[Acting all aggressive like] above our [mass times gravity]

[Cornish Steve]

Since Newty posted each club's total spending over the previous five years, I thought I would correlate with final league position. (I made adjustments for relegation and left out Watford and Bournemouth.) The results are quite revealing - and surprising. The first number shows total spend and the second is a rating based on average league position. The third shows just how much teams are punching above or below their weight.

 

Man City 473(1) 455(1) -
Chelsea 462(2) 428(2) -
Man Utd 413(3) 428(3) -
Liverpool 349(4) 365(6) -2
Arsenal 254(5) 414(4) +1
Spurs 254(6) 383(5) +1
Soton 164(7) 167(14) -7
N'castle 136(8) 234(9) -1
Villa 122(9) 171(13) -4
S'land 108(10) 180(12) -2
W'Ham 107(11) 149(15) -4
Everton 92(12) 333(7) +5
Swansea 80(13) 216(11) +2
Palace 75(14) 104(17) -3
WBA 75(15) 230(10) +5
Stoke 70(16) 234(8) +8
Norwich 63(17) 113(16) +1

Leicester 55(18) 36(18) -

 

So, here's the league table in terms of best bang for the buck.

 

1. Stoke

2. Everton

3. WBA

4. Swansea

5. Arsenal

6. Norwich

7. Spurs

8. Chelsea

9. Leicester

10. Man City

11. Man Utd

12. Newcastle

13. Liverpool

14. Sunderland

15. Palace

16. Villa

17. West Ham

18. Soton

 

Quite revealing, isn't it?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Cornish Steve

[markjazzbassist]

No doubt steve. The team I envy is arsenal. Debt free, managed well, business side ran well, owner is very hands off but willing to spend and help. Beautiful stadium, worldwide brand, and CL football year in and out.

 

They may not always win it but of the big boys to me at least, they are run a cut above the rest. Well oiled machine.

[Cornish Steve]

The biggest surprises for me were Stoke at the top and Soton at the bottom.

[markjazzbassist]

The biggest surprises for me were Stoke at the top and Soton at the bottom.

I wasn't too surprised at soton because they haven't been up long enough to stabilize so to speak financially. They're a selling club now, but a couple more solid top 10 finishes with more and more TV money and they might be around 0 or so.

 

Stoke is interesting. I guess it's a small market but have stayed up for a while so all that premier league money has helped? Pulis steady top 10 finishes?

 

Steve is this total of all revenue spend? Cause if so some of those teams have stadiums tied into that I believe. Could offset it some more.

Edited September 2, 2015 by markjazzbassist

[Cornish Steve]

Steve is this total of all revenue spend? Cause if so some of those teams have stadiums tied into that I believe. Could offset it some more.

 

You'll have to ask Newty that one, since I used his spending list.

[Hafnia]

I would say "NET SPEND" is the best indicator. If you use net spend then Spurs and Arsenal will be best bang for buck followed by southampton i'm guessing.

 

Net spend we are something like 3rd or 4th lowest so we will be up there.

 

The reality is this.... the clubs that pay the best wages = best positions. It really is as simple as that bar a few exceptions which change when the lower paid better perfromers negotitate or move to bigger spending clubs.

 

 

My point is:- with a great manager we will struggle win anything under this board and our operating model.

[Newty82]

The numbers were how many millions teams had spent the last 5 years on incoming transfers only. It was in relation to something about 'the more you spend, the better you are' type logic.

[Matt]

I've always hated that phrase....

[Cornish Steve]

I've always hated that phrase....

 

Made a slight modification for your benefit.

[Matt]

 

Made a slight modification for your benefit.

[smeghead1]

Does the figure include outgoing player fees? If it doesn't surely Southampton wouldn't be bottom as they must have received enough to pay their stadium off from the redshite and Utd alone.

[Romey 1878]

Made a slight modification for your benefit.

When I noticed the changed title I thought the board had gone mental!

[Matt]

When I noticed the changed title I thought the board had gone mental!

Me too

[Makis]

The biggest surprises for me were Stoke at the top and Soton at the bottom.

Soton is at the bottom because they have sold and bought a lot. Change to net spend and the results look different. They are also quite recent arrivals and does take time to build a PL team from a Championship team.

 

What's the idea that just money spent without considering sells is the best metric? If we sold Stones, Lukaku and Barkley and spent half that money on new players, we would need to improve our league position or our standings would fall.

[Cornish Steve]

Soton is at the bottom because they have sold and bought a lot. Change to net spend and the results look different. They are also quite recent arrivals and does take time to build a PL team from a Championship team.

 

What's the idea that just money spent without considering sells is the best metric? If we sold Stones, Lukaku and Barkley and spent half that money on new players, we would need to improve our league position or our standings would fall.

 

Nope. Newty posted some numbers and I correlated with league position. I'm simply too lazy to calculate net spend for all teams.

[Newty82]

Not sure where to post this as there have been a few different topics for this window!

 

Sky Sports have released a net spend table in this window.

 

You may be surprised to know that a decent amount of teams spent less NET than us...Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs to name a few.

 

But what is really surprising is that the NET spend of most teams is nothing to scream n shout about. And that most of the teams above us, actually still won't have a total squad equal to our quality. In my opinion anyway.

[markjazzbassist]

Not sure where to post this as there have been a few different topics for this window!

 

Sky Sports have released a net spend table in this window.

 

You may be surprised to know that a decent amount of teams spent less NET than us...Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs to name a few.

 

But what is really surprising is that the NET spend of most teams is nothing to scream n shout about. And that most of the teams above us, actually still won't have a total squad equal to our quality. In my opinion anyway.

 

already been posted in 2 different threads. net doesn't mean much cause we didn't sell this window, 2 years ago we were -10m net because we sold fellaini vic jelavic. next year we bought lukaku and were +28m.

 

so saying look at all the teams under us is short sighted, cause next year we might be on top or below. Net spending goes up and down varying on squad age and sell-able talent. Next summer we could be -60m net because we sold stones coleman lukaku and only spent 30m of it. People will be hailing us as the most financially solvent club, we made 60m! Everton have got it right! woo. when all they need to do is look at previous years to see it all evens out in the long term.

 

if you follow that trend you'll see we usually spend 20-30m (with the tv money influx) which is what a lot of guys on here expected and what we did spend (without selling)

Edited September 2, 2015 by markjazzbassist

[Newty82]

 

already been posted in 2 different threads. net doesn't mean much cause we didn't sell this window, 2 years ago we were -10m net because we sold fellaini vic jelavic. next year we bought lukaku and were +28m.

 

so saying look at all the teams under us is short sighted, cause next year we might be on top or below. Net spending goes up and down varying on squad age and sell-able talent. Next summer we could be -60m net because we sold stones coleman lukaku and only spent 30m of it. People will be hailing us as the most financially solvent club, we made 60m! Everton have got it right! woo. when all they need to do is look at previous years to see it all evens out in the long term.

 

if you follow that trend you'll see we usually spend 20-30m (with the tv money influx) which is what a lot of guys on here expected and what we did spend (without selling)

I did look in other threads but could see nothing of this Sky Sports thingy for this window??? And I've not read anything about net spend in this window only???

 

The post was only meant to be relevant to this window. Not 2 years ago, or next year. I know exactly what you are saying, and I agree. I maybe wasn't clear what my intentions were with the post.

 

There's been a lot of noise about our spend in this window. That it was maybe £15-£20 million less than people thought. That all these teams are spending all this money.

 

I was just surprised that the net amounts spent in this window seemed a lot less than I thought it would be.

[markjazzbassist]

I did look in other threads but could see nothing of this Sky Sports thingy for this window??? And I've not read anything about net spend in this window only???

 

The post was only meant to be relevant to this window. Not 2 years ago, or next year. I know exactly what you are saying, and I agree. I maybe wasn't clear what my intentions were with the post.

 

There's been a lot of noise about our spend in this window. That it was maybe £15-£20 million less than people thought. That all these teams are spending all this money.

 

I was just surprised that the net amounts spent in this window seemed a lot less than I thought it would be.

 

http://www.toffeetalk.com/index.php?/topic/27212-summer-transfer-window-2015/page-8

 

schwarzy posted it from the mirror

[Newty82]

 

http://www.toffeetalk.com/index.php?/topic/27212-summer-transfer-window-2015/page-8

 

schwarzy posted it from the mirror

AH my fault.

 

For some reason, I very rarely look at the non Everton threads!

[markjazzbassist]

AH my fault.

 

For some reason, I very rarely look at the non Everton threads!

 

no worries man, it's a good article you're right, regardless of your position on the board it offers concrete numbers which is nice.

[markjazzbassist]

http://www.espnfc.us/blog/tactics-and-analysis/67/post/2476622/premier-league-dominance-is-down-to-wages-but-can-be-broken

 

good article. doesn't talk about transfer spending but instead that wages are what determine position. top 4 wages get top 4 position the vast majority of the time.

[Shukes]

Great let's just pit Gibson on 500k a week and we'll finish top 4!

Don't like these articles as they miss the whole point most the time.

 

Top four wages don't get you top four.

 

You pay top four wages due to having top four players. Players get you top four.

[markjazzbassist]

Great let's just pit Gibson on 500k a week and we'll finish top 4!

Don't like these articles as they miss the whole point most the time.

 

Top four wages don't get you top four.

 

You pay top four wages due to having top four players. Players get you top four.

Yes shukes. But to get top players you have to pay top wages.

[Shukes]

That is true too.

[Makis]

Yes shukes. But to get top players you have to pay top wages.

You also need a big transfer pot to get those players in the first place.

[Matt]

You also need a big transfer pot to get those players in the first place.

or have savvy scouts and develop players. Depends what kind of club you want

[Makis]

or have savvy scouts and develop players. Depends what kind of club you want

How many clubs in England have managed to win the Premier League with this plan?

[Matt]

How many clubs in England have managed to win the Premier League with this plan?

united, Arsenal but that's about it.

 

I'm noT saying there's a right or wrong way, I just prefer scouting over over paying for "the finished" article.

[Makis]

ManU bought their spine, though. Schmeichel, Cantona, Keane etc. were crucial in the 90's and later they bought players like Ferdinand, Rooney and van Persie to bring them trophies. Arsenal. And what would Arsene's early teams have been without Bergkamp, Henry and Viera? They all cost some serious money at the time.

 

So you don't need City like money but you do need enough to add quality to your side. Moyes managed to build good teams but his teams always lacked that little extra. Had he had money to buy three or four quality players who knows what might have happened. But the club could never afford the 50+ million.