http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-1992-to-today.html Unsurprisingly we are top, although City are catching. But, strangely, Spurs are ahead of Arsenal. 430m to win a carlingship!
*2 League Cups.... plus a Peace Cup I don't think you'll catch a Spurs fan claiming that we haven't spent lots of money on crap in the Premier League era but good luck trying to bait someone
LOL. United's spend compared to Spurs interesting. YV, do you think Chelsea should have won more considering our spend, or is it commensurate with our success?
That's what you find strange? Not that Sunderland, Villa, Stoke, Fulham and Newcastle are all ahead of them. Just shows that they are a selling club. Would be different if spend on wages was included.
It's only since the Glazers arrived Uniteds spend dipped but before then they were heavy spenders and ought to have won the PL every year
More league titles, yes. Then again, United shouldn't have dominated when you look at that table. The table's flawed though, it assumes all the current PL teams have been in the league every season and it's too big of a time period to really do any meaningful averages.
What since 2003 and onwards Chelsea have outspent everyone and should have won the league every season since you mean.
It's not that simple. A squad takes time to gel. We would have won the title in 06/07 had Reading not incapacitated our keepers but by then Uniteds expensively assembled squad had also gelled
All that money you spent and you miss one player and you think that costs you the title even though we had more injuries then you that season.
Interesting article....Demonstrates how good United and Arsenal have been in the market and bringing players through. Would be good to get a table showing average league position over the same period.....Though it is far too hot to do that and you could only really do it with the teams that have been mainstays in the Premiership. I agree City were catching you, but this off season you have probably gained quite abit on them...as you have spent a fair amount, (not badly)
Totally agree but at least this time we're investing in younger players! Before we'd buy the likes of Ballack, Shevchenko and Torres.
Yeh Agreed, Its the way forward.... i think the days of massive fees for the experienced players are over for most........There have been far too many flops with lots of clubs..Sheva with you guys, Veron with Man Utd, Keane with us........I look at our squad and see 20 million players like downing and then see players that have come through our academy and reserves like Suso and Pacheco and think the younger ones are better so why waste the ****ing money.... We (pool) have made good signings over the years, (Alonso, Hyppia, Garcia, torres, Suarez, Agger) but have also wasted a **** load on dross.....Think brendan isnt looking to spend as he wants to get a good feel of what we have got coming through before wasting money, which I am all for...... We probably wont be challenging this year for the Prem, but expect to see alot more youth playing, and by the end of the year we should be able to make specific signings to add where necessary... It was obvious after us losing or drawing games we dominated last season though that we did need a new striker, so im glad Borini has come in. Think Chelsea will be an attacking force this year, even though some of your 'younger' fans wil be unbearable on here when you do well..
You've pretty much bought a wishlist. Before transfer window everyone makes a list of players they want and you went out and bought them all. ****s. That table confirmed what we all know...we have wasted a lot of money.
This. I do have this image in my head of Abramovich sitting in his office playing FM. Then when Di Matteo walks in he says "Hazard just scored 30 goals for me this season - go buy him. Also, Oscar has great stats". Well, it would explain Shevchenko... Would be interesting to see how wages fit in with the whole transfer spending thing - that would give a more realistic comparison for Arsenal and Utd vs Chelsea, City and Spurs for clubs who have spent less on transfers to achieve success, but probably more on wages over 20 years. This is an interesting proxy. Basically shows how managers have over or underperformed in terms of getting more points than the average for their level of transfer spending: http://transferpriceindex.com/wp-co...erall-mPoundXIR-Rankings-Through-2011-121.png Interesting that Mancini has now moved above Mourinho, tho' he did benefit from having a lot of Hughes' expensive signings when he first arrived. Also interesting to see that 'arry is way down the table, for all his wheeler dealer, bargain-hunter reputation. Shame it doesn't do it by club tho'.
