Rags Spending In One Year

[zuricity]

The brothers Grimm who oversee operations must be gnashing their teeth at the money they are wasting that could otherwise be utilised more effectively, ie into their already deep and bulging pockets.

The pressure must be mounting on LVG and it will be fun to watch him this season

I don't think van Gaal cares. He's buying over 30s thinking short term. If it works he is a hero. For now and as he opened his big mouth today to say he's off in 2017. It's just a shame they are now likely to rope him in. Wasted 60 odd mill on Tia Maria.
He's decided Wooney will be his main striker.

It would be brilliant if Wooney gets injured playing so far forward. He's been hiding in that ginger role in deep midfield the last two years.

[nottsblue]

The brothers Grimm who oversee operations must be gnashing their teeth at the money they are wasting that could otherwise be utilised more effectively, ie into their already deep and bulging pockets.

The pressure must be mounting on LVG and it will be fun to watch him this season

I don't think van Gaal cares. He's buying over 30s thinking short term. If it works he is a hero. For now and as he opened his big mouth today to say he's off in 2017. It's just a shame they are now likely to rope him in. Wasted 60 odd mill on Tia Maria.
He's decided Wooney will be his main striker.

It would be brilliant if Wooney gets injured playing so far forward. He's been hiding in that ginger role in deep midfield the last two years.

He is due an injury as well. Fingers crossed

[Mikhail Chigorin]

The brothers Grimm who oversee operations must be gnashing their teeth at the money they are wasting that could otherwise be utilised more effectively, ie into their already deep and bulging pockets.

The pressure must be mounting on LVG and it will be fun to watch him this season

I don't think van Gaal cares. He's buying over 30s thinking short term. If it works he is a hero. For now and as he opened his big mouth today to say he's off in 2017. It's just a shame they are now likely to rope him in. Wasted 60 odd mill on Tia Maria.
He's decided Wooney will be his main striker.

It would be brilliant if Wooney gets injured playing so far forward. He's been hiding in that ginger role in deep midfield the last two years.

He is due an injury as well. Fingers crossed

I hope it's nothing trivial.

[C & C]

Not exactly 1 year but...

http://www.espnfc.co.uk/barclays-premier-league/23/blog/post/2539130/how-does-arsenal-spending-compare-to-chelsea-and-top-six

How does Arsenal's spending compare to the top six? Get your calculators out

Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho is already ramping up the mind games and we're still a little under two weeks from the start of the Premier League season.

Indeed, with Chelsea set to take on Arsenal at Wembley on Sunday in the Community Shield, rival manager Arsene Wenger has already become the focus of his attention.

"If you add up the amounts clubs have spent in the last three or four years I think maybe you will find a surprise," Mourinho said, in an obvious attempt to add pressure on the Gunners in the early weeks of the season. Those comments came just two days after he said rival clubs were trying to buy the title.

"If you put Ozil plus Alexis Sanchez, plus Chambers, plus Debuchy, you will find a surprise. It's a fantastic squad with good players, fantastic goalkeeper, they are more than ready to be a title contenders. Get a calculator. That is the easiest thing, it leaves no space for speculation."

So is he right? We've got our calculator out to see just how much the Premier League's top six clubs have spent since the summer before the start of the 2012-13 campaign.

And the result? Arsenal are the lowest spenders of any top six club in the three to four-year period Mourinho referred to, splashing out a total of £166.06 million on new players in that timeframe. Meanwhile, Chelsea are way ahead of their London rivals with a spend of £271.6m.

TOTAL SPEND
Man United £308.6m
Chelsea £271.6m
Liverpool £262.79m
Man City £251.83m
Spurs £190.05m
Arsenal £166.06m

NET SPEND
Man United £257.04m
Man City £156.15m
Liverpool £115.57m
Arsenal £89.4m
Chelsea £82.79m
Spurs -£9.48m


Figures apply from the summer before the 2012-13 season.

While Arsenal may have a higher net spend (the cost of buying players minus money brought in from sales) than Chelsea -- £6.61m more than the reigning Premier League champions -- in comparison to the other leading Premier League clubs it isn't high.

The stats don't make pretty reading for Manchester United, who have both the biggest total spend of £308.6m and net spent of £257.04m.

Manchester City come in second on net spend, and there will be pressure on Brendan Rodgers' shoulders as Liverpool appear third in both categories with a massive spend of £262.79m.

As Arsenal and Chelsea are so closely matched on net spend, Mourinho might have a point about Arsenal challenging. But with three other clubs having a significantly higher net spend the calculator should really be telling us that neither Arsenal nor Chelsea should be in the race for the title.

Just take a look at Tottenham though: they are actually running at a net transfer profit of £9.48m over the past few season and still finished fifth in the table last season. Of course, they have Gareth Bale's reported €100m move to Real Madrid to thank for that.

All transfer figures taken from transfermarkt.co.uk.

[DoomMerchant]

Liverpool are the ones looking the worst in that, considering they sold both Suarez and Sterling for huge wacks. Money spent so piss poorly. Unbelievable really. If they'd have just replaced those two with high high quality signings (think James Rodriguez and KDB for example) then they'd be really in great shape, but instead they've squandered it on absolute horseshit signings. And are banking on Henderson being a world beater and Sturridge being healthy to chase the top 4....unlikely.

cheers

[nottsblue]

The brothers Grimm who oversee operations must be gnashing their teeth at the money they are wasting that could otherwise be utilised more effectively, ie into their already deep and bulging pockets.

The pressure must be mounting on LVG and it will be fun to watch him this season

I don't think van Gaal cares. He's buying over 30s thinking short term. If it works he is a hero. For now and as he opened his big mouth today to say he's off in 2017. It's just a shame they are now likely to rope him in. Wasted 60 odd mill on Tia Maria.
He's decided Wooney will be his main striker.

It would be brilliant if Wooney gets injured playing so far forward. He's been hiding in that ginger role in deep midfield the last two years.

He is due an injury as well. Fingers crossed

I hope it's nothing trivial.

Maybe he could ride the smiler at Alton Towers. Front row hopefully

[LoveCityHateUtd]

Not exactly 1 year but...

http://www.espnfc.co.uk/barclays-premier-league/23/blog/post/2539130/how-does-arsenal-spending-compare-to-chelsea-and-top-six

How does Arsenal's spending compare to the top six? Get your calculators out

Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho is already ramping up the mind games and we're still a little under two weeks from the start of the Premier League season.

Indeed, with Chelsea set to take on Arsenal at Wembley on Sunday in the Community Shield, rival manager Arsene Wenger has already become the focus of his attention.

"If you add up the amounts clubs have spent in the last three or four years I think maybe you will find a surprise," Mourinho said, in an obvious attempt to add pressure on the Gunners in the early weeks of the season. Those comments came just two days after he said rival clubs were trying to buy the title.

"If you put Ozil plus Alexis Sanchez, plus Chambers, plus Debuchy, you will find a surprise. It's a fantastic squad with good players, fantastic goalkeeper, they are more than ready to be a title contenders. Get a calculator. That is the easiest thing, it leaves no space for speculation."

So is he right? We've got our calculator out to see just how much the Premier League's top six clubs have spent since the summer before the start of the 2012-13 campaign.

And the result? Arsenal are the lowest spenders of any top six club in the three to four-year period Mourinho referred to, splashing out a total of £166.06 million on new players in that timeframe. Meanwhile, Chelsea are way ahead of their London rivals with a spend of £271.6m.

TOTAL SPEND
Man United £308.6m
Chelsea £271.6m
Liverpool £262.79m
Man City £251.83m
Spurs £190.05m
Arsenal £166.06m

NET SPEND
Man United £257.04m
Man City £156.15m
Liverpool £115.57m
Arsenal £89.4m
Chelsea £82.79m
Spurs -£9.48m


Figures apply from the summer before the 2012-13 season.

While Arsenal may have a higher net spend (the cost of buying players minus money brought in from sales) than Chelsea -- £6.61m more than the reigning Premier League champions -- in comparison to the other leading Premier League clubs it isn't high.

The stats don't make pretty reading for Manchester United, who have both the biggest total spend of £308.6m and net spent of £257.04m.

Manchester City come in second on net spend, and there will be pressure on Brendan Rodgers' shoulders as Liverpool appear third in both categories with a massive spend of £262.79m.

As Arsenal and Chelsea are so closely matched on net spend, Mourinho might have a point about Arsenal challenging. But with three other clubs having a significantly higher net spend the calculator should really be telling us that neither Arsenal nor Chelsea should be in the race for the title.

Just take a look at Tottenham though: they are actually running at a net transfer profit of £9.48m over the past few season and still finished fifth in the table last season. Of course, they have Gareth Bale's reported €100m move to Real Madrid to thank for that.

All transfer figures taken from transfermarkt.co.uk.

Figures for spurs must be wrong. they brought £85m in on bale but where did they get the other £115m from ?

[LoveCityHateUtd]

Not exactly 1 year but...

http://www.espnfc.co.uk/barclays-premier-league/23/blog/post/2539130/how-does-arsenal-spending-compare-to-chelsea-and-top-six

How does Arsenal's spending compare to the top six? Get your calculators out

Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho is already ramping up the mind games and we're still a little under two weeks from the start of the Premier League season.

Indeed, with Chelsea set to take on Arsenal at Wembley on Sunday in the Community Shield, rival manager Arsene Wenger has already become the focus of his attention.

"If you add up the amounts clubs have spent in the last three or four years I think maybe you will find a surprise," Mourinho said, in an obvious attempt to add pressure on the Gunners in the early weeks of the season. Those comments came just two days after he said rival clubs were trying to buy the title.

"If you put Ozil plus Alexis Sanchez, plus Chambers, plus Debuchy, you will find a surprise. It's a fantastic squad with good players, fantastic goalkeeper, they are more than ready to be a title contenders. Get a calculator. That is the easiest thing, it leaves no space for speculation."

So is he right? We've got our calculator out to see just how much the Premier League's top six clubs have spent since the summer before the start of the 2012-13 campaign.

And the result? Arsenal are the lowest spenders of any top six club in the three to four-year period Mourinho referred to, splashing out a total of £166.06 million on new players in that timeframe. Meanwhile, Chelsea are way ahead of their London rivals with a spend of £271.6m.

TOTAL SPEND
Man United £308.6m
Chelsea £271.6m
Liverpool £262.79m
Man City £251.83m
Spurs £190.05m
Arsenal £166.06m

NET SPEND
Man United £257.04m
Man City £156.15m
Liverpool £115.57m
Arsenal £89.4m
Chelsea £82.79m
Spurs -£9.48m


Figures apply from the summer before the 2012-13 season.

While Arsenal may have a higher net spend (the cost of buying players minus money brought in from sales) than Chelsea -- £6.61m more than the reigning Premier League champions -- in comparison to the other leading Premier League clubs it isn't high.

The stats don't make pretty reading for Manchester United, who have both the biggest total spend of £308.6m and net spent of £257.04m.

Manchester City come in second on net spend, and there will be pressure on Brendan Rodgers' shoulders as Liverpool appear third in both categories with a massive spend of £262.79m.

As Arsenal and Chelsea are so closely matched on net spend, Mourinho might have a point about Arsenal challenging. But with three other clubs having a significantly higher net spend the calculator should really be telling us that neither Arsenal nor Chelsea should be in the race for the title.

Just take a look at Tottenham though: they are actually running at a net transfer profit of £9.48m over the past few season and still finished fifth in the table last season. Of course, they have Gareth Bale's reported €100m move to Real Madrid to thank for that.

All transfer figures taken from transfermarkt.co.uk.

Figures for spurs must be wrong. they brought £85m in on bale but where did they get the other £115m from ?

Also espn if you add up the transfers of the top teams over the last 3 or 4 years without explaining which, then your figures will be bullshit.

[patrickblue]

Here's how they pay for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... nents.html

Serves the glory hunting twats right.

[patrickblue]

As much as I find any mention of pots and coefficients akin to watching paint dry, I must admit to being amused by this,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490

[Tokyo Blue]

As much as I find any mention of pots and coefficients akin to watching paint dry, I must admit to being amused by this,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490

The BBC seem to think they will be in Pot 2 above us. Who to believe?

Manchester United have fallen to 20th in Uefa's club coefficient rankings - four places below rivals Manchester City - after the points for the 2010/11 season were discounted from the rankings.

Should United get through the qualifying round then they are expected to be in the second pot of seeds - above City - thanks to their record over the previous five years.

[patrickblue]

They've changed that article since I posted the link.
Obviously, the fail making it up as they go along!

[City64]

They've changed that article since I posted the link.
Obviously, the fail making it up as they go along!

Yep and several media outlets somehow "missing" the £40 million the rags spent on Mata in there overall spending ........... fucking scandalous !!!

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

It really doesn't matter that much. As we all know, it's the wage bill that counts.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

It really doesn't matter that much. As we all know, it's the wage bill that counts.

And, of course, debt doesn't matter in the slightest.

[City64]

Van Oblong head has spent nearly A QUARTER OF A BILLION POUNDS on a plan B that is lump the ball up field to the big daft cunt with massive hair and huge elbows .

Fucking hilarious .

[branny]

With Evans leaving and the possibility that Valdes, Hernandez and De Gea will be following by Tuesday they are a couple of injuries away from deep shit unless there's some major acivity.....which is nice.

[Beefymcfc]

Ha ha ha ........

[DoomMerchant]

With Evans leaving and the possibility that Valdes, Hernandez and De Gea will be following by Tuesday they are a couple of injuries away from deep shit unless there's some major acivity.....which is nice.

I'd say they are already in the shit. In fact, had they stuck with gollum and spent as much as they have they'd be miles better off. Shocking.

Cheers

[Slim]

With Evans leaving and the possibility that Valdes, Hernandez and De Gea will be following by Tuesday they are a couple of injuries away from deep shit unless there's some major acivity.....which is nice.

I'd say they are already in the shit. In fact, had they stuck with gollum and spent as much as they have they'd be miles better off. Shocking.

Cheers

You know as well as I do that Moyes was taking a poisoned chalice. There was literally zero chance he'd still be there now.