Okay so essentially there's three ways to judge how much money a football club has invested in it's playing staff.
The most accurate one is probably the wage bill as it's the biggest expense for most clubs and it doesn't matter whether the players come through the academy or are bought on the market, the wages tend to be accurate for how good they are. By and large the bigger the wage bill the better the team do. Some teams over achieve a little (we tend to pay the 10th biggest wages and finish about 7th), others under achieve a little (the RS) but it's normally pretty accurate.
Unfortunately the only figures I can find for wage bills are two years old.
The most common type is net spend. Which is the transfer fees paid for that weren't funded by outgoings, so the ammount the board invested in player transfers. Goat loves trotting out this one out as over Moyes' time on charge we've been outspent by most of the PL and half the championship.
But that doesn't say anything about the actual quality of the team, because you can sell players for lots of money and still buy relatively expensive replacements with a negative net spend (see Ronaldo, Christiano). A manger whos good in the transfer market, like Wenger or Moyes, can produce a hugely expensive team on a negative net spend.
So the third way is the cost of the curent squad in terms of transfer fees. Simply how much every player at the club was bought for.
And I do have those figures so here goes.
Man City -£390, 450, 000
Chelsea - £366, 200, 000
Man Utd - £263, 350, 000
Liverpool - £195, 950, 000
Arsenal - £169, 500, 000
Spurs - £163, 700, 000
Villa - £98, 200, 000
Newcastle - £78, 550, 000
Sunderland - £69, 550, 000
Everton - £65, 250, 000
Stoke - £63, 325, 000
QPR - £49, 400, 000
Southampton - £34, 450, 000
West Ham - £32, 650, 000
Wigan - £30, 200, 000
Swansea - £27, 300, 000
West Brom - £22, 875, 000
Fulham - £20, 000, 000
Norwich - £17, 150, 000
Reading - £7, 100, 000
Now obviously transfer fees are difficult because different sites give different figures but assuming that's broadly right. Wow, fulham and west brom are doing well. And wow, newcastle and Villa aren't. Also, I feel justified in my dislike of Martinez. And the RS can koff about how little money they have.
The most accurate one is probably the wage bill as it's the biggest expense for most clubs and it doesn't matter whether the players come through the academy or are bought on the market, the wages tend to be accurate for how good they are. By and large the bigger the wage bill the better the team do. Some teams over achieve a little (we tend to pay the 10th biggest wages and finish about 7th), others under achieve a little (the RS) but it's normally pretty accurate.
Unfortunately the only figures I can find for wage bills are two years old.
The most common type is net spend. Which is the transfer fees paid for that weren't funded by outgoings, so the ammount the board invested in player transfers. Goat loves trotting out this one out as over Moyes' time on charge we've been outspent by most of the PL and half the championship.
But that doesn't say anything about the actual quality of the team, because you can sell players for lots of money and still buy relatively expensive replacements with a negative net spend (see Ronaldo, Christiano). A manger whos good in the transfer market, like Wenger or Moyes, can produce a hugely expensive team on a negative net spend.
So the third way is the cost of the curent squad in terms of transfer fees. Simply how much every player at the club was bought for.
And I do have those figures so here goes.
Man City -£390, 450, 000
Chelsea - £366, 200, 000
Man Utd - £263, 350, 000
Liverpool - £195, 950, 000
Arsenal - £169, 500, 000
Spurs - £163, 700, 000
Villa - £98, 200, 000
Newcastle - £78, 550, 000
Sunderland - £69, 550, 000
Everton - £65, 250, 000
Stoke - £63, 325, 000
QPR - £49, 400, 000
Southampton - £34, 450, 000
West Ham - £32, 650, 000
Wigan - £30, 200, 000
Swansea - £27, 300, 000
West Brom - £22, 875, 000
Fulham - £20, 000, 000
Norwich - £17, 150, 000
Reading - £7, 100, 000
Now obviously transfer fees are difficult because different sites give different figures but assuming that's broadly right. Wow, fulham and west brom are doing well. And wow, newcastle and Villa aren't. Also, I feel justified in my dislike of Martinez. And the RS can koff about how little money they have.
