The Great Squad Cost Thread

[Mark Tobias]

Wenger's spend against other teams over the twenty years of staying in the top 4 is in this BBC article. And as you'll see we've spent way below United, Chelsea, City and Liverpool.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39231549

Squad cost and coaching have nothing to do with each other. One is about how much the board are willing to spend on assembling a team, and coaching is about the manager preparing that team for matches.
Why anyone would mention squad cost on a coaching course is beyond me.

Funny that... The bit about the manager preparing the team

 

[FinnGooner]

Except Kane cost Sp**s nothing and is probably worth over a £100m. Which punches a hole in that argument. How often does that happen? Do Everton have someone like that?

Still maintain that a board should sack a manager in relation to the amount of money they put in. So Man U sacked LVG for finishing 4th and 5th when they invested the most money in the league. That's a poor performance.

For 20 years Wenger was below 4th on squad cost and finished continually in the top 4. That's excellent.

Last year he missed out on 4th by 1 point. This year he's 6th with the club having invested the 5 the most money in the league. It's not good and if the board sack him you could understand it. It's a results based business and he's highly paid.

One final point, it's not easy comparing squad cost across different leagues abroad. Bayern get their pick of the best young players in Germany. They have a squad cost well below United or Chelsea but may well have a better team.

My point was really that the squad value increase is a result of players playing well which often correlates with the team playing well and if players flop and a team flops the squad value tends to go down, although not as quickly as it goes up. You think Sp**s squad value just went up out of nothing without their organization, the manager included, doing things well. Sure there is an element of luck but also lot of right decisions. If other teams do pass us in squad value with spending less than us, it's not an excuse, it's grounds for criticism.

 

[Dj_sds]

My point was really that the squad value increase is a result of players playing well which often correlates with the team playing well and if players flop and a team flops the squad value tends to go down, although not as quickly as it goes up. You think Sp**s squad value just went up out of nothing without their organization, the manager included, doing things well. Sure there is an element of luck but also lot of right decisions. If other teams do pass us in squad value with spending less than us, it's not an excuse, it's grounds for criticism.

Great post. This whole squad cost theory is very flawed.

 

[IslingtonBornandbred]

Wenger's spend against other teams over the twenty years of staying in the top 4 is in this BBC article. And as you'll see we've spent way below United, Chelsea, City and Liverpool.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39231549

Squad cost and coaching have nothing to do with each other. One is about how much the board are willing to spend on assembling a team, and coaching is about the manager preparing that team for matches.
Why anyone would mention squad cost on a coaching course is beyond me.

Yeah, I was focusing more on how much Wenger spent in those "winning years" compared to the other clubs because I thought your post kind of suggested Wenger's always spent less than the other big clubs and I thought that would have been impossible early on and it was, for example in 97 we were the top spenders by a few million and won the league, but I get it was over 20 years as a total rather than "he's always been outspent by Chelsea, United, Liverpool". There's some issues with your arguments. For example, Sp**s squad cost is lower because of the anomaly of Harry Kane. Fine. But then, you have to take into account, Cesc, RVP in their prime, or now, Kolasinac, Ramsey, Wilshere, Bellerin. If those four are in form, in a team that's doing well, in today's market that's at least 150 million.

And I made the comment about squad cost and coaching because I feel like you often intergrain the two i.e club is successful because of squad cost, club isn't successful because of squad cost whereas that sort of argument doesn't take into account the human aspect i.e coaching, tactics, motivation, other clubs rebuilding etc.

Squad cost and finishing position is about what you think the board would be happy with. So Wenger finishes 4th, his squad cost is 4th, so that means he's doing an excellent job and the board are happy and the fans shouldn't expect anything else because it's unrealistic. Whereas in hindsight, it's naive to not think that another top manager at another moment in time might have got a squad with our level of talent a league title. We were very close in the year Eduardo got injured, we had a good team with Cesc and RVP, in 2015 we were top for the calendar year regardless of spend so that shows it's closer than you think and that may be put down other factors than spend like coaching, management, consistency, player transfer decisions etc. Swansea were dead and buried under Clement. They had a net spend of minus 20 million. You could argue, what do you expect Clement to do, the club are where they should be. They've got a net spend in the minus's, he's doing a good job for his spend. Yet, a new guy comes in, sorts the team out, gets them playing a different way, gets a little bit more out of every player, and suddenly things are looking up. That's down to a coach not spend.

If you link spend to success, you also have to link spend to coaching. Because by linking spend to success you are ignoring and devaluing coaching and managerial decisions i.e signing Xhaka instead of Kante. That doesn't have any effect on the spend table, but Kante was what we needed, not Xhaka. That's a managerial issue, not spend.

I think, all things considered between 2004 and 2018, with the players and squads Wenger's had available to him with the benefit of other teams sacking managers, rebuilding etc he should have won a title or two. So he's failed in that aspect, and I think it's not as simple as linking success or failure to squad cost. City's finishing positions were 2nd, 4th and 4rd. So what do you take from that? City sacked their manager because he performed under his squad cost? But you can also win the league without having the highest squad cost.

"In the last nine seasons, only once has a team won the league after having been the highest spenders in the lead-up to that season - when City spent around £70m in the summer of 2011. Since then, the biggest spenders in each summer have finished no higher than third - Chelsea doing so in 2012/13 - while City, United (twice) and Tottenham have had the most lavish pre-seasons in the last four years, attaining finishes of sixth, fourth, fourth and sixth."

 

[Longy]

Does anyone have a table of net spend over the last 5 years, 10 years ??

 

[Sanchez11]

Does anyone have a table of net spend over the last 5 years, 10 years ??

What's the point!!

 

[Makingtrax]

My point was really that the squad value increase is a result of players playing well which often correlates with the team playing well and if players flop and a team flops the squad value tends to go down, although not as quickly as it goes up. You think Sp**s squad value just went up out of nothing without their organization, the manager included, doing things well. Sure there is an element of luck but also lot of right decisions. If other teams do pass us in squad value with spending less than us, it's not an excuse, it's grounds for criticism.

This is why I don't really like squad valuations. Who decides what a team or players are worth. It's all guesswork. Until a player is transferred it's just opinion and chatter.

Squad cost is real, it's what a club actually paid to acquire a team. And is just a very rough guide of quality.

But the Sp**s thing is a chicken and egg argument. Did Kane and Alli etc become world class because of good coaching. Or is Poch getting rave rewiews because he has a couple of cheap players that have turned out to be world class. Who is driving the team on, Kane with goals or Poch with his coaching?

Whilst, like all the top coaches, Poch is no doubt good, I believe Kane and Alli are driving their performance. And here's why:

1. Sp**s with all their many different managers have never got over 80 points before 2016/17 and haven't sustained what could be a 3 year run in the top 4 for over 50 years. So this is very unusual for a team with lower squad cost.

2. It's not just the team playing well, they have a prolific goal scorer who is exceptional by any stats. He Scored 39 goals in 2017 equalling Alan Shearers record. Rare talent like that isn't made through coaching, else there would be a lot more of them. And they acquired him for nothing. A freak occurrence.

3. Football has an element of psychology, when teams are wining it lifts everybody's performance.

If Kane and Alli, who is also performing very well for his transfer fee, were to leave, I'd bet my mortgage that Poch would not be top 4.

 

[Makingtrax]

Great post. This whole squad cost theory is very flawed.

 

[al-Ustaadh]

******.

 

[Makingtrax]

Yeah, I was focusing more on how much Wenger spent in those "winning years" compared to the other clubs because I thought your post kind of suggested Wenger's always spent less than the other big clubs and I thought that would have been impossible early on and it was, for example in 97 we were the top spenders by a few million and won the league, but I get it was over 20 years as a total rather than "he's always been outspent by Chelsea, United, Liverpool". There's some issues with your arguments. For example, Sp**s squad cost is lower because of the anomaly of Harry Kane. Fine. But then, you have to take into account, Cesc, RVP in their prime, or now, Kolasinac, Ramsey, Wilshere, Bellerin. If those four are in form, in a team that's doing well, in today's market that's at least 150 million.

And I made the comment about squad cost and coaching because I feel like you often intergrain the two i.e club is successful because of squad cost, club isn't successful because of squad cost whereas that sort of argument doesn't take into account the human aspect i.e coaching, tactics, motivation, other clubs rebuilding etc.

Squad cost and finishing position is about what you think the board would be happy with. So Wenger finishes 4th, his squad cost is 4th, so that means he's doing an excellent job and the board are happy and the fans shouldn't expect anything else because it's unrealistic. Whereas in hindsight, it's naive to not think that another top manager at another moment in time might have got a squad with our level of talent a league title. We were very close in the year Eduardo got injured, we had a good team with Cesc and RVP, in 2015 we were top for the calendar year regardless of spend so that shows it's closer than you think and that may be put down other factors than spend like coaching, management, consistency, player transfer decisions etc. Swansea were dead and buried under Clement. They had a net spend of minus 20 million. You could argue, what do you expect Clement to do, the club are where they should be. They've got a net spend in the minus's, he's doing a good job for his spend. Yet, a new guy comes in, sorts the team out, gets them playing a different way, gets a little bit more out of every player, and suddenly things are looking up. That's down to a coach not spend.

If you link spend to success, you also have to link spend to coaching. Because by linking spend to success you are ignoring and devaluing coaching and managerial decisions i.e signing Xhaka instead of Kante. That doesn't have any effect on the spend table, but Kante was what we needed, not Xhaka. That's a managerial issue, not spend.

I think, all things considered between 2004 and 2018, with the players and squads Wenger's had available to him with the benefit of other teams sacking managers, rebuilding etc he should have won a title or two. So he's failed in that aspect, and I think it's not as simple as linking success or failure to squad cost. City's finishing positions were 2nd, 4th and 4rd. So what do you take from that? City sacked their manager because he performed under his squad cost? But you can also win the league without having the highest squad cost.

"In the last nine seasons, only once has a team won the league after having been the highest spenders in the lead-up to that season - when City spent around £70m in the summer of 2011. Since then, the biggest spenders in each summer have finished no higher than third - Chelsea doing so in 2012/13 - while City, United (twice) and Tottenham have had the most lavish pre-seasons in the last four years, attaining finishes of sixth, fourth, fourth and sixth."

I can't discuss this with you bro. Like many you're clearly frustrated with Wenger and you're looking to find pedantic ways of denying what's blatantly true, because you believe he's failed us.

It pours out of you like a river and you make a hundred points in one long post that impossible to answer.

Spend, team management and luck all contribute to a team's final position.

But here's the overall summary, since arriving Wenger has spent a lot less than 4 other teams, however you're trying to break it down, but he has averaged 2.74 in his finishing position with a win rate of 59%. Now if want to say that he should have done better, or should have won the league . . . fine. But I'm saying that's a lot better than most other managers ever to grace the Prem, particularly if you throw in all the trophies he's won.

 

[Aevi]

You've always got a chance because of the luck element in games.

If you'd prefer to use current player valuations you can, City are decidedly lower and Sp**s much higher because of the Kane/Alli fluke.

City £713m
United £667m
Sp**s £635m
Chelsea £626m
Liverpool £493m
Arsenal £443m

This could be well be how they finish this year.

That doesn't work though, because player valuation is heavily influenced by team performance and league position. It all ends up coming full circle.

 

[Makingtrax]

That doesn't work though, because player valuation is heavily influenced by team performance and league position. It all ends up coming full circle.

And they're just opinion as well. Image on here what Özil's valuation would be . . anything from £100m down to £10m, or worst still, Xhaka

 

[Fallout]

But the Sp**s thing is a chicken and egg argument. Did Kane and Alli etc become world class because of good coaching. Or is Poch getting rave rewiews because he has a couple of cheap players that have turned out to be world class.

i think you're taking it too far here. players dont just "turn out" to be world class or not. football is largely a cerebral game and there's so much to learn. furthermore there are a lot of setbacks to overcome and so maintaining motivation is key. neither of those chores involve luck; they depend on a strong working relationship between trainer and player -- to teach a player the things that will help him improve in a conducive way and to maintain sufficient motivation to keep improving.

i'll be very honest; if harry kane developed under wenger, i have huge doubts that he'd be as good as he is today. i think wenger would teach him the wrong things and fail to motivate him properly. wenger hasnt developed players for several years now -- thats why our squad value is below Sp**s despite their squad cost being lower than ours.

 

[STATS]

Does anyone have a table of net spend over the last 5 years, 10 years ??

All sources from transfermarkt
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-arsenal/alletransfers/verein/11

Arsenal Sp**s Chelsea Manu ManC Liverpool
2017-18 Spend 106.97 109.35 232 147.96 284.22 151.23
2017-18 Sold 109.98 91.89 180.54 10.35 86.04 150.48
2016-17 Spend 96.34 75.24 119.52 166.5 191.7 71.91
2016-17 Sold 9.32 47.07 97.56 42.44 31.82 76.41
2015-16 Spend 23.85 63.9 81.45 140.4 193.41 112.86
2015-16 Sold 2.25 78.82 78.74 91.86 60.69 80.42
2014-15 Spend 107.08 43.62 123.93 175.82 79.47 136.92
2014-15 Sold 25.02 39.74 130.37 44.36 27.56 89.34
2013-14 Spend 44.33 109.69 117.32 69.42 104.4 52.29
2013-14 Sold 10.94 121.88 69.69 1.62 10.17 29.34
2012-13 Spend 50.4 65.93 98.73 68.81 55.76 63.54
2012-13 Sold 59.27 61 22.91 9.79 39.87 9.41
2011-12 Spend 58.93 8.51 86.81 56.07 78.35 59.87
2011-12 Sold 70.46 38.93 29.16 13.02 26.73 20.61
2010-11 Spend 20.7 23.94 109.35 26.37 164.21 87.77
2010-11 Sold 8.64 2.64 14.85 15.58 33.44 91.35
2009-10 Spend 10.8 36.27 27 24.66 132.57 39.15
2009-10 Sold 42.93 28.53 3.42 94.02 27.86 44.91
2008-09 Spend 36.14 128.21 27.45 40.73 141.62 64.31
2008-09 Sold 23.22 79.25 40.1 6.71 23.85 41.36


In short
Last 5 seasons' Net spend:

ManC: 636.92
ManU: 509.47
Arsenal: 221.06
Chelsea: 117.32
Liverpool: 99.22
Sp**s: 22.4


Last 10 seasons' Net spend:

ManC: 1057.68
ManU: 586.99
Arsenal: 193.51
Chelsea: 356.22
Liverpool: 206.22
Sp**s: 74.91

We can clearly see that in the last 5 years, we have out "net-spent" even chelsea who have won 2 league titles. So clearly, net-spend as well as squad cost means jack-squat.

 

[Makingtrax]

i think you're taking it too far here. players dont just "turn out" to be world class or not. football is largely a cerebral game and there's so much to learn. furthermore there are a lot of setbacks to overcome and so maintaining motivation is key. neither of those chores involve luck; they depend on a strong working relationship between trainer and player -- to teach a player the things that will help him improve in a conducive way and to maintain sufficient motivation to keep improving.

i'll be very honest; if harry kane developed under wenger, i have huge doubts that he'd be as good as he is today. i think wenger would teach him the wrong things and fail to motivate him properly. wenger hasnt developed players for several years now -- thats why our squad value is below Sp**s despite their squad cost being lower than ours.

How many players turned out as good as Kane in Pochettino's previous two clubs?

 

[Makingtrax]

All sources from transfermarkt
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-arsenal/alletransfers/verein/11

Arsenal Sp**s Chelsea Manu ManC Liverpool
2017-18 Spend 106.97 109.35 232 147.96 284.22 151.23
2017-18 Sold 109.98 91.89 180.54 10.35 86.04 150.48
2016-17 Spend 96.34 75.24 119.52 166.5 191.7 71.91
2016-17 Sold 9.32 47.07 97.56 42.44 31.82 76.41
2015-16 Spend 23.85 63.9 81.45 140.4 193.41 112.86
2015-16 Sold 2.25 78.82 78.74 91.86 60.69 80.42
2014-15 Spend 107.08 43.62 123.93 175.82 79.47 136.92
2014-15 Sold 25.02 39.74 130.37 44.36 27.56 89.34
2013-14 Spend 44.33 109.69 117.32 69.42 104.4 52.29
2013-14 Sold 10.94 121.88 69.69 1.62 10.17 29.34
2012-13 Spend 50.4 65.93 98.73 68.81 55.76 63.54
2012-13 Sold 59.27 61 22.91 9.79 39.87 9.41
2011-12 Spend 58.93 8.51 86.81 56.07 78.35 59.87
2011-12 Sold 70.46 38.93 29.16 13.02 26.73 20.61
2010-11 Spend 20.7 23.94 109.35 26.37 164.21 87.77
2010-11 Sold 8.64 2.64 14.85 15.58 33.44 91.35
2009-10 Spend 10.8 36.27 27 24.66 132.57 39.15
2009-10 Sold 42.93 28.53 3.42 94.02 27.86 44.91
2008-09 Spend 36.14 128.21 27.45 40.73 141.62 64.31
2008-09 Sold 23.22 79.25 40.1 6.71 23.85 41.36


In short
Last 5 seasons' Net spend:

ManC: 636.92
ManU: 509.47
Arsenal: 221.06
Chelsea: 117.32
Liverpool: 99.22
Sp**s: 22.4


Last 10 seasons' Net spend:

ManC: 1057.68
ManU: 586.99
Arsenal: 193.51
Chelsea: 356.22
Liverpool: 206.22
Sp**s: 74.91

We can clearly see that in the last 5 years, we have out "net-spent" even chelsea who have won 2 league titles. So clearly, net-spend as well as squad cost means jack-squat.

With respect we've been through all this. Net spend is not a good indicator unless you look long term. And I've given you examples of why not. Clubs don't spend money equally every season. It's a running total.

You can see that Chelsea have easily outspent us over 10 years and a number of those players helped them win those two titles you mentioned won't be in the last 5 years spend, including their best player Hazard. Not sure how many others, maybe Courtois, Cahill, Oscar, Azpilicueta etc.

As your data shows, we are 5th for net spend over the last 10 years and 5th over the last 20 years. We were a selling club for 9 of those 20 years ffs. And all those 20 years he was inside the top 4, finishing 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st 3 times. I don't even care if you say he could have done better. But ffs he did better than most other EPL managers ever.

 

[Makingtrax]

Would never have believed the frustration that Wenger has generated.

People desperate to prove that he's been a failure. Totally denying that the relationship between winning and wealth. Scrabbling around in a Transfermarkt for mountains of data to try and prove we've spent more than we have.

The guy is not doing well this year, he's obviously leaving soon, but let's leave his legacy in tact. He's been a very good manager but it's time to move on.

 

[Kobi]

So to summarise we can't be expected to outperform teams who spend more than us and those who outperform us spending less should be disregarded because their players turned out to be alot better than the money they cost.

 

[rich 1990]

Think this squad cost thing has dragged on far too long now. People repeating things that have been said over and over in other threads. Personally don't think this thread should have been allowed.

 

[STATS]

With respect we've been through all this. Net spend is not a good indicator unless you look long term. And I've given you examples of why not. Clubs don't spend money equally every season. It's a running total.

You can see that Chelsea have easily outspent us over 10 years and a number of those players helped them win those two titles you mentioned won't be in the last 5 years spend, including their best player Hazard. Not sure how many others, maybe Courtois, Cahill, Oscar, Azpilicueta etc.

As your data shows, we are 5th for net spend over the last 10 years and 5th over the last 20 years. We were a selling club for 9 of those 20 years ffs. And all those 20 years he was inside the top 4, finishing 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st 3 times. I don't even care if you say he could have done better. But ffs he did better than most other EPL managers ever.

5 years is a lifetime in football.
Things were not one-hundreth as bad as they are right now for us, 5 years ago.
Except for a minority of people, most of us appreciated and lauded wenger's job in "those" years.
But 5 years is a long enough time. Wenger has had the support of the board, the fans, the time to know the club inside out... and he has failed miserably in the last 5 years. Thierry was a beast, but I am sure no one would want him to be our striker currently. Similarly, wenger is way past his due date.
If we had any qualms about it, then Laca is the perfect answer to it. The guy was/is a beast. No doubt about it. But the way he is/has been managed is a disaster.

Last year when chelsea won the league, they had a squad which sans cahill and terry were on the books for less than 5 years. Thats what 5 years can do (2012-13 to 2016-17).
There is literally no excuse left for the wenger. He is finished, he is over. we have cleared out a lot of the deadwood this year:
Ox, Coq, Yaya, Gibbs, walcott, debuchy. Giroud was a decent plan B, nothing more, Sanchez did not seem to want to play for almost a year, paulista is/was mismanaged.

And we have got quality players:
Kola, Laca, Mkhi, Auba.

And yet, we are way worse than last year and we are spiralling down and down. Compare it to Sp**s, compare it to chelsea and we are just way way off.

No squad cost, net spend etc etc wild theories is going to make sense now, because of the simple fact, wenger is past it.