Net spend over 5 years

[Nebbiolo]

I just found this on the internet:

http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingcomparison.jpg

Interestingly, Arsenal are far lower spenders than most clubs, which shows what a good scouting network can do for you.

With anything like this, it can't take into account various factors. The Rooney money we received makes our spend appear relatively low, when in fact all of that money was put to good use. If we hadn't received such a windfall, yet still purchased the same players, we would be at number 5 in the league, rather than number 11. As you can see, we're in a cluster of about 6 clubs that has a net spend of around the £25m mark. Basically, there's hardly anything between 7th and 11th place.

So I think the idea that Moyes has had less opportunity to sign players compared to other managers, is actually false in real terms. Moyes has had his fair share of money by PL standards. Although in saying that, perhaps there exists be an argument regarding what he's been allowed to spend on wages, which would diminish that point somewhat.

Also, with clubs like Sunderland, they have been playing catch-up, and have had to open their wallets merely to stay in the PL.

It was interesting to see Liverpool at position number 2, which kinda pours water on their claims that they are always broke, which is why they can't compete with United. In fact, they've spent more than United.

Things the table can't take into account are unexpected windfalls like the Rooney money, wages being paid, free signings, value of current squads and where each team started from. That is, Sunderland may have spent a fair whack, but their first team was worth peanuts just a short time prior to that spending, and today would still be worth far less than the current Everton first team.

Oh, and of course, this is only up until 2008 season, so I can't offer comments on where we lie now in the league.

[Bruce Wayne]

Spurs are scary aren't they when you consider that they've sold the likes of Carrick, Berbatov, Keane et al for big bucks in that period and still managed to spend £50m + net.

[Nebbiolo]

Spurs are scary aren't they when you consider that they've sold the likes of Carrick, Berbatov, Keane et al for big bucks in that period and still managed to spend £50m + net.

Shows you that unless you start from a position of strength (i.e. as an established CL team) that it is very difficult to buy your way in. For that to happen, I think you need to spend like Chelsea. That is why I'm always cautious of the demands from people that we spend £10m here, £15m there, and another £12m there. We might spend a lot of money and end up no nearer the desired goal.

[chicoazul]

You have to factor in last seasons spends though mate, which that chart doesnt include.

And lets be honest, we'd drop a few more places just on that - look at what City and Sunderland spent - and possibly Bolton.

KenWRONG out.

[Nebbiolo]

You have to factor in last seasons spends though mate, which that chart doesnt include.

And lets be honest, we'd drop a few more places just on that - look at what City and Sunderland spent - and possibly Bolton.

KenWRONG out.

I could be a smart-arse and say that if we just do the table from 05-06 season up until 08-09, we would be very high in the table, with a net spend of about £37m. Plus, while City might go higher, teams like Portsmouth, Boro and obviously Birmingham, will go lower. I'm pretty confident that our position would be maintained if we included this seasons figures as well. We're really not as low spending as is often made out.

Okay, now we need investment. I'm not denying that. But up until now, we've held our own.

[school_of_science]

Net spend only shows a small part of a club's spending. There's wage bill, how much it has increased by etc. and then there's signing on fees, plus net spend tables are based on guesses as more often than not they are signed for undisclosed fees, and ones which are announced often have all sorts of clauses meaning any figure is usually subject to change.

Arsenal may be one of the lowest spenders on transfer fees, but they are one of the highest on wages, whilst the likes of Wigan may be able to spend bigger on transfers because they save the money on wages etc.

[Nebbiolo]

Net spend only shows a small part of a club's spending. There's wage bill, how much it has increased by etc. and then there's signing on fees, plus net spend tables are based on guesses as more often than not they are signed for undisclosed fees, and ones which are announced often have all sorts of clauses meaning any figure is usually subject to change.

Arsenal may be one of the lowest spenders on transfer fees, but they are one of the highest on wages, whilst the likes of Wigan may be able to spend bigger on transfers because they save the money on wages etc.

Agreed. It's very difficult to really judge things. But often it is claimed that we spend less than any other PL club on transfers. I was just demonstrating that this isn't the case. I think the table indicates that we've held our own in that department. Plus, I think as far as getting value for money goes, Moyes would be right near the top. He's spent like a mid-table manager, but created a team which I think is probably valued higher than the net spend on it.

[steevie]

http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingcomparison.jpg

Interesting this because Manchester City have now took over us and Arsenal, if Wenger was willing to spend, we could lose a further two places in that table. That would just leave Bolton, West Ham, Fulham, Wigan and Blackburn below us of the Premier League. Despite us needing more funds, it is not a bad job our lads are doing seeing that we are consistantly challenging in the top 6 positions.

[Nebbiolo]

http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingcomparison.jpg

Interesting this because Manchester City have now took over us and Arsenal, if Wenger was willing to spend, we could lose a further two places in that table. That would just leave Bolton, West Ham, Fulham, Wigan and Blackburn below us of the Premier League. Despite us needing more funds, it is not a bad job our lads are doing seeing that we are consistantly challenging in the top 6 positions.

Moyes and the team have done well, everyone knows that. But also bear in mind that high spenders such as Tottingham and the Geordies have been consistently crap the last couple of seasons. Effectively, we have not had to compete with them due to their bad form. This has nothing to do with Everton doing something correct. So we can't take credit for pipping them to a UEFA spot.

[chicoazul]

I could be a smart-arse and say that if we just do the table from 05-06 season up until 08-09, we would be very high in the table, with a net spend of about £37m. Plus, while City might go higher, teams like Portsmouth, Boro and obviously Birmingham, will go lower. I'm pretty confident that our position would be maintained if we included this seasons figures as well. We're really not as low spending as is often made out.

Okay, now we need investment. I'm not denying that. But up until now, we've held our own.


True, but the longer the data is applicable for then the truer the value. If it was done to include this season then we'd be 12th or below which means that with us finishing sixth (on average) for the last five seasons then we've gained six places on the strength of our manager.

You also have to factor in that two of the clubs behind us having had all those seasons in the Prem so their earning potential hasnt been on an equal footing.

Its all Maths. By the way, Im with you on this - Im just doing that satan's avacado thing.

[Nebbiolo]

True, but the longer the data is applicable for then the truer the value. If it was done to include this season then we'd be 12th or below which means that with us finishing sixth (on average) for the last five seasons then we've gained six places on the strength of our manager.

You also have to factor in that two of the clubs behind us having had all those seasons in the Prem so their earning potential hasnt been on an equal footing.

Its all Maths. By the way, Im with you on this - Im just doing that satan's avacado thing.

But we wouldn't be 12th because Birmingham, Portsmouth and Boro would slip down. If anything, we'd be a place or so higher I think.

But I agree that Moyes deserves the credit for creating a top 6 team on a mid-table budget. he's been canny in the market, and has probably created a team worth twice the amount he paid for it.

It is often said in the media we punch above our weight. We don't, we punch at our weight. There are certainly no more than 5 or 6 clubs that have a better starting 11 than us at the moment.

MOYES OUT!

[chicoazul]

I was hoping we could use that data to say that Kenwright has backed him, more than City.

GO KENISRIGHT.

[Nebbiolo]

I was hoping we could use that data to say that Kenwright has backed him, more than City.

GO KENISRIGHT.

I like that, KenISRIGHT.

SAUDIS OUT!

[chicoazul]

Jib the Saudis, the theatre man is where its at.

He told me that we'd signed Kanchelskis ages before anyone knew.

Contrary to popular forum opinion, Ive met him loads and I like him.

[Nebbiolo]

Jib the Saudis, the theatre man is where its at.

He told me that we'd signed Kanchelskis ages before anyone knew.

Contrary to popular forum opinion, Ive met him loads and I like him.

The Saudis will only wreck things. Better to let Snow White KenISRIGHT steer the ship onwards. Who wants to turn into a Sky team anyway? It would be crap!

[Gazdalf]

Same here Chico.


Met him many times, and that is why I defend him so often. he may not be the best that we want, but he is the best we have, and the best that there is for us to get.


Just a shame his bank balance does not support his and our ambitions.

[Nebbiolo]

Same here Chico.


Met him many times, and that is why I defend him so often. he may not be the best that we want, but he is the best we have, and the best that there is for us to get.


Just a shame his bank balance does not support his and our ambitions.

To be fair, it isn't difficult to be the best out of one. :lol:(y)

Sending positive rep for that, mate.

[chicoazul]

The thing I loved was that all he talked about was Everton.

He's a massive blue and I dont know in which way the club is heading but we should be grateful for having him when he did.

Even if he does make a massive profit (he took a risk and bought us so I dont begrudge him it) he is a massive massive blue and doesnt deserve some of the faceless s-hite spouted about him on t'web in recent years.

Apart from Davek, who secretly has a soft spot for him.

[Gazdalf]

The thing I loved was that all he talked about was Everton.

He's a massive blue and I dont know which every way the club is heading but we should be grateful for having him when he did.

Even if he does make a massive profit (he took a risk and bought us so I dont begrudge him it) he is a massive massive blue and doesnt deserve some of the faceless s-hite spouted about him on t'web in recent years.

Apart from Davek, who secretly has a soft spot for him.

The crowd goes wild.

[chicoazul]

Reading that back, its badly gay.

Bottom line: he's sound, and nowhere near the beaut he's portrayed as.

Sorry for using massive a bit too much there too like.

[toffeestillidie]

arsenal's spending is so low because of the wenger model, buy young and then stop playing your previous seasons youngsters to make room for your new batch of youngsters. they wait till players are in their early 30's and sell them off, and they have the kind of income to back up this sort of strategy, we don't. sales like viera, kanu, campbell, ashley cole, and now henry help bankroll their operation.

it would be like if we sold cahill after this season, we would make an absolute fortune given his performances, but the difference is that arsenal have money to find a replacement, and we don't. his transfer money would help, yes, but we can't do much without a solid financial foundation.

arsenal have one of the best scouting networks in the world, but imo wenger treats players more like business investments than footballers, i'm glad we don't follow that model and show some loyalty to our players.

[Andriy.EFC]

Arsenal have been making net profits in the transfer market for years and have managed to stay in the top 4

[Neiler]

So basicily we're ace.

[Jamo Martinez]

Reading that back, its badly gay.

Bottom line: he's sound, and nowhere near the beaut he's portrayed as.

Sorry for using massive a bit too much there too like.
You were thinking of me, weren't you?

[chicoazul]

You were thinking of me, weren't you?

I was mate. Never far from my mind.

[MoutsGoat]

Massive.

[Robin Sisland]

I'd like to know how they arrived at those figures.

I don't think we're particularly unusual in not officially announcing (http://www.evertonfc.com/match/transfers.html) the true value of most transfer activity.
Deals like the Rooney sale with appearance and success clauses and add on are the norm now, so at best a lot of the numbers there are going to be based on either unofficial leaks or educated guesses and may not reflect the true size of the wad that actually changes hands.

The Arsenal figures look particularly suspect.

[Nebbiolo]

Need more information, what have the clubs earned in those same five years? and so where has the extra cash come from?

Arsenal are a strange one, firstly their dodgy dealing with that belgian club they use to circumvent passport problems for african lads. Also their new stadium, how it was paid for and the effect it has had generating cash so far.

chelsea - making noises about a new stadium.
the merdes - new stadium approved
manure - 75k at old trafford
spurs - looking for a new stadium and trying to get their paws on and olympic build that could save them a few shillings.
newcastle - st james is big enough and its always full.
villa - likewise.
pompey - moving.
boro - empty.
sunderland - new stadium.
brum - relegated.
Everton - restricted, not just views, not just corp, not just merchandising.
city - new stadium.
bolton - empty.
derby - relegated.
west ham - dodgy.
fulham - tiny - bit like charlton really.
reading - relegated.
arsenal - new stadium - bigger - better - more corp cash than that on the gates.
wigan - rugby town, earns from rugby when football takes a break. clever.
blackburn - empty.

merchandising, foreign tours, wages, backroom staff, ground upkeep, facilities management, keeping the banks happy, player trading, paying off former managers, league cash, cup runs, euro entry and the many layers of cash that can mean.

each club is a bigger entity than the projected 'spent in 5 seasons' figure.

I know that each club is a "bigger entity than the projected 'spent in 5 seasons' figure". I actually mentioned something like that in the post. The post is just about how much the club has spent on players over 5 years. I was interested in that only. Often Evertonians claim our transfer budget is the lowest in the PL. Assuming the figures are correct, the chart shows us to have generally held our own in that department.

[Nebbiolo]

I'd like to know how they arrived at those figures.

I don't think we're particularly unusual in not officially announcing (http://www.evertonfc.com/match/transfers.html) the true value of most transfer activity.
Deals like the Rooney sale with appearance and success clauses and add on are the norm now, so at best a lot of the numbers there are going to be based on either unofficial leaks or educated guesses and may not reflect the true size of the wad that actually changes hands.

The Arsenal figures look particularly suspect.

Assuming the sources on the chart are really its sources, then I would think the Times, Premierleague.com and Sportinglife.com had a shrewd idea of what is going on. I'm not saying they are perfect, but I would accept their judgment to a degree. Put it this way, I would be surprised if the findings weren't roughly a reflection of the actual case.

[knightfall]

I'd love to see an investor come into our great club. However, although I'd love to have the case, I'd prefer it not to be an abramovic/saudi type deal, more of a randy lerner at villa type situation

[Robin Sisland]

Assuming the sources on the chart are really its sources, then I would think the Times, Premierleague.com and Sportinglife.com had a shrewd idea of what is going on. I'm not saying they are perfect, but I would accept their judgment to a degree. Put it this way, I would be surprised if the findings weren't roughly a reflection of the actual case.

d'oh - didn't notice the sources listed at the bottom. I need to read more slowly.
They are all at best secondary sources though. Whoever put the table together has scoured online reports and put together a list. Given that most clubs are adept at planting stories 'spinning' a line they want to push and given the way stories get picked up and repeated I'm a bit wary of reading too much into that table. I guess it gives a rough idea but there's also the chance that some figures could be less accurate.

Just been scouring the Arsenal website to see if they have a list of transfers like ours ...couldn't find one. Odd that.

[Nebbiolo]

d'oh - didn't notice the sources listed at the bottom. I need to read more slowly.
They are all at best secondary sources though. Whoever put the table together has scoured online reports and put together a list. Given that most clubs are adept at planting stories 'spinning' a line they want to push and given the way stories get picked up and repeated I'm a bit wary of reading too much into that table. I guess it gives a rough idea but there's also the chance that some figures could be less accurate.

Just been scouring the Arsenal website to see if they have a list of transfers like ours ...couldn't find one. Odd that.

Agree with that, Robin. I've started to become a little bit annoyed by the whole "undisclosed" business actually. It seems our club has taken to it like a duck to water. I wonder what the club is trying to hide when it doesn't have the courage to publish actual fees paid for a player.

But what can you do about it? If we want to have any idea of spending on transfers the best we can hope for, is if reasonably reliable media sources at least have a stab at compiling something, which is based on what they believe is approximately true.

[Robin Sisland]

Agree with that, Robin. I've started to become a little bit annoyed by the whole "undisclosed" business actually. It seems our club has taken to it like a duck to water. I wonder what the club is trying to hide when it doesn't have the courage to publish actual fees paid for a player.

But what can you do about it? If we want to have any idea of spending on transfers the best we can hope for, is if reasonably reliable media sources at least have a stab at compiling something, which is based on what they believe is approximately true.

You're right - not much we can do. Private companies are under no obligation to reveal the details of their capital expendeture and football clubs are possibly unique in that their 'customers' expect them to.

But then they are also unique in that the bulk of their income doesn't come from the customers themselves but from the sale of rights to televise events which the customers have paid (through the nose) to attend, and at which their attendence is crucial to making the TV rights marketable..
You do have to wonder what lurks behind the 'undisclosed' and for that matter what the clubs would do if the punters got fed up with all the off-field malarchy and stopped paying to attend the matches.

[Robin Sisland]

Here is a question, lets say the club can find moyes an extra 10 mill a season do you want to see him go for high profile signings or play closer to form and look to pick up cahills, lescotts, and jagielkas for reasonable sums?



On the left: Cahill, Lescott, Jagielka, Piennar

On the right: Beattie, Johnson, Koldrup, VDM

No contest is it?

[Nebbiolo]

Here is a question, lets say the club can find moyes an extra 10 mill a season do you want to see him go for high profile signings or play closer to form and look to pick up cahills, lescotts, and jagielkas for reasonable sums?

do we want moyes to gamble on potentially a better class of player or would we be happy to see a handful more of the baines and pienaar types brought in as has been the norm so far? is there more to gain when there is more at stake? darren bent 18 mill? marcus bent 450k!!! whats the position you want moyes to address this summer???

I suppose you would expect a bit of both. For example, spending £12m or Yakubu character seems good business. I would argue a similar amount on Downing would equally be a good deal. But also raiding the Championship or newly relegated teams for prospective talent is probably a very good move. If you look at our first team, I think it is probably worth double what Moyes paid for it. In theory it is better to pay half-price rather than full-price.

Even regarding the players Robin Sisland mentioned (Beattie, Kroldrup, VDM, Johnson) we sold them all on, with the exception of VDM, so didn't really lose out financially. I think you've got to hand some praise to Moyes for getting some excellent talent on a shoestring budget.

[kenada_blue]

So you'd rather Moyes stay cash strapped and go to the wire to bag bargins because it makes him more astute in his dealings? You wouldnt like him to have flexibility? Flexability, that extra £5mill even, would've bagged us a Moutinho for eg.

You have fans on one side saying - we just dont have the squad and that extra quality to jump a few places in the league. The other side you have fans saying - Moyes dont need money because the way the club is makes him find those gems.

I dont buy that. And as the years role on, when average players who cost £2million a year or 2 ago cost £5million now, those gems are going to be few and far between, and even then be more than bagging a Cahill or Arteta.

Its not about throwing money at him, its making sure he's not sweating on deadline day to buy players, that he can buy comfortably.

As for the players mentioned - Johnson had a great 1st season, scored important goals, but was out done by a better player (Yak) who suited the system more. Dunno what happened to Koldrup but he seems to be fine where he's at now. VDM's just a mess who cant seem to redeem himself under Moyes. And Beattie is the just the player he is now, a lower Premiership team striker.

And to be fair I still wouldnt mind having AJ and Beattie at the club, especially in our current striker crisis.

[Nebbiolo]

So you'd rather Moyes stay cash strapped and go to the wire to bag bargins because it makes him more astute in his dealings? You wouldnt like him to have flexibility? Flexability, that extra £5mill even, would've bagged us a Moutinho for eg.

You have fans on one side saying - we just dont have the squad and that extra quality to jump a few places in the league. The other side you have fans saying - Moyes dont need money because the way the club is makes him find those gems.

I dont buy that. And as the years role on, when average players who cost £2million a year or 2 ago cost £5million now, those gems are going to be few and far between, and even then be more than bagging a Cahill or Arteta.

Its not about throwing money at him, its making sure he's not sweating on deadline day to buy players, that he can buy comfortably.

As for the players mentioned - Johnson had a great 1st season, scored important goals, but was out done by a better player (Yak) who suited the system more. Dunno what happened to Koldrup but he seems to be fine where he's at now. VDM's just a mess who cant seem to redeem himself under Moyes. And Beattie is the just the player he is now, a lower Premiership team striker.

And to be fair I still wouldnt mind having AJ and Beattie at the club, especially in our current striker crisis.


No mate, I didn't say that. I said that if we had a specific amount of money, I would like Moyes to purchase proven players like Downing as well as bring in players that seem to have potential. A bit of both is the key to building a team. What I pointed out was that we have a number of men at the club that are worth far more than Moyes paid for them. In other words, we assembled a class team for a reasonable sum, That has got be better than than assembling the same class team for twice the price, or assembling half a class team for the same price.

[kenada_blue]

Oh definately. I'd like that too, that's why I mentioned a flexable amount of cash would be good for Moyes.

I was pointing out more of the "Moyes works best within in tight restrictions" and I agree...a few years back. But in the current transfer climate, players price increase no matter how good they are. Anton Ferdinand to Sunderland £8mill or so. AJ to Fulham - £10million or so. That's the market today. Especially when we're looking for top 4 rather than getting out of the bottom 4.

[Neiler]

I suppose you would expect a bit of both. For example, spending £12m or Yakubu character seems good business. I would argue a similar amount on Downing would equally be a good deal. But also raiding the Championship or newly relegated teams for prospective talent is probably a very good move. If you look at our first team, I think it is probably worth double what Moyes paid for it. In theory it is better to pay half-price rather than full-price.

Even regarding the players Robin Sisland mentioned (Beattie, Kroldrup, VDM, Johnson) we sold them all on, with the exception of VDM, so didn't really lose out financially. I think you've got to hand some praise to Moyes for getting some excellent talent on a shoestring budget.

About four or five times id say mate. Personaly i think hes added about 50-60 mill on the value of the club.

[Nebbiolo]

About four or five times id say mate. Personaly i think hes added about 50-60 mill on the value of the club.

It's difficult to judge, but I agree that he's certainly added value to the club.

Lescott, Arteta, Cahill, Jagielka, Pienaar and Howard cost us around £18m. I wonder how much they might be valued at today? :huh:

[Robin Sisland]

It's difficult to judge, but I agree that he's certainly added value to the club.

Lescott, Arteta, Cahill, Jagielka, Pienaar and Howard cost us around £18m. I wonder how much they might be valued at today? :huh:

Conservatively I'd say between £8m-£12m each depending on who needed to fill what position and who else was available. So £48m-£72m overall.

The only problem with making valuations like that is that they're only 'real' if you're planning on selling the players. Which in turn only makes sense if you already have someone else who can do the same job just as well and/or something sensible to do with the cash - eg fill a gap with someone good you have lined up. Which ideally wouldn't happen too often...I'd desperately hate to see us go down the FSW route of fielding a new team every 18 months.

A better valuation system might be to try and guess what sort of positions we'd have achieved had we continued fielding players like (say) Kilbane, Bent, Simonson, Wright, Simple Simon, Frank the wank Jeffers or the disinterested Graveson who returned to us last season, then calculate how many league positions and how much extra TV money our six bargains have already netted us. And how much extra they'll bring us over the five or six years more we can realistically expect to get out of them.