Net Transfer Spending Over The Last 10 seasons - City 2nd (Behind United 1st)

[jrb]

That can’t be right! Liverpool have spent 1128€. And here’s me thinking they’ve only used the Coutinho money, and brought young Liverpudlian youth players through into the 1st team. Well, bugger me!

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Another title for the Rags. ;-)

Issue number 367 of the CIES Football Observatory Weekly Post ranks current big-5 league clubs according to their net spending on transfer operations concluded over the last ten seasons. Manchester United tops the table with a negative balance of more than one billion euro, ahead of Manchester City and Paris St-Germain. Fourteen English clubs are in the top 20 of clubs with the most negative net transfer spending.

Man Utd top league of transfer losses with negative spend of 1bn euros in last 10 years

Manchester United have the biggest transfer losses in Europe in the last decade, according to Swiss-based research institute, CIES Football Observatory.

www.bbc.co.uk

Weekly Post 367

CIES Football Observatory Weekly Post

www.football-observatory.com

Got it in £?

 

[hilts]

Another title for the Rags. ;-)

Issue number 367 of the CIES Football Observatory Weekly Post ranks current big-5 league clubs according to their net spending on transfer operations concluded over the last ten seasons. Manchester United tops the table with a negative balance of more than one billion euro, ahead of Manchester City and Paris St-Germain. Fourteen English clubs are in the top 20 of clubs with the most negative net transfer spending.

Man Utd top league of transfer losses with negative spend of 1bn euros in last 10 years

Manchester United have the biggest transfer losses in Europe in the last decade, according to Swiss-based research institute, CIES Football Observatory.

www.bbc.co.uk

Weekly Post 367

CIES Football Observatory Weekly Post

www.football-observatory.com

What I take from that is this:-

We have done really well Investing in the squad and have been highly successful because of it.

Chelsea have done a good job.

United are fucking useless, i don’t think any of us could have fucked up that much, congrats to the wank yanks.

Arsenal and Everton have under achieved big time

Spurs are taking the piss out of their fans.

Liverpool I hate to say have........... nah can’t give those fuckers credit.

Brentford have done a tremendous job.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

What I take from the CIES figures is that the obsession with finance is a crazy heresy foisted on the game by the self-styled "true aristocrats" of the game and their now common-as-muck (often) American owners. For we simple Brits football used to be a beautiful game played with a round ball by two teams trying to beat each other. The first step on the slippery slope was when the then aristocrats had to accept a blurring of the distinction between gentlemen and players by accepting that players could be paid. Professionalism has advanced to the point where such admirable safeguards such as the maximum wage have had to be abandoned. But despite having to abandon time honoured practices as relying on state aid from fascist dictators, fixing matches by bribing referees and rigging football finance to keep wages down, profits up and uppity clubs in check, the aristocratic fight back is on. Those supporters of non-aristo clubs have been duped into believing that a good owner never dips his hand in his pocket and those who spend least on wages are best. Thus we have a gang of shabby yanks asset stripping Liverpool, making a bomb out of it and expecting a chorus of praise for it. And what they're actually doing is simply following the example of the gunners. But then their legendary manager was the first great financial cheat of English football! And another was was a receiver of bungs! One or two very Anglo-Saxon expressions come to mind to express our true feelings on "net spend" and other idiocies.

 

[bluedanza]

Add another £51m for Haaland takes us to just over £1bn.

But I have the estimated value of our squad at a conservative £1.35b.

This is such a non story. In what other business would you berate owners for buying in resources and increasing their value by 30%.

 

[PPT]

In today's (11/5) Telegraph sports section there is a piece on the Harling transfer and it's implications for Liverpool in particular in future seasons. The author, journo Chris Bascombe, states - "Nothing more succinctly demonstrates the uneven playing field in this and the next Premier League title fight than City confirming the £213m package for Erling Haaland, while Liverpool fret over the futures of their prized duo because of salary expectations."
The hapless Bascombe, not one of the most reliable of sports writers, chooses to ignore published transfer and wage costs quoted in this thread and from reliable sources such as Swiss Ramble. These clearly show wages at City, MU, Chelsea and Liverpool similar in the £315m-350m range annually. Hardly an uneven playing field.
City certainly are big spenders, but not to the extent the unfortunate Bascombe infers.
The Telegraph readership deserves better journalism.

Bascombe is a 100% genuine paid shill for Liverpool. He worked for the Liverpool echo for seven years - so that tells you all you need to know. He left the echo and went to work for the News of The World so as you can imagine that upset the Klanfield mob and they gave him some serious jip. He was also the ghost writer of Jamie Carraghers autobiography so his bias to Liverpool in the Telegraph is frankly ridiculous. It really is. I bait him in the comments section of his articles and at times he actually bites which shows you how thick he is. His title at the DT is 'North West Sports Reporter' but 99.99% of his articles are pro Liverpool. He hates City with a passion as do virtually all of the DT football 'sports writers'. Simply discard anything and everything Bascombe ever writes as it is utter drivel.

 

[halfcenturyup]

In today's (11/5) Telegraph sports section there is a piece on the Harling transfer and it's implications for Liverpool in particular in future seasons. The author, journo Chris Bascombe, states - "Nothing more succinctly demonstrates the uneven playing field in this and the next Premier League title fight than City confirming the £213m package for Erling Haaland, while Liverpool fret over the futures of their prized duo because of salary expectations."
The hapless Bascombe, not one of the most reliable of sports writers, chooses to ignore published transfer and wage costs quoted in this thread and from reliable sources such as Swiss Ramble. These clearly show wages at City, MU, Chelsea and Liverpool similar in the £315m-350m range annually. Hardly an uneven playing field.
City certainly are big spenders, but not to the extent the unfortunate Bascombe infers.
The Telegraph readership deserves better journalism.

Net spend is a component of a business's cash flow, other elements being cash from operations and financing activities such as borrowings and dividends.

An interesting financial analysis would be to compare the top six English teams cash from operations over the last ten years to see how it has been used. I am guessing City re-invest almost all in players, whereas United and Liverpool pay out a large part as dividends and fees.

This is what should be looked at, rather than complaining about City's spending. Why don't the other teams invest the same in players, as a percentage of cash from operations at least?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Add another £51m for Haaland takes us to just over £1bn.

But I have the estimated value of our squad at a conservative £1.35b.

This is such a non story. In what other business would you berate owners for buying in resources and increasing their value by 30%.

Sheikh Mansour bought City for £210m in 2008 and it is now worth almost £4bn. Just think about that. He also recouped £700m by selling a 25 per cent stake to US and Chinese firms. Apparently he did this purely for sportswashing purposes, nothing to do with the huge fortune he has made from the deal. This doesn't include the huge profits he has made by investing in the Greater Manchester area in property and the university. These are unpalatable facts for the people who hate our club.

 

[Blueknows]

Another title for the Rags. ;-)

Issue number 367 of the CIES Football Observatory Weekly Post ranks current big-5 league clubs according to their net spending on transfer operations concluded over the last ten seasons. Manchester United tops the table with a negative balance of more than one billion euro, ahead of Manchester City and Paris St-Germain. Fourteen English clubs are in the top 20 of clubs with the most negative net transfer spending.

Man Utd top league of transfer losses with negative spend of 1bn euros in last 10 years

Manchester United have the biggest transfer losses in Europe in the last decade, according to Swiss-based research institute, CIES Football Observatory.

www.bbc.co.uk

Weekly Post 367

CIES Football Observatory Weekly Post

www.football-observatory.com

So all the top 6 have spent over a billion yet we are the only ones that spend money also wtf blue scouse nearly a billion and fighting relegation

 

[halfcenturyup]

@Prestwich_Blue Hey PB, I have spent a Sunday morning looking at cash flow City vs Liverpool in the last five years, to satisfy my own curiosity mostly. Do you know what the deferred income is in City's accounts? Cash received for future years presumably. You know any more?