Top 20 biggest spending clubs in the last 8 years - CIES

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Sassy Colin, Sep 4, 2018.

  1. Sep 4, 2018
    #1

    Sassy Colin Death or the gladioli!

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    45,714
    Location:
    Aliens are in control of my tagline & location
  2. Sep 4, 2018
    #2

    Tommy bigot with fetish for footballers getting fingered

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    7,945
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    Initial reactions.

    Man City have spent more than Bayern Munch & Real Madrid combined :lol:
    Roma have spent HOW MUCH!?! :eek:
    Everton are outspending Spurs? :confused:
    Milan at 11 & 13? Surprising :wenger:

    (I know the outliers like Everton & Roma are solely based on player sales, but still...)

    Some of the graphs on the main report are really insane at showing off the difference in investment across the leagues.

    Arsenal have a higher net spend than Real Madrid since 2010? Whodathunkit...
  3. Sep 4, 2018
    #3

    Gandalf Greyhame Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,366
    Location:
    "Saving with hands is too mainstream." - DDG
    I think net-spends should be taken into account. And arranged in increasing order, in the 2010-2018 period:

    1. City: -1032m
    2. PSG: -874m
    3. United: -772m
    4. Barca: -598m
    5. Chelsea: -538m
    6. Juve: -409m
    7. Liverpool: -327m
    8. Milan: -296m
    9. Arsenal: -286m
    10: Madrid: -260m

    Madrid are easily the club who've gotten most bang for buck. Barca, Juve and to an extent, City, have also seen good returns for their money.
    On the other end, Milan ought to be embarrassed. Neither us or Arsenal have made good transfers, either.
  4. Sep 4, 2018
    #4

    RedSky likes to kick 10-year-olds Scout

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    57,954
    Location:
    Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
    We've spent 110,200,000, which means we've spent on average 137,750,000 a season. Damn.
  5. Sep 4, 2018
    #5

    MUFC OK Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,756
    Of course not forgetting that Liverpool only have a net spend of about £100m due to the Coutinho sale.
  6. Sep 4, 2018
    #6

    Gandalf Greyhame Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,366
    Location:
    "Saving with hands is too mainstream." - DDG
    They have a net spend of around 330m. And that's accounting for the 130-odd they received for Coutinho.
  7. Sep 4, 2018
    #7

    Sassy Colin Death or the gladioli!

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    45,714
    Location:
    Aliens are in control of my tagline & location
    Not this again, irrelevant!

    If you have spent £1B improving your squad (Liverpool), you've spent £1B improving your squad. It doesn't matter where the money comes from.
  8. Sep 4, 2018
    #8

    MUFC OK Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,756
    Have City ever sold anybody for a big fee? its all the dodgy dealings like Angus Gunn for £15m that make up that figure..
  9. Sep 4, 2018
    #9

    Skills Snitch

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    26,084
    Numbers should take inflation into account. We really only started spending big with the boom in player prices.

    City and PSG were spunking stupid cash before that too.
  10. Sep 4, 2018
    #10

    RedSky likes to kick 10-year-olds Scout

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    57,954
    Location:
    Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
    It does if the money comes from weakening your squad though which is exactly what happens when you sell players...
  11. Sep 4, 2018
    #11

    MUFC OK Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,756
    But then there's Suarez (£80m), Torres (£60m) and many more, in fact the net spend is probably around £0, an obviously now with the best GK, CB and CM in the world they wont need to be spending much more.
  12. Sep 4, 2018
    #12

    Tommy bigot with fetish for footballers getting fingered

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    7,945
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    It's an interesting one. You look back at the money City spent on players like Aguero (€40m according to transfermarkt) & you think damn, what a bargain... But in 2011? That was a decent chunk of change for any team to be spending, never mind on multiple positions.

    Who knows, give it 10 more years, and the £85m or whatever spent on Lukaku might seem like a bargain - Lord knows the similar fees Real paid for Bale & Ronaldo do.
  13. Sep 4, 2018
    #13

    breakout67 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,932
    Net spend should be taken into account when looking at total investment? You want to take into account profit when calculating revenue next?
  14. Sep 4, 2018
    #14

    Snow Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    29,091
    Location:
    Reykjavík
    I think you're confusing pounds with euros.
  15. Sep 4, 2018
    #15

    DonnieDarko New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    187
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    You had 3 apples. You gave away two apples and someone gave you 3 apples. How many apples do you have?
    John had 3 apples. Somebody gave John 3 more apples. Who has more apples, you or John?

    Oh please, stop that net apple count bs! You were given the same amount of apples as John, you can clearly squeeze as much juice from your apples.
  16. Sep 4, 2018
    #16

    Dorian Gray New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    224
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    It kind of does if the money has come from selling your best player or in effect weakening your squad, no? Even if I assume that incoming transfers are 100% success and you get a player as good as your outgoing player, the squad is not really improving if you keep on just replacing your best players. At best, you are just maintaining the quality.
  17. Sep 4, 2018
    #17

    Rood nostradamus like gloater Scout

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    17,116
    Location:
    @United_Hour
    and a comparisons like that show why net spend is not the best indicator of how much a club invests in their squad

    As I always say in any discussion about transfer spending, wage bill is the far more important indicator and the best would be the two added together
  18. Sep 4, 2018
    #18

    Dorian Gray New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    224
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    To be more accurate - Net spend should be taken into account when looking at effectiveness or ROI of spend.

    Good point. Agree completely.
  19. Sep 4, 2018
    #19

    bosnian_red Worst scout to ever exist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    33,268
    Location:
    Canada
    Not when you sell your best players to fund the big spending. If someone has a budget of 0, sells a world class player for 200m and then spends that 200m to replace him... they didnt spend 200m to improve the squad. They spent it to be back where they were basically.
    Considering in the last 5 years they sold Coutinho, Suarez and Sterling and then sold Torres a few years before that, all key players for them, then its understandable they would need to spend all that to try and get back to where they were before those players left.
  20. Sep 4, 2018
    #20

    bosnian_red Worst scout to ever exist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    33,268
    Location:
    Canada
    Or you have 2 squads worth 500m. One sells 200m worth of players, the other dowsnt sell anyone. Both spend 200m. One is then worth 700m, the other 500m. So obviously you have to take into account player sales too.
  21. Sep 4, 2018
    #21

    Minimalist Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    13,402
    Yeah we really have been asking our managers to work with nothing haven’t we? Just short of a billion quid. Obviously not good enough. /s
  22. Sep 4, 2018
    #22

    DownRiver New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2018
    Messages:
    171
    Meaningless. Inflation is probably the BIGGEST factor. They have not take this into account.
  23. Sep 4, 2018
    #23

    B20 HALA MADRID!

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    22,461
    Location:
    Disney Land
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    It's incredible that this needs explaining every time, really. Some of the reactions are Trumpian in level.
  24. Sep 4, 2018
    #24

    B20 HALA MADRID!

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    22,461
    Location:
    Disney Land
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    I think the massive increase in income streams have far outweighed inflation in the period - But consolidating the two and accounting for that would tell a much more interesting story.
  25. Sep 4, 2018
    #25

    AshRK Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,972
    Location:
    Canada
    Exactly. This net spend is a lazy excuse to protect their manager. The fact remains klopp has spent more than Jose. Net spend is one for the finance team to look upon.
  26. Sep 4, 2018
    #26

    B20 HALA MADRID!

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    22,461
    Location:
    Disney Land
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    Should be looking at "player costs" as a standard really, the cost of fees+wages-sales, rather than just transfer fees when assessing investments in the squad. It's weird that we're not there yet by now.
  27. Sep 4, 2018
    #27

    B20 HALA MADRID!

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    22,461
    Location:
    Disney Land
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    The fact that we aren't lining up with Coutinho this season should tell you it does matter.

    It's not even anything to do with protecting managers. It's just fecking moronic to ignore it.
  28. Sep 4, 2018
    #28

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    96,436
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    All the willy waving about spending (net or otherwise) is a load of bollox. It is what it is. Some clubs can afford to spend a lot of money because they’re well run clubs with a long history of success. Others because they won the sugar daddy lottery. Most clubs can’t afford to spend we much as these clubs. Why does anybody give a shit? Is there a competition I haven’t heard about where trophies are awarded for the sexiest balance sheets?
  29. Sep 4, 2018
    #29

    Don Alfredo Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Supports:
    Germany
    You say that because City look very good now, but that doesn't hold up in terms of trophies. Chelsea's net spend is half of that of City, even Man Utd have been nearly as successful as them with considerably less outlay.

    Have a look at the trophies the 3 biggest spenders in England have won:

    Trophies Man City since 2010: 3 league titles, 1 FA CUP

    Trophies Chelsea since 2010: 3 league titles, 1 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 3 FA Cups

    Trophies Man Utd since 2010: 2 league titles, 1 Europa League, 1 FA Cup
  30. Sep 4, 2018
    #30

    shaky Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,560
    If we count net spend, can we count squad depreciation value too.
    Say 2 teams have squads worth £500m, Team A doesn't replace any players until they get old and retire, then replaces them with another £500m worth of players, Team B constantly sell their players when their value is high and reinvests that money in new players worth £500m.
    Team A and Team B now once again have squads worth £500m, despite Team A having spent £500m more than Team B to get there. Does this mean Team A should have higher expectations than Team B because they have a higher net spend, even though the overall net squad strength is mostly unchanged?
  31. Sep 4, 2018
    #31

    B20 HALA MADRID!

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    22,461
    Location:
    Disney Land
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    I look at balance sheets mostly from the perspective of - Are we spending as much as we could be doing to compete without compromising our financial health? Despite the outlays this summer, signs still point to no. FSG may not be malevolent owners like G&H, but they still haven't pulled out all the stops for us.

    Winning the net spend competition should be cause for complaint, not celebrated.
  32. Sep 4, 2018
    #32

    B20 HALA MADRID!

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    22,461
    Location:
    Disney Land
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    It would definitely be an interesting metric to look at it.
  33. Sep 4, 2018
    #33

    RobinLFC Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    7,946
    Location:
    Belgium
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    Erm...
  34. Sep 4, 2018
    #34

    Robbo* New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2013
    Messages:
    352
    I suppose then, though, you'd somehow have to factor in retiring players etc i.e. Carrick retires and therefore our squad is weakened - so do we still count Fred as 50m transfer?
  35. Sep 4, 2018
    #35

    AshRK Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,972
    Location:
    Canada
    Net spend argument is flawed while judging a transfer ibecause not every player has a resale value. We lost Vidic, Rio, Rooney, evra,carrick,rvp,fletcher,giggs, Scholes and had to replace our core. For us replacing a 26 year old rio was as difficult to replace a 36 year old.rio. But because we got pennies for selling rio at 36, we had to spent big chunk to get a defender. Same with giggs and Scholes and Rooney.What's also funny is that from 2009-13 we only used the Ronaldo's money from 09 to build.pur squad which meant our investment was poor and hence we had to revamp our squad after that , which even till now is not completely revamped as players are more expensive to buy. I dont think any other club lost their main core like us in the past 5 to 6 years.

    The reason I hate net spend argument is because manager still got to spend a big amount of money and he is not judged on that. Like last season say what conte spent more than £200m yet Chelsea fans were saying board did not back him and included net spend for some sale.of some random players. It's like me selling my junk furniture and then spending money to buy a new one and if the new one is not good enough I make a excuse that I spent only this much because I had to sell some.

    The bottom line is manager be it klopp or Jose or sir alex should be judged on the money they spent. And the fact remains klopp has spent big money. No reason to be ashamed of that or denying that.
  36. Sep 4, 2018
    #36

    Keeps It tidy Hates Messi

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    Messages:
    15,374
    Location:
    New York
    Nothing worse than a net spend debate.
  37. Sep 4, 2018
    #37

    Pogue Mahone Poster of the year 2008

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    96,436
    Location:
    "like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
    Yeah. Having said that obsessing over spend in general is daft there’s a particular sort of lunacy around getting hung up on net spend.

    We lost the two best central defenders in the country for (basically) nothing when Rio and Vidic moved on. Yet this is apparently irrelevant when our spending is put in context, whereas the sale of Coutinho for a fecking fortune (in a position where they already had good cover) means that €140m of Liverpool’s investment in their squad suddenly doesn’t count.
  38. Sep 4, 2018
    #38

    MUFC OK Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,756
    Selling your best players is a consideration for performance of the team but 1 billion spent is 1 billion 'worth' of talent or investment brought into the squad I.e. a £1bn squad is just that, regardless of how much has been raised through sales.

    Clubs are under no obligation to reinvest all/any of transfer fees after they have sold a player and in fact many clubs survive precisely by having a negative net spend, i.e. buying players low and selling high.

    The line that this kind of table provokes is that '.... should be doing better/havent won the title despite their spend' which brings along this net spend discussion. However, regardless of that you would expect that £1bn of investment from any team over a relatively short period would bring substantial on field success.
  39. Sep 4, 2018
    #39

    B20 HALA MADRID!

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    22,461
    Location:
    Disney Land
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    Net spend alone does not tell the whole story.

    Gross spend alone tells an even more incomplete story though. You can't simply judge on what a manager has spent. It's equivalent to saying that it would make no difference to this team whether we had Countinho or not. Or that selling Suarez had no impact. It's not simply a case of "new manager gets to spend on what he likes whilst getting rid of junk".
  40. Sep 4, 2018
    #40

    MUFC OK Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,756
    Very good point. We also lost Scholes, Rooney, Giggs, Evra all over this period for virtually nothing.

    I also apologise for (jokingly) bringing net spend and Coutinho into this thread, even if someone else would have done so anyway.