Comparative Transfer Spending

2013/2014 Season       Spent                    Sales                    Total

Manchester City   116.000.000 €   -   11.707.000 €   -104.293.000 €
Manchester Utd   78.880.000 €   -   1.800.000 €      -77.080.000 €
FC Chelsea           128.150.000 €   -   71.880.000 €   -56.270.000 €
FC Arsenal      51.750.000 €   -   12.550.000 €   -39.200.000 €
Cardiff City      42.465.000 €   -   3.500.000 €      -38.965.000 €
FC Southampton   39.600.000 €   -   2.400.000 €      -37.200.000 €
Hull City      31.100.000 €   -   880.000 €      -30.220.000 €
Crystal Palace   30.200.000 €   -   -                       -30.200.000 €
Norwich City   30.050.000 €   -   4.215.000 €      -25.835.000 €
FC Fulham      29.500.000 €   -   4.150.000 €      -25.350.000 €
FC Liverpool   57.050.000 €   -   32.600.000 €   -24.450.000 €
Swansea City   24.400.000 €   -   -                     -24.400.000 €
West Ham United   24.000.000 €   -   530.000 €       -23.470.000 €
Aston Villa      19.940.000 €   -   8.100.000 €      -11.840.000 €
AFC Sunderland   33.910.000 €   -   22.380.000 €   -11.530.000 €
Stoke City      7.000.000 €      -   -                       -7.000.000 €
West Brom      15.700.000 €   -   11.400.000 €   -4.300.000 €
Spurs        121.875.000 €   -   125.895.000 €   4.020.000 €
FC Everton           29.800.000 €   -   46.100.000 €   16.300.000 €
Newcastle United   2.300.000 €   9   -   25.870.000 €   23.570.000 €


http://www.transfermarkt.com/en/premier-league/transferbilanz/wettbewerb_GB1.html

Liverpool quite clearly refusing to pay the higher risk game of investing for Champions League Football.
Instead maintaining the same investment as Norwich, Fulham, Swansea and West Ham.
Low risk investment, with guaranteed Premier League revenue.

Recent top 4 teams all at the top of the "Spending League"

Cheers for that, shows we are doing something right, sitting in fourth spot and spending a lot less than most.

We've spent more than most in some seasons too, but then we get into all that "net spend" bollocks and wages blah blah blah.

The most important factor in the ongoing debate about ownership is more stark: if we want to win the title, we need new, richer owners, because we will NEVER do it under FSG.

Well that spending figure is a bit misleading when you think who we have bought.
We could have spent even less and not weakend the squad

2012/2013

FC Chelsea      115.200.000 €   41   -   25.450.000 €   44   33   -89.750.000 €
Manchester United   76.450.000 €   35   -   15.135.000 €   31   21   -61.315.000 €
FC Liverpool            67.600.000 €   20   1   10.450.000 €   20   8   -57.150.000 €
Queens Park Rang    50.350.000 €   37   2   4.515.000 €   45   25   -45.835.000 €
FC Southampton   41.500.000 €   33   -   -   27   19   -41.500.000 €


2011/2012

FC Chelsea                 103.850.000 €   32   -32.400.000 €   32   20   -71.450.000 €
Manchester Cit        94.835.000 €   37   229.700.000 €   45   26   -65.135.000 €
FC Liverpool              66.525.000 €   22   -22.965.000 €   22   9   -43.560.000 €
Manchester United      57.300.000 €   28   -   15.590.000 €   32   18   -41.710.000 €
Queens Park          26.225.000 €   47   5   2.800.000 €   43   22   -23.425.000 €



Interesting numbers as transfermark only shows net spend numbers so works out to around 125 million in 3 years...though we did cut wages

2012/2013

FC Chelsea      115.200.000 €   41   -   25.450.000 €   44   33   -89.750.000 €
Manchester United   76.450.000 €   35   -   15.135.000 €   31   21   -61.315.000 €
FC Liverpool            67.600.000 €   20   1   10.450.000 €   20   8   -57.150.000 €
Queens Park Rang    50.350.000 €   37   2   4.515.000 €   45   25   -45.835.000 €
FC Southampton   41.500.000 €   33   -   -   27   19   -41.500.000 €


2011/2012

FC Chelsea                 103.850.000 €   32   -32.400.000 €   32   20   -71.450.000 €
Manchester Cit        94.835.000 €   37   229.700.000 €   45   26   -65.135.000 €
FC Liverpool              66.525.000 €   22   -22.965.000 €   22   9   -43.560.000 €
Manchester United      57.300.000 €   28   -   15.590.000 €   32   18   -41.710.000 €
Queens Park          26.225.000 €   47   5   2.800.000 €   43   22   -23.425.000 €



Interesting numbers as transfermark only shows net spend numbers so works out to around 125 million in 3 years...though we did cut wages

It doesn't only show net spend.
You can break transfers down into player by player.

It doesn't only show net spend.
You can break transfers down into player by player.

True Racer however these full year numbers that both you and I quoted take into account money acquired from player sales and money spent on player aquisition..that is why Spurs are at the bottom of the list because of the Bale sale.

Fact is that over the past 3 seasons (as a whole) only Chelsea and City have outspent us...Now the argument could be that we were far behind and need to catch up of which I don't disagree however we are spending quite a bit more than the mid-table/lower-table clubs are and a one season number that puts us 14 million spent off of the 4th highest spender is not as accurate in telling the story as a 3 year rolling spending average.

True Racer however these full year numbers that both you and I quoted take into account money acquired from player sales and money spent on player aquisition..that is why Spurs are at the bottom of the list because of the Bale sale.

Fact is that over the past 3 seasons (as a whole) only Chelsea and City have outspent us...Now the argument could be that we were far behind and need to catch up of which I don't disagree however we are spending quite a bit more than the mid-table/lower-table clubs are and a one season number that puts us 14 million spent off of the 4th highest spender is not as accurate in telling the story as a 3 year rolling spending average.

As someone else pointed out, the sad part is how little we need have spent to be no worse off. The majority of players we have bought have had little or no impact. Allen, Coutinho, Sturridge arguably Mignolet and Sakho .... after that the rest have hardly featured. Toure and Cissokho didn't cost a fee. I don't think we would have suffered to much if we hadn't bought Borini, Assaidi, Alberto, Yesil, Aspas or llori  although some may prove their value in time.

I don't think we would have been much worse off if we had kept Reina rather than Mignolet and Sakho still has a lot to prove.

The most important factor in the ongoing debate about ownership is more stark: if we want to win the title, we need new, richer owners, because we will NEVER do it under FSG.

Translated:  Football as a competition is over.  Trophies are auctioned off to the highest bidder. 

I hate the direction that modern football is headed in

Translated:  Football as a competition is over.  Trophies are auctioned off to the highest bidder. 

I hate the direction that modern football is headed in

Heading?

It's already there.

However if we'd landed Kono we'd have been 3rd in net spending. It's been established that it wasn't LFC's fault the player didn't sign. Also consider that United spent £28,512,000 on Fellani, and we all know how that's worked out for them, where as Arsenal spent most of theirs on Ozzil. Who would you rather have in our team? Am I pleased that we missed out on all our targets this year? Absolutely not, but I'd sooner spend sweet fanny adams on players and be where we are in the league then be 2nd in the spending table and be where United are. It's far too simplistic a view to take when looking at net spending on its own. You have to look at what talent the money is being spent on.

A billionaire throwing money at it does not guarantee f*ck all, ask Levy, then when they decide to walk away? the club you love will f*cking die. Some people just don't get it yet.

Levy? Joe Lewis may be a billionaire, but he doesn't "throw money" at them. Citys' wage bill is  more than twice that of Spurs
.
And the investment into City is such that even if they do "walk away" - which they won't in the short term - they are some way to building a club that is on the way to FFP. Diodgy accounting notwithstanding.

I'm sorry if I have blown apart your dreams of an FSG-inspired Moneyball LFC dynasty being built the good old-fasioned way (like the richest clubs haven't ALWAYS come out on top, including ourselves, bankrolled by a fabulously wealthy benefactor) but it's a fact.

Money talks. Always has. Always will. The richest clubs buy the best players, pay the highest wages, win the most trophies, build the biggest stadia and get the biggest sponsorship deals. And until someone richer comes along, that's how it stays.

Some people do get it.

Translated:  Football as a competition is over.  Trophies are auctioned off to the highest bidder. 

I hate the direction that modern football is headed in

It's nothing new, it's just been exacerbated gigantically by super-rich clubs like Chelsea, Bayern, City, PSG et al.

Balckburn did exactly the same, just on a smaller scale. We used to quite regularly pay more money than anybody else to sign the best (usually, anyway) players from smaller, less wealthy and successful clubs: Kenny Dalglish, Mark Lawrenson, Phil Babb, Peter Beardsley,  Alan Kennedy, Dean Saunders....all broke the transfer record fees for players in their position.

The list is huge.

The team with the best players consistently win most titles/trophies. When those players go into decline and aren't replaced the team declines.

All the great coaching, tactical nous and team spirit in the World will only take you so far... better players guarantee sustained success. Like it or not the best players tend to cost the most money.

At some point be it after 3 years [now], 5 years or 10 years [if we have ambition] we are going to have to spend bigger on individual players.

The team with the best players consistently win most titles/trophies. When those players go into decline and aren't replaced the team declines.

All the great coaching, tactical nous and team spirit in the World will only take you so far... better players guarantee sustained success. Like it or not the best players tend to cost the most money.

At some point be it after 3 years [now], 5 years or 10 years [if we have ambition] we are going to have to spend bigger on individual players.

They don't guarantee success, they're only part of the puzzle. Look two years ago at Chelsea. All big name players but a Manager who couldn't get the most out of them. Spurs eariler this season - over £100 million spent on players but couldn't buy a goal and so their league position suffered as a result. Players plus a Tactically astute Manager with good man-management skills plus team spirit are the ingredients to success. The piece of the puzzle we miss are just the players.

They don't guarantee success, they're only part of the puzzle.

Yeah I know and if the thread was about the whole "puzzle" rather than comparative spending I'd have commented on that in even more depth.

The piece of the puzzle we miss are just the players.

Indeed it is which is why I only commented on it... "All the great coaching, tactical nous and team spirit in the World will only take you so far... better players guarantee sustained success." 

Anyhow... thanks for the support.

Look at Man City, I admit they have great players, but are they a great team?

Are you denying that, in the 21st century, the teams with the best players don't win titles and trophies consistently? City set out on their path from nowhere mate; playing catch up.

Some of the best teams in history never had the best players or the most money.

Like who: which teams "never had the best players"? 

As for the most money - well 'money' or more accurately 'big money' is a relatively new thing brought on with the advent of big TV deals and wealthy owners. I don't know how far you want to go back into history to try to prove your point Al but the fact is, in the TV money era, [or NOW, if you prefer] the teams who spend big on quality tend to win the majority of all big titles/trophies.

FSG, for all said and done are only half way through their (long term) project and seem to be "catching up" pretty quickly.

Let's accept that Al.

Do you then accept that, when we do "catch up" [which, let's be honest, for us is only a CL place], we will need to spend bigger on individual players if... we are to a) progress further and b) sustain any success? That; "At some point be it after 3 years [now], 5 years or 10 years [if we have ambition] we are going to have to spend bigger on individual players."?

Look at Man City, I admit they have great players, but are they a great team? Some of the best teams in history never had the best players or the most money. In, what, 7 years since City were took over with a spend over 600 million, what have they done? I would have expected a lot more if I believed that throwing sh*t loads of money at it was the god people speak about.

I agree to an extent but if you look at the how much they spent on their initial team building you could half the amount spent in that first couple of seasons.  Not only did they throw stupid money at the selling clubs they also offered double the wages to get them.

You also need to look at where they were when they started their spending.  They'd been midtable for a few seasons and before that had been relegated, it's not like they'd had years of success like the scum, chavs, arsenal or even us.

There is no quick fix to building a successful squad even if you throw money at it but once you're there it's easier to add extra quality to keep you there.

rather than look at comparative spending look at the spending on players that have actually improved the team since 2012.Then think how much better the money could have been spent.

So if it costs 600m (probably nearer to a billion) to "catch up" (6 points ahead of us in the league) they are not doing a great job of it. What I am trying to get at I suppose mouse is some think you can just get a multi billionaire in, buy every player going, fiddle your accounts, change the stadium name (I would like to see the reaction of our supporters then) and win 1 more trophy than a team who has spent a fifth of what they have spent. Believe me, and people can't see past the cheque book, when the cards come tumbling down in regards these clubs, realisation will eventually kick in. FSG, for all said and done are only half way through their (long term) project and seem to be "catching up" pretty quickly. Their model has all been about revenues, that's their bag, that's what they are good at, we will see the benefit IMO but it won't be tomorrow.

Yet their (City's) revenue has already overtaken the scums.  Ok some of it may not be 'legit' but nevertheless they're still making sure the business is sustainable after their initial investment. 

They don't just own City btw, they own several sports 'facilities' all over the world.

The big spenders can buy as many players as they like but can only put 11 on the pitch.

The problem for smaller/poorer clubs is that while they may build a very good team they can't keep their best eleven on the pitch all season. Players get hurt , suspended and tired and if you don't have the strength in depth in the squad your results will suffer. That is why every season one or two of the smaller sides ride high in the prem early in the season but slowly drop down the table as they find it more and more difficult to cope as lesser players are asked to fill the gaps.

Champions league exacerbates that problem and if we have any intention of doing well in both the CL and in the Prem we will need a much stronger squad as well as strengthening the eleven we hope to have on the pitch most of the time. Otherwise we may find ourselves falling between two stools.

When you only have eleven good players it also takes away from the manager any options he may want to change the style, formation or focus of the team .

So yes a manager can only play eleven players at a time but it is also a squad game and as we have found to our cost over the last few years if the squad isn't strong enough injuries will kill you.

Not so long ago we won a cup and got to a cup final. The big spenders can buy as many players as they like but can only put 11 on the pitch.

Yeah, but they can put a quality 11 out on the pitch every time.
The "Our 11 can match theirs" argument is fine for Cup Games,
but during the course of the season it's not the issue.

The issue is LFC not have two quality players for every position.
That's where City and Chelsea pull away.

But surely, getting the CL spot we would attract better players.

It's clever accounting and they should be brought to heel. Will be interesting to see the result when their finances are looked into..will they get away with it? I hope not, then what will they do?

We surely can attract better players if we qualify for CL but we still have to pay them 'the going rate for CL level players'. 

At present all we're prepared to offer potential recruits is minimum wage with top ups of OTE (on target earnings).  Now don't get me wrong that extra earning potential of cheap lease hire on a Vauxhall, cheap flights on a dodgy airline and as many donuts as you can eat is great for young players still trying to make their mark but for seasoned pro's with CL experience it's a bit of a slap in the face. 

Don't forget that we don't get the CL money up front for qualifying and we've shown on many occasions we won't spend what we haven't earned yet so I'm not expecting CL quality to arrive this summer.

Clever accounting is all part of big business, I'm sure it'll get investigated by UEFA but it doesn't mean they'll be penalised for it.  Don't forget that our parent company also have some dodgy accounting going on.  We're listed in Delaware making it impossible to check facts and figures.