Jose Mourinho http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...er-world-football-past-10-years-makes-10.html 1 - Jose Mourinho – £619m 2 - Manuel Pellegrini – £597m 3 - Carlo Ancelotti – £466m 4 - Roberto Mancini – £441m 5 - Pep Guardiola – £382m 6 - Rafa Benitez – £376m 7 - Louis van Gaal – £337m 8 - Arsene Wenger – £333m 9 - Brendan Rodgers – £287m 10 - Sir Alex Ferguson – £281 m
... pretty nonsensical comparison stats tbf ... all depends on which clubs they were at, what state those clubs were in when they started their tenure, and whether they were even managing at club level for that full ten years ... e.g van Gaal must have spent half of that period playing Azog The Defiler in The Hobbit trilogy ...
Lol if it was net spend Fergie's would fall below 200m on the sale of Ronaldo alone Net spend is bollox. The good thing about total spend is it tells you how much you've spent on bringing players in. That's what it all comes down to, the players bought.
I'd disagree to an extent. Net spend is important, as for most clubs you have to balance the books to some degree. What tends to get ignored in these figures is total costs, I.e. Including wages!.
But you're looking at it from purely a financial view rather than a footballing one. You can balance the books by not buying or selling anyone in principle but that doesnt mean much. While the source of income is inportant in a wider debate, as far as the above table is concerned, where the money comes from is secondary, it's what you do with the money that matters. And that ultimately comes down to the players you buy... and how many.
Who you buy, yes obviously. All clubs make mistakes, some more than others. But, you can't just spend, spend, spend. Outright sales, or selling to 'upgrade' are an important part of balancing your P&L account.
That is not the aim of the list...you need to find some other lists for that no need to throw a spanner in the fackin works all the time, unless it's a West Ham fan.
I see the 'board meltdown' thread has been closed down....going by that and the people shutting it down..they ought to ****ing shut down the whole Sunderland board. Pathetic. Yes off topic but I had to say it somewhere and this looks like the newest thread on PL chat...sorry Custard.
We've had a similar discussion on the United board today. We were visited by an angry Swansea fan who objected to a team as **** as LVG's United beating his managerless rabble. To ease his suffering he went off on one about how United bought the title when the PL was founded. I presented him with some stats that showed that during the 90's Liverpool spent as much as United on total transfer spend and more than United on total net spend. He then made his excuses about needing to be elsewhere before dropping by again to ask whether the amount of money spent on the training ground had been taken into account. He declined the invitation to discuss how Fergie's transfer spend, both gross and net, compared to the money spent by Chelsea and City since the Glazers took over United. Bizarrely the whole discussion began when he was defending the current, free spending United under LVG. He was last seen counting his testicles and getting into a bit of a muddle.
Net spend means a lot more than total spend. If you sell a player for £20m and buy a replacement for £10m you haven't thrown more at the team than someone who buys a player for £5m and sells no one. If anything, gross spend is the irrelevant number
I dont disagree with that, and I'm not trying to be difficult but that's part of a much wider argument which isnt the point of the table. There are other factors which are equally unimportant. For example someone could buy 5 players, they turn out to be ****, then sell those 5 players and buy another 5 players for a net spend of 0. The fact the players cost 100m or 10m suddenly becomes irrelevant bcos the net spend is 0? Why should it? They bought 10 footballers! Or in Fergie's case you sell a player for 80m and buy 3 for 80m and have a net spend of 0 so therefore the amount spent is irrelevant? To me it's simple. You spent x amount on players. Actual footballers not just £ numbers. And what did you do with them.
at the Spurs boys instantly crying at the lack of consideration of "net spend". Don't worry lads, if you kept a manager for more than five minutes his name would be near the top of this list. You boys know how to waste some serious cash.
