Net spend table since 2008/2009

[Thedelldays]

Here is a league table of how much money teams currently in the Premier League have spent on players since the start of the 2008/2009 season to date. It also takes into account players sold during this period.

 

1. Man City +407.15m

2. Chelsea +229.2m

3. Stoke City +75.18m

4. Aston Villa +69.75m

5. Liverpool +60.1m

6. Man Utd +57.05m

7. QPR + 54.15m

8. Sunderland +37.85m

9. West Ham +26.35m

10. Southampton +18.85m

11.Norwich +15.95m

12. West Brom +12.42m

13. Spurs +6.15m

14. Fulham +2.8

15. Swansea +2.48

16. Wigan -12.15m

17. Everton -15m

18. Reading -15.75m

19. Newcastle -38.3

20. Arsenal -45m

[Mark]

Surprised Stoke are third.

[for_heaven's_Saint]

Lol at Villa.

[Elias]

Surprised Stoke are third.

 

Stoke have spent loads to establish themselves in the Premier League. Crouch, Jones, Beattie, Palacios, Huth, Kitson, etc.

 

Not plucky underdogs by any measure.

[Colinjb]

Stoke above Villa. Ouch.

 

Puts our spending into context.

[shurlock]

We're on crack as CB Fry puts it. We should be more like Stoke, the epitome of temperance and moderation

[shurlock]

Would also be good to know how much of that spend is on players with resale value - Stoke do seem to buy a lot of players who are nearer the end than the start of their careers.

[Thedelldays]

Stoke above Villa. Ouch.

 

Puts our spending into context.

dont forget, we have only been premier league for 6 months in that time frame...considerably less than those two teams

[pap]

We're on crack as CB Fry puts it. We should be more like Stoke, the epitome of temperance and moderation

 

The boys at Football Weekly continually lance the "Stoke spend no money" myth.

 

I wonder how CB Fry would feel if we spent north of 70M and still played like that?

[DrZuess1979 the 2nd]

407m what a joke football gas become

[Colinjb]

dont forget, we have only been premier league for 6 months in that time frame...considerably less than those two teams

 

True. However, with the ages of the players we have I would expect one or two to leave and be sold on one way or another. That should offset things a bit, assuming we stay up of course.

[shurlock]

dont forget, we have only been premier league for 6 months in that time frame...considerably less than those two teams

 

But do you expect us to continue spending the same money we did in the summer? That was a necessary one-off to bring us up to speed with the prem;here on in, investment should be more incremental -that is, unless Cortese's serious about his plans. If so we better finish higher than Stoke and Villa.

[shurlock]

The boys at Football Weekly continually lance the "Stoke spend no money" myth.

 

I wonder how CB Fry would feel if we spent north of 70M and still played like that?

 

It is easy to be hoodwinked by the old school charms of pullis' cap and tracksuit.

£70m to watch hoofing garbage, money that could be spent on the health service and treating neck pain.

[Chewy]

What about arsenal? Champions league money every year ... There's something very wrong with that club.

[Thedelldays]

What about arsenal? Champions league money every year ... There's something very wrong with that club.

what do you mean...?

 

if anything, says what an amazing job wenger does whilst constantly selling his best players

[CB Fry]

Nice to see the dinlows out in force. Afternoon chaps.

 

This proves we have been spending like a lottery winner on crack. A higher net spend than Spurs who actually got in the champions league. And we've spent all but one of the seasons under review in the lower leagues, two seasons in the third tier. And mugs on here call our spending modest.

 

Secondly, if anyone can find anything remotely like me saying I want us to play like Stoke then quote it up, and I will get it tattooed on my arse.

 

Also any comment from me about Stoke not spending much, or being restrained or conservative in their spending. Post it up, bullshi tters.

 

Finally, lets all remember the visionaries want us to do so much better than Stoke with their solid mid table, cup final and European adventure. We're a megaclub aspiring far beyond all that rubbish, so why the obsession with what they spend?

Edited 26 January, 2013 by CB Fry

[Chewy]

what do you mean...?

 

if anything, says what an amazing job wenger does whilst constantly selling his best players

 

I mean how come they're the side investing least in the team over a 5 year period when they've had one of the most consistently high revenue streams in that time?

[pap]

Nice to see the dinlows out in force. Afternoon chaps.

 

This proves we have been spending like a lottery winner on crack. A higher net spend than Spurs who actually got in the champions league. And we've spent all but one of the seasons under review in the lower leagues, two seasons in the third tier. And mugs on here call our spending modest.

 

Secondly, if anyone can find anything remotely like me saying I want us to play like Stoke then quote it up, and I will get it tattooed on my arse.

 

Finally, lets all remember the visionaries want us to do so much better than Stoke with their solid mid table, cup final and European adventure. We're a megaclub aspiring far beyond all that rubbish, so why the obsession with what they spend?

 

Props for using the word dinlow, you ratbag

 

Lottery winner on crack? Arf. Once again you're using the most superficial evidence to back your points up. Spurs have a lower net spend than ours. Wow. Could that be because they have the uncanny knack of signing players and selling them on for enormous fee? Arsenal are great too, except they sell their best players every year.

 

You might not have said you want us to play like Stoke, but you definitely did say that they had a more engaging vision than Saints. What puts 'em over the top for you, CB Fry? The long ball? The long throws?

[CB Fry]

Props for using the word dinlow, you ratbag

 

Lottery winner on crack? Arf. Once again you're using the most superficial evidence to back your points up. Spurs have a lower net spend than ours. Wow. Could that be because they have the uncanny knack of signing players and selling them on for enormous fee? Arsenal are great too, except they sell their best players every year.

 

You might not have said you want us to play like Stoke, but you definitely did say that they had a more engaging vision than Saints. What puts 'em over the top for you, CB Fry? The long ball? The long throws?

 

So has our spend been modest or not then?

 

Stoke's vision? Owned by rich local rich dude. Found a manager to get them success and stick with them. Not wa nking on about the Champions League. Not being run by a rat faced utter cu nt. Enough for you?

 

 

Do find a post from me on how they play. Go on. Please do.

[Olallana]

Here is a league table of how much money teams currently in the Premier League have spent on players since the start of the 2008/2009 season to date. It also takes into account players sold during this period.

 

1. Man City +407.15m

2. Chelsea +229.2m

3. Stoke City +75.18m

4. Aston Villa +69.75m

5. Liverpool +60.1m

6. Man Utd +57.05m

7. QPR + 54.15m

8. Sunderland +37.85m

9. West Ham +26.35m

10. Southampton +18.85m

11.Norwich +15.95m

12. West Brom +12.42m

13. Spurs +6.15m

14. Fulham +2.8

15. Swansea +2.48

16. Wigan -12.15m

17. Everton -15m

18. Reading -15.75m

19. Newcastle -38.3

20. Arsenal -45m

 

any weblink on that one we can Tweet to Morgan Piers??

[VectisSaint]

dont forget, we have only been premier league for 6 months in that time frame...considerably less than those two teams

The table purports to include net spend in the whole period regardless of which league we were in. Therefore it would include the sale of Oxo at least (others?). Otherwise our spending would be significantly higher.

[Elias]

So has our spend been modest or not then?

 

Stoke's vision? Owned by rich local rich dude. Found a manager to get them success and stick with them. Not wa nking on about the Champions League. Not being run by a rat faced utter cu nt. Enough for you?

 

 

Do find a post from me on how they play. Go on. Please do.

 

And playing **** football, buying players with no resale value for stupid money. Smaller stadium and fan base too.

[Saint_clark]

what do you mean...?

 

if anything, says what an amazing job wenger does whilst constantly selling his best players

 

It also shows how happy the board are to do f*ck all football wise as long as the shareholders get paid high dividends.

[Thedelldays]

It also shows how happy the board are to do f*ck all football wise as long as the shareholders get paid high dividends.

I think somewhere I read that their stadium is a massive factor...their mortgage (which was huge) was for something like 10 years...????????

[verlaine1979]

This proves we have been spending like a lottery winner on crack. A higher net spend than Spurs who actually got in the champions league. And we've spent all but one of the seasons under review in the lower leagues, two seasons in the third tier. And mugs on here call our spending modest.

 

During the seasons in question in which we were in lower leagues our net spend was -£9.65m, so the inference that we over-spent throughout the whole period is pretty fatuous. I'm sure when we sell Shaw and Ramirez over the coming year or so, our net spend will return to somewhere close to zero, and we'll once again look like a model of prudent fiscal management.

[shurlock]

Nice to see the dinlows out in force. Afternoon chaps.

 

This proves we have been spending like a lottery winner on crack. A higher net spend than Spurs who actually got in the champions league. And we've spent all but one of the seasons under review in the lower leagues, two seasons in the third tier. And mugs on here call our spending modest.

 

Secondly, if anyone can find anything remotely like me saying I want us to play like Stoke then quote it up, and I will get it tattooed on my arse.

 

Also any comment from me about Stoke not spending much, or being restrained or conservative in their spending. Post it up, bullshi tters.

 

Finally, lets all remember the visionaries want us to do so much better than Stoke with their solid mid table, cup final and European adventure. We're a megaclub aspiring far beyond all that rubbish, so why the obsession with what they spend?

 

Morning dunderhead- to run with your endearing analogy for one minute, if we've won the lottery tickets, at least we're reinvesting the winnings in lottery tickets.

Given you're luvved up on all things Stoke -really is it the long throw or the long ball?- I'll afford you a simple example: compare our record signing with Stoke's: £12m on a 22-year old international who has significant resale value versus a 32-year old Peter Crouch who's ready for the donkey sanctuary. If one approach is risky but calculated, the other has few redeeming qualities. Add wages, established players demand more than youngsters and the difference is even more lobsided.

Indeed, I would be interested to know how much of our £18m has been spent on youngsters -Lambert and a few of Pards signings are the exceptions (one reason Pards ultimately fell out with Cortese).

The implication is that as players are bought and sold and their resale value realised, that figure should stabilise and perhaps, somewhst wishfully come down. It's no surprise that Arsenal that pioneered this strategy and has been executing it longer than we have are at the bottom of the table.

So bleat on about crack - the analogy adds f**k all to the debate and evidently f**ks with some peoples brains.

Edited 26 January, 2013 by shurlock

[CB Fry]

And playing **** football, buying players with no resale value for stupid money. Smaller stadium and fan base too.

 

 

 

Have a peanut. Never said I like all of Stoke's way of working and there is tons I love about our way of working and am very proud of.

 

But carry on.

[pap]

So has our spend been modest or not then?

 

Stoke's vision? Owned by rich local rich dude. Found a manager to get them success and stick with them. Not wa nking on about the Champions League. Not being run by a rat faced utter cu nt. Enough for you?

 

 

Do find a post from me on how they play. Go on. Please do.

 

You're talking boll0cks mate, as you were when you said they had a more engaging vision. You just don't like Cortese. Fair enough. I get that.

 

This nonsense at the end too, trying to win the argument by getting me to find somewhere you've said something highly specific. I already said that wasn't the case.

 

Funny thing is, even if I had, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Personally, I think on the pitch performances would be implicit in any vision, but you want us to ignore that. They are better because the chairman is a local boy. We tried that. Didn't work out too well, and didn't see any homeboys rolling in with the readies before Cortese introduced us to Liebherr.

 

Stick with the manager? While fair enough in the light of NA's sacking, that doesn't describe the situation up there. Think they've looked at clubs like Blackburn binning the likes of Allardyce, and thought "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They are not making that decision entirely out of loyalty. 75M net on players, all geared toward playing Pulis' style. Any new manager constitutes a massive gamble for them. They don't know how to do anything else.

 

You call that vision, I call it paralysis. Funny thing is, both Stoke and Saints have a "by any means necessary" approach to the game - it's just the sacrifices that each are prepared to make that differ. Cortese has no problem sacrificing managers. Stoke have no problem sacrificing football.

 

More engaging vision, my arse. Keep digging though. Australia is lovely at this time of year.

[CB Fry]

During the seasons in question in which we were in lower leagues our net spend was -£9.65m, so the inference that we over-spent throughout the whole period is pretty fatuous. I'm sure when we sell Shaw and Ramirez over the coming year or so, our net spend will return to somewhere close to zero, and we'll once again look like a model of prudent fiscal management.

 

The seasons in question including being in administration and prior to the takeover. Brilliant. Talk about fatuous.

[shurlock]

Will also add that the table leaves out wages -and from that perspective, a strategy of spending big on young players is cheaper than one of buying established stars.

[verlaine1979]

The seasons in question including being in administration and prior to the takeover. Brilliant. Talk about fatuous.

 

It was you who included a critique of the lower league seasons in your post, which I quoted for your convenience, so I'm afraid you must bear any accusations of fatuousness alone. Moreover, the sale of AOC, which accounts for most of the positive cashflow during the period happened post admin.

 

Since the date range for the figures at the start of this thread is pretty arbitrary, you could extend it back one year, at which point, our expenditure drops to about 6m while Spurs' rises to somewhere close to £40m, possibly explaining why they are currently a CL team, and we are not.

[Restark19]

Lets face it an £18m net spend to get from League 1 to the premier league is not bad at all. We could be in the same position as QPR or worse, P*mpey

[Frank's cousin]

Lets face it an £18m net spend to get from League 1 to the premier league is not bad at all. We could be in the same position as QPR or worse, P*mpey

 

Since 2008/9 18 mil net, or 6 mil a season... not sure that constitutes a 'crack' mentality... and I doubt our wages will be anywhere near those at many other clubs with one or two exceptions. But what does that matter, when the old miserable numpty CB, can use it as a sh!tty stick to beat his nemesis with...

[SaintBobby]

Interesting table, but as others have said, it's very partial.

 

You need to consider the capital value of the players you have and the wage bill.

 

Spending £30m on players is not a problem at all, if you can sell them on. It seems to me that Saints could quite easily realise tens of millions in player assets if, say, we were relegated.

 

Must say I'm surprised that Man Utd's net spend is only about £12m per annum.

[CB Fry]

Since 2008/9 18 mil net' date=' or 6 mil a season... not sure that constitutes a 'crack' mentality... and I doubt our wages will be anywhere near those at many other clubs with one or two exceptions. But what does that matter, when the old miserable numpty CB, can use it as a sh!tty stick to beat his nemesis with...[/quote']

 

 

 

What are you talking about? I'm not complaining about our spending, or using it as a stick to beat Cortese with. Usual fu cking idiocy from you.

 

My main point is about divs saying our spending has been "modest" when it hasn't.

 

Using your six mil a season equation...six million a season for two seasons in L1 is loads of money, and actually six mil is tonnes for the Championship.

 

Slice it and dice it how you like but we've spent a lot.

 

 

The hilarious thing is if I started a thread entitled "start coughing up Cortese you penny pincher" you planks would go apesh it.

[Frank's cousin]

Its misleading for another reason as well - transfer fees are are only a small part of the picture - teh wages bill is the biggest drain in most clubs - for every 20k a week its a 1mil so suspect we will be a lot lower in the table if thats factored in.....

[Polaroid Saint]

There was a great BBC sport article about the transfer league table before and after January - both the top team and the bottom placed team at Christmas spend less, and those immediately below or above spend more.

 

I've described that terribly, sorry, it was a great article honest. Hang on, I'll find it...

[Frank's cousin]

What are you talking about? I'm not complaining about our spending, or using it as a stick to beat Cortese with. Usual fu cking idiocy from you.

 

My main point is about divs saying our spending has been "modest" when it hasn't.

 

Using your six mil a season equation...six million a season for two seasons in L1 is loads of money, and actually six mil is tonnes for the Championship.

 

Slice it and dice it how you like but we've spent a lot.

 

 

The hilarious thing is if I started a thread entitled "start coughing up Cortese you penny pincher" you planks would go apesh it.

 

CB Fry, the most pleasent individual on the forum. You know feck all about other folks opinions because you never actually bother to try and understand, and just make sweeping assumptions and label - perhaps its easier for you ? No one has denied we have spent money, and no one is pretending there is no small element of concern about where the money is comming from. Its fair to assume, there has been some capital left as a legacy, but without that knowledge we are right to have that concern in the back of our minds.

 

You forget that the the original purchase price of the club, + the 6 mil a season in L1 and CCC was recently converted to equity -so its not as if there was some kind of gamble - you may not think it, but I doubt Cortese would have spunked 18mil if that was loans and high risk at that with L1 and CCC revenue levels - if he had he would have been mad. Therefore IMHO its NOT a big feckin deal to net spend 6 mil a season, when that has been covered by the owners.

 

Idiocy - you need to go back and read all your posts - and then take a long fricken look in the mirror - wont be pretty

[Polaroid Saint]

...found it!

 

Makes interesting reading.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20793698

[CB Fry]

CB Fry, the most pleasent individual on the forum. You know feck all about other folks opinions because you never actually bother to try and understand, and just make sweeping assumptions and label - perhaps its easier for you ? No one has denied we have spent money, and no one is pretending there is no small element of concern about where the money is comming from. Its fair to assume, there has been some capital left as a legacy, but without that knowledge we are right to have that concern in the back of our minds.

 

You forget that the the original purchase price of the club, + the 6 mil a season in L1 and CCC was recently converted to equity -so its not as if there was some kind of gamble - you may not think it, but I doubt Cortese would have spunked 18mil if that was loans and high risk at that with L1 and CCC revenue levels - if he had he would have been mad. Therefore IMHO its NOT a big feckin deal to net spend 6 mil a season, when that has been covered by the owners.

 

Idiocy - you need to go back and read all your posts - and then take a long fricken look in the mirror - wont be pretty

 

Thanks for dredging up a load of irrelevent old sh it on things I haven't even mentioned. Yaaaa-fu cking-wwwwn.

 

Look at your post history and reflect on just how suicidally tedious you are.

[Saint Without a Halo]

It also shows how happy the board are to do f*ck all football wise as long as the shareholders get paid high dividends.

 

They are still paying off the new stadium! the fact they continue to do that, show 45m balance in fees and regulalry make the champions league compared to City with a spend of 400m plus shows what a remarkable job Wenger is doing! so he will probably get the sack!

[melmacian_saint]

These figure are ridiculous.

 

I can see a crunch reaching the football world soon enough. It won't be housing setting it alight but player value.

[Saint Without a Halo]

These figure are ridiculous.

 

I can see a crunch reaching the football world soon enough. It won't be housing setting it alight but player value.

 

The crunch has hit most of europe who are willing to sell anyone to pay bills it is just the premiere league here that is still able to live of massive worldwide TV interest that is bucking the trend!

 

It is a result of the FA making such a success of this league and marketing it worldwide so well too!

[Frank's cousin]

Thanks for dredging up a load of irrelevent old sh it on things I haven't even mentioned. Yaaaa-fu cking-wwwwn.

 

Look at your post history and reflect on just how suicidally tedious you are.

 

Really, if thats the case, I better carry on as before .... just for you like

[Thedelldays]

These figure are ridiculous.

 

I can see a crunch reaching the football world soon enough. It won't be housing setting it alight but player value.

 

So much so. There will be Huge rise in TV money next season.

 

And in 2016/2017 it is rumoured to be even bigger than next year as google are getting in on the premier league act