Author Topic: Premier League spending since 1992  (Read 7785 times)

Offline _Redman

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,137
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Premier League spending since 1992
« on: June 10, 2013, 02:54:10 pm »
are those figures real then??

01. Chelsea - €1,046,623,600
02. Man City - € 742,440,600
03. Liverpool - € 724,801,440
04. Man United - € 670,190,400
05. Tottenham - € 619,778,720
06. Arsenal - € 475,090,000
07. NewCastle - € 467,192,000
08. Aston Villa - € 366,556,960
09. Everton - € 300,890,480
10. Sunderland - € 297,015,840

also:

http://crazyfootty.blogspot.gr/2011/07/net-spend-of-each-premier-league-club.html

http://soccerdelirium.com/2010/04/28/net-spend-of-each-premier-league-club/

http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/130323/premier-league-net-spend-figures-club-revealed-2006-when-arsenal-moved-s-194227?p=19

Offline Hij

  • Literally Custom-titlely neglected for literally over a decade, Ruud.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,025
  • Justice for Anne Williams. Justice for the 97.
    • Grime Forum
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2013, 03:14:56 pm »
I would like to see wage spending since 1992.
Justice for Anne Williams. Justice for the 97. Justice for the Survivors.

Istanbul 2005. Athens 2007. Basel 2016. Kiev 2018. Madrid 2019. Paris 2022.

Offline Mercer

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,465
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2013, 03:17:33 pm »
Villa have spent  € 366,556,960!

On what?

And surprised Spurs total spend isn't higher. They seem to buy a new squad every other window.

Offline Semi Skimmed

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2013, 03:41:22 pm »
Villa have spent  € 366,556,960!

On what?

And surprised Spurs total spend isn't higher. They seem to buy a new squad every other window.

Net spend though, mate. Spurs always get big bucks from many of their sales. £80m on just three players alone, off the top of my head (Berbatov, Carrick, Modric).

Offline elpistolero7

  • Biggest waste of space in history.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,057
  • What's in a name anyway? No, I'm not bitter.
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2013, 03:43:13 pm »
Well that's a bit depressing.
What belongs to you, but is used by others?

Offline -Willo-

  • -the wisp-
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,488
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2013, 03:48:00 pm »
Are people really surprised to see us so high? ???

Offline JackBauer

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,017
    • Some statistics
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2013, 03:50:53 pm »
I would like to see wage spending since 1992.

Right. Without any indication of what clubs have spent on wages this table only tells half the story.
DAMMIT!

Offline JohnHobbes

  • Resident Expert Paronomasian
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,358
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2013, 03:54:47 pm »
Taking the ten seconds it takes to load up transferleague.co.uk then our spending since 92/93 is:


Combined Totals   
£601,005,000 = Total Spent
£333,970,000 = Total Received
£267,035,000 = Net Spend

So if the exchange rate of Euro to Sterling was sufficiently high at the right times, then maybe the overall gross spend is right but net spend is clearly a lot lot lower. Research is a wonderful thing eh?

Offline ocecynwa

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2013, 04:43:23 pm »
Net spend argument commence...

Remember when we used to sing "we've got the best midfield in the world'? Not so much anymore.

Offline El Lobo

  • Chief Suck Up. Feel his breath on your face. Toxic, pathetic, arse-faced, weaselling slimeball. RAWK Maths Genius 2022.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 54,990
  • Pretty, pretty, pretty pretty good
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2013, 04:53:31 pm »
From this we can confirm that since 1992, Yernited and Arsenal have been far better run, Chelsea and Manchester City have been taken over by sugar daddies, and Spurs and Everton have spent less but also been much less successful and played in Europe far less frequently than us....?

Shocker.

I wonder if Spurs would swap their two League Cups, one season in the CL and £105 million for our Champions League, UEFA Cup, three FA Cups, four League Cups, Two Super Cups and Two Community Shields?

The difference between Spurs and Liverpool per season in the PL is £5 million. I'd take that with our trophies and European success, thanks.

Lets try not to get too doom and gloom by basing the last 21 years spending on what we've done in the last four seasons.

Oh and it'd be interesting to see how much extra we've earned in that time through European money in comparison to Spurs and Everton. Tag another column on there and all of a sudden it'd look VERY different.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 04:55:04 pm by El Lobo »
If he's being asked to head the ball too frequently - which isn't exactly his specialty - it could affect his ear and cause an infection. Especially if the ball hits him on the ear directly.

Offline RedHopper

  • Hopping to a mightily lofty position and enjoying the view. If only custom titles could be in proportion to the member's average post length? My, what fun we could have! Imagine the sheer edification to be derived from testing the character limi
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,187
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2013, 05:21:43 pm »
I think if you were to look at a similar table covering the 1990-2000 period we'd be top in terms of Fees and wages. We wasted a lot of money in that decade, while man utd spent the difference on building a stadium. That was the decade where we seriously lost our way as a club.

A substantial part of the reason that our gross spending is so high is that we turn over so many players every season. Since the arrival of Houllier it's basically been seven in, seven out every season. We're continuously in a state of transition. we effectively turn over our entire squad every 3 1/2 seasons. By contrast Man utd had pretty consistently 3.5 players in/out every season throughout ferguson's reign. They turn over their entire squad every 7 years. That seems a lot more realistic approach.

Last season we signed five players over three windows, took another on loan, and signed a player for the reserves. We moved 8 players out, and sent carroll and spearing on loan. The season, Carra, gulacsi and wilson have already gone. Carroll isn't even being let back on the premises to pick up his stuff until he signs for west ham, and we're easily going to be moving on another three players. Whether it's Skrtel and Coates getting the boot, or Suarez going to madrid, or pepe going to barca, or spearing, shelvey and assaidi finding buyers. We're probably going to sell at least three of those players.

I suppose that since we're trying to build a squad that is able to play a passing game, with a high defensive line, and the ability to press as a team. We're also trying to rebalance our wage bill, so that it makes some actual sense, so it's only reasonable for us to be performing such surgery on our squad. But at some point, it's going to have to all settle down.

By signing younger players, that are fitted to a specific system of play, hopefully more will stick, and gradually we can reduce the number of players we need to get rid of. Hopefully some day, it can get to the point where we are adding just four good players to freshen up and improve our squad, rather than signing seven gambles and hoping that half work out.

At some point it is going to have to stop. The endless churning of players. It becomes confusing after a while. Watching liverpool over the last decade, the memories of great players doing great things is balanced by the blurry memories of an endless stream of interchangeably average players who were here for a couple of seasons, and then left, leaving you wondering why were they signed in the first place. We're basically pretty awful in the transfer market, and we have to find some way to improve. 


Offline GBF

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,043
  • The only religion with a God that you can touch!
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2013, 05:26:11 pm »
I would like to see wage spending since 1992.

me too
01111001 01101111 01110101 00100111 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101110 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110111 01100001 01101100 01101011 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100101

Offline Madan

  • Chaulet. Made in Manchestah. Grand Old Team. Undecided.
  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2013, 05:51:36 pm »
Tottenham come across as the worst. Fifth highest spenders and what have they got to show for it? Not much at all. Same goes for Newcastle too.

There's no doubt we should of done done better with the amount we have spent since 1992, but hey we've still got an European Cup to show for it. Along with 2 FA Cups, 4 League Cups, 1 UEFA Cup and a few Community Shields and Super Cups sprinkled on top.

The last 20 years could have certainly been more fruitful, but the addition of the big one to make it five, went a long way to making up for our league failings. Not too forget a few of the magical Carlsberg Trophy successes either.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,912
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2013, 06:05:43 pm »
I think if you were to look at a similar table covering the 1990-2000 period we'd be top in terms of Fees and wages. We wasted a lot of money in that decade, while man utd spent the difference on building a stadium. That was the decade where we seriously lost our way as a club.

A substantial part of the reason that our gross spending is so high is that we turn over so many players every season. Since the arrival of Houllier it's basically been seven in, seven out every season. We're continuously in a state of transition. we effectively turn over our entire squad every 3 1/2 seasons. By contrast Man utd had pretty consistently 3.5 players in/out every season throughout ferguson's reign. They turn over their entire squad every 7 years. That seems a lot more realistic approach.

Last season we signed five players over three windows, took another on loan, and signed a player for the reserves. We moved 8 players out, and sent carroll and spearing on loan. The season, Carra, gulacsi and wilson have already gone. Carroll isn't even being let back on the premises to pick up his stuff until he signs for west ham, and we're easily going to be moving on another three players. Whether it's Skrtel and Coates getting the boot, or Suarez going to madrid, or pepe going to barca, or spearing, shelvey and assaidi finding buyers. We're probably going to sell at least three of those players.

I suppose that since we're trying to build a squad that is able to play a passing game, with a high defensive line, and the ability to press as a team. We're also trying to rebalance our wage bill, so that it makes some actual sense, so it's only reasonable for us to be performing such surgery on our squad. But at some point, it's going to have to all settle down.

By signing younger players, that are fitted to a specific system of play, hopefully more will stick, and gradually we can reduce the number of players we need to get rid of. Hopefully some day, it can get to the point where we are adding just four good players to freshen up and improve our squad, rather than signing seven gambles and hoping that half work out.

At some point it is going to have to stop. The endless churning of players. It becomes confusing after a while. Watching liverpool over the last decade, the memories of great players doing great things is balanced by the blurry memories of an endless stream of interchangeably average players who were here for a couple of seasons, and then left, leaving you wondering why were they signed in the first place. We're basically pretty awful in the transfer market, and we have to find some way to improve. 



Manchester United got a load of talent in, all at the same time, all for free that lasted for decades. Hasn't remotely happened since. That's enough to massively skew the figures before you even start.
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

Offline Hij

  • Literally Custom-titlely neglected for literally over a decade, Ruud.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,025
  • Justice for Anne Williams. Justice for the 97.
    • Grime Forum
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2013, 06:17:16 pm »
I think if you were to look at a similar table covering the 1990-2000 period we'd be top in terms of Fees and wages. We wasted a lot of money in that decade, while man utd spent the difference on building a stadium. That was the decade where we seriously lost our way as a club.

Some merit in that, but also manipulating the figures somewhat when you decide on the time frame to focus on in particular.

Quote
A substantial part of the reason that our gross spending is so high is that we turn over so many players every season. Since the arrival of Houllier it's basically been seven in, seven out every season. We're continuously in a state of transition. we effectively turn over our entire squad every 3 1/2 seasons. By contrast Man utd had pretty consistently 3.5 players in/out every season throughout ferguson's reign. They turn over their entire squad every 7 years. That seems a lot more realistic approach.
Definitely, under Benitez we definitely made a lot of purchases and sales, but I would guess that when you are looking to build upon, or add to a title winning / challenging squad, you are more likely to make those 3.5~ changes rather than attempt to upgrade other positions en masse. Manchester United haven't really required an overhaul for ages, they have a track record of big spending on young players to add to their team that eventually take up squad or first team places later on, whether Rio Ferdinand (£30m), Phil Jones (£17m), Carrick (£18m), Rooney (£28m), Nani (£13.5m), Anderson (£15.5m), Smalling (£10m), De Gea (£18m), Hargreaves (£17m), Kagawa (£12m)

Then there is still relatively young players in Valencia (£16m), Young (£17m) Veron (£28m) van Nistelrooy (£19m). Spending that until recently, we haven't really been able to match - or if we have spent that, we've had to spread the money over 2-3 players for multiple positions, or have been out of the top European competition and been a less attractive move, whereas Man United have had the luxury of adding one or two each year to bolster an already strong squad and keep things stable- that's definitely an advantage - one that has been borne out due to their success perhaps, but the only time we had the chance to do similar, we screwed up the window somewhat, but also had to sell in order to raise capital to invest- what a difference it might have been had Hicks and Gillett not been at the club in the summer of 2009 and we could have built upon, rather than start to break up that squad- imagine adding to that team with a solid, proper net spend, mouth watering times we could have had. I'm so gutted, as I believe Benitez almost had us at the level where he could then make those 2-3 signings per season and keep us up in the top four. If only...

Quote
By signing younger players, that are fitted to a specific system of play, hopefully more will stick, and gradually we can reduce the number of players we need to get rid of. Hopefully some day, it can get to the point where we are adding just four good players to freshen up and improve our squad, rather than signing seven gambles and hoping that half work out.

This is exactly where I hope we are headed towards, and I am pretty excited by the direction we are going in now regarding younger players.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 06:23:22 pm by Hij »
Justice for Anne Williams. Justice for the 97. Justice for the Survivors.

Istanbul 2005. Athens 2007. Basel 2016. Kiev 2018. Madrid 2019. Paris 2022.

Offline Ziltoid

  • Grass. See you at next year's panto (oh no you won't!). Carrot-topped Phallic Snowman Extraordinaire.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,441
  • Scrubbers
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2013, 06:27:01 pm »
Manchester United got a load of talent in, all at the same time, all for free that lasted for decades. Hasn't remotely happened since. That's enough to massively skew the figures before you even start.

Agree with that, Andy. The chances of it happening again are practically zero (especially in the UK)

Offline RedHopper

  • Hopping to a mightily lofty position and enjoying the view. If only custom titles could be in proportion to the member's average post length? My, what fun we could have! Imagine the sheer edification to be derived from testing the character limi
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,187
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2013, 06:28:28 pm »
Manchester United got a load of talent in, all at the same time, all for free that lasted for decades. Hasn't remotely happened since. That's enough to massively skew the figures before you even start.

Hmm, I don't think that you can really make that distinction. It was still pretty much 3 or 4 in and 3 or 4 out before and after that point.  Filling out their squad with players from their academy has been a pretty consistent thing for them. John O'Shea, Wes Brown, Darren Fletcher and Jonny Evans have enabled them to avoid buying squad players for those positions. I agree that they never really had the same number of first team players as from that initial burst, but they compensated for that by focussing their big spending on finding those players at a young age and keeping them.

The state of turmoil as regards squad turnover actually gives us the opportunity to rely a little bit more on our own youth players. Sterling and Wisdom made the step up to first team football this season. Suso seems to be a little bit behind them. If we can start to gradually increase the number of players from the academy that we are using as squad players, then we can develop them, and focus our spending on a signing a smaller number of players. 

Offline peelyon

  • strangefruit
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,683
  • YNWA
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2013, 06:45:21 pm »
Manchester United got a load of talent in, all at the same time, all for free that lasted for decades. Hasn't remotely happened since. That's enough to massively skew the figures before you even start.

Skew the figures possibly but for me it's the fact they have been able to sell on players who are past it or not good enough for a few million here and there to clubs like Sunderland etc that have made a big difference. We can't complain too much though, too many times we have bought players who haven't made the grade and we have let them fade away and go for next to nothing.

Offline markedasred

  • Knowing me, Knowing you... ahaaa!!! Resident Large Canine.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,489
  • No Murdoch in our house
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2013, 08:41:45 pm »
At least we have the prospect of the more fruitful academy over the coming decade. We are probably without peers in terms of talent coming through the ranks at the moment - definitely in the uk. So much more rewarding than the sugar daddy spend.
"For those of you watching in black and white, Liverpool are the team with the ball"

Offline Dani LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,238
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2013, 09:35:28 pm »

Feel free to discuss them, but those numbers are ridiculously inaccurate.

Offline RedHopper

  • Hopping to a mightily lofty position and enjoying the view. If only custom titles could be in proportion to the member's average post length? My, what fun we could have! Imagine the sheer edification to be derived from testing the character limi
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,187
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2013, 09:48:04 pm »
No they're fairly accurate if it;s €1.20 to the pound. They understate man city a bit though according to transfer league.co.uk 

Offline RedHopper

  • Hopping to a mightily lofty position and enjoying the view. If only custom titles could be in proportion to the member's average post length? My, what fun we could have! Imagine the sheer edification to be derived from testing the character limi
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,187
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2013, 09:51:08 pm »
Some merit in that, but also manipulating the figures somewhat when you decide on the time frame to focus on in particular.

not really. It's just the point where having a smaller stadium, and not having permanent CL football meant that we weren't spending the most any more. We had a financial advantage over the other clubs in that decade, and yet we didn't win the title once. After that other clubs were spending more.

Quote
Definitely, under Benitez we definitely made a lot of purchases and sales, but I would guess that when you are looking to build upon, or add to a title winning / challenging squad, you are more likely to make those 3.5~ changes rather than attempt to upgrade other positions en masse. Manchester United haven't really required an overhaul for ages, they have a track record of big spending on young players to add to their team that eventually take up squad or first team places later on, whether Rio Ferdinand (£30m), Phil Jones (£17m), Carrick (£18m), Rooney (£28m), Nani (£13.5m), Anderson (£15.5m), Smalling (£10m), De Gea (£18m), Hargreaves (£17m), Kagawa (£12m)


I think you're talking about two slightly separate things. The thing is that a lot of the players rafa bought were much of a muchness. Either they didn't settle, or just weren't that great to begin with, but players came and went, while we built the core of a very good team. I think it ultimately boils down to better scouting, and working hard to integrate all new signings into the team.

I think if you look at the pattern of the last couple of years you can pick out three periods where man utd won four out of five league titles, then had a bit of a spell in the wilderness, and then come back with a new team. They also struggle in europe when they're doing this rebuilding spell. but can do quite well when they're winning those titles.

I also think you underestimate the amount of turnover at man utd. It happens on a continuous basis.  I think they're in the middle of a substantial overhaul over the last three seasons. A lot of the players from the team that won three titles in a row are gone. Only Vidic, ferdinand, Carrick, Giggs, Evra, Rooney, fletcher, Nani  and anderson remain from the squad that won the CL in 2008. And you'd have to doubt the futures of the last five. Either way There's going to be very few of those players at the club in 2014-15. They try to build a team that is young enough to go for five seasons, before being largely overhauled, with the young players from the first team, becoming the older players in the next team. They basically keep players for longer than us. We need to sign players that we can count on to become important first team players for five or six seasons.

We need to start thinking in that timespan.  At the moment, I would only say that Coutinho, Sturridge, Sterling and wisdom look like they are currently in that category. Hopefully Allen, borini and aspas can prove themselves this year. The rest of the current squad with the possible exception of kelly and maybe henderson, aren't going to be around in five years time. The more players we add in this category, the more rapidly we can reduce the turnover in the squad. 

I suppose the thing is what can we learn from that?   The first is patience. Ferguson stuck with rooney and ronaldo in europe, even though they didn't score a goal in europe until the quarter final first leg against Roma in 2007. (apart from a hattrick on rooney's debut) Then they beat roma 7-1, and suddenly they started to score against everyone. The thing was that they had to suck up three or four pretty shitty european seasons while they waited for them to get the finger out.

Ferguson bought David De Gea because he was prepared to suck up a couple of shaky years where he learned how to deal with crosses, because he thinks that he could become their goalkeeper for the next 10 or 15 years. And he has kind of improved. That's one shitty problem that the new manager won't have. Or possibly the manager after him.  They bought Kagawa because they think that after one year to settle in, he can do it for them for at least five years, and possibly more. phil jones cost a lot of money but they think he could be at the club for 10 years. Even if he only ever becomes some kind of athletic John O'Shea, that's an immensely valuable player to have.

The difference for us though is that we don't have european football to offer players who come to us. It puts pressure on us to get there before the players we sign get irritated and want to move on. If we don't get back to the CL then how long will coutinho want to stay, and the process has to begin again.  I'd be happy if we were able to move ahead of everton, and seriously close the gap on arsenal and spurs. We're effectively competing with them for one CL place, and we've got a lot of ground to make up. But we're probably not going to pass out both of them in one season. we have to get Uefa cup football next season, and be in a position to have a realistic chance of finishing ahead of arsenal and spurs the season after. After that it might well become difficult to hold onto our better players.

Quote
Then there is still relatively young players in Valencia (£16m), Young (£17m) Veron (£28m) van Nistelrooy (£19m). Spending that until recently, we haven't really been able to match - or if we have spent that, we've had to spread the money over 2-3 players for multiple positions, or have been out of the top European competition and been a less attractive move, whereas Man United have had the luxury of adding one or two each year to bolster an already strong squad and keep things stable- that's definitely an advantage - one that has been borne out due to their success perhaps, but the only time we had the chance to do similar, we screwed up the window somewhat, but also had to sell in order to raise capital to invest- what a difference it might have been had Hicks and Gillett not been at the club in the summer of 2009 and we could have built upon, rather than start to break up that squad- imagine adding to that team with a solid, proper net spend, mouth watering times we could have had. I'm so gutted, as I believe Benitez almost had us at the level where he could then make those 2-3 signings per season and keep us up in the top four. If only...


I think It's possible to overstate the impact of H&G on the financial state of our club, because we never really made enough money for them to take all that much out of the club. you're also overlooking that regardless of who was in charge of the club, xabi alonso and alvaro arbeloa were always going to move to real madrid. We then went out and spent the money on Aquilani and Glen Johnson, and quite frankly, that didn't work out very well for us. We had just bizarrely bought and sold Robbie Keane at great expense. I think the problem was in rafa's last year, our wage bill started to explode as our team suddenly seemed to fall apart. Our wages jumped 20% in rafa's last season. It's not like our financial difficulties stopped us from spending an extra £18 million on wages in the 2009-10 season. I think the impacts of the gradually exploding wagebill over the next couple of years were considerably more damaging to the club than the impact of HIcks and Gillette, who seem to have wound up getting their fingers burned, and the impact on the club of their borrowing finished with the takeover by FSG. 

Basically I think that much of what has happened over the last four seasons have been consistently appalling, however it's not a sudden thing that can be blamed primarily one event or one group of people, but it is the culmination of a lot of different things that turned us from a title challenging team into a team that bounces around seventh while losing a lot of money, in such a short space of time. Certain characters in our recent history have been a lot less savoury than others, but we're only going to avoid making the same mistakes again if we carefully examine where it went wrong and apportion blame accordingly without picking favourites. ultimately our spending on wages suddenly went out of control, just as we plummeted out of the champions league. We started to make a lot of bad moves in the transfer market and we've wound up paying the price. We're not going to be in a hicks and gillette situation again, so the lesson is to keep control of wages, and keep the focus on getting value for money.

Offline Dani LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,238
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2013, 09:52:41 pm »
No they're fairly accurate if it;s €1.20 to the pound. They understate man city a bit though according to transfer league.co.uk 

Like I have said, those numbers are ridiculously inaccurate.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y

Offline RedHopper

  • Hopping to a mightily lofty position and enjoying the view. If only custom titles could be in proportion to the member's average post length? My, what fun we could have! Imagine the sheer edification to be derived from testing the character limi
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,187
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2013, 10:06:39 pm »
But that tells me the rate is about €1.20 to the pound over the last year. EIther way, the order of the clubs is right and the ratio of the money spent is about right. It doesn't mean much without reference to massive inflation over the last 20 years, or without reference to sales or wages, or income.

Offline Dani LFC

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,238
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2013, 10:11:37 pm »
But that tells me the rate is about €1.20 to the pound over the last year. EIther way, the order of the clubs is right and the ratio of the money spent is about right. It doesn't mean much without reference to massive inflation over the last 20 years, or without reference to sales or wages, or income.

The only source on the net that has a remotely accurate database of the clubs' spending is:

http://www.transfermarkt.de/de/statistiken/wettbewerbe/transfers.html

But, even they only have the numbers in Euros at the time of the transfer, so a detailed analysis of the exchange rates is required if you want to get a rough picture on the clubs' spending in Pounds.

Even then, you don't have the numbers on wages, signing-on fees and agent fees, so the entire exercise is completely pointless.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 10:16:40 pm by Dani LFC »

Offline Redman0151

  • Stills and Nash Warloch
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 21,967
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2013, 11:14:11 pm »
Not a shock to see, everybody knows our club has spunked stupid cash on shite/average players for donkeys years now.

Depressing but true, guess that's been the problem with the club for 2 decades now, incompetent at a board level and no clear transfer strategy
"I would say we certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football." Tom Werner 12/04/2012

Offline Hij

  • Literally Custom-titlely neglected for literally over a decade, Ruud.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,025
  • Justice for Anne Williams. Justice for the 97.
    • Grime Forum
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2013, 01:35:14 pm »
I have some agreement and disagreement with your post Redhopper but unfortunately due to its length I'll have to reply later.
Justice for Anne Williams. Justice for the 97. Justice for the Survivors.

Istanbul 2005. Athens 2007. Basel 2016. Kiev 2018. Madrid 2019. Paris 2022.

Offline JohnHobbes

  • Resident Expert Paronomasian
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,358
Re: Premier League spending since 1992
« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2013, 01:50:17 pm »
Feel free to discuss them, but those numbers are ridiculously inaccurate.


That was my point.

No they're fairly accurate if it;s €1.20 to the pound. They understate man city a bit though according to transfer league.co.uk 

How can they be accurate if Man City's are wrong? Did the person creating them use a static exchange rate or calculate each year independently? Finally, why are we using Euro prices for Premier League club transfers in the first place?

All coming off a very strange OP, where the poster couldn't be bothered to do the research to check his own post first. How can we argue anything if the base data is in all likelihood flawed?