Transfer spending last 5 years

br88

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Nov 2014
Messages
2,218
Talking with some City fans tonight about the reason for our success in recent years. Of course the discussion turned to the amount of money spent by the top clubs and also Liverpool's apparent lack of spending. Two fans in particular talked about City and United spending big. They just seemed to be following the usual media line about City and spending money...seems like the brainwashing has worked.

I decided to check out the actual figures on money spent over recent years as I had no idea. I looked up the net transfer spend figures over the last 5 years and was amazed by the results.

United 548M, Arsenal 440M, Chelsea 382M, West Ham 356M, Tottenham 331M, Newcastle 314M, Aston Villa 260M, Wolves 248M, Liverpool 217M, City 204M.
 
Talking with some City fans tonight about the reason for our success in recent years. Of course the discussion turned to the amount of money spent by the top clubs and also Liverpool's apparent lack of spending. Two fans in particular talked about City and United spending big. They just seemed to be following the usual media line about City and spending money...seems like the brainwashing has worked.

I decided to check out the actual figures on money spent over recent years as I had no idea. I looked up the net transfer spend figures over the last 5 years and was amazed by the results.

United 548M, Arsenal 440M, Chelsea 382M, West Ham 356M, Tottenham 331M, Newcastle 314M, Aston Villa 260M, Wolves 248M, Liverpool 217M, City 204M.
This Is Great News for LFC !

Because that doesn't take into account the Coutinho money, which still hasn't all been spent.
 
This net spend stuff is all rubbish. It's a pointless argument and pointless metric to use. On football manager and fifa if you receive 10mil you can spend that 10mil and a 30mil player is better that a 20mil player on those games. In real life it doesn't work like that, transfer fees are worked out by numerous variables, example pogba might be worth 90 mil in market value but he isn't better than 24mil gundo. So that stops that use of net spend as a metric to determine if you spend less you have an inferior squad so therefore doing miracles as liverpool always suggest. The best way to look at it is adding in wages as well, so total cost of a squad, how much it costs to operate. Liverpool are not that far behind us in those terms and earn similar amounts of income, so they should be there or there abouts. Coutinho might have made them a net spend profit but you add in his wages and you will find he has only funded some of VVD total cost so far, not VVD and Alison and liverpool always suggest. People mention FFP against us but again it's on a 3 year audit period so we could spend 500 mil one year for example and sell 500mil over next 2 years. Which it seems we have done (500 mil is an example figure).
 
There is a large case that could be argued that City, despite lots of Sales income, Competition income and sponsorship income, have been really tight fisted when compared to the free spending United’s, Arsenal’s, Chelsea’s and Liverpool’s.
And yet, we ‘have unlimited spending’, ‘buy whomever we want’, ‘if a buy doesn’t work out, doesn’t matter - buy again’, ‘pep chequebook manager’ thrown constantly at us.

It’s so much complete bollox when you actually look at the overall real facts, rather than biased blinkered hopeful lies spouted.
 
View attachment 59620

So if we hadn't bought Jack we'd have spent 11 million in 5 years.
Interesting.

Spending £100m on Jack was clearly done to dodge paying tax and so money well spent. Maybe someone should tell the idiots on his performance thread.

For the avoidance of doubt I like Jack and what he brings to our team and don’t give a shit what we payed for him as we can clearly afford it.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.