City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Tim of the Oak]

Regardless, it's safe to say, it's once in a blue moon that it happens, so there is clearly a direct correlation between spending and winning the league. If Arsenal, or anybody else thinks they won it without spending heavily they need to give their head a wobble.
Derby County supporters may be exempt until I find the figures!

Struggling with figures that far back, but we're talking 40 years... once in 40 years (if indeed Derby managed it, which is still unproven).

It comes as no surprise really, and yet startling when laid out factually. How fans can be so blind to it I don't know. This is where the argument suddenly changes between 'it's not actually the spending, it's how you come by the money' - so suddenly they accept they bought success, only they had a right to do so, and others (like us) didn't.

Derby were prepared to spend big before they won the league in 74/5 but didn't always get their targets. Coughie had offered (the previous year) £400k to West Ham for Brooking and the ageing Bobby Moore.

I think the Rams were paying high wages for experienced pros eg Franny and Dave Mackay (who became manager).

 

[FanchesterCity]

Surprised at Leeds' net spend in their title-winning season. Wonder what Villa's was in 1981?

A very long time?

Of course it doesn't always work. I only included the usual suspects in that previous list:

Club - Total Gross Spend 92/03

Newcastle - £185,845,000.00
Manchester United - £165,900,000.00
Liverpool - £159,125,000.00
Arsenal - £140,890,000.00
Chelsea - £136,940,000.00
Aston Villa - £114,040,000.00
Everton - £112,195,000.00
Tottenham - £103,650,000.00
Manchester City - £97,960,000.00

NUFC actually spent the most in that period for the sum total of two 2nd place finishes and two FA cup runners up.

Scum won 8 titles with the Arse on 2 and Blackburn the only outlier. Liverpool of course have spent £812,305,000 gross from '92 to date and still can't win it.

It's a cumulative thing too, you can't just blow 400m in one season and expect to win, you generally have to pump money in over a number of seasons, and even then, just spending as much as Liverpool / United only gives you an outside chance. To have any genuine confidence, you have to outspend them considerably, which is probably why very few even try.

It's just not financially viable to blow hundreds of millions on players to win the league if you're hoping to actually turn a profit in the process. You simply won't manage it. It's better to spend a modest amount (enough to stay in the PL). If you don't necessarily have to make a profit (like us) and you've money to burn, then like us, you can do it. We've been fortunate enough to tackle the problem on two fronts though - by spending a fortune on players AND on infrastructure to support us in the longer term. Hardly any other clubs can do that with the same gusto as us.

 

[FanchesterCity]

It's fascinating looking back at how clubs spent in the past, and we shouldn't forget our own little (nightmare) venture in the late 70s, when Big Mal came back. That spending spree (imo) crippled us for decades and was a precursor to Leeds many years later. Spending big when you can ill afford to do it is a disaster waiting to happen. Spending big when you can afford to do it is rather pleasant!

 

[john@staustell]

It's fascinating looking back at how clubs spent in the past, and we shouldn't forget our own little (nightmare) venture in the late 70s, when Big Mal came back. That spending spree (imo) crippled us for decades and was a precursor to Leeds many years later. Spending big when you can ill afford to do it is a disaster waiting to happen. Spending big when you can afford to do it is rather pleasant!

Not your opinion mate, fact. Dismantled a great team for an expensive heap of shite.

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

Arsenal fans always seem to throw out the 'Net Spend' stats when trying to justify their arguments, but always seem to ignore wages.

There's a lot of research & evidence that correlates the amount of wages paid to the actual success of the team. Basically the team paying the most usually finishes at/ or very near the top.

This is what happened with Arsenal after they got the Fizsman investment; they started to pay top wages and funnily enough started to win trophies, which is what Tony Adams alludes to in his book.

I seem to remember at the time that they hammered us at home 5-1, that their centre back was earning nearly more than our entire team that day. I also remember there wasn't much complaint about this or any cries about 'financial doping'

 

[SilverFox2]

In the long run, until they give a trophy out for not spending much who really cares.

I'd question a club ownership and management that has the means to spend to improve their squad and chooses not to long before I'd question one that spends to improve the club.

Some gooners seem to think that making a profit is more worthy than winning games. I bet they had photos of accountants on their walls when they were kids.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive (ie profit and winning games).
However, I feel that our owner will spend whatever it takes as long as a business plan showing extra profit by buying any asset against not buying that asset is prepared by ADUG.

The current plan has been singularly successful so as long as he can continue with extra commercial revenue I'm sure the cost of any player will be considered.

 

[Blue Theatre]

That second 'Big Mal' era was a living nightmare ... Allison just worked his way through the entire squad, selling anyone who was good, and replacing them with people like Stuart Lee, Barry Silkman and Bobby Shinton. For those younger fans now saying "Who ?" ... precisely.

They weren't cheap either - we broke the British transfer record on Steve Daley and he ended-up playing for Rhyl not long after.

I cried almost every day, as all my heroes (Owen, Barnes, Watson, Hartford, etc, etc) were sold ... and then went on to play really well for their new clubs (surprise, surprise). I'm feeling a bit tearful again now, just thinking about it. May have to watch a couple of videos of Aguero or Silva on youtube to cheer myself up again.

 

[squirtyflower]

Arsenal fans always seem to throw out the 'Net Spend' stats when trying to justify their arguments, but always seem to ignore wages.

There's a lot of research & evidence that correlates the amount of wages paid to the actual success of the team. Basically the team paying the most usually finishes at/ or very near the top.

This is what happened with Arsenal after they got the Fizsman investment; they started to pay top wages and funnily enough started to win trophies, which is what Tony Adams alludes to in his book.

I seem to remember at the time that they hammered us at home 5-1, that their centre back was earning nearly more than our entire team that day. I also remember there wasn't much complaint about this or any cries about 'financial doping'

Agreed
Net spend has nothing to do with it
The highest correlation is between wages and success, posted it yesterday but largely by passed as everyone gets consumed with transfers

 

[FanchesterCity]

I don't know if it's an urban myth or not, but I do recall hearing we were still paying off debts from that era some 20 years later.

I'll never forget my home made 'Peter Barnes Football Trainer' - my fave player. Remember that? it was a pair of shorts attached to a ball via elastic - genius! All wearing my first football shirt which was some second hand West Ham top bought on Newton Heath (or possibly Grey Mare Lane) market! - mothers eh?

 

[ccr]

Mine was an Everton shirt. "Well its blue isn't it ?".... Thanks Mam.

 

[blueincy]

It's a cumulative thing too, you can't just blow 400m in one season and expect to win, you generally have to pump money in over a number of seasons, and even then, just spending as much as Liverpool / United only gives you an outside chance. To have any genuine confidence, you have to outspend them considerably, which is probably why very few even try.

It's just not financially viable to blow hundreds of millions on players to win the league if you're hoping to actually turn a profit in the process. You simply won't manage it. It's better to spend a modest amount (enough to stay in the PL). If you don't necessarily have to make a profit (like us) and you've money to burn, then like us, you can do it. We've been fortunate enough to tackle the problem on two fronts though - by spending a fortune on players AND on infrastructure to support us in the longer term. Hardly any other clubs can do that with the same gusto as us.

 

[FanchesterCity]

It's true!
If you absolutely need to make a profit, then attempting to win the PL with a huge spend is madness, you'd be better doing what Mike Ashley does (much to the chagrin of fans).

We aren't typical, and nor is our funding. Some clubs can afford to blow a wad on players, or others might choose to spend it on infrastructure, but hardly any can do both at the same time. Aiming to be profitable is not the same as absolutely needing to be as it is with Arsenal, Liverpool and United. They have owners expecting financial returns, our owner gets a different form of return.

If you spend ONLY on players, then you'll get a quick shot in the arm, but 3-4 years down the line, you have to spend all over again just to stay in position.
If you spend ONLY on infrastructure, then you'll end up like Arsenal, treading water whilst you're paying off the stadium / facilities (or worse still, slipping backwards).

We've been able to blow a wad on players to give us the shot in the arm we needed urgently (thanks to the FFP drawbridge), but at the same time grown the business / infrastructure too, so our next round of spending starts to be funded by the growth and not out of the owners pocket. Perhaps not completely funded (yet) but certainly we're not starting at zero as we did when the Sheik took over.

 

[Newman Noggs]

One of the chief delights in being able to compete financially with the likes of Arsenal, the rags and Liverpool is watching their incandescent rage. I think much of it is to do with our proving that their historic success isn't down to brilliant management or player husbandry but purely down to money.

No wonder they and the media are implacably hostile. We have shown them for what they are. No more special than any other club and it is hurting badly.

 

[FanchesterCity]

You still hear them struggling to comprehend how we, and certainly Chelsea before us can grow. They think it's some mirage, when in truth it's just employing more (and better) people to turn a normal football club (fairly amateurish business) into a much more professional one. Of course you need success on the pitch too, but if you get both in tandem, you'll grow. All we needed was the cash to do it (and the right acumen at the top).

I still hear 'How can Chelsea be bigger than Arsenal?' - because they've worked at it - primarily because they HAD to. Meanwhile, stalwarts like Liverpool and Arsenal, and United for that matter have rested on their laurels (comparatively). Now City are doing the same as Chelsea, only bigger and better still. The only caveat being that Chelsea had a free run at things, whilst we have them to compete with, and FFP as an obstacle to boot.

If we'd only spent our money on players, we'd still have done well, I'm sure, but we'd be going cap in hand back to the Sheik for another load to refresh our squad - and that's not sustainable. Thankfully, the business has grown too and we're generating comparable or even better revenues than our rivals now, so can afford to pay for things from our own pockets.

We still might get another huge injection, but it won't be to cover losses, it'll be to grow to a new level once more, then our revenues will follow suit 3-5 years afterwards.

 

[blueincy]

It's true!
If you absolutely need to make a profit, then attempting to win the PL with a huge spend is madness, you'd be better doing what Mike Ashley does (much to the chagrin of fans).

We aren't typical, and nor is our funding. Some clubs can afford to blow a wad on players, or others might choose to spend it on infrastructure, but hardly any can do both at the same time. Aiming to be profitable is not the same as absolutely needing to be as it is with Arsenal, Liverpool and United. They have owners expecting financial returns, our owner gets a different form of return.

If you spend ONLY on players, then you'll get a quick shot in the arm, but 3-4 years down the line, you have to spend all over again just to stay in position.
If you spend ONLY on infrastructure, then you'll end up like Arsenal, treading water whilst you're paying off the stadium / facilities (or worse still, slipping backwards).

We've been able to blow a wad on players to give us the shot in the arm we needed urgently (thanks to the FFP drawbridge), but at the same time grown the business / infrastructure too, so our next round of spending starts to be funded by the growth and not out of the owners pocket. Perhaps not completely funded (yet) but certainly we're not starting at zero as we did when the Sheik took over.

Oh, you was talking past not present I get you now..
speculate to accumulate I think it's called not money to burn that infers you will not see a return on your money spent and dont give a f##k..

 

[FanchesterCity]

Well, the money to burn comment was about another club who wanted to have a shot at winning the PL by spending big. They could do it, but it wouldn't last. Newcastle and Villa tried it (failed), Blackburn did it and succeeded for a short time, even Fulham improved their status via some heavy spending, but it all faded to nothing (imo) because it wasn't backup up by growth off the pitch. One assumes because most of them only had enough money to spend on the one aspect (players). That's where City and Chelsea before us are markedly different to other 'flash in the pan / money to burn' title attempts.

 

[blueincy]

Well, the money to burn comment was about another club who wanted to have a shot at winning the PL by spending big. They could do it, but it wouldn't last. Newcastle and Villa tried it (failed), Blackburn did it and succeeded for a short time, even Fulham improved their status via some heavy spending, but it all faded to nothing (imo) because it wasn't backup up by growth off the pitch. One assumes because most of them only had enough money to spend on the one aspect (players). That's where City and Chelsea before us are markedly different to other 'flash in the pan / money to burn' title attempts.

Didn't sound that way to me...

If you don't necessarily have to make a profit (like us) and you've money to burn, then like us, you can do it.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Aye, but I didn't say money to burn like us, I said money to burn (comma) then like us, you can do it.
In my mind, that's why I said 'don't have to make a profit (like us), but didn't do so on the money to burn aspect.
Crossed wires I think.

 

[TerryMadeiraRosyBin]

@dasblues how about 92-03 then -

Club - Total Gross Spend 92/03

Manchester United - £165,900,000.00
Liverpool - £159,125,000.00
Arsenal - £140,890,000.00
Chelsea - £136,940,000.00

Manchester City - £97,960,000.00

What a surprise who the top 3 clubs are.

Mods please put in appropriate forum

Ask any Huddersfield fan about Arsenal. When Huddersfield last won the League( approx. 1930ish) their manager was HERBERT CHAPMAN. Arsenal made him an offer he couldn't refuse ( read poached ) and he went to Arsenal.
Once installed he then poached most of the Huddersfield Town league winning players !!!
I have not checked on The Huddersfield Examiner of the time, but my Dad mentioned it at least every week until he died.

 

[bry the guy]

Mods please put in appropriate forum

Ask any Huddersfield fan about Arsenal. When Huddersfield last won the League( approx. 1930ish) their manager was HERBERT CHAPMAN. Arsenal made him an offer he couldn't refuse ( read poached ) and he went to Arsenal.
Once installed he then poached most of the Huddersfield Town league winning players !!!
I have not checked on The Huddersfield Examiner of the time, but my Dad mentioned it at least every week until he died.

Huddersfield didnt only win the league they won it three seasons on the trot.