Financial spending in England

Status
Not open for further replies.

Allezfan

Player Valuation: 1p
dholliday asked me to look this up. Essentially given Moyes and his fans cry poverty while ignoring our huge wage bill, just how many teams have actually outspend us in his time here.

From 2002 to 2012, which is 10 seasons, Moyes has spent 453.93 million pounds on bringing in and paying himself, his coaches and his players. That's wages (443.48 million pounds) and transfer fees (114 million pounds) minus the money he's made by selling players (103.6 million pounds). So in ten top flight seasons that's 45 million pounds per season spent on the first team. (Discounting money paid to agents because the data's hard to get ahold of but we're bang midtable and the money's smalle enough not to make much of a difference so I'm ignoring it.)

I'm anti kenwright but to make it clear this isn't about the board. Whether the money the manager has is earned mostly by the team (prize money, cup runs), the fans (attendence, merchandise) or the board (loans, sponsorship, investment) doesn't effect how much money he has to spend.

The main problem with this comparison is a lot of teams have been in the lower leagues where the fees aren't comparable. So to be fair we'll just be looking at the top flight expenditure and dividing by the number of seasons it.

Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool and Man Utd have obviously all outspend us in those ten years so that's 4.
Sunderland have spent 7 seasons in the top flight in that time. And in those seven seasons they spent 408.53 million or 56.36 million per season. So that's 5.
Arsenal have spent 952 million on wages in those ten years and made 20 million on transfers so that's 93 million per season. 6
Tottenham have spent 661 million in ten seasons or 66 million a season. 7.
Aston Villa have spent 105.7 million on transfers and 534 million on wages. So 63 million a season. 8
Stoke have spent 4 of those seasons in the top flight and spent 254 million during them. Thats 63 million a season. 9
QPR have spent just the one of those seasons in the top flight and spent 114 million in that one season. That's 10.
Newcastle spent nine of those seasons in the top flight and spent 535 million. So 59 mil a season. 11
West Ham spent seven seasons and 377.55. So 53 million a season. 12
Fulham have spent 45.7 million per season. 13

So Moyes' everton is the 14th top spending team in england during his time here. Everyone else (bolton, pompey, blackburn, charlton, brum, wigan, leeds etc) we outspend.

Boro are worth adding here. In that they outspend us during the time they were a prem side and moyes was our manager but the rising wages since then have meant they don't as a whole.

This isn't a pro moyes post because I want him out of this club, yeseterday if possible. But it comes up often enough that I thought people might appreciate some facts.
 
Interesting perspective that mate. I am agnostic about Moyes in the main, I think someone posted recently something along the lines of "decent coach, can spot a player, but game management is poor". Hard to disagree with that, but my view is limited by hardly ever seeing a live game these days.

What cannot be up for debate is the (financial) insanity of footie these days, which your analysis just underlines!
 
Thats all very well and good and does show what an uneven playing field he's been playing on.

However it doesn't take into account football games are won by ability (manager and player) not price tags or wage packets.

The money comparison is fair when building squads and signing players, and Moyes does a very good job, better than the vast majority of his peers and deserves the credit.

But once those players are signed and squads assembled, after the hardest part of his task is succesfully done, then he is less succesful in what he achieves considering the ability of those given squads.

Then he is just an ok manager doing an ok job. Not bad, not outstanding, just ok.

Overall, he's a good manager. But he shouldn't always be absolved of blame for his other failings elsewhere due to his financial successes.

I won't take seriously anyone who says "we can't compete with QPR, look at how much money they spent". I eill take seriously someone who says " we'll struggle to compete with Chelsea due to how good their squad is".
 
Last edited:
Thats all very well and good and does show what an uneven playing field he's been playing on.

However it doesn't take into account football games are won by ability (manager and player) not price tags or wage packets.

The money comparison is fair when building squads and signing players, and Moyes does a very good job, better than the vast majority of his peers and deserves the credit.

But once those players are signed and squads assembled, after the hardest part of his task is succesfully done, then he is less succesful in what he achieves considering the ability of those given squads.

Then he is just an ok manager doing an ok job. Not bad, not outstanding, just ok.

Overall, he's a good manager. But he shouldn't always be absolved of blame for his other failings elsewhere due to his financial successes.

You know I agree with this, death. Our record in cups and losing big cup games to inferior teams can't be excused by the finances, for one.
 

I fail to see how anybody can look at those numbers and want him out of the club (particularly when there is no obvious replacement) unless their only interest is living in the short term and not giving a damn what happens to the club in the long run.
 
I fail to see how anybody can look at those numbers and want him out of the club (particularly when there is no obvious replacement) unless their only interest is living in the short term and not giving a damn what happens to the club in the long run.

Step forward Mr Harry Redknapp.
 
Good call making this into a thread, artet.



What cannot be up for debate is the (financial) insanity of footie these days, which your analysis just underlines!

Yeah, we never used to discuss money so much. Pre-1992 it was a novelty to talk money about any club, nevermind Everton: just the odd big money transfer (Waddle was a talking point), now and then a cheeky takeover bid (Michael Knighton juggling that ball on his head) and us-related there was the Mersey Millionaires period (before my time even).

Nowadays, talking about money dominates: wage bills, tv income, transfer window kitty etc. It's boring to tell you the truth, and distracts from the actual sport.


Our record in cups and losing big cup games to inferior teams can't be excused by the finances, for one.

We should all agree with this...can't imagine there is anyone who can hold a different view.
 
Would'nt touch Harry Redknapp with a bargepole,besides we havent got enough money to spend
for him,thank goodness.
 
Funny somebody should mention our cup defeats at the hands of lower teams. Since 2004/05 (the furthest back this site im looking at goes) the following teams have lost to the following lower league opposition in cups:

Tottenham: Leicester, Portsmouth, Grimsby, Burnley

Everton: Oldham, Reading, Brentford, Leeds

Aston Villa: Sheffield United, Millwall, Burnley, Doncaster, Leicester, QPR, Bradford

Arsenal: Blackburn, Blackburn, Burnley, Ipswich, Bradford

Chelsea: Barnsley, Charlton, Burnley,

Important to note that as well as losing a similar amount or more games to lower league opposition, all of the above teams outspend us.

Would seem Moyes doesn't fare too badly there either...
 

As is always the case with blocks of numbers like that they can be interpreted different ways.

For instance clubs that have chopped and changed managers will logically spend more as the new guy ships players out, usually at a loss or below worth, and takes players he wants, usually at a premium, as people can see that coming.

Also sides that have had serious financial issues such as relegations will have let players go cheaply when going down and paid a premium when coming back up.

The stability Moyes gained by being here 11 years has been worth a great deal to him in avoiding these types of scenario's. If he'd been at two or three clubs in that time I don't think we'd see anything like those numbers. I don't mean that to detract from what he's done here either. At the time he came in he was the absolute right person for us.
 
Our agent fees are a lot, "other operating costs".

Out of interest mate what are the sources for these figures, they seem a little off to me without having looked into it. I think its quite impossible to have exact figures tbf.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top