Txiki Begiristain

[Kazzydeyna]

Net Transfer Spend (2010-17):

1. Man City - £815M
2. PSG - £662M
3. Man United - £647M
4. Chelsea - £396M
5. Barcelona - £301M
6. Juventus - £294M
7. Bayern Munich - £268M
8. Liverpool - £223M
9. Arsenal - £219M
10. Real Madrid - £172M


I understand that from the takeover the club had to pay above the market price in terms of fees and wages to attract the best talents, but after that we should do it better and spend wisely but unfortunatelly we didnt sort out yet.

The thing with our net spend is that in 2010 we were in the early stages of catching up with teams that had 20+ years advantage of spending and investment over us.

To have spent so comparitively little more than them is a fantastic achievement and all concerned should be congratulated

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Net Transfer Spend (2010-17):

1. Man City - £815M
2. PSG - £662M
3. Man United - £647M
4. Chelsea - £396M
5. Barcelona - £301M
6. Juventus - £294M
7. Bayern Munich - £268M
8. Liverpool - £223M
9. Arsenal - £219M
10. Real Madrid - £172M


I understand that from the takeover the club had to pay above the market price in terms of fees and wages to attract the best talents, but after that we should do it better and spend wisely but unfortunatelly we didnt sort out yet.

These figures mean nothing, don't take into account 'signing-on fees, agents fees and just as important with the context of the thread isn't even the correct period.

 

[The Riot Club]

I hope our net spend is always stupidly high.

I want us to buy players when they're on the up, keep them until they're over 30 and worthless.

English teams who have low net spends are teams who sell their best players. Bring it down with some academy or investment players who can't make it here but get sold for a few million profit, but otherwise keep that spend high.

I agree completely. Spend what it takes to be the best.

 

[lancs blue]

Net Transfer Spend (2010-17):

1. Man City - £815M
2. PSG - £662M
3. Man United - £647M
4. Chelsea - £396M
5. Barcelona - £301M
6. Juventus - £294M
7. Bayern Munich - £268M
8. Liverpool - £223M
9. Arsenal - £219M
10. Real Madrid - £172M


I understand that from the takeover the club had to pay above the market price in terms of fees and wages to attract the best talents, but after that we should do it better and spend wisely but unfortunatelly we didnt sort out yet.

A better comparison would be post-2012 or after Ferguson's retirement, as has been said we had to spend big to play catch-up in the early years of the "project".

 

[The Riot Club]

Net Transfer Spend (2010-17):

1. Man City - £815M
2. PSG - £662M
3. Man United - £647M
4. Chelsea - £396M
5. Barcelona - £301M
6. Juventus - £294M
7. Bayern Munich - £268M
8. Liverpool - £223M
9. Arsenal - £219M
10. Real Madrid - £172M


I understand that from the takeover the club had to pay above the market price in terms of fees and wages to attract the best talents, but after that we should do it better and spend wisely but unfortunatelly we didnt sort out yet.

I wish there was another 1 in front of that figure and we had Messi, Neymar, Bale, Hazard, Mbappe as well as everyone we actually do have. Dominate.

 

[kippaxneil]

Be interesting to know the figures for the period 2000-17. The Chelsea figure should up considerably as Abramovich came to town.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Wish there'd been another 75M on that, but can't complain.

 

[aguero93:20]

Wish there'd been another 75M on that, but can't complain.

£1,079m extra would have made for a nice figure :)

 

[bellsouth]

Our net spend has also been affected by the fact we're not a selling club. Chelsea, Liverpool and to some extent United have all pulled in some ridiculously high fees for player sales

 

[chesterguy]

what would be really interesting is what the value of the players that are now in our squad are now worth because that would be a better indicator as to how well the money has been spent and I would suggest that if you deduct the value of the assets from the cost of those assets we would stack up very favourably