Transfer Budgets

PHB

Using kaids' excel sheet, I was thinking we'd try settle the amount spent debate over different clubs.
Attached is his excel sheet, I was thinking if you spot any problems with it, post it on here, we'll edit it, until it's a conclusive report.

therecklessone

PHB wrote:

Attached is his excel sheet, I was thinking if you spot any problems with it, post it on here

I've spotted one, it's not attached...;)

PHB

therecklessone

Just wondering, where are the transfer figures from?

The Muppet

Good idea for a thread , maybe we can put this one to bed once and for all.

I just had a quick look and Macherano is listed as on loan @ £1.5 million and £18 million to make the deal permanent, That would make a big difference to the final figures if accurate.

el rabitos

why since january 2002? what are your sources for the figures?

Running Bing

el rabitos wrote:

why since january 2002? what are your sources for the figures?

Obviously that was most favourable to the person who made the list:rolleyes:

homerjay2005

those chelsea figures are unbelieveable really. so so much wasting of money there, tis no wonder the russian has turned off the money tap. being £180 million in debt and no backing from abramovich, its not surprising either that they are turning to free transfers so far this summer.

Chardee MacDennis

while this article may be abit biased it is an interesting read.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG156087070603-0752.htm

Stky10

For it to be of any use it should also include the amount spent on wages for players for each season as well. The average wage for a premiership footballer is over 1 million a year, and the top players can earn over 5 million, and in a lot of cases the cost of a players transfer fee is small compared to the cost of wages they'll earn over the length of their contract.

The Muppet

Call_me_al wrote:

while this article may be abit biased it is an interesting read.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG156087070603-0752.htm

"a bit biased" come on it as one sided as can be which is not surprising considering the source.

When Benítez has spent between £5m-£10m on a player he has generally hauled in some real winners: no one can doubt the quality and value for money of Alonso, Agger, Reina, Luis Garcia, Crouch, Sissoko, Bellamy and Kuyt.

" Real winners" enough said.

Tusky

why did you pick 2002 as the starting point ?

Thanx 4 The Fish

The Muppet wrote:

"a bit biased" come on it as one sided as can be which is not surprising considering the source.

Now you know how we feel when we are faced with your posts

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Now you know how we feel when we are faced with your posts

Ah now I never went that far.:)

This is how many league points each 'big club' got for every million pounds spent on its 20 main players.

Liverpool.....................0.78
Spurs.............................0.75
Arsenal ........................0.71
Man United.................0.63
Newcastle....................0.56
Chelsea.........................0.33

I Lolled.

PHB

I got the figures from PepeLeFrits (kaids), he posted it on the Arsenal thread.
If there are any incorrect figures, post a source, and we'll change it, then we'll be able to compile it all together.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

I got the figures from PepeLeFrits (kaids), he posted it on the Arsenal thread.
If there are any incorrect figures, post a source, and we'll change it, then we'll be able to compile it all together.

or

you post a source for these figures? seems like the first thing to do when starting a thread of this type. different sites, bbc and skysports for example, regularly post differing transfer fees for players. so i'd be interested to see where these figures are coming from.

also, again, why 2002? why not 2000, 1990, 1997?

PHB

Just when PepeLeFrits picked, there was no particular reason, if you want to add 2001, do so.
Why is this a competition?

I didn't compile this initital thing, I just took it off mike (cheers), if theres a problem in the list, post a source, and we'll fix it. Seems like a simple plan no?

PHB

For it to be of any use it should also include the amount spent on wages for players for each season as well. The average wage for a premiership footballer is over 1 million a year, and the top players can earn over 5 million, and in a lot of cases the cost of a players transfer fee is small compared to the cost of wages they'll earn over the length of their contract.

If you have that data, post it, and I'll pop it in.

el rabitos

a simple plan would have been picking 1 source to begin with, otherwise your really just pulling numbers out of nowhere, no?

its not a competition but if we're just going to throw random numbers around we might aswell play countdown

can i have a consonant please?

PHB

Well then, if you want to do that, I suggest that you do. Go for it, post up the figures, I'll happily put them in. If you have nothing to contribute though, and don't really want to, I don't see why you are even posting on the thread.

And since you seem to think there are so many problems, which ones exactly do you have a problem with?

The Muppet

el rabitos wrote:

a simple plan would have been picking 1 source to begin with, otherwise your really just pulling numbers out of nowhere, no?

its not a competition but if we're just going to throw random numbers around we might aswell play countdown

can i have a consonant please?

He did pick one source, Kaids/Pepe Lefrits spreadsheet. PHP also invited anyone who found any anomilities to post them and said he would change them if necessary.

As a United Fan I'm sure PHP would not have chosen to start the year United made their record signing (30 million for rio)if he were trying to be funny with the figures. I think a five year period is a fair timescale for such an experiment.

Stky10

PHB wrote:

If you have that data, post it, and I'll pop it in.

AFAIK Deloittes usually do an end of season report where they give a guestimated figure along with the percentage of wages against income. I've too much to be doing though to hunt it down for five seasons running.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6705251.stm

It makes sense though. In just counting transfer fees, Ballack cost Chelsea nothing, where in reality he's costing them 130grand sterling a week. Similarly this summer, Sidwell, Pizarro, and Alex might cost them the sum total of a dollar in transfers, but 200 grand sterling a week in wages.

el rabitos

well suggest a "fair" start date and go from there.

man utd and arsenal have had managers that have been at the job for at least a decade (wenger has been at arsenal about 10 years now iirc?) so both clubs have not had any major incomings and outgoings as far as transfers within the first teams go so would it not be somewhat unfair to compare and contrast the spending habits of those 2 clubs with chelsea and liverpool who both in 2004/05 brought in new managers?

chelsea have adopted a stratagy of "lets buy all the first team players we need to start off with a strong base". now chelsea, after investing big, have got the solid base that arsenal and man utd have built up over the years, they are now in a position where they have a strong squad, and just have to add to it with 1 or 2 major changes every year.

liverpool on the other hand, dont really have as settled a squad, benitez is still doing what mourinho would have had to do had he not had the major finances to buy a complete first team, he's plugging gaps and spending money to supplement the reserve team while trying to build a settled core of players for the first team, its a bit all over the place with players coming and going.

so what your doing is comparing the settled spending of arsenal and man utd with chelsea's massive initial investment to reach that settled stage, and rafa benitez's attempt to play around with the budget he's been given to try and build a new team.

basically what i'm saying its not really a level playing field, so obviously liverpool and chelsea are going to be top of the spending lists because they have both, since 2002 anyway, been the busiest clubs trying to re-structure.

try adding up the spending in 4 years or so assuming all 4 managers are still in place and start from 2004/05 and you'll probably have a rough estimate as to how the teams spending compares under their current management structures.

my 2c anyway

The Muppet

el rabitos wrote:

well suggest a "fair" start date and go from there.

man utd and arsenal have had managers that have been at the job for at least a decade (wenger has been at arsenal about 10 years now iirc?) so both clubs have not had any major incomings and outgoings as far as transfers within the first teams go so would it not be somewhat unfair to compare and contrast the spending habits of those 2 clubs with chelsea and liverpool who both in 2004/05 brought in new managers?

chelsea have adopted a stratagy of "lets buy all the first team players we need to start off with a strong base". now chelsea, after investing big, have got the solid base that arsenal and man utd have built up over the years, they are now in a position where they have a strong squad, and just have to add to it with 1 or 2 major changes every year.

liverpool on the other hand, dont really have as settled a squad, benitez is still doing what mourinho would have had to do had he not had the major finances to buy a complete first team, he's plugging gaps and spending money to supplement the reserve team while trying to build a settled core of players for the first team, its a bit all over the place with players coming and going.

so what your doing is comparing the settled spending of arsenal and man utd with chelsea's massive initial investment to reach that settled stage, and rafa benitez's attempt to play around with the budget he's been given to try and build a new team.

basically what i'm saying its not really a level playing field, so obviously liverpool and chelsea are going to be top of the spending lists because they have both, since 2002 anyway, been the busiest clubs trying to re-structure.

try adding up the spending in 4 years or so assuming all 4 managers are still in place and start from 2004/05 and you'll probably have a rough estimate as to how the teams spending compares under their current management structures.

my 2c anyway

Start from the begining of the premiership then as you are unlikely to get a year that does not favour one club over another otherwise. I would be happy to do the figures for United and liverpool for that matter as I already have them here somwhere. I would need a few days to formulate them .

jesus_thats_gre

Start from the start of each managers tenure (or the start of the PL in Ferguson's case) and get the average per year spent by that manager for their club. Quite difficult to get the info for some of the smaller clubs but quite simple for the bigger clubs. Maybe add a weighting so that a minimum of 5 years of date has to be accounted for (Rafa and Jose have been there 3 years but both previous managers spent quite alot of money on players and some those players are still in the club and are first team players).

Might also be an idea to consider inflation so that a club spending 60 million a season 5 years ago but only spending 10 million a season now does not get an artificially low score when compared to a club spending 10 million 5 years ago and 60 million a season now. As you know, 60 million 5 years ago was mega bugs but is somewhat average now.

PHB

Fair enough, I've no problem with adding in data, I just wanted to get a conclusive report on what people actually spend. What you take from it is entirely up to you, but I'd like to be able to say without a doubt how much people spent.

The Muppet

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Start from the start of each managers tenure (or the start of the PL in Ferguson's case) and get the average per year spent by that manager for their club. Quite difficult to get the info for some of the smaller clubs but quite simple for the bigger clubs. Maybe add a weighting so that a minimum of 5 years of date has to be accounted for (Rafa and Jose have been there 3 years but both previous managers spent quite alot of money on players and some those players are still in the club and are first team players).

Might also be an idea to consider inflation so that a club spending 60 million a season 5 years ago but only spending 10 million a season now does not get an artificially low score when compared to a club spending 10 million 5 years ago and 60 million a season now. As you know, 60 million 5 years ago was mega bugs but is somewhat average now.

Ok , You've got the job, when can you start.:)

It might be an idea to break it down into blocks of years to account for inflation rather than using averages which will not give accurate results for the reasons stated.

jesus_thats_gre

Ask my... Too busy unfortunately.

There is an article on LFC.tv that address some of what we have been discussing. Apparently Liverpool have spent an average of 4million per player for their first 20. Arsenal have apparently spent 4.5million.


Ah found it - not read the whole thing yet mind you:

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG156087070603-0752.htm

The Muppet

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Ask my... Too busy unfortunately.

There is an article on LFC.tv that address some of what we have been discussing. Apparently Liverpool have spent an average of 4million per player for their first 20. Arsenal have apparently spent 4.5million.


Ah found it - not read the whole thing yet mind you:

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG156087070603-0752.htm

You didn't read all this thread did you?

Pepe LeFrits

The data on the spreadsheet runs from 2002 because that was 5 years ago and that's a nice round number. It was put together for Arsenal fans to show the contraints Wenger has been under in the transfer market as he's been getting quite a bit of stick recently (I don't mean by anyone on here specifically). PHB spotted it in the Arsenal thread and asked to use it and I let him. It doesn't take things like wages into account or the time managers have been at the club because that isn't the point of it. It shows the transfer spending. That's it. I didn't put it together to start a penis-waving contest, though I can understand the Liverpool fans in particular getting defensive about it as it doesn't show their club in a very favourable light. If people want to make additions or make new lists for manager-average-spend (might want to add the effects of inflation there) average-player-cost etc then feel free. I don't care.

el rabitos

why are you bringing penises(peni?) and disgruntled liverpool fans into it?

its not really something any group of fans can get pissed off about, it kinda is what it is really. i'm just saying there are alot of variables to take into account if you wanna get a grasp of how the top 4's spending compares with each other.

cson

el rabitos wrote:

its not really something any group of fans can get pissed off about.

Its obviously stirred something inside you otherwise you wouldn't be refuting it so vigourously. Its an informal spreadsheet, using as close to the disclosed fees as can be had, just to show transfer spending in the last 5 years.

If you have such a problem with it I reccommend you abstain from discussion on the thread. You've made your point, move on.

el rabitos

cson wrote:

Its obviously stirred something inside you otherwise you wouldn't be refuting it so vigourously. Its an informal spreadsheet, using as close to the disclosed fees as can be had, just to show transfer spending in the last 5 years.

If you have such a problem with it I reccommend you abstain from discussion on the thread. You've made your point, move on.

eh? stirred what now? what am i refuting?

Noelie

el rabitos wrote:

eh? stirred what now? what am i refuting?

You seem to be very annoyed that the figures only go back 5 years, however I don't think it will change much, maybe with the exception of Spurs.
Chelsea weren't about to go bust before Abramovich for no reason, United still always bought a lot of players for large money at the time, for example Keane was a record signing when he was bought. I'm not sure what Liverpool's spending was like back then so perhaps they will be a little better off and I would think Arsenal could be shown to have a lower spending deficit as they sales of Anelka and Overmars/Petit aren't included in the figures.

I think 5 years is perfect as the money being spent on player over the last 5 years have been consistent, however there weren't many/any players being shifted about for 20m+ over ten years ago so extending the figures back will only reduce they average value of each clubs spending per year.

The Muppet

I updated the spreadsheet for United and Liverpool back to 92/93 season(start of the premiership) today. . I have attached the file

PHB I found an error in the original spreadsheet. John obi mikel purchased for £4 million in 2005 does not appear in the transfers in for united,

EDIT<File now includes all transfers>

PHB

Well, afaik, United never paid that fee, as the fee was on completion of the move (as it always is), and the move was not completed

zing

The Muppet wrote:

I updated the spreadsheet for United and Liverpool back to 92/93 season(start of the premiership) today.

There are 2 totals for Liverpool for 1998 in that spreadsheet - one is correct but the other includes total figures for 1999 also as it sum()'s beyond the range for 1998.

The Muppet

zing wrote:

There are 2 totals for Liverpool for 1998 in that spreadsheet - one is correct but the other includes total figures for 1999 also as it sum()'s beyond the range for 1998.

Thanks Zing I have soted that out

PHB you are right about Mikel I have sorted that one too.

redspider

The only way to look at what a club spends is to look at the financial statements from each club and compare their costs. A 5 year period is a reasonable amount of time but 10 years would be better. These costs include the net effect of transfers/asset changes and salaries.

Note that for most players and clubs, the salary of a player over his contract is a larger amount than the cost of transferring his registation. Look at what Liverpool have to spend on salaries to keep Gerrard and Carragher, Chelsea to keep Lampard and Terry, Arsenal to keep Henry and Vieira (over the years), and Man Utd to keep Scholes, Giggs, Beckham.

Stky10 wrote:

In just counting transfer fees, Ballack cost Chelsea nothing, where in reality he's costing them 130grand sterling a week. Similarly this summer, Sidwell, Pizarro, and Alex might cost them the sum total of a dollar in transfers, but 200 grand sterling a week in wages.

Exactly!

Ballack's total cost (because he moved on a 'Bosman') meant that his transfer was free, but his 4 year contract was 130k/week (reportedly) which is 27m over 4 years. Just because Bayern didnt get any didnt mean that Chelsea got him for 'free'.

Also note that the actual costs of a transfer are not what may be reported in the press. There is no legal obligation to do so and many of them are guesses by someone that just get re-iterated in the press. Secondly, some fees are based on performance/appearances, etc, and some are staged payments. In other words, the figures are unreliable at best so conclusions drawn from them should have a big caveat.

The only reliable figures are the clubs financial statements, that is, if you can trust the accountants and auditors, but that is a different thread altogether .....

Redspider

The Muppet

I have attached the revised spreadsheet which includes transfers from teh start of the premiership 1992/93 season.

I have also included some comparisons of my own.

raido9

Anyone feel like adding newcastle to the spreadsheet?

The Muppet

I'll add newcastle for you . It will take a day or so.

Tusky

I have to say Im quite taken back by Liverpools spending. Didnt realise it was so high.

5starpool

I may have missed something, but why is this summers spending not included on it?

PHB

I've added in all the transfer I could think of from this year that were not included, Lucas, Hargreaves, Nani, Anderson, Pizzarro. Can't think or find anyone else.

Vokes

Other additions for Liverpool would be: Voronin, Free; Leto, 1.85 - 2 mil.

And some useful transfer links (although the 2nd one isn't working atm)...

http://www.footballtransferleague.co.uk/
http://www.footballtransfers.co.uk/

raido9

The Muppet wrote:

I'll add newcastle for you . It will take a day or so.

Cheers! I'd imagine they'll be similar to spurs

PHB

Other additions for Liverpool would be: Voronin, Free; Leto, 1.85 - 2 mil.

Added

zing

Here's a Liverpool player not included (and very understandably) - Alou Diarra signed for free from Bayern Munich in summer of 2002 and sold to Lens in summer 2005 for somewhere in the region of 1.8->2m.

[EDIT]Didn't look carefully enough of it - his signing is there but not his sale.[/EDIT]

Also I know it would be a lot of hassle to change it but the team totals are based on the calendar year rather than the season. Not a huge deal really but it possibly would have an impact on totals for managers other than Ferguson. And you could get further pedantic and say that the purchase of Cisse & sale of Heskey shouldn't be attributed to Rafa's totals as those moves were before he arrived - but there's going to be loads of other examples like that going back over the years so lets not go there.

The Muppet

I have included the figures for Newcastle as requested.

PHB this file does not have any of the corrections you made, could you please apply them to it and upload it again when you get the time.

PHB

I have included the figures for Newcastle as requested.

PHB this file does not have any of the corrections you made, could you please apply them to it and upload it again when you get the time.

Added in

Here's a Liverpool player not included (and very understandably) - Alou Diarra signed for free from Bayern Munich in summer of 2002 and sold to Lens in summer 2005 for somewhere in the region of 1.8->2m.

[EDIT]Didn't look carefully enough of it - his signing is there but not his sale.[/EDIT]

Added in

---

Also I know it would be a lot of hassle to change it but the team totals are based on the calendar year rather than the season. Not a huge deal really but it possibly would have an impact on totals for managers other than Ferguson. And you could get further pedantic and say that the purchase of Cisse & sale of Heskey shouldn't be attributed to Rafa's totals as those moves were before he arrived - but there's going to be loads of other examples like that going back over the years so lets not go there.

Well, I was kinda hoping somebody would post the data about wages, so might be best to keep it yearly until that is posted.
In terms of the other stuff, it gets very complicated in terms of who did what imo. Like, if you discount the cost of buying Cisse, do you discount the gain from the potential selling of him? It gets it a bit messy when you go past clubs, and the stuff Muppet posted should really be used as a general guideline more than anything else.