I can't praise this article/graphics highly enough. I assume the figures are correct, it really does put into perspective just how much more teams like Arsenal and Chelsea have spent compared to us. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...pending-from-the-200001-season-to-201112.html You can hover over the bars with your mouse - exciting eh This link has gone straight into bookmarks and I'll doubtless be referring to it a lot over the coming years. It's an absolute treasure trove of info. just in the first year alone (200/1), we see Chelsea even pre RA had the highest wage spend in the country, yep more than Utd and Arsenal who were dominating the Prem at the time While teams like LEICESTER and CHARLTON spent more than us in total - I mean I ask you, what was going on there with Sugar & co? Looking at just wages DERBY spent more than us. Go to 2003/4 we spend in total about £48m, Chelsea spend about £264m, and their domination over us is set for the decade. And to think some people thought we were better off under ENIC than RA. Every year tells a fascinating story.
People complain about Levy balancing the books, but Sugar never wanted to spend in the first place...and FFS, isn't it about time one Apprentice candidate told him they didn't lose "his" money, they lost the float given to them by Talkback Thames?
Yep HBIC, ENIC have carried on the prudence of Lord Sugar. Two League Cups in the last 20 years have been the sum return in trophies for our prudent spending, not good enough really.
The bars are stupidly just to do with the combined rank of the team's spending which is daft. Just look at the 2010-11 for us and Arsenal. We spent £17.5mill on transfers and £91mill on wages which makes our total £108mill. Arsenal spent £6.8mill in transfers and £124.4mill giving them a total of £131mill but because of the way they're using a bar chart to rank them it looks like we've spent more. They could've done it so much clearer and more easily, as it is it tells you little that you couldn't have worked out for yourselves.
Our net spend of -£27m for the 2011/12 season is incredible. No doubt this season won't be far off with the money we got for Luka, Rafa, Niko, Peanut and co, though that'll depend on what happens in January. Come on Levy, pull your finger out and help us push on with a few big signings will ya!
We've spent pretty much what we've earnt in player sales this summer according to most sites but I made it at around £10mill profit for the window but I guess that all depends on how much you think Modric was. In 2011-12 you have to remember that our wage bill had gone up by like £25mill the season before and we didn't have CL income for that season.
I'm glad you appreciated the insights SOS As I say this is a brilliant resource highlighting our spending compared to other clubs throughout the century. A fantastic piece of work by the Telegraph, and massive congratulations to the author. Only relegated Blackburn had a lower net spend than us last season in transfers, a damning indictment of ENIC, especially when we had a great chance of CL football. A classic example was that both Chelsea and us needed a CB in January. We got in Nelsen, no disrespect to him, but Harry rated him so lowly he played a massively unfit Ledley instead of Ryan at times. Chelsea went out and got an England international, Cahill. Guess who got the remaining CL spot?
Nobody expects that we are going to compete financially with Chelsea, let alone City. However, we could not only be spending more, but more wisely. And, for me, there probably lies the rub. So much money has been wasted ( mostly by the likes of Comolli) that, to some extent, it's understandable that ENIC are being far more cautious. The same thing is currently happening at The Mousers, after Comilli's latest binge!..
wtf, those graphs are awful. How can the arsenal one for 06/07 for £72m combined be smaller than the Spurs one for £67m combined. What sort of berk made that?
The bars represent the ranking of the side's money spent against the rest of the league so Arsenal spent the least on transfers in the league giving them the smallest bar for that and then averaged the 3rd highest wages giving them one of the biggest bars for that whereas we had one of the highest transfer totals and an average wage making our total bar longer. But yeah, it's totally stupid.
It's not totally stupid, it's totally brilliant and a wonderful resource. In 06/7 for example we were the second highest net spenders in the transfer market, two of the bottom three were Chelsea and Arsenal. Yep even the likes of Reading had a higher net transfer spend than Chelsea that season. As I say every year tells a fascinating story.
I'm partial to a bit of stats so I've started lifting their data for a few of the sides and I'll post up the season by season, totals and averages later. Not going to do every side though, just the Manchesters, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, Villa, Everton, West Ham and Newcastle as they're the only ones that interest me.
The consensus on the Telegraph page feedback to the article is that this presentation is awful. With poor graphics and misleading graphs. The information gathered needs to be represented in a more coherent fashion that relates the figures to a proper graph. At the moment all we have are some figures placed into a mickey mouse pseudo graph, that successfully manages to distort the facts. The Telegraph has given itself away by using the same methods that it applies to it's news coverage.
Great info G10 Sadly it shows the true colours of ENIC as a investment company (What investment?) They have no love for our club and use puppet Levy as a caring tool to suppress and divide the fan base, for their eventual sell in the future. Levy earns nearly 2 million year , good value? A great jolly for the family if you can get it. I understand many are fans of ENIC/Levy which for all the waffle I will never get my head round.
How hard would it have been to combine transfers and wages into an overall amount and make a league table of each season with an overall table at the end? Why overcomplicate it and muddy the waters so badly? Idiots.
