=MC2, where E is west ham and MC (squared) is complete shite in perpetuity. Certain academics who use this theory are also known for their belief in the Theory of Evolution, where there is a constant battle between these scientists and academics, with one side asserts that fans of West Ham are missing link, whilst the others, are strongly in the Millwall fan, camp. As of yet, no clear answers....YID ARMY

 

[jimmy-jojo]

I think you've seriously underestimated how much we've paid for our players. From memory it was more like this:-

Gomes - 7m
BAE - 3m
King - Trainee
Dawson - 4m
Corluka - 8m
Modric - 16.5m
Huddlestone - 1.5m
Palacios - 14m
Lennon - 1m
Defoe - 15m
Crouch - 9m

...which is 79m.

But who gives a toss...didn't see the Spammers moaning when they were throwing £75kp/w contracts at the likes of Lucas Neill!

 

[Cicada]

they can piss and moan about the amount of money we've spent, but at the end of the day, we're not the club in serious financial trouble...

we're actually probably the healthiest club in the country

 

[Pleat_Out]

A lot of them were undisclosed or for 'a fee that could be up to x amount'. Certainly the latter was the case with Dawson and Reid. There is no way we paid 8m up front for the two. So I think 3m maximum is probably about right.

The same is true of a lot of the others like BAE, Modric and Corluka. They could rise a bit depending on all sorts of contingencies. Although it seems I am miles out with Palacios and Defoe. Must be getting my transfers mixed up there!

 

[StartingPrice]

They're using whats commonly known in scientific and academic circles as "the clutching at straws theory". Its a well publicised theory (see The Lancert, 1984, series4, P.16) that is used to work out why something you love so much, embarrsses you beyond belief, simliar to E=MC2, where E is west ham and MC (squared) is complete shite in perpetuity. Certain academics who use this theory are also known for their belief in the Theory of Evolution, where there is a constant battle between these scientists and academics, with one side asserts thatfans of West Ham are missing link, whilst the others, are strongly in the Millwall fan, camp. As of yet, no clear answers....YID ARMY

No, surely they is a seperate evolution - kinda like Neantherthal Neanderthalis except without the cranial capacity:grin:

 

[DC_Boy]

ah yes west ham - such clever spenders of money

they should also mention the £30m they spent on a player called 'Sheffield Utd' - apparently they don't rate that player

the millions on lost wages for lungberg ashton dyer quashie etc

the farce of their 'record signing' savio

curbs compo etc

they haven't got a clue

they keep ranting on about how they're as big a club as us

well why don't they show it by buying a few decent players

oh that's right their board and management are as clueless as their fans

you just gotta love west ham

they managd to find bankrupt billionaires

remember how they were going to have a new stadium and be challenging for the CL by now

how with tevez and mascerano they were the new force in London

hilarious, deluded, clueless - i love 'em

 

[Ironskull]

Look, WHU won its first ever trophy in 1964. Until then it was mostly a second division club and even since then that's where it's spent loads and loads of time. It's always got much smaller gates, and when it's bothered being in the same division, has usually lost the lion's share of matches between the two.

It was founded by an industrialist who wanted to make a buck or two - and just look at today's fans. Whatever our faults and the faults of other supporters, West ham's are the absolute epitome of the kind of London knuckledraggers that the rest of the country loathes. Just about the only good thing you can say about them, is that if it wasn't for West Ham, those people might follow Spurs, heaven forbid. The whole club has no charm, and though that's hardly the fault of the people whose local club it is, the fact remains.

A quick contrast with the Spurs - founded by a bunch of schoolboys in the true tradition of English football - stuck with the Southern League as long as it could, showing solidarity with the rest of southern football, a constant tradition of elegant football chronicled in the nation's press going back well over 120 years - we gave the nation "push and run" and the nation sang our songs of glory.

Adios WHU it was nice knowing you, you really are a "poor man's Spurs"

 

[BringBack_leGin]

The thing that irks me whenever people go on about spending power is that it does not guarantee success. Look at Newcastle. Look at Leeds. Look at Liverpool even (nobody can tell me that they have no invested heavily, they've just bought a lot of dross). Let's face it, look at us.

Villa, subtly, have also spent a bucket load. Nobody mentions that. Maybe it's because the press have a soft spot for them, I don't know. Young, Dunne, Milner, Downing, Heskey, Davies, Reo Coker, L.Young, Warnock, that's not exactly bargain basement stuff is it now. Felleini, Heitinga, Bilyadentinov, Yakubu, Saha, Baines, these weren't exactly freebies at Everton either.

Unless you are Barcelona or Madrid and that mega bucks you spend is on someone who is guaranteed World Class, because your reputation allows you to attract that phenomenal talent, money does not guarantee success. Just ask Mark Hughes.

 

[camaj]

The thing that irks me whenever people go on about spending power is that it does not guarantee success. Look at Newcastle. Look at Leeds. Look at Liverpool even (nobody can tell me that they have no invested heavily, they've just bought a lot of dross). Let's face it, look at us.

Money did buy success though. It made Newcastle title contenders for a few seasons, it made leeds one of the strongest sides outside the top group, bit like Chelsea under Harding. Liverpool have been top 4 every season bar one, in which they won the Champions League. They've also been to a 2nd Champions League final. The difference is Liverpool could afford to splash that cash.

Have we spent a lot of money? Yes, but we can afford it, none of this Lucas Neil bollocks, that'd be like us buying Kaka or Ronaldinho