Cost of each squad

Brwned · 5th February 2009, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

The Barclays Premier League clubs' squads cost a staggering £1.65billion to assemble. That's so much money it's difficult to comprehend - and it doesn't even take the players' wages into account.

The gulf between big spenders Chelsea (£200.7million) and the club who have shelled out the least, Hull City (17.4m), is a whopping £183.3m.

The Tigers doubled their record transfer fee by paying Fulham £5m for Jimmy Bullard last month, yet Chelsea casually splurged the equivalent of City's entire squad on Damien Duff in 2003.

The Blues' owner, Roman Abramovich, also reportedly spent £17m on a Lucian Freud painting, Benefits Supervisor Sleeping (plus £30m on Andriy Shevchenko, who had us all sleeping with his lacklustre performances). Worlds apart? Yes, but only eight Premier League places.

There is a significant gap between the spending of Chelsea, Manchester United, Tottenham, Manchester City and Liverpool, whose squads all cost significantly more than £100m, and the rest of the Premier League clubs.
Judging by the league placings of Spurs and Manchester City, spending obviously doesn't always lead to results.

But which clubs have backed up their purchases with solid performances? Here's Sportsmail's guide to the Premier League cash cows.

1. Chelsea - £200.7m
League position: Third

Roman Abramovich's billions brought Chelsea two league titles, an FA Cup, two league cups and oh-so-close in the Champions League within four years.
Cash cow: Abramovich's billions are yet to yield the Champions League
But Frank Lampard's £11m move from West Ham, the home-grown talent of John Terry and Michael Ballack's free transfer from Bayern Munich seem shrewd buys compared to the proliferation of £15m-plus players driving their Bentleys into Chelsea's training ground.

2. Manchester United - £189.65m
League position: First

Sir Alex Ferguson's success has been built on players like Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes who learnt their trade at Old Trafford, yet his current squad still cost £189.65m.

The £18.6m United spent on Michael Carrick and the £29.1m for Rio Ferdinand showed Ferguson is prepared to back his instincts, whilst the £12.25m paid to bring Ronaldo to Old Trafford was an absolute steal.

Nice little earner: Ronaldo and Ferguson

Malcontent: Redknapp
3. Tottenham - £187.2m
League position: 14th

All the gear and no idea springs to mind, but this figure is skewed by the return of Jermain Defoe and Robbie Keane to White Hart Lane.

Even so, £187.2m represents a significant outlay for a Carling Cup trophy and a relegation battle.

Plus Redknapp is always complaining about the relatively small size of his first team squad.

4. Man City - £166.6m
League position: 10th

Yeah, yeah. Manchester City are in the early stages of a 10-year development plan. But £166.6m?

The jury's still out, but Man City's willingness to pay double figures for standard Premier League players seems a touch naive.

Bargain: Torres
5. Liverpool - £140.6mLeague position: Second

Fernando Torres' £22m record transfer fee is the most Liverpool have paid for a player and the Spain striker has been worth every penny.

But there are perhaps too many £10m-plus players in Rafa Benitez's squad who haven't set the world on fire, such as £12m Albert Riera.

Home-grown talents Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher remain at the heart of Liverpool's title challenge.

6. Newcastle - £81.6m
League position: 15th

Dennis Wise needs to take a long, hard look at himself if he's still in charge of transfers at St James' Park. More than £80m has got Newcastle absolutely nowhere.

Solid: Heskey
7. Aston Villa - £81.55m
League position: Fourth

The £3.5m Villa paid for Emile Heskey sums up the club's general approach to transfer dealings - solid and unshowy.

Martin O'Neill's young guns represent great value for money as they challenge for a Champions League spot.

8. Arsenal - £74.4m
League position: Fifth

A squad comprising immense young talent would perhaps benefit from a few major signings to boost the club's progress, but this is not the Arsenal way. Debt-free and living by their own means, the Arsenal model is to be admired for its sustainability.

9. Sunderland - £68.5m
League position: 13th

Roy Keane spent a lot of cash as he brought top flight football back to Wearside and Sunderland are not quite showing the value for money to repay Niall Quinn's faith.

10. West Ham - £62.25m
League position: Eighth

The Hammers had a very large squad and Zola has been shrewd in off-loading fringe players on loan deals during the transfer window. West Ham's £62.25m squad seems about right for a club of its size.

Prudent: Moyes
11. Everton - £60.25m
League position: Sixth

David Moyes has done a magnificent job of making Everton a competitive Premier League outfit on limited resources.

The club's £60m outlay for consistently good Premier League finishes is highly commendable.

12. Portsmouth - £51.6m
League position: 16th

A £50m squad looked a bargain under Redknapp but seems excessive under Tony Adams, especially when you consider it cost almost double that of Stoke City, with whom Pompey are equal on points in the Premier League.

13. Middlesbrough - £47.4m
League position: 19th

At almost £50m Boro's squad should be strong enough to stay up, but it's not looking good.

14. Fulham - £45.2m
League position: Ninth

Another British manager proving prudent in his wheeler-dealings, Roy Hodgson joins David Moyes in doing well with relatively limited resources.

Solid profit: Palacios
15. Wigan - £38.3m
League position: Seventh

Steve Bruce snapped up Wilson Palacios for £1m and Wigan made a £13m profit on the player when he moved to Spurs earlier this month, representing outstanding business for the Lancashire club.

The Latics were canny in recouping £3.5m for Emile Heskey and are doing extremely well in the Premier League considering the cost of their squad.

16. Bolton - £34.75m
League position: 12th

£12m on Johann Elmander? Hmmmm. Thus said, Bolton are good value if you compare their outlay with that of Newcastle, Sunderland or Middlesbrough.

Prize asset: Santa Cruz
17. Blackburn - £34.4m
League position: 18th

Roque Santa Cruz is Blackburn's biggest asset and the club did not cash in on him in the transfer window. Good on them.

The big spending days of Premier League success are gone but, if Sam Allardyce can pull the club out of its current slump, Blackburn should continue to do well on a relatively small budget.

18. West Brom - £32.1m
League position: 20th

With the most expensive squad of the three promoted teams, West Brom will perhaps suffer the heaviest blow if they go straight back down.

19. Stoke - £27m
League position: 17th

A £27m squad has held a £140.6m equivalent (Liverpool) to a 0-0 draw twice in the same season. It may not always be pretty, but Stoke are playing within their means.

20. Hull - £17.4m
League position: 11th

A squad that cost less than £10m before January performed far, far beyond anyone's expectations in the first half of the season. Even if the bubble has burst, Hull City deserve to be proud of themselves. Don't forget, the club nearly went bankrupt 10 years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...uad-costs.html

City, Spurs and Newcastle are obviously the biggest underachievers. With Newcastle being the biggest underachievers on the medium-term scale out of those three.

The biggest overachievers are Wigan, Fulham and Everton. Although Everton are the only ones who have sustained that level of overachieving.

Interesting to see the gap between Liverpool in fifth and Newcastle in 6th, £60m difference.

Testament to Arsenal's squad as well as always, with them spending not too much more than a third of how much Chelsea spend.

Cling Bak · 5th February 2009, 14:32

Nice one. You got a link to the article?

I shouldn't be surprised at Tottenham, but a part of me is.

Brwned · 5th February 2009, 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cling Bak

Nice one. You got a link to the article?

I shouldn't be surprised at Tottenham, but a part of me is.

Aye, they really do spend ridiculous amounts of money year in, year out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...uad-costs.html

MG · 5th February 2009, 14:38

Spurs have spent practically the same as us!! And look how much more we've won/how much better we are than them. Shocking.

Fortitude · 5th February 2009, 14:44

Malcontent: Redknapp
3. Tottenham - £187.2m
League position: 14th

All the gear and no idea springs to mind, but this figure is skewed by the return of Jermain Defoe and Robbie Keane to White Hart Lane.

Even so, £187.2m represents a significant outlay for a Carling Cup trophy and a relegation battle.

Plus Redknapp is always complaining about the relatively small size of his first team squad

---

Glaston argued the toss over this as well. HUGE underachievers. Fuck me, it's criminal how much they spunk up when you compare to what Everton are achieving on a third of that budget.

I suppose I should wait to see if those figures are accurate in the opening post, but it's along the lines of what you'd reckon Spurs waste, isn't it?

bergen · 5th February 2009, 14:46

Arsenal debt-free? Since when?

Devil_forever · 5th February 2009, 14:56

already a thread on this but those numbers look widely off the mark.

vds:2 mill
PIG: 3 mill
foster: 1 mill
Rafael: 2.5 mill
Rio: 30 mill
vidic: 7 mill
evra: 5.5 mill
fabio: 2.5 mill
ronaldo : 12.5 mill
carrick: 18.6 mill
Anderson: 19 mill
Nani: 17 mill
Tosic and ljajic: 16.3 mill
Hargreaves: 20 mill
Rooney: 27 mill
Berbatov : 30.75 mill
Tevez: 32 mill

total: £246.65 mill

and I included tevez as we'll have to pay that fee to make it permanent anyway.

Xander45 · 5th February 2009, 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devil_forever

already a thread on this but those numbers look widely off the mark.

vds:2 mill
PIG: 3 mill
foster: 1 mill
Rafael: 2.5 mill
Rio: 30 mill
vidic: 7 mill
evra: 5.5 mill
fabio: 2.5 mill
ronaldo : 12.5 mill
carrick: 18.6 mill
Anderson: 19 mill
Nani: 17 mill
Tosic and ljajic: 16.3 mill
Hargreaves: 20 mill
Rooney: 27 mill
Berbatov : 30.75 mill
Tevez: 32 mill

total: £246.65 mill

and I included tevez as we'll have to pay that fee to make it permanent anyway.

I don't think they've taken into account January sales. So the serbian kids wouldn't be involved and neither would Tevez. So take off 48 mill from that for a start. Not sure how they got that number though it still seems too low.

Devil_forever · 5th February 2009, 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsGiggs

Spurs have spent practically the same as us!! And look how much more we've won/how much better we are than them. Shocking.

Thats down to the fact that we already had a great base and the fact that they can't hold on to their best players. It seems no matter how much they spend; they can't replace carrick or berbatov. So not a fair comparison. But if you compare it to the sides of similar quality to them then

. I still think that spurs have a set of great individual players but they need a manager to get the best out of them as a group and they CAN'T of spent that much!!

Ace · 5th February 2009, 15:17

Well done Wigan

Vinay · 5th February 2009, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xander45

I don't think they've taken into account January sales. So the serbian kids wouldn't be involved and neither would Tevez. So take off 48 mill from that for a start. Not sure how they got that number though it still seems too low.

I do believe they have. Tottenham's figures, it mentions, are influenced by the purchase back of Defoe and Keane...

Decotron · 5th February 2009, 15:36

Since when did we pay 5million for the twins?

Rio wasnt 30million either

Devil_forever · 5th February 2009, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decotron

Since when did we pay 5million for the twins?

Rio wasnt 30million either

look it up we did pay £5 mill for the pair of them. As for rio; I thought it was £30 mill but it might be slightly less then (£27 mill?) Not much cheaper than that.

Plechazunga · 5th February 2009, 15:47

These figures are misleading, because the cost of a squad isn’t only represented by the price of its players.

For example, suppose some hypothetical club bought, say, three hypothetical, shit Spanish players, with gay names, for a hypothetical combined total of about £10m, every year... and then sold them at a loss the next year. Their manager – let’s call him Gabriel Completespaz – would then have spent far more assembling his squad than the actual cost of the players currently in the squad. Of course, in reality, such a manager would suffer repeated setbacks and failures, then descend into a personal nightmare of anger, paranoia, bitterness and insanity, before self-combusting in a series of incomprehensible decisions and bizarre outbursts that made him and his club a national laughing-stock. But just for the sake of the thought experiment, imagine such a man could actually hold down a job at a top PL club.

In an entirely unrelated matter, we’re reckoned to have spent, depending on who you believe, about 25 million more, 2 million more, 2 million less or 20 million less than Liverpool over the last decade or so.

How much more have we spent than Liverpool?

Brwned · 5th February 2009, 16:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devil_forever

already a thread on this but those numbers look widely off the mark.

vds:2 mill
PIG: 3 mill
foster: 1 mill
Rafael: 2.5 mill
Rio: 30 mill
vidic: 7 mill
evra: 5.5 mill
fabio: 2.5 mill
ronaldo : 12.5 mill
carrick: 18.6 mill
Anderson: 19 mill
Nani: 17 mill
Tosic and ljajic: 16.3 mill
Hargreaves: 20 mill
Rooney: 27 mill
Berbatov : 30.75 mill
Tevez: 32 mill

total: £246.65 mill

and I included tevez as we'll have to pay that fee to make it permanent anyway.

We haven't paid that much for any one of them.

Not yet, anyway.

And Tevez will only cost £22m as a transfer fee, so take another £10m off there.

Devil_forever · 5th February 2009, 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwned

We haven't paid that much for any one of them.

Not yet, anyway.

And Tevez will only cost £22m as a transfer fee, so take another £10m off there.

Well we will eventually and those are the fees quoted in all the papers and SAF himself even said that we paid alot for anderson and nani but you had to for premium young talent. We also agreed to pay that in euros and if anything that fee will go up in that case (pound to euro ratio).

As for tevez. Well we paid £10 mill for the loan add £22 mill for the permanent move and you get £32 mill.....

Pogue Mahone · 5th February 2009, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devil_forever

Well we will eventually and those are the fees quoted in all the papers and SAF himself even said that we paid alot for anderson and nani but you had to for premium young talent. We also agreed to pay that in euros and if anything that fee will go up in that case (pound to euro ratio).

As for tevez. Well we paid £10 mill for the loan add £22 mill for the permanent move and you get £32 mill.....

Fucking hell. Why is it that in every single thread about how much we've spent on our squad, you constantly try to claim we've spent more than we actually have (invariably with added wittering about euro-sterling exchange rates) while never doing the same for the monies spent by rival clubs.

I mean, apart from the fact that the figures you produce are invariably wrong, I'm starting to think you have some kind of bizarre anti-SAF agenda. What, exactly, is your fucking point here?

Frosty · 5th February 2009, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

These figures are misleading, because the cost of a squad isn’t only represented by the price of its players.

For example, suppose some hypothetical club bought, say, three hypothetical, shit Spanish players, with gay names, for a hypothetical combined total of about £10m, every year... and then sold them at a loss the next year. Their manager – let’s call him Gabriel Completespaz – would then have spent far more assembling his squad than the actual cost of the players currently in the squad. Of course, in reality, such a manager would suffer repeated setbacks and failures, then descend into a personal nightmare of anger, paranoia, bitterness and insanity, before self-combusting in a series of incomprehensible decisions and bizarre outbursts that made him and his club a national laughing-stock. But just for the sake of the thought experiment, imagine such a man could actually hold down a job at a top PL club.

In an entirely unrelated matter, we’re reckoned to have spent, depending on who you believe, about 25 million more, 2 million more, 2 million less or 20 million less than Liverpool over the last decade or so.

How much more have we spent than Liverpool?

Devil_forever · 5th February 2009, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Fucking hell. Why is it that in every single thread about how much we've spent on our squad, you constantly try to claim we've spent more than we actually have (invariably with added wittering about euro-sterling exchange rates) while never doing the same for the monies spent by rival clubs.

I mean, apart from the fact that the figures you produce are invariably wrong, I'm starting to think you have some kind of bizarre anti-SAF agenda. What, exactly, is your fucking point here?

I quote the max fee for ALL transfers of all clubs and those numbers I'm quoting are from news papers. I don't have an "anti-SAF" agenda

Anyway why does it matter if we've spent alot. We earned it unlike chelsea so whats the big deal

Brwned · 5th February 2009, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devil_forever

Well we will eventually and those are the fees quoted in all the papers and SAF himself even said that we paid alot for anderson and nani but you had to for premium young talent. We also agreed to pay that in euros and if anything that fee will go up in that case (pound to euro ratio).

As for tevez. Well we paid £10 mill for the loan add £22 mill for the permanent move and you get £32 mill.....

We will eventually, but not yet.

So you can take £5m off each of them, which is probably what the paper did.

How do you know we agreed it in Euro's?

And you do realise that deals that are reliant on payments over a longer term normally disregard the change in exchange rate?

Well, we paid £2m for Kuszcack but no-one adds that on.

Take away the £32m you added on for Tevez, which you shouldn't have, and then the extra add-ons from Ljajic, Tosic, Nani and Anderson and there you have the same figure as them.

The same figure you said the paper got wrong.

December_16 · 5th February 2009, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

These figures are misleading, because the cost of a squad isn’t only represented by the price of its players.

For example, suppose some hypothetical club bought, say, three hypothetical, shit Spanish players, with gay names, for a hypothetical combined total of about £10m, every year... and then sold them at a loss the next year. Their manager – let’s call him Gabriel Completespaz – would then have spent far more assembling his squad than the actual cost of the players currently in the squad. Of course, in reality, such a manager would suffer repeated setbacks and failures, then descend into a personal nightmare of anger, paranoia, bitterness and insanity, before self-combusting in a series of incomprehensible decisions and bizarre outbursts that made him and his club a national laughing-stock. But just for the sake of the thought experiment, imagine such a man could actually hold down a job at a top PL club.

In an entirely unrelated matter, we’re reckoned to have spent, depending on who you believe, about 25 million more, 2 million more, 2 million less or 20 million less than Liverpool over the last decade or so.

How much more have we spent than Liverpool?

I love you Plech

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Cost of each squad

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

5th February 2009, 14:32	#2 (permalink)
Cling Bak Hi, I'm Barry Scott Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,984	Nice one. You got a link to the article? I shouldn't be surprised at Tottenham, but a part of me is.

5th February 2009, 14:38	#4 (permalink)
MG First Team Regular Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is NOT a porn star. Posts: 11,445	Spurs have spent practically the same as us!! And look how much more we've won/how much better we are than them. Shocking.

5th February 2009, 14:44	#5 (permalink)
Fortitude Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Inside right Posts: 3,681	Malcontent: Redknapp 3. Tottenham - £187.2m League position: 14th All the gear and no idea springs to mind, but this figure is skewed by the return of Jermain Defoe and Robbie Keane to White Hart Lane. Even so, £187.2m represents a significant outlay for a Carling Cup trophy and a relegation battle. Plus Redknapp is always complaining about the relatively small size of his first team squad --- Glaston argued the toss over this as well. HUGE underachievers. Fuck me, it's criminal how much they spunk up when you compare to what Everton are achieving on a third of that budget. I suppose I should wait to see if those figures are accurate in the opening post, but it's along the lines of what you'd reckon Spurs waste, isn't it?

5th February 2009, 14:46	#6 (permalink)
bergen Author of gayest thread 07/08 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Iceland Posts: 6,460	Arsenal debt-free? Since when?

5th February 2009, 14:56	#7 (permalink)
Devil_forever You're only young once, you can be immature f'ever (lost a bet) Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Head of the naval division of lolibfascon Posts: 8,596	already a thread on this but those numbers look widely off the mark. vds:2 mill PIG: 3 mill foster: 1 mill Rafael: 2.5 mill Rio: 30 mill vidic: 7 mill evra: 5.5 mill fabio: 2.5 mill ronaldo : 12.5 mill carrick: 18.6 mill Anderson: 19 mill Nani: 17 mill Tosic and ljajic: 16.3 mill Hargreaves: 20 mill Rooney: 27 mill Berbatov : 30.75 mill Tevez: 32 mill total: £246.65 mill and I included tevez as we'll have to pay that fee to make it permanent anyway.

5th February 2009, 15:17	#10 (permalink)
Ace Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: ------------------------------ Posts: 3,842	Well done Wigan

5th February 2009, 15:36	#12 (permalink)
Decotron First Team Regular Join Date: May 2007 Location: I am not a man......................I am Cantona Posts: 22,921	Since when did we pay 5million for the twins? Rio wasnt 30million either

5th February 2009, 15:47	#14 (permalink)
Plechazunga Grammar partisan who sleeps with a real life Ryan Giggs doll. Join Date: May 2003 Location: Where Albert Stubbins scored a diving header Posts: 51,908	These figures are misleading, because the cost of a squad isn’t only represented by the price of its players. For example, suppose some hypothetical club bought, say, three hypothetical, shit Spanish players, with gay names, for a hypothetical combined total of about £10m, every year... and then sold them at a loss the next year. Their manager – let’s call him Gabriel Completespaz – would then have spent far more assembling his squad than the actual cost of the players currently in the squad. Of course, in reality, such a manager would suffer repeated setbacks and failures, then descend into a personal nightmare of anger, paranoia, bitterness and insanity, before self-combusting in a series of incomprehensible decisions and bizarre outbursts that made him and his club a national laughing-stock. But just for the sake of the thought experiment, imagine such a man could actually hold down a job at a top PL club. In an entirely unrelated matter, we’re reckoned to have spent, depending on who you believe, about 25 million more, 2 million more, 2 million less or 20 million less than Liverpool over the last decade or so. How much more have we spent than Liverpool?