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.