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

[Colombian Mancunian]

Barcelona having spent more than P$G, being third behind Chelsea and City, and still the hypocritical cnuts say” más cantera menos cartera” (more home grown players than buying superstars).

That’s why I hate that team, the most hypocritical sports entity ever.

 

[Klopper76]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/11490165/top-pl-deals-in-todays-money
Doing the rounds this morning, thought it might make an interesting read. Just 5 of the top 10 and 8 of the top 20 for United.

79.6 million pounds on Andy fecking Carroll...

Pretty sure we paid more for Suarez than we did for Torres, so why is the former not on the list?

 

[padr81]

79.6 million pounds on Andy fecking Carroll...

Its interesting how bad a deal that was in comparison to income at the time, spunking £35m now would be an acceptable mistake, Carroll was a shocker. also interesting is the drop to now from last season. Carroll probably would be over £80m in last seasons money.

Also at City we spent £50m todays money on Jo and £43m on Santa Cruz, both as bad as the Carroll deal.

 

[Gee Male]

Did a rough check

ManUtd - 603 million pounds
Liverpool 568 million pounds + around 20MP players out on loan
Chelsea - 572 million + 120 million worth of players out on loan
City - 768 million pounds.

Interesting. Puts a lot into perspective. United and Liverpool in theory have spent very similar amounts on their respective squads, so performance this season in theory should be similar. Everything else doesnt matter, who has been soldis not relevant.

 

[RoadTrip]

My problem with net-spend is that it's used as a stick to beat teams that have high incomes and high spending. As I said, if the club is well run and makes a ton of money, buying a player for 50m pounds is nothing. However, if the club loses money and sells a player for 100m pounds, then spending 50 of those on another player may be very bad business. Liverpool supporters use it as another of their alternative leagues. They have still spent about as much as United these last ten years. I'm sure they've spent much more if you compare with income and expenditure on buying players. I'm not sure why people fall for this.

If Bill Gates buys a Bugatti Chiron, then he has spent a helluva lot on a car. If I buy a Dacia Sandero, and sold my old Golf, my net spend is far less than Gates. However, the percentage of my money spent on that piece of sh*t car compared to my income or wealth is still far higher than Gates', who I doubt would have to talk to the bank for funding the car - I might have had to. Therefore, net spend is just a fraction of the picture.

I get all that. But is there anyone truly saying that gross or net spend mean anything, apart from the minuscule number of people who are stupid enough to leech on to the click-bait headlines?

And if anyone does use it to beat teams down, best to just ignore them.

 

[HTG]

They sold Ronaldo (for a profit) after 10 years with him, when he is 33, not looking quite as effective as he always did and having seemingly fallen out beyond repair with the owner. Of course they have to sell players. When they buy their new toys, they have to get rid of someone else to keep squad numbers reasonable at the very least.

And I don't see how what you're saying is different from what I am saying? I never said clubs don't sell players, every club sells players. I said it is not a massive advantage to sell your best players regularly. Real won't follow up the sale of Ronaldo with the sales of Modric, Ramos, Casemeiro etc.

What do you mean you see no point in talking about those other 3 clubs? I mentioned other clubs in my initial post, I wasn't just talking about Real.

Because all I wanted to do was to add another aspect to your initial argument. That’s all. Real are my example because it’s an obvious strategy for them. Barca, Juve and Bayern don’t do business like that, at least not to my knowledge. So there is no point in discussing their strategy here for me.

 

[TheReligion]

No, it isn't. The talking point here is that clubs all operate within different financial brackets, facing different variables that cause them to act and react in the market. It's not a balanced comparison.

You can analyse clubs individually to see how they've done over the years with their finances and spending, but comparing them to everyone else seems pointless to me.

I was being facetious as I'm sick to death of people talking about net spend just because it suits their agenda.

 

[montpelier]

Yeah, it's an agenda-driven concept for me too. Which is what cheeses me off about it principally.

What you have to say though is that Liverpool seem to be rather better at identifying & bringing in players who might increase in value, that's for sure.

Latest punt being on Shaqiri. It's looking like an even more canny policy if you can then simultaneously claim not to be spending any money on the team and are still the greatest underdogs ever, out on the park.

''We've got a fantastically expensive team going out there to take on a fantastically expensively assembled team, but we'll pretend we haven't.''

''Utd are buying their success... but their team cost less than ours. Oh right.'' <---- as has been quite often the case down the years. (it helps if you can get Cof92 through the youth system obviously)

You can't get away from Utd having bought fairly terribly since the latter years of the SAF reign however, & worse again since he retired though.

 

[montpelier]

And I'm not keen on that retrospective values olde-bollocks either.

Why is there a fall-off coming into this season from last. Some teams are paying £ 75 M for a goalkeeper.

 

[Klopper76]

I was being facetious as I'm sick to death of people talking about net spend just because it suits their agenda.

I won't try and deny that our spending in the PL era has been poor, but I find it pointless comparing fees spent by clubs as they all operate differently. Different wage structures, transfer budgets, managers coming and going, replacing key players, paying off stadium debt etc. Everyone has to react to different factors.

United had to react with heavy spending following a disastrous season under Moyes. City spent heavily following Guardiola's arrival then only signed one player in the summer because they were already miles ahead of everyone else. Our spending over the last two windows came about immediately after we received over 100k for a player. Spurs have hardly spent because they're developing their stadium.

It doesn't seem right to compare spending when there's so many variables in play. If we all had 100 million to spend every season it'd make for a much fairer comparison.

 

[Klopper76]

On net spend, it's not something to be proud of. We sold Suarez for 65 million and spent it all on Can, Lovren, Manquillo, Lambert, Balotelli, Lallana and Moreno.

Our net spend looks great but when we look at what we spent that money on, you can see that it's shameful.

 

[Rory 7]

It is all relative. And inflation is key; particularly the impact of the TV money. Liverpools spend is hilarious really, considering they've won....nothing.

 

[Naz]

It is all relative. And inflation is key; particularly the impact of the TV money. Liverpools spend is hilarious really, considering they've won....nothing.

As hilarious as Man Utd fans complaining about City's transfer spending (Reference: http://www.skysports.com/football/n...sive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money)

 

[Rory 7]

As hilarious as Man Utd fans complaining about City's transfer spending (Reference: http://www.skysports.com/football/n...sive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money)

not really

 

[Cait Sith]

It isn't. Net Spend doesn't exist. It's a lazy, generally uninformed expression made up by fans and journos who have no clue how accounting and finance actually work

Profit(and i'm talking actual profit, not transfer fee) from sales does matter and impact a club's spending power, but it doesn't work club spends X for player Y, sells player Z for X--->net spend 0.

You economy people have a knack for complicating things by using all sorts of unnecessary buzz words for describing easy circumstances to act scientific where it makes no sense.

If I have an expensive luxury car worth 150 grant and I sell it and buy 3 cars for 50 grant each I haven't spent a dime => net spend 0. I've simply exchanged assets.

If Barcelona exchange the Neymar transfer money to buy Dembélé and Coutinho they haven't spent a dime either => net spend 0 (how this is creatively accounted for exactly on some sheets to dodge taxes does not matter, the hard facts of what's happening remain the same, whether you classify it as "cash flow", "profit", "investment" or whatever you want).

 

[Fluctuation0161]

As hilarious as Man Utd fans complaining about City's transfer spending (Reference: http://www.skysports.com/football/n...sive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money)

Wow. City have spent nearly as much in 8 years as we have in 26 years!

 

[giorno]

You economy people have a knack for complicating things by using all sorts of unnecessary buzz words for describing easy circumstances to act scientific where it makes no sense.

If I have an expensive luxury car worth 150 grant and I sell it and buy 3 cars for 50 grant each I haven't spent a dime => net spend 0. I've simply exchanged assets.

If Barcelona exchange the Neymar transfer money to buy Dembélé and Coutinho they haven't spent a dime either => net spend 0 (how this is creatively accounted for exactly on some sheets to dodge taxes does not matter, the hard facts of what's happening remain the same, whether you classify it as "cash flow", "profit", "investment" or whatever you want).

How did you acquire the expensive luxury car?

To make it clear: i buy a car for 150. I decide to pay it in 5 installments of 30 each. After 3 years, i decide to sell the car. I do it for 100. I still have to pay the final two installments however, for a total of 60. That means my profit is 40. That's my budget to buy a new car

 

[Acrobat7]

How did you acquire the expensive luxury car?

I built it on my own. Didn’t spend anything (think academy player or cheap buy). Sold it for 150k and bought a new one for 150k. You’re claiming I invested 150k and others claim they just swapped assets.

 

[giorno]

I built it on my own. Didn’t spend anything (think academy player or cheap buy). Sold it for 150k and bought a new one for 150k. You’re claiming I invested 150k and others claim they just swapped assets.

Then you've spent money to buy the materials, gear to build it, etc. You still have spent money to have that car. That money isn't just going to disappear as if you've never had to spend it in the first place after you sell the car.

What ultimately matter is profit. If your car cost you 1000 to build it, and you sell it for 1m, then you've made a profit of 900k. If it cost you nothing, then the profit is 1m. If it cost 2m, then it cost you more than you made from its sale. However you probably used it before selling, so obviously you've got mileage out of it, so the worth of your car when you sold it was obviously less than when you built/bought it

 

[Acrobat7]

This turned out to be such a stupid thread.

 

[roonster09]

Best way is to see how much money is spent on assembling the squad, that should give better picture. Obviously there are few holes in that method too, like few clubs signed players before Neymar deal, so paid bigger money for just good players.

So Liverpool have spent around 580 million to assemble their squad.
ManUtd 603 Million (maybe add around 20 million)
Chelsea spent 570 million plus they have sent players who were signed for 120 million on loan
City spent 730 million.

 

[chisnall_red]

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

If you look at that though you have to think if the spend in the 5-8 years before 2010 too; that led to Chelsea’s CL and 1 premier league and FA cup. During that time they were one of the biggest spenders in the world yet city would have been less than nowhere. Think we should look again in 5 years or so...
Most painful thing is where we are now despite being in the top 5 in the whole world, are we close to where we should be? Certainly not in terms of style etc

 

[Rood]

As hilarious as Man Utd fans complaining about City's transfer spending (Reference: http://www.skysports.com/football/n...sive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money)

Not at all - seeing as City were a midtable club (at best) for the vast majority of that period and in fact not even in the top division for several seasons, its actually mental that they have spent almost as much as us

 

[roonster09]

As hilarious as Man Utd fans complaining about City's transfer spending (Reference: http://www.skysports.com/football/n...sive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money)

What an irrelevant comparison.

 

[TheReligion]

As hilarious as Man Utd fans complaining about City's transfer spending (Reference: http://www.skysports.com/football/n...sive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money)

Odd post. Has no relevance in the slightest.

 

[Sunspear17]

We bought Torres for £50m, but he was dreadful. We've made some signings that haven't worked out well and others which have. Definitely a fair chunk of wasted money there.

 

[Sassy Colin]

This turned out to be such a stupid thread.

How dare you!

 

[SER19]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/11490165/top-pl-deals-in-todays-money
Doing the rounds this morning, thought it might make an interesting read. Just 5 of the top 10 and 8 of the top 20 for United.

Love a good city inflation metric. Given that united have been successful for far longer it’s natural they’ll have bought more high end players. Like all of these speculative pieces, there’s dubious figures in there to say the least. No point in you and I discussing this, I have a problem that city came from absolutely nowhere and have spent 1.3bn trying every possible scenario to get it right, whereas you bend over backwards to justify it.

More telling is that despite united trying to compete in Europe since 1993, in this inflation index city have spent almost the same as united since 1992 with figures adjusted for today’s money. That is staggering.

The fact that it’s a near guarantee that city will win the champions league in the next few years is the reason a city fan will never ever feel like Barcelona 99 did. Or should we do it again. You can pretend it makes no difference but it really really does.

 

[padr81]

Love a good city inflation metric. Given that united have been successful for far longer it’s natural they’ll have bought more high end players. Like all of these speculative pieces, there’s dubious figures in there to say the least. No point in you and I discussing this, I have a problem that city came from absolutely nowhere and have spent 1.3bn trying every possible scenario to get it right, whereas you bend over backwards to justify it.

More telling is that despite united trying to compete in Europe since 1993, in this inflation index city have spent almost the same as united since 1992 with figures adjusted for today’s money. That is staggering.

The fact that it’s a near guarantee that city will win the champions league in the next few years is the reason a city fan will never ever feel like Barcelona 99 did. Or should we do it again. You can pretend it makes no difference but it really really does.

So you don't think City had to pay extra recently to get there because United inflated the market that you accuse City and PSG of inflating even though there are numerous sources and studies now pointing towards it? I don't bend over backwards to justify it because there is nothing to justify.

Yes its very telling and shows thus far there has been a lack of trophies for investment by City and in particular Liverpool in comparison to United. Interesting this part is telling and not just more dubious figures...

There is no guarantee that City will win anything anytime, just like PSG but I hope you're right. You have no clue how good I'll feel about but I'd imagine I'll feel really good, you talk about dubious figures worked out using formula and then you imagine you have someway to measure how individual people feel will feel based on nothing but your United tinted specs buddy.

United inflated the market, Chelsea built on that and now City and PSG are inflating it more but in a very different way. You can't seem to accept that but there are numerous sources pointing this out, it's also pointed out used the Tomkins TPI method and all come to very similar values...

Genuine mathematical methods by people who know such stuff to figure out player costs - Dubious
You having the ability to tell people exactly how much or little they'll feel in comparison to others - Logical

This is exactly the issue with most our discussions right there my friend. Red tinted specs.

 

[zkap]

I see no reason why big clubs shouldn't spend a lot of money. They have it and they want to succeed so they go that route, I don't see a problem.
Like I said, even after spending that money you still need to do the work and get the team going. I don't mind huge transfer fees at all, so long as the team is set up well and ends up playing nice football. City plays the best football in the world and I consider them as favourites to win the Champions League, so well done to Pep. In my book, any transfer fee is justified when you end up with this.

 

[Sassy Colin]

So you don't think City had to pay extra recently to get there because United inflated the market that you accuse City and PSG of inflating even though there are numerous sources and studies now pointing towards it? I don't bend over backwards to justify it because there is nothing to justify.

Yes its very telling and shows thus far there has been a lack of trophies for investment by City and in particular Liverpool in comparison to United. Interesting this part is telling and not just more dubious figures...

There is no guarantee that City will win anything anytime, just like PSG but I hope you're right. You have no clue how good I'll feel about but I'd imagine I'll feel really good, you talk about dubious figures worked out using formula and then you imagine you have someway to measure how individual people feel will feel based on nothing but your United tinted specs buddy.

United inflated the market, Chelsea built on that and now City and PSG are inflating it more but in a very different way. You can't seem to accept that but there are numerous sources pointing this out, it's also pointed out used the Tomkins TPI method and all come to very similar values...

Genuine mathematical methods by people who know such stuff to figure out player costs - Dubious
You having the ability to tell people exactly how much or little they'll feel in comparison to others - Logical

This is exactly the issue with most our discussions right there my friend. Red tinted specs.

What colour tinted specs do expect people to have on this Forum then?

It's a fecking United Forum, we hate & despise City and everything about it, except those that chose to worship at the temple of the Lord Pepus, of course.

 

[JPRouve]

Then you've spent money to buy the materials, gear to build it, etc. You still have spent money to have that car. That money isn't just going to disappear as if you've never had to spend it in the first place after you sell the car.

What ultimately matter is profit. If your car cost you 1000 to build it, and you sell it for 1m, then you've made a profit of 900k. If it cost you nothing, then the profit is 1m. If it cost 2m, then it cost you more than you made from its sale. However you probably used it before selling, so obviously you've got mileage out of it, so the worth of your car when you sold it was obviously less than when you built/bought it

Are you trying to kill accountants?

 

[SER19]

As hilarious as Man Utd fans complaining about City's transfer spending (Reference: http://www.skysports.com/football/n...sive-premier-league-transfers-in-todays-money)

Can include @padr81 here too though I see a discussion with you as a waste of both of our time. United inflated nothing they spent in line with rivals and less than the big continental deals until city and PSG game and changed what today’s money even means, dubious in that many figures namely Veron and van nistelrooy bought in the same summer have a really distorted gap between the fees. But these lists are great for burying your head in the sand about city and their dirty oil fuelled reality.

So you’re just ignoring that since the league began city have spent MORE than united.
Adjusted for inflation, it’s still close.
This despite city spent loads of that time in the lower leagues. Should united slow down while sustaining success with youth players and a great manager just so City can keep pace. (Keeping in mind most years since the league began there was always somebody outspending us)

United were top because of Ferguson and Liverpool and Chelsea have matched them for about 15 years. Before that Newcastle and Blackburn were spending more than them. United sustained success, winning the double after a year of no signings and selling three key playersfor example. That we’ve been on top since 1992 means the difference between Newcastle Blackburn and Leeds has grown but that’s their problem. Ferguson sustained us. Along came a new challenger in arsenal, Chelsea and the sustained spend of Liverpool.

Then Ferguson left and the natural order of football meant a vacancy. But there is no natural order now. City have spent 1.3bn in 8 years, bought the title a few times, will buy a champions league for certain. This is a guarantee and that’s the problem for me, the game is dead with it.

If you don’t see that 1.3bn dropped In 8 years means greater inflation than the same sum over nearly three decades you need to go back to school. It’s not red tinted specs, it’s just fact and the only time united started to spend outlandishly (and badly) was when city just started blowing everyone out of the water. They’ve ruined the game with their pals at PSG and other sugar daddy clubs, but keep enjoying it. They keep buying more trophies and making super cool,documentaries showing what a virtuous club they are.

Like I said initially, you will have great success and enjoy it, but it doesn’t really matter. Just like when abramovich bought Chelsea it was clear they would win a champions league. They did. Was it worth it? Ask them I suppose but not many people look at Chelsea as anything other than a sugar daddy club without much soul. City are even worse. You’ll simply never know what genuine success is like. Even the Aguero moment was just the inevitability of a few years of insane spending. In my opinion it’s just way too artificial to be enjoyable. I’d prefer be Wigan and win the fa cup the way they did

 

[B20]

Did a rough check

ManUtd - 603 million pounds
Liverpool 568 million pounds + around 20MP players out on loan
Chelsea - 572 million + 120 million worth of players out on loan
City - 768 million pounds.

Cheers.

Thought City would be further ahead than that, given how quality of players they have on their bench.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I see no reason why big clubs shouldn't spend a lot of money. They have it and they want to succeed so they go that route, I don't see a problem.
Like I said, even after spending that money you still need to do the work and get the team going. I don't mind huge transfer fees at all, so long as the team is set up well and ends up playing nice football. City plays the best football in the world and I consider them as favourites to win the Champions League, so well done to Pep. In my book, any transfer fee is justified when you end up with this.

City aren't a big club. Just a club with rich, human rights abusing and financial account fiddling owners.

 

[padr81]

Can include @padr81 here too though I see a discussion with you as a waste of both of our time. United inflated nothing they spent in line with rivals and less than the big continental deals until city and PSG game and changed what today’s money even means, dubious in that many figures namely Veron and van nistelrooy bought in the same summer have a really distorted gap between the fees. But these lists are great for burying your head in the sand about city and their dirty oil fuelled reality.

So you’re just ignoring that since the league began city have spent MORE than united.
Adjusted for inflation, it’s still close.
This despite city spent loads of that time in the lower leagues. Should united slow down while sustaining success with youth players and a great manager just so City can keep pace. (Keeping in mind most years since the league began there was always somebody outspending us)

United were top because of Ferguson and Liverpool and Chelsea have matched them for about 15 years. Before that Newcastle and Blackburn were spending more than them. United sustained success, winning the double after a year of no signings and selling three key playersfor example. That we’ve been on top since 1992 means the difference between Newcastle Blackburn and Leeds has grown but that’s their problem. Ferguson sustained us. Along came a new challenger in arsenal, Chelsea and the sustained spend of Liverpool.

Then Ferguson left and the natural order of football meant a vacancy. But there is no natural order now. City have spent 1.3bn in 8 years, bought the title a few times, will buy a champions league for certain. This is a guarantee and that’s the problem for me, the game is dead with it.

If you don’t see that 1.3bn dropped In 8 years means greater inflation than the same sum over nearly three decades you need to go back to school. It’s not red tinted specs, it’s just fact and the only time united started to spend outlandishly (and badly) was when city just started blowing everyone out of the water. They’ve ruined the game with their pals at PSG and other sugar daddy clubs, but keep enjoying it. They keep buying more trophies and making super cool,documentaries showing what a virtuous club they are.

Like I said initially, you will have great success and enjoy it, but it doesn’t really matter. Just like when abramovich bought Chelsea it was clear they would win a champions league. They did. Was it worth it? Ask them I suppose but not many people look at Chelsea as anything other than a sugar daddy club without much soul. City are even worse. You’ll simply never know what genuine success is like. Even the Aguero moment was just the inevitability of a few years of insane spending. In my opinion it’s just way too artificial to be enjoyable. I’d prefer be Wigan and win the fa cup the way they did

In line with other teams you're having a laugh buddy.

You broke the English transfer record on Veron for £28m, Ferdinand for £29m when the previous record was Alan Shearer for £15m.. Thats almost a 100% jump in prices.
You broke the record 5 times since the first time you did it in 1981. In that time City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Liverpool and Arsenal have broken it once a piece.
Most times breaking the transfer record since 1981 - Manchester United 5, Real Madrid 3 everyone else 1.

98-99 - United buy the two most expensive signings of the season.
01-02 - Veron and RVN. Veron cost €42m by comparison the most expensive non-United signing was Robbie Keane for €18m, less than half the price.
02-03 - Rio is signed for €46m, most expensive non United signing is Anelka for €16m (1/3rd of the price).

Then came the Chelsea era, Chelsea who are a sugar daddy team according to you took until 2006 to sign a player for that kind of money. 3 years into Roman's spending.

Of course we've spent more because we started later when prices were more inflated, its how you spunked so much money on Di Maria, Pogba, Lukaku etc.. the further along and the more inflated the fees are the higher they are. You put the market in that position. A signing you make in 2001 wasn't bettered by an English club till 2006 but prices were steadily rising.

 

[padr81]

City aren't a big club. Just a club with rich, human rights abusing and financial account fiddling owners.

Human rights again... sad that so many of you turned into activists but don't know a thing about the human rights abusers that have been sponsoring you for years.

 

[padr81]

What colour tinted specs do expect people to have on this Forum then?

It's a fecking United Forum, we hate & despise City and everything about it, except those that chose to worship at the temple of the Lord Pepus, of course.

You can hate what you like, perfectly entitled to, It doesn't mean you can dispense with logic over it.

 

[NikkiCFC]

We spent £328.5 for the last 8 years NET SPEND.

that's almost a BILLION LESS than the article states.

£41.1m per year net spend on average. Article is pointless.

 

[giorno]

Are you trying to kill accountants?

My girlfriend is an accountant so....maybe? i tend to drive people mad