Liverpool's transfer net spend is actually huge

[Istvan Kozma]

 

 

well, how about that. It may be skewed taking some factors into account such as inflation. When Liverpool were the biggest spenders on Dean Saunders (£2.9 million) through to Collymore(£8.5 million) the figures were relatively low.

So in real terms, we could be even higher.

United's is skewed by the £80 mill they got for Ronaldo and haven't reinvested because of financial restraints possibly.

City's is because it's the most recent of course and prices tend to inflate wildly year on year.

Still, interesting.

 

And it's only from 1992 onwards ( when football was invented by Richard Keys.)

[Gym Beglin]

Spurs and Villa are also interesting. Though I doubt people will pick up on that, it'll just turn out to be another way to attack Rafa...

 

Agree on the United thing with the £80m sale of Ronaldo. Also have to take into account the likes of Scholes, Giggs, Gary Neville, three players that would have cost a fortune to buy. Ferguson got very lucky with a quite incredible batch of talent coming through within the space of two years, which meant he didn't need to speculate tens of millions on those positions.

Still, doesn't change the amount in our column. Yes, we've spent lots.

[The Economist]

Do we really need to go over all this again?

[Bobby Hundreds]

Probably because its rare we sell a player for a good price, because we either keep hold of them too long or turn them into shite. United sell players for big money that knocks there's down. I dont know im sick of football money.

[Ranxerox]

The figures for the Spurs surprised me, would not have guessed them to be in the top 5 at all.

[Istvan Kozma]

Do we really need to go over all this again?

ah i dunno, I haven;t spent much time on here recently so if it's old hat then I apologise but i did do a quick search and couldn't find anything.

Yes, there is lots on 'net spend,' lots and lots, lots and lots and lots, but all related to somebody called Rafa something or other and I don;t want to go through that again. This is more about the premiership era and the way the club was run by Moores and the cowboys under Souness, Evans and Houllier who all spent big.

Villas is a suprise though after all the flack Ellis used to get. And Spurs seem to go unnoticed and uncommented on about spending shed loads possibly by their public school city boy fans in the media.

[coop]

Rafa out.

[Istvan Kozma]

Probably because its rare we sell a player for a good price, because we either keep hold of them too long or turn them into shite. United sell players for big money that knocks there's down. I dont know im sick of football money.

 

That's deffo a factor in it I think. It's not just down to the chairmen stumping up the cash but bad management of it by successive coaches. The likes of Collymore was ok because he had a sell on value of 7 million when it didn't work out as did Saunders, but the likes of Cisse and Diouf more accurately sum up the type of signings we make. Arsenal buy incredibly well and sell them on at the right time, i.e Pires, Henry, Overmars, that Spanish winger who went to Real.(?)

[INTORRESTING]

we have spanked a fortune over the years on a number of rebuilding projects. Shame it wasnt on record transfers each time like united and chelsea and now city.

[Guest PurpleNose]

That website is shit.

[Unrighteous]

The figures for the Spurs surprised me, would not have guessed them to be in the top 5 at all.

 

They spend a lot but they always sell for high prices. They got like 70m pounds for Keane, Berbaflop, and Carrick.

[Macca_23]

Credit to Arsenal I say, quality scouting system going on there. Ok.. Trophys have been sparce recently for them, but their squad strength for Money spent is quality.

[piscinin]

You've got to wonder about all these numbers though. I read somewhere the other day that someone was poking through Porto's accounts and discovered that Manure actually paid 30m euros for Anderson and not the widely reported 18m!

[Magic Sponge]

Spurs and Villa are also interesting. Though I doubt people will pick up on that, it'll just turn out to be another way to attack Rafa...

 

Agree on the United thing with the £80m sale of Ronaldo. Also have to take into account the likes of Scholes, Giggs, Gary Neville, three players that would have cost a fortune to buy. Ferguson got very lucky with a quite incredible batch of talent coming through within the space of two years, which meant he didn't need to speculate tens of millions on those positions.

Still, doesn't change the amount in our column. Yes, we've spent lots.

 

You've defo got a green and gold scarf.

[The Dude Abides]

Looking at that, it just tells me how deluded some fans are about what we should be spending each year on transfers. The money simply isn't there if you're trying to run the club as a business and not a personal play toy.

 

And why isn't the same attention given to what is spent on wages? Surely that's an equally important number?

[dirk grout]

Where did they get those figures from? Try adding up the total cost of arsenals current squad.

[Xherdan]

It all goes to prove that Roy Hodgson is fucking shit.

[Liverpool lad]

What about wages?

[Istvan Kozma]

It all goes to prove that Roy Hodgson is fucking shit.

 

WHICH MADE ME LAUGH

 

Wages? Yes they are an important factor, there is probably a separate one for wage bills somewhere or other. The two tend to go hand in hand, the most expensive players tend to earn more as they are usually better/sought after.

This is better as one indicater in the whole process, not the final word on anything, there are a few other flaws like inflation or one off big deals like the Ronaldo fee, still to be invested.

 

Not sure if the numbers are validated by a credible source...Net Spend Of Each Premier League Club : European Soccer

[ReDeus]

 

 

well, how about that. It may be skewed taking some factors into account such as inflation. When Liverpool were the biggest spenders on Dean Saunders (£2.9 million) through to Collymore(£8.5 million) the figures were relatively low.

So in real terms, we could be even higher.

United's is skewed by the £80 mill they got for Ronaldo and haven't reinvested because of financial restraints possibly.

City's is because it's the most recent of course and prices tend to inflate wildly year on year.

Still, interesting.

 

And it's only from 1992 onwards ( when football was invented by Richard Keys.)

How does that 'skew' the figures? What a daft argument. They have spent less on transfers than we have yet have managed to make more money by selling players and STILL have enjoyed more success during that period. I would say the figures don't lie, they have been smarter than we have when it comes to money.

[Red Nick]

A new Net Spend thread for Christmas woohoo

[zico]

Are we to rely on those figures?

 

The only reliable figures I have seen on LFC transfers was done by someone on here at some time back....

 

Lazy journalism and simplistic math are usually at work when someone set out with a goal to prove this or that..... No way are we that high in terms of net spending over the last 18 years - No way........