Cost of each squad

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Brwned, Feb 5, 2009.

  1. Feb 5, 2009
    #1

    Brwned Have you ever been in love before?

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    42,011
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ers--Sportsmails-guide-teams-squad-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.
  2. Feb 5, 2009
    #2

    Cling Bak Hi, I'm Barry Scott

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    7,098
    Nice one. You got a link to the article?

    I shouldn't be surprised at Tottenham, but a part of me is.
  3. Feb 5, 2009
    #3

    Brwned Have you ever been in love before?

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    42,011
  4. Feb 5, 2009
    #4

    MG Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,811
    Location:
    Friendzoning 'nice guys'
    :eek: Spurs have spent practically the same as us!! And look how much more we've won/how much better we are than them. Shocking.
  5. Feb 5, 2009
    #5

    Fortitude Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,470
    Location:
    Inside right
    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

    ---

    :lol:

    Glaston argued the toss over this as well. HUGE underachievers. feck 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?
  6. Feb 5, 2009
    #6

    bergen Author of gayest thread 07/08

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Messages:
    6,460
    Location:
    Iceland
    Arsenal debt-free? Since when?
  7. Feb 5, 2009
    #7

    Devil_forever You're only young once, you can be immature f'ever

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,856
    Location:
    Head of the naval division of lolibfascon
    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.
  8. Feb 5, 2009
    #8

    Xander45 Know-It-All Champion May 2009

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    20,313
    Location:
    Fratton Park, play up Pompey!
    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.
  9. Feb 5, 2009
    #9

    Devil_forever You're only young once, you can be immature f'ever

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,856
    Location:
    Head of the naval division of lolibfascon
    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:eek:. 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!!:eek::eek:
  10. Feb 5, 2009
    #10

    Ace Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,833
    Location:
    ------------------------------
    Well done Wigan
  11. Feb 5, 2009
    #11

    Vinay Muppet in Training

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    5,932
    Location:
    Mit der deutschen Mannschaft
    I do believe they have. Tottenham's figures, it mentions, are influenced by the purchase back of Defoe and Keane...
  12. Feb 5, 2009
    #12

    Decotron Full Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    27,719
    Location:
    I am not a man........I am Cantona
    Since when did we pay 5million for the twins?

    Rio wasnt 30million either
  13. Feb 5, 2009
    #13

    Devil_forever You're only young once, you can be immature f'ever

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,856
    Location:
    Head of the naval division of lolibfascon
    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.
  14. Feb 5, 2009
    #14

    Plechazunga Grammar partisan who sleeps with a real life Ryan

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    51,762
    Location:
    Where Albert Stubbins scored a diving header
    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.

    http://www.redcafe.net/f7/how-much-more-have-we-spent-than-liverpool-193078/
  15. Feb 5, 2009
    #15

    Brwned Have you ever been in love before?

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    42,011
    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.
  16. Feb 5, 2009
    #16

    Devil_forever You're only young once, you can be immature f'ever

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,856
    Location:
    Head of the naval division of lolibfascon
    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.....
  17. Feb 5, 2009
    #17

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    67,700
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    fecking 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 fecking point here? :confused:
  18. Feb 5, 2009
    #18

    Frosty Logical and sensible but turns women gay

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    11,911
    :lol:
  19. Feb 5, 2009
    #19

    Devil_forever You're only young once, you can be immature f'ever

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,856
    Location:
    Head of the naval division of lolibfascon
    :confused: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:confused: Anyway why does it matter if we've spent alot. We earned it unlike chelsea so whats the big deal:confused:
  20. Feb 5, 2009
    #20

    Brwned Have you ever been in love before?

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    42,011
    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? :confused: 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.
  21. Feb 5, 2009
    #21

    December_16 Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,621
    Location:
    Mancunian Way
    :lol: I love you Plech

Share This Page