Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

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 by Cornish Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by markjazzbassist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by markjazzbassist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...