Premier League five-year net spend table

[OrangeKhrush]

10 hours ago, Spike said:

I'd rather see gross spending over net spending. It paints a clearer picture on how much teams buy, and I don't care what they sell.

Gross transfer spend of the Big Six Premier League clubs in England in summer 2022(in million euros)

 

Characteristic	Gross transfer spend	Percentage of league total
Chelsea	279	12
Manchester United	238	11
Tottenham Hotspur	170	8
Manchester City	140	6
Arsenal	132	6
Liverpool	86	4

sorry it is only one year but it still shows the trend of Chelsea and Man United shovelling cash down any rabbit hole.   It continues to show how well Liverpool and City recruited.

[OrangeKhrush]

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Wait til you're in the CL mate before you start spouting off, because there's no way the Saudis are going to not throw shitloads of cash at players once you're in the CL.

the champions league is not a licence to spend, FFP is based off the clubs revenue and our revenue is 220m vs Liverpool 700m, man United 680m, Arsenal 570m.   the champions league may help but if we don't build sustainability we will face the same issue Leicester did.  

I am confident that the model will be about building from the academy and a younger team base rather than spunking out like Chelsea.  we have added 6 new positions in player recruitment including a scouting analyst from City.  fan Ashworth interview recently stated that he is adopting a Brighton like system, a conveyor belt of cheap talent and trying to polish them into diamonds.

[Stan]

11 hours ago, Spike said:

I'd rather see gross spending over net spending. It paints a clearer picture on how much teams buy, and I don't care what they sell.

 

8 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Gross transfer spend of the Big Six Premier League clubs in England in summer 2022(in million euros)

 

Characteristic	Gross transfer spend	Percentage of league total
Chelsea	279	12
Manchester United	238	11
Tottenham Hotspur	170	8
Manchester City	140	6
Arsenal	132	6
Liverpool	86	4

sorry it is only one year but it still shows the trend of Chelsea and Man United shovelling cash down any rabbit hole.   It continues to show how well Liverpool and City recruited.

This is from Transfermarkt:

 

From 2019/20 to 2022/23, sorted by expenditure from PL clubs within that time. 

Excluding loan fees, excluding transfers within clubs.

[OrangeKhrush]

5 minutes ago, Stan said:

 

This is from Transfermarkt:

 

From 2019/20 to 2022/23, sorted by expenditure from PL clubs within that time. 

Excluding loan fees, excluding transfers within clubs.

thanks.   we had 89m net across that time without investment putting us at Norwich level.   Mike Ashley needs no discussion, I hope no team ever has to suffer him as an owner, nobody deserves that

 

ps: this is why I want us to have a Brighton/City model, high selling turnover because you invest and sell on for value.   Chelsea and Man United are disasters

[Stan]

5 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

we had 89m net across that time

On the table it says the net across that time-frame is approx 337m Euros (approx £300m)?

[6666]

We also should remember that all the players in a team's squad probably weren't bought in the last 5 years.

Overall squad cost would still probably have Man City on top. Then it's close between Man Utd & Chelsea.

[The Palace Fan]

22 minutes ago, 6666 said:

We also should remember that all the players in a team's squad probably weren't bought in the last 5 years.

Overall squad cost would still probably have Man City on top. Then it's close between Man Utd & Chelsea.

Yes. I remember one year we went from a top six spender to a bottom six spender as about 120m worth of talent still at the club dropped off.

[Happy Blue]

3 hours ago, 6666 said:

We also should remember that all the players in a team's squad probably weren't bought in the last 5 years.

Overall squad cost would still probably have Man City on top. Then it's close between Man Utd & Chelsea.

Nope, United have spent 1.1billion in the last decade and are the biggest spenders in world football over the last decade. it proves money alone doesn't guarantee success

   Manchester United is the only football club in the world with a net spend of a billion pounds in the past decade. The difference between MUFC and MCFC is the proper usage of the money. Despite a net spend higher than any club in the world, the Red Devils have not won the Premier League since 2013. Some of their most expensive signings include Paul Pogba (£94.5m), Antony (£85.5m), Harry Maguire (£78.3m) and more. 

[Gunnersaurus]

8 hours ago, 6666 said:

We also should remember that all the players in a team's squad probably weren't bought in the last 5 years.

Overall squad cost would still probably have Man City on top. Then it's close between Man Utd & Chelsea.

Man utd still are top I think. Man city are a well run club. Better run than man utd. But hb is trying to make out they are spending like some mid table club. They aren't. And also there wage bill is the second or third highest.

[Cicero]

Pep helped, but Txiki changed City completely. 

[Gunnersaurus]

45 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Pep helped, but Txiki changed City completely. 

I do wonder if maybe we blame the manager to quickly and dont look at other issues? I've always thought that pep wouldn't have the same success at man utd even with more money because the infrastructure isn't there??

[Cicero]

44 minutes ago, Gunnersaurus said:

I do wonder if maybe we blame the manager to quickly and dont look at other issues? I've always thought that pep wouldn't have the same success at man utd even with more money because the infrastructure isn't there??

It's a very good question. 

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

Pep helped, but Txiki changed City completely. 

I’d meet you in the middle and say the two in unison is cause for City’s success. I can only imagine a director and a coach that actually share a vision can only be beneficial.

[Happy Blue]

12 hours ago, Gunnersaurus said:

Man utd still are top I think. Man city are a well run club. Better run than man utd. But hb is trying to make out they are spending like some mid table club. They aren't. And also there wage bill is the second or third highest.

We going to spend around 300million this summer, the team needs refreshing but will get over £100 million in player sales ..Saka is on our shopping list if we don't get Rafael Leao

[Devil-Dick Willie]

21 hours ago, 6666 said:

We also should remember that all the players in a team's squad probably weren't bought in the last 5 years.

Overall squad cost would still probably have Man City on top. Then it's close between Man Utd & Chelsea.

Happy Blue is the king of cherry picking data and points and presenting them slyly as any kind of argument to back up his narrative. 

[OrangeKhrush]

1 hour ago, Happy Blue said:

We going to spend around 300million this summer, the team needs refreshing but will get over £100 million in player sales ..Saka is on our shopping list if we don't get Rafael Leao

I don't see Saka leaving.  maybe you can get Venicius Jr

[Happy Blue]

2 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I don't see Saka leaving.  maybe you can get Venicius Jr

Pep's building the England team  ..id take Vini Jr

[Happy Blue]

2 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Happy Blue is the king of cherry picking data and points and presenting them slyly as any kind of argument to back up his narrative. 

Keep your woke cunt mouth shut you diseased piece of rhinoceros pizzle!

[Devil-Dick Willie]

2 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

Keep your woke cunt month shut you diseased piece of rhinoceros pizzle!

How dare I use actual facts, when I could be cherry picking 1 piece of info that builds a narrative from a source that suits me and constructing a whole fucking personality around it .

[Happy Blue]

Just now, Devil-Dick Willie said:

How dare I use actual facts, when I could be cherry picking 1 piece of info that builds a narrative from a source that suits me and constructing a whole fucking personality around it .

You bloody mongrel