• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

Arsenal's True Spending Position: There is no top 6

BigPoppaPump

Reeling from Laca & Kos nightmares
Actually yes I do.

You're being selective. And that's fine but it completely undermines what you're trying to say.

Come on now, City and Chelsea weren't ever gonna win the league until they got a cash injection. Chelsea won 1 league title in 100 years pre Abramovich and have won 5 since then. Is that because of the nuances of football? Did they suddenly find amazing coaching no one else knew about?
 

Macho

In search of Pure Profit 💸
Dusted 🔻

Country: England
Feel like the squad cost argument has been done to death tbh. I am pretty sure anybody reasonable can see the correlation between squad spend and league place.

I certainly wouldn't argue against it, there's no magic as Arteta famously said this summer.

Feel like this is just an elaborate way to highlight the miracles Wenger was pulling off on a shoestring budget. Again.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
@Makingtrax I don't understand how you can ignore money made from players as though it's nothing or it is fluke. Forget scouting to find good players and making money out of them. We even messed up with selling established players. Liverpool sold Coutinho to Barcelona for 150M while we sold Van Persie to a title rival for 24M. That was the time when we were just walking into any negotiation room with our pants down. Any other club would have made at least double that amount.
We were so bad in these matters that Koscielny thought he could just move to another club for free when he still had one year in his contract. Even worse, some fans thought he was right. That's the kind of expectations we set on contract management in the last decade.
Liverpool have forged their way up that spending table by doing exactly what you've said, not by borrowing or owner putting his hand in his pocket. There are different ways to invest more in the squad.

But here's the point, that figure of €666m reflects that clever business, it shows hows the've outspent us and of course everybody can see the culmination of that clever buying on the pitch.
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted ⭐

Country: Scotland
How is that selective, they've won most of the EPL years outspending other teams by a factor of 10. Throw in the outliers, Leicester 1 year, Blackburn 1, Arsenal 3, Liverpool 1 and your back to the start of the EPL and that's the entire EPL history.

Anyway I didn't post that list to argue about money increasing your odds of winning, that's a fact. I thought people might want to discus the rise of Everton and Leicester and the new top 8. But still its the same old denying the obvious and Wenger hate. SMH
Tbf I've never once mentioned Wenger.

And I've never denied the obvious as there is nothing obvious to deny.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Feel like the squad cost argument has been done to death tbh. I am pretty sure anybody reasonable can see the correlation between squad spend and league place.

I certainly wouldn't argue against it, there's no magic as Arteta famously said this summer.

Feel like this is just an elaborate way to highlight the miracles Wenger was pulling off on a shoestring budget. Again.
This is how social media works these days somebody puts on a spending table for 20/21, which should be of interest. But apparently it was only put on to big up Wenger who left over 2 years ago. How the current spending has anything to do with him is a mystery. :lol:
 

RacingPhoton

Established Member
Liverpool have forged their way up that spending table by doing exactly what you've said, not by borrowing or owner putting his hand in his pocket. There are different ways to invest more in the squad.

But here's the point, that figure of €666m reflects that clever business, it shows hows the've outspent us and of course everybody can see the culmination of that clever buying on the pitch.
Doesn't that make Liverpool a better managed club than Arsenal? Doesn't that show net spend is a better metric than squad cost when we are analysing which club is doing better?
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted ⭐

Country: Scotland
Come on now, City and Chelsea weren't ever gonna win the league until they got a cash injection. Chelsea won 1 league title in 100 years pre Abramovich and have won 5 since then. Is that because of the nuances of football? Did they suddenly find amazing coaching no one else knew about?
I never said that wasn't the case.

So far in this thread I've said there are nuances involved. I've also mentioned the law of diminishing returns.

Let's take diminishing returns first. Its the easiest to explain. City started spending cash. In 08 they had Bellamy and Benjani as centre forwards. They spent some money acquiring an upgrade in the form of Adebayor. They then spend more money and another upgrade in Aguero. Once they've got Aguero it doesn't matter if they spend 10m or 200m the leap they had from Bellamy to Aguero simply won't happen again. If anything the player they buy for that money is likely to be below Aguero. Yet the money is still spent.

Meanwhile Chelsea and United are in thr same boat. They've maxed out on World class players and even if they've 25 world class players they can only start 11. Once you get to that point all the top teams are on relative par. Spending more or less matters very little. So yes money is important to get to that point.

Onto nuances. For a start a simple one, see Chelsea. Spent a fortune this window and they've Lampard as a manager. Hopefully I don't need to explain that one further.

PSG are the second highest according to Cies. That spend on paper should make them CL challengers season in season out but it hasn't. Why? The strength of their league is one factor where their second strength team is good enough to win the French league. So when it comes to equivalent teams on paper they are under cooked. Also the players they've signed whilst arguably being the best players in the world that doesn't always translate into a cohesive unit.

Looks like a bit closer to home. @Makingtrax seems to have two different measurements. One is simply league winners, which you've used also when talking about Chelsea and City. Firstly, if we go back to the 90s other teams (Newcastle and Blackburn) out spent United yet United were the dominant team in the 90s. That doesn't tally up with higher squad cost more success. It tallies up with nuances in the shape of the manager, the development of the squad and the cohesion of the squad.

Let's strip back trophies. We often hear how Arsenal out performed squad cost. On one hand it's okay to measure Arsenal's success relative to spend without factoring in league titles but not for other clubs. Liverpool for example finishing in the top 4, 2nd and eventually winning the league whilst also reaching two CL finals and winning 1. Or what about Sp**s when they out peftomed our own squad cost and that of Uniteds, Chelsea and Liverpool? What about a team with a low squad cost finishing 10th and above teams that cost considerably more.

The simple fact is if squad cost was it then the league would be decided in order of squad cost. But it doesn't. Neither does Europe. It regularly deviates because there is more to it. Yes, on paper it helps elevate but as with the Everton and Leicester examples on that list it doesn't always translate into reality.

Thanks for reading :)
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Doesn't that make Liverpool a better managed club than Arsenal? Doesn't that show net spend is a better metric than squad cost when we are analysing which club is doing better?
Team A is not so good in the transfer market (like Arsenal say), and players they once bought £100m have now got to the end of their contract and sell for only £50m because they're not rated by other clubs. They buy new players to replace them for £100m. Their squad cost remains the same but the net spend that year is £100-£50m = £50m.

Team B (like Liverpool say) sells players they bought for £100m and get £150m for them. They buy new players for £200m. Their squad cost has increased by £100m but their net spend is £200-£150m = £50m.

The squad cost shows you the improvements in Team B squad, the net spend tells you nothing.
 
Last edited:

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Come on now, City and Chelsea weren't ever gonna win the league until they got a cash injection. Chelsea won 1 league title in 100 years pre Abramovich and have won 5 since then. Is that because of the nuances of football? Did they suddenly find amazing coaching no one else knew about?
How has this happened bro? I only put up the new chart to show the 20/21 squad investments and to show a new top 8 and all the Wenger haters and money deniers are here to bring out the same old 'money doesn't determine everything' arguments. Why?
 

RacingPhoton

Established Member
Team A is not so good in the transfer market (like Arsenal say), and players they once bought £100m have now got to the end of their contract and sell for only £50m because they're not rated by other clubs. They buy new players to replace them for £100m. Their squad cost remains the same but the net spend that year is £100-£50m = £50m.

Team B (like Liverpool say) sells players they bought for £100m and get £150m for them. They buy new players for £200m. Their squad cost has increased by £100m but their net spend is £200-£150m = £50m.

The squad cost shows you the improvements in Team B squad, the net spend tells you nothing.
Yeah. That's why I asked what exactly you are trying to measure. If you are only focussed on strength of a squad, as you said, squad cost is the right measurement. If you are trying to measure how a club's management performed, net spend makes more sense.
 

BigPoppaPump

Reeling from Laca & Kos nightmares
How has this happened bro? I only put up the new chart to show the 20/21 squad investments and to show a new top 8 and all the Wenger haters and money deniers are here to bring out the same old 'money doesn't determine everything' arguments. Why?

Think people just personally dislike you and use this as a way to try prove you wrong.
 

BigPoppaPump

Reeling from Laca & Kos nightmares
I never said that wasn't the case.

So far in this thread I've said there are nuances involved. I've also mentioned the law of diminishing returns.

Let's take diminishing returns first. Its the easiest to explain. City started spending cash. In 08 they had Bellamy and Benjani as centre forwards. They spent some money acquiring an upgrade in the form of Adebayor. They then spend more money and another upgrade in Aguero. Once they've got Aguero it doesn't matter if they spend 10m or 200m the leap they had from Bellamy to Aguero simply won't happen again. If anything the player they buy for that money is likely to be below Aguero. Yet the money is still spent.

Meanwhile Chelsea and United are in thr same boat. They've maxed out on World class players and even if they've 25 world class players they can only start 11. Once you get to that point all the top teams are on relative par. Spending more or less matters very little. So yes money is important to get to that point.

Onto nuances. For a start a simple one, see Chelsea. Spent a fortune this window and they've Lampard as a manager. Hopefully I don't need to explain that one further.

PSG are the second highest according to Cies. That spend on paper should make them CL challengers season in season out but it hasn't. Why? The strength of their league is one factor where their second strength team is good enough to win the French league. So when it comes to equivalent teams on paper they are under cooked. Also the players they've signed whilst arguably being the best players in the world that doesn't always translate into a cohesive unit.

Looks like a bit closer to home. @Makingtrax seems to have two different measurements. One is simply league winners, which you've used also when talking about Chelsea and City. Firstly, if we go back to the 90s other teams (Newcastle and Blackburn) out spent United yet United were the dominant team in the 90s. That doesn't tally up with higher squad cost more success. It tallies up with nuances in the shape of the manager, the development of the squad and the cohesion of the squad.

Let's strip back trophies. We often hear how Arsenal out performed squad cost. On one hand it's okay to measure Arsenal's success relative to spend without factoring in league titles but not for other clubs. Liverpool for example finishing in the top 4, 2nd and eventually winning the league whilst also reaching two CL finals and winning 1. Or what about Sp**s when they out peftomed our own squad cost and that of Uniteds, Chelsea and Liverpool? What about a team with a low squad cost finishing 10th and above teams that cost considerably more.

The simple fact is if squad cost was it then the league would be decided in order of squad cost. But it doesn't. Neither does Europe. It regularly deviates because there is more to it. Yes, on paper it helps elevate but as with the Everton and Leicester examples on that list it doesn't always translate into reality.

Thanks for reading :)

It's simple, the more money you have the better players you can buy and you can buy a lot of them, the more better players you have the higher chance of you winning the league and other trophies. No offence but you're talking about a lot of arbitrary stuff. The fact of the matter is the richer clubs hog all the trophies, it's black and white like that no shades of grey.

Of course you have to look at the different clubs and the quality of players, where would Dortmund be if they could afford to keep all their best players? PSG have no right to win the CL because there's other teams that are rich and more desirable, but they'll win the Ligue 1 every season. Cups aren't as much of a guarantee as leagues, but still money is the answer.
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted ⭐

Country: Scotland
It's simple, the more money you have the better players you can buy and you can buy a lot of them, the more better players you have the higher chance of you winning the league and other trophies. No offence but you're talking about a lot of arbitrary stuff. The fact of the matter is the richer clubs hog all the trophies, it's black and white like that no shades of grey.

Of course you have to look at the different clubs and the quality of players, where would Dortmund be if they could afford to keep all their best players? PSG have no right to win the CL because there's other teams that are rich and more desirable, but they'll win the Ligue 1 every season. Cups aren't as much of a guarantee as leagues, but still money is the answer.
Money simply isn't the answer. It helps. But when 6 teams are spending 1bn to 600m there isn't much in between. Its the arbitrary stuff that comes into play.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Think people just personally dislike you and use this as a way to try prove you wrong.
Ha! They don't even know me mate. It's only some online guy who hated to see a good manager disparaged unjustly and was prepared to speak out. A few years back most Wenger defenders came and went like confetti as they received a good old pasting.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Money simply isn't the answer. It helps. But when 6 teams are spending 1bn to 600m there isn't much in between. Its the arbitrary stuff that comes into play.
Nobody's disagreeing with that, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Edit: only 4 teams are spending between £600m-1bn.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Yeah. That's why I asked what exactly you are trying to measure. If you are only focussed on strength of a squad, as you said, squad cost is the right measurement. If you are trying to measure how a club's management performed, net spend makes more sense.
How does it make more sense in the example I showed you?
 

HairSprayGooners

My brother posted it ⏩
@Makingtrax not sure why you don't take variables into context.

Over the past 5 years United have spent a ridiculous amount but ultimately failed due to the amount spend being spent poorly

Over the past 5 years Klopp has spent hardly any net and built a title winning squad. Similarly Sp**s are now in a great squad position without spending a stupid amount of money over 5 years.

Your points aren't really valid in that sense. Yes spending money is important, but ultimately the players signed are more important and the manager in charge of those players is even more important than just squad cost.
 

RacingPhoton

Established Member
How does it make more sense in the example I showed you?
In your example, team B(like Liverpool) has a lower net spend but still managed to finish in the top. It means their club is managed better than a team(like Man City) that has a higher net spend and finishes at the top, even though the squad costs could be high for both the teams.
 

Latest posts+

Top Bottom