The Great Squad Cost Thread

[RoadrunnerReloaded]

Squad cost - does it mean we can't compete for the title?

Of course not. Chelsea and Leicester have already proven that proposition incorrect. If squad cost was that important the two Manchester clubs would be 1st and 2nd the last three years.
Matters even less in Europe when you look at how well Monaco, Dortmund, Atletico even Juventus had lower squad cost than us.

Does anyone really care about it?
Does discussion about it keep derailing other threads?

Probably it does derail intelligent discussion as it reduces everything to the most banal common denominator obfuscating deeper topics regarding tactics, overall club management, opportunity cost of contract extensions, analysis of efficiency and many other factors.

 

[shoom]

A much better analysis would be to use wages + amortization + agents fees instead of squad cost. This would cover the various anomalies such as free transfers / academy graduates on big wages and players bought for a high fee but being on relatively low wages.

This figure would be the best measure of what clubs are actually spending on their squad by year and would show who's under / over performing vs. spend.

Even with this it's not really meaningful to analyse it against league position. Take the current table as an example, only six points separate 8th and 16th.

I think it's value would be to give some numerical illustration to the outliers that we already know about (Leicester, Spuds, Man U, etc). Interesting for those that like their stats, otherwise not so much.

 

[YeahBee]

Shame you were a little bit lacking in sharpness. That thread went the way of Park Chu-young.

A mystery I still want to know about

 

[Rex Stone]

Has AM jumped the shark?

 

[Rex Stone]

The only problem with the squad cost argument is that finishing above City, United and Chelsea last season was considered a success, but finishing 10 points behind Leicester wasn't a failure; just a freak occurrence that we can't read too much into. You can't have it both ways. Either the first part is true or they're both freak occurrences and we shouldn't praise the club for finishing above richer clubs.

Also this is the thread.

 

[mm76]

With your avatar, no wonder. Though I'd recommend afternoon trysts in a cramped, old-fashioned, first-floor bedroom with your BD hotties. Physically and mentally sorted; only body armour regularly required. #financialcost

EDIT:

Considering this season's data, the squad cost theory fails in 19 out of 20 instances; i.e. the theory is proven right in only 5% of the cases; only Everton's position is on par with their spending, with Burnley and Hull nearly par (both doing one place better relative to their spending). Even if Burnley and Hull were to be included, the theory would be proven approximately right in only 15% of the instances [and I would argue that Hull (18th-highest spenders, expected to be relegated but one place above the relegation zone) should not be included at all.]

10 clubs have underperformed, the biggest ones being Palace (5th-highest spenders, 16th in table), West Ham (8th-highest, 15th in table), champions Leicester (6th-highest, 11th in table), Swansea (13th-highest, 18th in table) & Boro (14th-highest, 19th in table).

As far as the top 6 are concerned, we have performed worse in spite of spending ~100m (4th-highest, 6th in table), along with Man City (highest, 4th in table) & Man Utd (2nd-highest, 5th in table).

The theory/theorist also tries to diminish the importance of managerial competence in comparison to money spent, which teams like Tottenham, Liverpool, West Brom, Stoke & Bournemouth have made a mockery of; with Tottenham mounting a title challenge for the 2nd year running despite being only the 9th-highest spenders, Liverpool in 3rd place and in a strong position to qualify for Champions League football with the 10th-highest spend, while Pulis has WBA in 8th despite spending the least amount of money this season.

EDIT:

Green: Clubs whose current position in the table is higher than their rank in terms of spending;
Blue: Clubs whose current position in the table is same as their rank in terms of spending;
Scarlet: Clubs whose current position in the table is lower than their rank in terms of spending;

Rank (spending) ---- Club ------------- Amount (euros) --- Current Position

1)---------------------------Man City-----------213m-----------------#4
2)--------------------------Man Utd-----------185m------------------#5
3)--------------------------Chelsea------------133m-------------------#1
4)--------------------------Arsenal------------113m-------------------#6
5)--------------------------Crystal Palace-----100m-----------------#16
6)--------------------------Leicester City-------91m-----------------#11
7)--------------------------Everton--------------86m------------------#7
8)-------------------------West Ham Utd------84m-----------------#15
9)--------------------------Tottenham----------83m------------------#2
10)-------------------------Liverpool------------80m-----------------#3
11)-------------------------Watford--------------70m----------------#13
12)-------------------------Southampton-------69m-----------------#9
13)-------------------------Swansea-------------58m----------------#18
14)-------------------------Middlesbrough-----53m----------------#19
15)-------------------------Burnley--------------46m----------------#14
16)-------------------------Bournemouth-------41m----------------#10
17)-------------------------Sunderland----------40m---------------#20
18)-------------------------Hull City-------------40m---------------#17
19)-------------------------Stoke City------------39m---------------#12
20)------------------------West Brom-----------38m----------------#8

https://www.transfermarkt.com/premi...d=2016&s_w=&leihe=0&leihe=1&intern=0&intern=1

Conclusion: The squad costs and the respective positions of the clubs in the table this season do not correlate at all except in one instance out of 20.

Bournemouth is a good example of exceeding squad cost and showing how with so little spending power available, a good manager really makes it count - obviously the big prize for Bournemouth is staying in the PL, but also each place up the table in the PL gets you an extra £2m 'merit payment' - so you could argue Eddie Howe has earned his club an extra £12m as well

 

[Sanchez11]

Squad cost is bolex sorry but its just excuses i have argued about various things regarding this topic.

 

[Tir Na Nog]

Squad costs means we at Arsenal need managers who can punch above their weight.

Until recently that's what Wenger has done.

Thread should have been closed after this post, hit the nail on the head.

 

[Mark Tobias]

Squad Cost Correlation Theory put to the test with the Premier League, 2016-17

Results (short version): The squad costs and the respective positions of the clubs in the table this season do not correlate at all, except in one instance out of 20.

Key:

Green: Clubs whose current position in the table is higher than their rank in terms of spending;
Blue: Clubs whose current position in the table is the same as their rank in terms of spending;
Scarlet: Clubs whose current position in the table is lower than their rank in terms of spending;

Rank(spending)-----Club ---------Amount(euros)--CurrentPosition

1)--------------------------Man City-----------213m------------------#4
2)--------------------------Man Utd-----------185m------------------#5
3)--------------------------Chelsea-------------133m------------------#1
4)--------------------------Arsenal-------------113m------------------#6
5)--------------------------Crystal Palace------100m----------------#16
6)--------------------------Leicester City--------91m----------------#11
7)--------------------------Everton---------------86m-----------------#7
8)--------------------------West Ham Utd-------84m---------------#15
9)--------------------------Tottenham-----------83m-----------------#2
10)-------------------------Liverpool-------------80m----------------#3
11)-------------------------Watford---------------70m---------------#13
12)-------------------------Southampton--------69m-----------------#9
13)-------------------------Swansea--------------58m---------------#18
14)-------------------------Middlesbrough------53m---------------#19
15)-------------------------Burnley---------------46m---------------#14
16)-------------------------Bournemouth--------41m---------------#10
17)-------------------------Sunderland-----------40m--------------#20
18)-------------------------Hull City--------------40m--------------#17
19)-------------------------Stoke City-------------39m--------------#12
20)------------------------West Brom------------38m---------------#8


Considering this season's data, the squad cost theory fails in 19 out of 20 instances; i.e. the theory is proven right in only 5% of the cases; only Everton's position is on par with their spending, with Burnley and Hull nearly par (both doing one place better relative to their spending). Even if Burnley and Hull were to be included, the theory would be proven approximately right in only 15% of the instances [and I would argue that Hull (18th-highest spenders, expected to be relegated according to the theory, but out of the relegation zone in reality) should not be included at all.]

Half the clubs have underperformed, the biggest ones being Palace (5th-highest spenders, 16th in table), West Ham (8th-highest, 15th in table), champions Leicester (6th-highest, 11th in table), Swansea (13th-highest, 18th in table) & Boro (14th-highest, 19th in table).

As far as the top 6 are concerned, Arsenal have performed worse in spite of spending ~100m (4th-highest, 6th in table), along with Man City (highest, 4th in table) & Man Utd (2nd-highest, 5th in table).

The importance of managerial competence in comparison to money spent is clearly seen in the case of teams like Tottenham, Liverpool, West Brom, Stoke & Bournemouth, with Tottenham under Pochettino mounting a title challenge (for the 2nd year running) despite being only the 9th-highest spenders, Liverpool in 3rd place and in a strong position to qualify for Champions League football with the 10th-highest spend, while Pulis has WBA in 8th despite spending the least amount of money this season.

Data source: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/?saison_id=2016&s_w=&leihe=0&leihe=1&intern=0&intern=1

@Makingtrax please answer this. This is a solid argument right here.

 

[say yes]

The Squad cost argument is *. Fails completely to take into account value. Also rewards cash rich clubs who choose not to spend it with lowered expectations.

If you focus purely on squad cost then you can argue that Arsenal are overachieving, but that completely ignores the fact that we've got £200m in the bank that we haven't invested on the pitch.

It's an odd world where Arsenal are doing a good job because we decide to spend our money on farms for Kroenke rather than on football players.

 

[BBF]

Squad Cost Correlation Theory put to the test with the Premier League, 2016-17

Results (short version): The squad costs and the respective positions of the clubs in the table this season do not correlate at all, except in one instance out of 20.

Key:

Green: Clubs whose current position in the table is higher than their rank in terms of spending;
Blue: Clubs whose current position in the table is the same as their rank in terms of spending;
Scarlet: Clubs whose current position in the table is lower than their rank in terms of spending;

Rank(spending)-----Club ---------Amount(euros)--CurrentPosition

1)--------------------------Man City-----------213m------------------#4
2)--------------------------Man Utd-----------185m------------------#5
3)--------------------------Chelsea-------------133m------------------#1
4)--------------------------Arsenal-------------113m------------------#6
5)--------------------------Crystal Palace------100m----------------#16
6)--------------------------Leicester City--------91m----------------#11
7)--------------------------Everton---------------86m-----------------#7
8)--------------------------West Ham Utd-------84m---------------#15
9)--------------------------Tottenham-----------83m-----------------#2
10)-------------------------Liverpool-------------80m----------------#3
11)-------------------------Watford---------------70m---------------#13
12)-------------------------Southampton--------69m-----------------#9
13)-------------------------Swansea--------------58m---------------#18
14)-------------------------Middlesbrough------53m---------------#19
15)-------------------------Burnley---------------46m---------------#14
16)-------------------------Bournemouth--------41m---------------#10
17)-------------------------Sunderland-----------40m--------------#20
18)-------------------------Hull City--------------40m--------------#17
19)-------------------------Stoke City-------------39m--------------#12
20)------------------------West Brom------------38m---------------#8


Considering this season's data, the squad cost theory fails in 19 out of 20 instances; i.e. the theory is proven right in only 5% of the cases; only Everton's position is on par with their spending, with Burnley and Hull nearly par (both doing one place better relative to their spending). Even if Burnley and Hull were to be included, the theory would be proven approximately right in only 15% of the instances [and I would argue that Hull (18th-highest spenders, expected to be relegated according to the theory, but out of the relegation zone in reality) should not be included at all.]

Half the clubs have underperformed, the biggest ones being Palace (5th-highest spenders, 16th in table), West Ham (8th-highest, 15th in table), champions Leicester (6th-highest, 11th in table), Swansea (13th-highest, 18th in table) & Boro (14th-highest, 19th in table).

As far as the top 6 are concerned, Arsenal have performed worse in spite of spending ~100m (4th-highest, 6th in table), along with Man City (highest, 4th in table) & Man Utd (2nd-highest, 5th in table).

The importance of managerial competence in comparison to money spent is clearly seen in the case of teams like Tottenham, Liverpool, West Brom, Stoke & Bournemouth, with Tottenham under Pochettino mounting a title challenge (for the 2nd year running) despite being only the 9th-highest spenders, Liverpool in 3rd place and in a strong position to qualify for Champions League football with the 10th-highest spend, while Pulis has WBA in 8th despite spending the least amount of money this season.

Data source: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/?saison_id=2016&s_w=&leihe=0&leihe=1&intern=0&intern=1

Great analysis.

 

[BBF]

A much better analysis would be to use wages + amortization + agents fees instead of squad cost. This would cover the various anomalies such as free transfers / academy graduates on big wages and players bought for a high fee but being on relatively low wages.

This figure would be the best measure of what clubs are actually spending on their squad by year and would show who's under / over performing vs. spend.

Even with this it's not really meaningful to analyse it against league position. Take the current table as an example, only six points separate 8th and 16th.

I think it's value would be to give some numerical illustration to the outliers that we already know about (Leicester, Spuds, Man U, etc). Interesting for those that like their stats, otherwise not so much.

Another great point. Some simpleton's think football only works on transfer fees like FIFA when that's not even the half of it.

 

[Beksl]

Squad cost correlation is such a ludicrous proposal I was first sure @Makingtrax is trolling. Unfortunately the guy is for real. It's funny how he always points out that the biggest spenders always win the league (Leicester didn't do him any favors) but totally disregards how the other 19 variables effect this correlarion. I won't even go into details how actual estimations of squad costs are skewed, subjective and twisted and thus have no relevance for serious statistical analysis.

Then again he probably has limited knowledge of statistics and I can understand he thought he was clever with his simplistic observations.

 

[bingobob]

@Skalidis I already posted that argument many moons ago looking at current position and squad cost. It was ignored.

I've also looked at what we choose to spend elsewhere. 25m per year on the stadium rather than on the pitch. You factor in that then there is an extra 325m we could have spent but didnt.

Also factoring in we went down that path in the belief we had a world class manager capable of spotting talent from a young age and developing them into world class players. When you account for the Arsenal added value on initial cost the gap closes. Approximate squad value is a better measure than cost as some players are worth more than they cost some worth less than cost.

The fact that when we received big money ie Toure and Adebayor in the same season only a fraction of that was reinvested as opposed to say Juventus who received 90m for Pogba and reinvested that immediately back into the playing squad. Yet we signed Koscielny for a relative modest sum and over the years he grew into a expensive player.

Squad cost is just another get out of jail free card for Wenger like injuries.

 

[Rocky]

As people have said, I think that the squad cost issue obscures many issues.

Some of them are non-financial, like management and so on. Other points, such as the lack of European football played by Leicester last year and Chelsea this year, as one fairly obvious factor that is always conveniently forgotten by people who have a main agenda to hammer Wenger rather than to seek the truth in that complex grey area in the middle. Similarly, those who want to defend Wenger against everything probably omit many points by resorting to squad cost and ignoring other points.

I also think that squad cost as it is being defined, used and interpreted, obscures a great deal about the financial side of what is happening. It is consistently being used as a snapshot (club X was worth X and won etc etc), rather than a focus on long-term investment in clubs and the overall trend. Things like debt (which Arsenal have had much more of than their rivals, apart from Man Utd who have incredible commercial revenue capacity way above Arsenal), income from various revenue streams including commercial ones, owner investment, are consistently ignored as irrelevant when they are very relevant.

I think that a more general term like "Club Finances" or something like that would be a better starting point for discussion than squad cost.

It is very clear that, the 3 clubs with the combined supply of finances and willingness and capacity within the club to invest that in players, staff etc have won the league every year since 2004, with the exception of last season.

 

[scytheavatar]

If you want to sell me the idea that squad cost is all that matters then why don't we sack Wenger and hire a random person on Arsenal-mania as Arsenal manager? We might as well save on that highest managerial salary..... cause since we can never outspend our rivals we will never win the league again no matter how hard Wenger tries.

 

[Mark Tobias]

@Skalidis I already posted that argument many moons ago looking at current position and squad cost. It was ignored.

I've also looked at what we choose to spend elsewhere. 25m per year on the stadium rather than on the pitch. You factor in that then there is an extra 325m we could have spent but didnt.

Also factoring in we went down that path in the belief we had a world class manager capable of spotting talent from a young age and developing them into world class players. When you account for the Arsenal added value on initial cost the gap closes. Approximate squad value is a better measure than cost as some players are worth more than they cost some worth less than cost.

The fact that when we received big money ie Toure and Adebayor in the same season only a fraction of that was reinvested as opposed to say Juventus who received 90m for Pogba and reinvested that immediately back into the playing squad. Yet we signed Koscielny for a relative modest sum and over the years he grew into a expensive player.

Squad cost is just another get out of jail free card for Wenger like injuries.

Yet another top post by @bingobob which @Makingtrax will completely ignore.

Man am I getting tired of typing that out.

 

[bingobob]

It is very clear that, the 3 clubs with the combined supply of finances and willingness and capacity within the club to invest that in players, staff etc have won the league every year since 2004, with the exception of last season.

That's the annoying thing nobody is debating that point. If I run a paper printing firm and I invest 1000 in a new machine and my rival has only invested 100 then I would rightly expect my machine to print more pieces of paper.

However if my rival firm invests 900 and another 800 then other factors can influence overall paper printed. Do the other firms have better maintenance teams, have they modified the machine to increase capacity, are any of the firms using full capacity, are their workers more efficient at loading and unloading the machine? Have the firms actually got the technical expertise to run the machines?

Even then when comparing the 1000 and 100 those factors can still be important. A new start up firm may go buy the biggest shiniest machine it can find but lack the understanding and knowledge on how best to use said machine (see City signing Robinho).

Kind of like the idea of Tony Pulis managing Manchester United. Can he make the step up from small regional company to global enterprise and all which that entails?

 

[mm76]

Kind of like the idea of Tony Pulis managing Manchester United. Can he make the step up from small regional company to global enterprise and all which that entails?

let's face it i'd love to see that if only for the reaction of the Yanited fans - they'll be thrashing around in their armchairs, spilling Heineken and Doritos everywhere

 

[notafan]

I am more and more convinced that my comparing Arsène Wenger apologists/worshippers to climate change deniers/6 day creationists/flat earthers is not that far off the mark. The posts of at least 2 posters, in the type of argumententation they use, are strikingly similar.

It is no surprise that an innocent overseas Arsenal fan on the main thread about Wenger mistook a "satirical" post, using the sorts of statements constantly put forward by the "Wenger knows best" brigade, for an actual post by a Wenger worshipper!

Even if the Squad Spend argument held up in its entirety, anyone discussing Wenger in an unbiased manner would have to take into account that in recent years (up to this season), low squad spend was Wenger's own decision. Even if Kroenke's main aim is to make money out of Arsenal, he realises that sometimes you have to invest, otherwise Arsenal would cease to be a cash cow. As this season has shown, the money was there, if Wenger chose to use it.

And of course Wenger himself went on for years saying you didn't have to spend much - implying that all you needed was a genius manager (himself). When the EPL/CL triumphs didn't materialise, he completely contradicted his earlier assertions and began excusing Arsenal's failure to challenge to their relatively low squad spend. Then this last summer he decided to join the high spending brigade - only for things to get worse.