Comparison of spending between top 6 (2003-2017)

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Mr H, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. Oct 10, 2017
    #1

    Mr H Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,599
    Hello Hello,

    So, this is the second part of the thread:

    it's a comparison between the spending of the top 6 from the Abramovitch era onwards then, from the mansour era onwards (both total + year per year).

    • i didn't have the time to take a look at the results, i'll let you take what you want from the charts yourselves.
    • I'll update the thread in the near future with info on the spending/revenus of each club.
    • if anyone has a request for a specific comparison or info, just ask and i will update the op with it :).
    • If anyone think that there's a better way to represent the data, i'm open to suggestions.
    The first chart represents the spending, net on the left and total on the right of the Top 6 teams. as liverpool and Arsenal have the same color as us, i used the color of their away kits.

    [​IMG]


    The second chart represents the same data after the mansour take-over.

    [​IMG]


    This chart represents the spending of each club (Gross), by year, after the mansour take-over, i also add the main transfers during this period. Arsenal and spurs are missing here, they haven't spent enough :P so i thought that i wouldn't include them to simplify the chart.

    [​IMG]

    The last one is the net spend of the 4 aforementioned club.

    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  2. Oct 10, 2017
    #2

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,962
    Forget the premier league, I'd like to see these numbers against the European elite and compare their success in the Champions League.
  3. Oct 10, 2017
    #3

    Mr H Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,599
    I think that it would be interesting, which clubs do you thing should be in it ? Barça, Madrid, Bayern, Juventus, Athletico ? and how do you see such a comparison ?
  4. Oct 10, 2017
    #4

    adexkola Arsenal supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    31,954
    Location:
    Me, and you. Yo momma, and yo cousin too.
    Supports:
    orderly disembarking on planes
    Tottenham (more specific: Levy) are outstanding.
  5. Oct 10, 2017
    #5

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,962
    It's probably a pain in the behind but I want to see what Juve has done. Maybe Atletico and Dortmund as well.

    Bayern, Barca and Madrid I think are moot points. They spend plenty but also scoop up good domestic talent. Their recipe is nothing new imo.

    But take Juve and I'm admittedly impressed at their return to the elite status following relegation. Compare that with Milan whose fall from grace has been almost free fall until their big money takeover.
  6. Oct 10, 2017
    #6

    Massive Spanner Thinks Geoff Shreeves has one

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    9,560
    Location:
    Tool shed
    Have to hand it to Spurs and Poch to be doing so well with that net spend.
  7. Oct 10, 2017
    #7

    GlastonSpur Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,770
    Supports:
    Spurs
    Wow!

    So, Spurs have spent an average of just 6.3m euros net per season for the last 10 years. Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, City have spent an average of 112.5m euros net per season over the same period.

    Put another way, City have outspent Spurs in net terms by a ratio of nearly 18 to 1 over the last 10 years.
  8. Oct 10, 2017
    #8

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,962
    ^ i was thinking about Juve's sale of Bonnucci and
    A lot of that has to be attributed to good scouting, right? Players like Erikson, Alderwield even Modric back in the day were never the buys that lit up journalists eyes. Yet those names have developed into top class players. Feck me, Del Alli destroyed us yet we still didn't recognize how good a player he was (unless I missed some bit about us targeting him)
  9. Oct 10, 2017
    #9

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,962
    And City have won 5 trophies to Spurs' 1. That's the whole exercise - relate spending to tangible success.
  10. Oct 10, 2017
    #10

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    96,389
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    They’ve also, you know, won stuff? As have Arsenal, during periods where their net spend was just as low as yours.

    Congrats on the net spend trophy though. You must be so proud.
  11. Oct 10, 2017
    #11

    GlastonSpur Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,770
    Supports:
    Spurs
    I'm pleased that despite the huge disparity in net spend we have a team that can compete with the best: it speaks well for our scouting and player development system.

    I'm also pleased that as a result of our spending discipline we've been able to (a) afford to build what will be the best stadium in the Prem and a training centre that is second to none; and (b) will emerge from the huge expense of building both of those things with a very manageable debt that will have negligible impact on our net spend from here onwards.

    PS. Arsenal's net spend has not been "just as low" as ours: over the last 10 years it's been more than 3 times higher, as even a cursory glance at the figures shows.
  12. Oct 10, 2017
    #12

    JASR Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    Messages:
    750
    Location:
    Official Redcafe Union Rep for City Posters Rights
    Supports:
    City
    According to transfermarkt the net spend difference in 2017/18 between City and United is about £1m.

    Net spend (and gross) is also a fairly meaningless figure.
    You need to do amortisation of the value across the length of their contracts (that the players actually did) less sell on etc.

    And as mentioned in other thread you need to factor in revenue/income inflation somehow to adjust the transfer figures to a baseline value at the very least. Else comparing something in 2008 to 2017 is meaninglesss.

    Nice charts though.
  13. Oct 10, 2017
    #13

    GlastonSpur Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,770
    Supports:
    Spurs
    I don't count a single one of City's 5 trophies as having any meaning. They have simply been bought with sugar-daddy money.

    You might rather consider instead what Pochettino would accomplish with a net spend budget each and every summer - summer after summer after summer - of £112.5m euros.
  14. Oct 10, 2017
    #14

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    96,389
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    Duh, I’m not including Arsenal’s recent big spending. When they last won the league it was off the back of very little spending.
  15. Oct 10, 2017
    #15

    GlastonSpur Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,770
    Supports:
    Spurs
    A period extending back 10 years is hardly "recent".
  16. Oct 10, 2017
    #16

    Pexbo has never watched Star Wars

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    41,356
    Location:
    Brizzle
    Yeah it really is incredible actually.


    Remind me what you have won?
  17. Oct 10, 2017
    #17

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    96,389
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    By the big spending which inflates that 10 year average is “recent”.
  18. Oct 11, 2017
    #18

    Kostur Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    26,319
    Location:
    Poland, Kraków
    Wow!

    Spurs haven't won shit in the last 10 years.

    Put another way, they haven't won a single trophy in the last 10 years.

    Very good job @Mr H by the way.
  19. Oct 11, 2017
    #19

    adexkola Arsenal supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    31,954
    Location:
    Me, and you. Yo momma, and yo cousin too.
    Supports:
    orderly disembarking on planes
    I know it's Glaston and it's the in thing to piss on his parade. But if responsible management of a club in this age of sugar daddies is scorned because of a paucity of trophies, then shit.
  20. Oct 11, 2017
    #20

    Manchester Dan Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    2,349
    Supports:
    Man City
    Nice to see the graphs, cheers for doing those. Doesn’t read well for City, butalso easy to forget that City had to bridge the gap at takeover from a very poor side into a title winning side over the space of 4 years. Fortunately we did it then and not now, that exercise now to be a consistent contender from the lower end of the table would take twice that. When Coutinho is “worth” £140m all hope is lost.
  21. Oct 11, 2017
    #21

    Kostur Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    26,319
    Location:
    Poland, Kraków
    I wonder how Leicester City would line up in those tables, they have actually won something.
  22. Oct 11, 2017
    #22

    711 Full Member Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,925
    Location:
    The Greasy Strangler
    You would be right over a season or two, but nine years is a period worth considering. Also to lump net spending (and gross) in the same sentence is wrong, as gross spend is indeed meaningless except maybe as an indication of turnover, but net spend says a lot.
    Separately, gotta feel sorry for Arsenal fans, people making a lot of money out of their club.
  23. Oct 11, 2017
    #23

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,962
    @Mr H as anticipated this is swerving into a certain 'who spent less' d*ck swinging contest hah

    Could use that continental context!

    I think Spurs and Poch in particular have been magnificent in competing at the level they have while spending pittance in comparison. I'm with you there.

    But surely you must feel a pinch of regret knowing that a bit more, whether it was spending on the right players (on the pitch leadership and a slight upgrade of certain areas imo) or even luck (not this again imo) would have more led to ultimate success?

    Would you willingly turn that 18:1 ratio to 9:1 if it meant that Spurs won the league instead of Leicester feckin City? Be genuine and honest to yourself in answering that.
  24. Oct 11, 2017
    #24

    JASR Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    Messages:
    750
    Location:
    Official Redcafe Union Rep for City Posters Rights
    Supports:
    City
    Net spend is rubbish figure. Gross (as in just what you buy), is also rubbish.
    I'm not anywhere near a basic accountant, but can understand amortisation compared to bollox 'headline' figures.

    9 years is a complete waste of time comparison, due to the revenue inflation in that 9 years, and a few one-off reasons:

    Arsenal are (were?) paying for their stadium.

    United were/are paying for their dividends and debt.

    City were paying to catch up a mountain.

    Establish a baseline, work out a reasonable acceptable general revenue inflation value, then you can compare any dates you like.
  25. Oct 11, 2017
    #25

    Infordin Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,397
    Supports:
    Barcelona
    2008 League Cup mate
  26. Oct 11, 2017
    #26

    RooneyLegend Full Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Arsenal and Spurs really are doing an amazing job. Wenger would do a hell of a job as a technical director.
  27. Oct 11, 2017
    #27

    Raees Legal Guardian of the Football forums

    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Messages:
    25,935
    They've won nothing so in essence not a great job at all especially in the case of Arsenal who've brought their fans just plain misery - whereas at least Spurs have entertained their fans on a budget.

    I personally think even if Arsenal had spent just as much money as City under current version of Wenger they'd have spent badly and ended up near to where they are now in all honesty. Whereas with Spurs under Poch, the extra money I could see turning them into equivalent of City/Chelsea of yesteryear.

    Context is important when talking money, some clubs would do feck all with the extra spend and others would spend it wisely.
  28. Oct 11, 2017
    #28

    RooneyLegend Full Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2013
    Messages:
    7,556
    Difficult to win anything when your competition has a 'throw shit at the ceiling until it sticks' policy. Well, that we won't know, when Wenger had the best players in the league he used to win quite a bit.
  29. Oct 11, 2017
    #29

    KM I’m afraid I just blue myself Staff

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    44,634
    Chelsea's net spending are the most impressive to be honest. Liverpool's just laughable, just lower than Chelsea and still have won feck all. Talking about the last ten years ofcourse.

    Also great work @Mr H
  30. Oct 11, 2017
    #30

    Eboue nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    47,578
    Location:
    acting silly up in the gorge
    Supports:
    Arsenal
    we've won three fa cups. feck sake
  31. Oct 11, 2017
    #31

    UnrelatedPsuedo I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    3,818
    It's not really competing though.

    You're in the mix but never even go close.
  32. Oct 11, 2017
    #32

    anant Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,496
    Just adds more to the fact that we are the worst when it comes to selling players.
  33. Oct 11, 2017
    #33

    Mr H Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,599
    I'm planning to add the revenues of each club per year to these numbers. It would paint another picture for us for example as we generally haven't spent more than what we made. I didn't have the time to get to it yet.

    I do agree about inflation I'm also planning to work on that in the future.

    It's a preliminary work and it's incomplete, it'll be improved as I gather more data.
  34. Oct 11, 2017
    #34

    Mr H Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,599
    Yeah, there's an error in the title of the last chart, it's gross not net. I'm correcting it.

    Regarding the difference between the net spend, i didn't take into consideration the money received for loaning a player (Hart Perreira and others). i just took into consideration transfer transactions.

    Edit: corrected the title and added the net spend chart.
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
  35. Oct 11, 2017
    #35

    Raees Legal Guardian of the Football forums

    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Messages:
    25,935
    Yeah but in terms of league and CL I've seen nothing but stagnation. I don't think it's as simple as give modern version of Wenger big money and equals big trophies.

    Younger Wenger yes 100% big trophies.
  36. Oct 11, 2017
    #36

    Kostur Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    26,319
    Location:
    Poland, Kraków
    Snap, you've got me there.
  37. Oct 11, 2017
    #37

    711 Full Member Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,925
    Location:
    The Greasy Strangler
    Everyone understands amortisation, but it is not something that some clubs use and not others, so it is still possible to compare net spend club to club, amortisation or no amortisation.

    It would be interesting to compare net spend as a proportion of revenue, and as you say it is obvious cash not spent on players is spent on other things, to add to your own list that could be higher wages or dividends or even tax, if managed badly.
  38. Oct 11, 2017
    #38

    GlastonSpur Also disliked on an Aston Villa forum

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    13,770
    Supports:
    Spurs
    Being in the mix amounts to competing. And I'm also talking about competing for a top 4 finish.
  39. Oct 11, 2017
    #39

    Dept3942 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    Nice charts there.

    Amazing how little success City have had in line with their spending. I actually thought we had spent more than City in a few TW's. Very surprised we only outspent them once since the takeover.

    The Net Spend figures for both City & Chelsea seem dodgy to me though. Chelsea have had the business with Luiz & Oscar which seems shady to say the least. Also find it hard to believe that City have received so much for players they offloaded. It's only this year that they received significant amounts for the academy flops.
  40. Oct 11, 2017
    #40

    UnrelatedPsuedo I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    3,818
    Oh. The Arsenal trophy. All good