Saints squad 20th most expensive in world

[Danbert]

Apparently... http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2016/159/en/phone/index.html

 

Asset strippers, etc., etc.

[david in sweden]

well of course ..the really big spending clubs have forked out 2 or 3 times the amount we have.....but looking at those above us we still end up in the top 10 Prem. sides

 

Although £182 million sounds a lot ....if you say it quickly ....we don't actually spend those huge sums that many others have done..

....AND if you look at our first team squad of 24/25 players, it works out at an average of around £7.5 million per player....which is not so bad in today's market.

[farawaysaint]

Net. Spend.

[sammysaint]

To be fair that's what we paid for each player in the squad over 4-5 years, Fonte is the only player still from the promoted team.

 

Forster,Bertrand,VVD, Tadic ,Boufal, Redmond, Højbjerg and Shane Long all cost 10 mill or more, then you have Jay Rod and Clasie who cost around 7-8 mill, thats over 120 million right there between them players.

[david in sweden]

To be fair that's what we paid for each player in the squad over 4-5 years, Fonte is the only player still from the promoted team.

 

Forster,Bertrand,VVD, Tadic ,Boufal, Redmond, Højbjerg and Shane Long all cost 10 mill or more, then you have Jay Rod and Clasie who cost around 7-8 mill, thats over 120 million right there between them players.

 

.....which averages out at around £12 million for each of them..which is still " chicken feed " for a Prem.side....and we seem to get good deals... at good prices.

[Fan The Flames]

.....which averages out at around £12 million for each of them..which is still " chicken feed " for a Prem.side....and we seem to get good deals... at good prices.

 

It's not chicken feed for a prem side, it might be for the top top prem sides, but it is still a lumpy sum and that's why on that list we have a squad more expensive than most in our division.

[CB Fry]

.....which averages out at around £12 million for each of them..which is still " chicken feed " for a Prem.side....and we seem to get good deals... at good prices.

Except it's more than is spent by more than half of the division, so it's not chicken feed, is it?

[CB Fry]

Net. Spend.

Not. A. Relevant. Metric.

[farawaysaint]

Not. A. Relevant. Metric.

 

It is when the op appears to be lauding the owners for their spending; we are something like 17th in the net spend table. Don't get me wrong, I am very happy with the squad and we have bought well but this does not equate to a huge investment on the part of the shareholders.

[Saint86]

Apparently... http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2016/159/en/phone/index.html

 

Asset strippers, etc., etc.

 

I'd like to see a world table of net transfer spend for the past 3 seasons

[shurlock]

It is when the op appears to be lauding the owners for their spending; we are something like 17th in the net spend table. Don't get me wrong, I am very happy with the squad and we have bought well but this does not equate to a huge investment on the part of the shareholders.

 

If our net spend was higher, the value of our squad would be higher. It's very simple except for the terminally confused.

 

#fact

Edited 4 October, 2016 by shurlock

[Wurzel]

Pedantic note re the title of the post. List only includes teams from England, Ital, Spain, Germany and France not the whole world. Having said that are any teams from outside those 5 likely to be included. A few Russian Chinese and USA teams seem to be signing some big names, but mostly near-end-of-career players with low or no fee but big wages. South Americans? Don't think there's a lot of cash splashing about in there leagues, that's why they all come to Europe. The title could well be correct, but it's not what the survey says.

 

Good to see we're a huge 13 places above Bournemouth, wonder where our nearer neighbours would rank on such a list

[Fan The Flames]

It is when the op appears to be lauding the owners for their spending; we are something like 17th in the net spend table. Don't get me wrong, I am very happy with the squad and we have bought well but this does not equate to a huge investment on the part of the shareholders.

 

He is not lauding the owners for spending, he is saying that the facts are completely different to the idiots who claim Kat is assist stripping. If you are talking about the cost of the squad the only figure that matters is how much that squad cost. Not how much was spent in the last x years, not how much was spent against how much was made in the last x years. This isnt a table on current owners investment it's a table of squad value.

 

We should be pleased that we have a squad in the top twenty in Europe.

[Dangermouth]

The interesting things are that there are some good teams/squads that were assembled for far less and that most of the ones above us are what could be considered 'big' teams or heavyweights. Then there are the likes of West Ham and Everton. Wonder what WH will be when they have to buy Zaza, etc and what Everton would be if they didn't buy Bolasie?

[Kingsland Red]

The list is also only top flight clubs, so no Villa or Newcastle

[david in sweden]

Except it's more than is spent by more than half of the division, so it's not chicken feed, is it?

 

well it could be considered so .......when you look at the expenditure of the clubs above us .....and the size of their record signings....

 

.....but I still think an average buy of £7 -10 million is good pretty good business.

 

I haven't seen stats. about it, but I can think that a fair proportion of the Prem.clubs have a bigger record signing than we do ....

Edited 4 October, 2016 by david in sweden

[buctootim]

Not. A. Relevant. Metric.

 

Of course it is. More relevant than absolute spend anyway.

 

Team A sell 11 players for £230m - lets call them for argument something random like Shaw, Schneiderlin , Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana. They buy replacement players for £182m and get 20th place on the spend table.

 

Team B keep Shaw, Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Schneiderlin, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana all their best players that they developed or bought cheap and supplement them with £100m of additions lets call them Forster, Romeu van Dijk, Hobjerg, Tadic and Bertrand. They are a lowly 33rd on the spend table.

 

Who's got the best team?

Edited 4 October, 2016 by buctootim

[The9]

Of course it is. More relevant than absolute spend anyway.

 

Team A sell 11 players for £230m - lets call them for argument something random like Shaw, , Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana. They buy 11 replacement players for £182m and get 20th place on the spend table.

 

Team B keep Shaw, Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Schneiderlin, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana all their best players that they developed or bought cheap and supplement them with £100m of additions lets call them Forster, Romeu van Dijk, Hobjerg, Tadic and Bertrand. They are a lowly 33rd on the spend table.

 

Who's got the best team?

 

You appear to have forgotten to factor in the cost of wages to this equation.

[doddisalegend]

Of course it is. More relevant than absolute spend anyway.

 

Team A sell 11 players for £230m - lets call them for argument something random like Shaw, Schneiderlin , Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana. They buy replacement players for £182m and get 20th place on the spend table.

 

Team B keep Shaw, Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Schneiderlin, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana all their best players that they developed or bought cheap and supplement them with £100m of additions lets call them Forster, Romeu van Dijk, Hobjerg, Tadic and Bertrand. They are a lowly 33rd on the spend table.

 

Who's got the best team?

 

 

In fairness the list in the op doesn't measure the best team it merely shows which is the most expensive. The list also takes no account how the money spent on each team was acquired so CB is correct in the context of this list net spend isn't relevant. The only thing the list in the op shows is how much money each team has spent on it's squad.

[ozzmeister]

I hate to say it - but well done to Tottenham, not even in the top 10 spend but looking one of the best teams in the Premiership currently. Must link to promoting youth (much as we have) and probably a big influence of Poch being there (who I think will end up being one of the best managers in the world).

[buctootim]

You appear to have forgotten to factor in the cost of wages to this equation.

 

No, you need to read the posts and the responses rather looking for an opportunity to make what you think is a smart remark but misses the point. I didnt say it was a feasible option for Saints to retain everybody. Simply that its bleedin obvious to anybody - or should be - that somebody who builds a £1m house and keeps it is better off than somebody who sells it and spends £500,000 on a cheaper one - regardless of how high or low that puts you in some table.

[CB Fry]

Of course it is. More relevant than absolute spend anyway.

 

Team A sell 11 players for £230m - lets call them for argument something random like Shaw, Schneiderlin , Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana. They buy replacement players for £182m and get 20th place on the spend table.

 

Team B keep Shaw, Clyne, Chambers, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, Mane, Schneiderlin, Wanyama, Lovren and Lallana all their best players that they developed or bought cheap and supplement them with £100m of additions lets call them Forster, Romeu van Dijk, Hobjerg, Tadic and Bertrand. They are a lowly 33rd on the spend table.

 

Who's got the best team?

 

Why on earth would we be buying Tadic if we have Chamberlain, Walcott, Bale, Lallana and Mane in the squad already?

Ditto Hojberg, ditto Romeu, ditto Betrand, ditto Mane (why on earth did Club A sign Mane?) even Ditto VVD who we wouldn't have bought and wouldn't have signed to be back up to Lovren and Fonte.

 

So well done but just a nonsense comparison based on things that don't actually happen in the real world.

 

If you're putting out a team on the pitch at a higher value versus other teams, your chances are success are higher. What you may or may not have got in for transfer fees for players that are not stepping out on that pitch is a total irrelevence.

 

It gets dins on forums excited though.

 

Sunderland have built net spend on net spend on net spend on net spend on net spend for five (last time I looked, now probably six) years running so they must be, like, tons better year on year on year, right?

[buctootim]

I agree that there are many dimensions to it and that all lists are a partial picture - but if you are going to have one ranking list list net spend is a better indicator than absolute spend.

[CB Fry]

No, you need to read the posts and the responses rather looking for an opportunity to make what you think is a smart remark but misses the point. I didnt say it was a feasible option for Saints to retain everybody. Simply that its bleedin obvious to anybody - or should be - that somebody who builds a £1m house and keeps it is better off than somebody who sells it and spends £500,000 on a cheaper one - regardless of how high or low that puts you in some table.

 

What about a team of 11 £100k players with no sales ever - that's £1.1m pure net spend - BRILLIANT!

 

versus a team of 11 £1m players who sold one player for £11m - that's zero net spend - DISASTER!

 

Which one of those would you back to escape from the Championship, and which one might struggle in League One?

Edited 4 October, 2016 by CB Fry

[The9]

No, you need to read the posts and the responses rather looking for an opportunity to make what you think is a smart remark but misses the point. I didnt say it was a feasible option for Saints to retain everybody. Simply that its bleedin obvious to anybody - or should be - that somebody who builds a £1m house and keeps it is better off than somebody who sells it and spends £500,000 on a cheaper one - regardless of how high or low that puts you in some table.

 

I've read the whole thread already, your argument is pointless precisely because the scenario you're outlining ignores the highest costs.

 

The analogy with houses also doesn't work unless the house purchase expires after a contractual term and the more expensive house doesn't cost more than the original purchase to look after it. The analogy MIGHT work for renting, which is far nearer the equivalent of a footballer's contractual term.

 

However, fundamentally your house argument is nonsense anyway, because having £500k in the bank and buying the same house that cost a million for half the price because you're playing the market smarter than others definitely DOESN'T make you worse off - you have the same house and £500k spare - as long as you're able to find that quality for the lower price.

 

It's the same daft argument as the one that we should spend more money irrespective of whether it actually improves the team. It's irrelevant for as long as others are far more inefficient.

[Fan The Flames]

No, you need to read the posts and the responses rather looking for an opportunity to make what you think is a smart remark but misses the point. I didnt say it was a feasible option for Saints to retain everybody. Simply that its bleedin obvious to anybody - or should be - that somebody who builds a £1m house and keeps it is better off than somebody who sells it and spends £500,000 on a cheaper one - regardless of how high or low that puts you in some table.

 

Having a go at someone for missing the point when you have spectacularly missed the point yourself. This is a table on how much it cost to assemble the squad, nothing more than that; it isn't a table for measuring how good the squad is, that is called, in case you don't know, the Premier League Table.

[buctootim]

What about a team of 11 £100k players with no sales ever - that's £1.1m pure net spend - BRILLIANT!

 

versus a team of 11 £1m players who sold one player for £11m - that's zero net spend - DISASTER!

 

Which one of those would you back to escape from the Championship, and which one might struggle in League One?

 

Way to go. Deflection and change of subject.

 

Back on topic. You said net spend wasn't a relevant metric. I said it was a better metric than absolute spend. Period. No-one said it was feasible to keep everybody hostage for ever playing for zero wages.

[Sour Mash]

Its mental that so many don't realise how relevant net spend is.

[Barry the Badger]

It's relevant to the running of the club but utterly irrelevant to this conversation

[Sour Mash]

It's relevant to the running of the club but utterly irrelevant to this conversation

"This conversation" - its a forum, there is no one conversation.

[AK]

Here is by chance a league table of net spend in The Premier League since 2013. We Have either come first or last depending on your point of view. No idea if it's correct ,but has us down at £1m net.

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/550451/Biggest-net-spend-Premier-League-2013-sportgalleries

[Pamplemousse]

How much do we spend roughly on the academy each year?

[lloydie]

What about a team of 11 £100k players with no sales ever - that's £1.1m pure net spend - BRILLIANT!

 

versus a team of 11 £1m players who sold one player for £11m - that's zero net spend - DISASTER!

 

Which one of those would you back to escape from the Championship, and which one might struggle in League One?

The bottom team would do worse as they'd only have 10 players.

[doddisalegend]

"This conversation" - its a forum, there is no one conversation.

 

 

 

Yes there is this thread was started about a list showing the most expensive squads...net spend has no relevance on that list. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant only irrelevant on the topic of this thread as Barry correctly pointed out.

[CB Fry]

Way to go. Deflection and change of subject.

 

Back on topic. You said net spend wasn't a relevant metric. I said it was a better metric than absolute spend. Period. No-one said it was feasible to keep everybody hostage for ever playing for zero wages.

So blathering on about completely irrelevant housing analogies isn't deflection and changing the subject but me talking very specifically about net transfer spend is deflection and changing the subject.

 

Absolute spend on the team you put out on the pitch is the only metric worth a candle. Everything else is irrelevant.

 

And who said anything about zero wages? That seems to be a different subject you have changed to - almost a deflection in other words. Exceptional, exceptional stuff.

 

Do another house example. It's so on-topic.

[Sour Mash]

Yes there is this thread was started about a list showing the most expensive squads...net spend has no relevance on that list. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant only irrelevant on the topic of this thread as Barry correctly pointed out.

[saintquin]

Cost and quality of squad do not always go hand in hand.

Don't know what this add but, quality to me is all that matters!

[doddisalegend]

 

right back at ya.

[Saint IQ]

Way to go. Deflection and change of subject.

 

Back on topic. You said net spend wasn't a relevant metric. I said it was a better metric than absolute spend. Period. No-one said it was feasible to keep everybody hostage for ever playing for zero wages.

 

BTW net spend isn't the topic on the thread title, it's a table of teams transfer expenditure to assemble their current squads. Sales aren't considered.

 

Anyway back off topic, lowest net spenders last season finished 3rd and 6th whereas one of the highest net spenders got relegated. Sunderland always net spend more than us and have got back into the Prem for 5 more years than us yet have only finished as high as 10th once! Finishing 15th, 16th, 13th, 10th, 13th, 17th, 14th, 16th, 17th. All about how you spend your money and what manager you employ isn't it really.

[shurlock]

BTW net spend isn't the topic on the thread title, it's a table of teams transfer expenditure to assemble their current squads. Sales aren't considered.

 

Anyway back off topic, lowest net spenders last season finished 3rd and 6th whereas one of the highest net spenders got relegated. Sunderland always net spend more than us and have got back into the Prem for 5 more years than us yet have only finished as high as 10th once! Finishing 15th, 16th, 13th, 10th, 13th, 17th, 14th, 16th, 17th. All about how you spend your money and what manager you employ isn't it really.

 

Is your username some kind of ironic, self-deprecating joke, pal?

 

Bravo if so.

Edited 4 October, 2016 by shurlock

[cellone]

Pedantic note re the title of the post. List only includes teams from England, Ital, Spain, Germany and France not the whole world. Having said that are any teams from outside those 5 likely to be included. A few Russian Chinese and USA teams seem to be signing some big names, but mostly near-end-of-career players with low or no fee but big wages. South Americans? Don't think there's a lot of cash splashing about in there leagues, that's why they all come to Europe. The title could well be correct, but it's not what the survey says.

 

Good to see we're a huge 13 places above Bournemouth, wonder where our nearer neighbours would rank on such a list

Pedantic note. Their not there league.

[TwoPints]

Personally, I couldn't give a flying **** how much the squad cost. All that matters to me is the performance in the pitch. If we can get top 6 and have a chance at a cup for £10 with Kat pocketing the rest, that's fine with me. Makes no difference to me whether we spend £150m on players or not.

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[Dark Munster]

Personally, I couldn't give a flying **** how much the squad cost. All that matters to me is the performance in the pitch. If we can get top 6 and have a chance at a cup for £10 with Kat pocketing the rest, that's fine with me. Makes no difference to me whether we spend £150m on players or not.

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Net or gross cost?