5 Years Nett Spent - An insight into us

[gurru991]

50 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

"we're top of net spend, we're top of net spend."

For me....Its all about building a competitive squad.

Absolutely right !!

But clubs like Leicester still need to balance the books !!

FFP is stacked in favour of the big six so Chelsea can spend 200 plus but Leicester worry about spending 50

[Leeds Fox]

We sold Fofana for a fortune late in the summer. Relax. 

[Babylon]

Net spend is a useless metric as we’ve actually spent a lot of money. Selling numerous players for high value has allowed us to spend a lot on players, wages and infrastructure.

 

The issue we’ve had is a) not being able to cash in on assets and them running contracts down and b) signing too many duds.

 

Not what we’ve spent in terms of numbers. We could have spent another £100m on more Soumares and Vestergaards.

[Matt]

Sustainable spending but not sustainable success by that I don't mean expected success of winning things I mean potentially struggling to continue in the top league.

[Babylon]

12 minutes ago, Matt said:

Sustainable spending but not sustainable success by that I don't mean expected success of winning things I mean potentially struggling to continue in the top league.

The only club not bigger than us, who has spent more than us in the last 5 years is Wolves. And they haven’t spent loads on infrastructure.

 

By no metric of what we’ve spent on wages and fees should we be anywhere close to struggling. If we do, it’s down entirely to underperformance of the recruitment system and the manager. 

Edited 1 January 2023 by Babylon

[Aus Fox]

4 hours ago, filbertway said:

Bench warmung striker on 140 bags. Class management

I’d agree if that was anyone other than our greatest ever! He deserves every penny of that for what he’s done for the club. 

[SafewayFox]

1 hour ago, Aus Fox said:

I’d agree if that was anyone other than our greatest ever! He deserves every penny of that for what he’s done for the club. 

Surely his extension won’t be at the same pay surely?

 

If it is, that’s where sentiment over business needs questioning.

 

I love Vardy but that wouldn’t make sense in any other industry and we’ve made a few interesting decisions like Matty James and Ricky P more recently.

Edited 1 January 2023 by SafewayFox

[coolhandfox]

6 hours ago, filbertway said:

Bench warmung striker on 140 bags. Class management

His not, that was before his new contract, which he took a pay cut.

[coolhandfox]

5 hours ago, Babylon said:

Net spend is a useless metric as we’ve actually spent a lot of money. Selling numerous players for high value has allowed us to spend a lot on players, wages and infrastructure.

 

The issue we’ve had is a) not being able to cash in on assets and them running contracts down and b) signing too many duds.

 

Not what we’ve spent in terms of numbers. We could have spent another £100m on more Soumares and Vestergaards.

It's not useless use with context and combined with other metrics.

 

You could say the same about total spend on transfers without context.  

 

Foe example 2 teams spend 200m, team 1 spent 200m and keep all its players. 

 

Team 2 sold its whole starting 11 and spend 200m.

 

Without the context you would make a unfairly compare the two team performance.

 

 

[jayfox26]

13 hours ago, Koke said:

Respect to Man City.

ThEy aRe juSt deAd GoOd aT mArKeting anD sTuff

[Stadt]

Net spend needs the total expenditure for context.

 

A -£20m net spend is very different with a total of £80m in purchases compared to -£20m and £500m.

[coolhandfox]

1 minute ago, Stadt said:

Net spend needs the total expenditure for context.

 

A -£20m net spend is very different with a total of £80m in purchases compared to -£20m and £500m.

100% 

[Finn Claw II]

Net spend is part of it but wages are a big factor.  I’m fairly certain our wage bill is big (outside of the traditional top 6).

 

 

[st albans fox]

Our low nett spend over the period is a reflection of our policy to buy ‘cheap’ and sell high. 
 

we can’t be compared to newly promoted clubs and the figure should be 60m higher re fofana/faes 

 

but I don’t accept that nett spend isn’t a useful metric and it should just be about money spent.  I don’t want us to be overspending and putting the future of the club in jeopardy. At the same time, we can’t rely on the current model working forever, 

 

what the nett spend doesn’t take into account is where we get good players in at a decent price because we’re prepared to pay higher wages / s o fee. 

[KFS]

 

I’d love to see a bar graph with the X axis showing all current premier league clubs. On the Y axis, three bars that depict: 

 

5 year net spend 

5 year infrastructure spend

Current wages

That essentially will show us why we’re in the state we are in. We’re coming to the end of our cycle. If we can stay up this year you’ll all be supporting a brand new set of players coming into a new training ground. 
 

Is Rodgers the man to build a whole new team? I’ve not seen evidence of him being successful at that wherever he’s gone. Get ready for a bumpy ride. 

[Stadt]

Our highest net spend summer we signed Soumare, Vestergaard, Daka and Bertrand whikst RW had been a consistent problem position  

[coolhandfox]

5 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Our highest net spend summer we signed Soumare, Vestergaard, Daka and Bertrand whikst RW had been a consistent problem position  

Probably our worse summer window, since the post title window of 2016/17.

 

[fox_up_north]

1 hour ago, KFS said:

That essentially will show us why we’re in the state we are in. We’re coming to the end of our cycle. If we can stay up this year you’ll all be supporting a brand new set of players coming into a new training ground. 

But will that new set of players keep us up next year? 

[The boy Linacre]

15 hours ago, Sly said:

 

The five year net spend by Premier League clubs gives some insight in how the table looks and shows why we’ve over performed. 
 

1) Manchester United: £-545.8m

2) Arsenal: £-440.4m

3) Chelsea: £-384m

4) West Ham: £-355.7m

5) Tottenham: £-331.45m

6) Newcastle: £-314m

7) Aston Villa: £-259.97m

8) Wolves: £-248.36m

9) Liverpool: £-216.61m

10) Manchester City: £-213.8m

11) Fulham: £-192.51m

12) Everton: £-168.3m

13) Nottingham Forest: £151.77m

14) Leeds United: £-123.15m

15) Southampton: £-121.93m

16) Crystal Palace: £-72.8m

17) Brighton: £-56.67m

18) Leicester: £-35.48m

19) Bournemouth: £-7.45m

20) Brentford: £100,000

We’ve put the money into long term investments like the training ground and we’re now looking at the stadium.
 

The concerning thing is, why have we needed the loans to finance certain things. 
 

Are we really forking that much out in wages that we’ve crippled ourselves, or are we really not spending like other clubs do in this league to maintain status? 
 

I’m not sure how much longer we can continue along this path though, without further investment or selling the part or all of the club. 
 

Would we ever look at sell, or will we drop back to clubs that spend at a similar level? We can’t rely on selling assets and when we do, that’s needs re-investing into the team. 
 

Half the Championship has a higher 5 year net spend than us. 

Got to say, great stats and intel on what happens at the club & where sit financially 

[Babylon]

3 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

It's not useless use with context and combined with other metrics.

 

You could say the same about total spend on transfers without context.  

 

Foe example 2 teams spend 200m, team 1 spent 200m and keep all its players. 

 

Team 2 sold its whole starting 11 and spend 200m.

 

Without the context you would make a unfairly compare the two team performance.

 

 

But we are comparing us and teams we know. We haven’t sold a whole team we have drip fed them out. 
 

JUST mentioning net spend and not pointing out the fact we have actually spent a lot of money is ridiculous. It’s trying to make out we are where we are because of lack of investment, which clearly is missing the bigger picture.

[KingsX]

15 hours ago, Bordersfox said:

How on earth aren't Real Madrid on that list? 

They were 25th.

 

https://www.pulse.ng/sports/football/real-madrid-have-spent-less-money-on-transfers-in-the-last-decade-than-24-other/7vyjdks

[BKLFox]

West Ham £374m yet posters wanting David Moyes 😂 

[coolhandfox]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

But we are comparing us and teams we know. We haven’t sold a whole team we have drip fed them out. 
 

JUST mentioning net spend and not pointing out the fact we have actually spent a lot of money is ridiculous. It’s trying to make out we are where we are because of lack of investment, which clearly is missing the bigger picture.

Which is why I mention combining it with other metrics and context to get the bigger picture. 

 

We have spent a lot and wasted a lot, but we have also been chasing our tail buying replacement for the likes of Maguire, Chilwell and Fofana. 

 

We have also spend less gross then a number of similar sized clubs in the last 5 seasons (Leicester 361m)

 

West Ham 529m

Wolves 490m 

Everton 410m

Newcastle 436m

Villa 478m 

 

So they are above us in both the Gross and Net spending tables.

 

Yes we have brought some crap, but others are outspending us on top of the big 6, can we do spend our money better 100%

Edited 1 January 2023 by coolhandfox

[Sly]

Annual player salaries. 
 

1. Manchester United – £222,984,000
2. Chelsea – £169,720,000
3. Manchester City – £163,060,000
4. Liverpool – £141,782,000
5. Tottenham – £101,344,000
6. Arsenal – £85,490,000
7. Leicester City – 78,780,000
8. Aston Villa – £75,232,000
9. West Ham – £70,160,000
10. Newcastle United – £62,610,000
11. Crystal Palace – £59,180,000
12. Everton – £43,120,000
13. Wolves – £38,310,000
14. Fulham – £37,610,000
15. Southampton – £35,380,000
16. Bournemouth – £32,044,000
17. Nottingham Forest – £28,590,000
18. Brighton – £28,340,000
19. Leeds United – £17,300,000
20. Brentford – £15,240,000

[Ginger_Filbert]

2 minutes ago, Sly said:

Annual player salaries. 
 

1. Manchester United – £222,984,000
2. Chelsea – £169,720,000
3. Manchester City – £163,060,000
4. Liverpool – £141,782,000
5. Tottenham – £101,344,000
6. Arsenal – £85,490,000
7. Leicester City – 78,780,000
8. Aston Villa – £75,232,000
9. West Ham – £70,160,000
10. Newcastle United – £62,610,000
11. Crystal Palace – £59,180,000
12. Everton – £43,120,000
13. Wolves – £38,310,000
14. Fulham – £37,610,000
15. Southampton – £35,380,000
16. Bournemouth – £32,044,000
17. Nottingham Forest – £28,590,000
18. Brighton – £28,340,000
19. Leeds United – £17,300,000
20. Brentford – £15,240,000

Nearly £80m on wages is absolutely bonkers.