Net spend over 5 years

[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.

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.

 

[Goat]

Massive.

 

[SuitsBlue]

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

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.

 

[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 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 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.