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

[bingobob]

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.

But I like my end of the stick its bigger and better

 

[Makingtrax]

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.

In the example I showed you both teams behaved very differently in the transfer market but they both had the same net spend. That's why you can't get much from net spend. It's meaningless unless you track it over several years.

 

[RacingPhoton]

In the example I showed you both teams behaved very differently in the transfer market but they both had the same net spend. That's why you can't get much from net spend. It's meaningless unless you track it over several years.

It is meaningful if you take league position together. Team B has low net spend but finished in a better league position while Team A has same net spend and finished in a lower league position. So Team B is managed better.

 

[Makingtrax]

It is meaningful if you take league position together. Team B has low net spend but finished in a better league position while Team A has same net spend and finished in a lower league position. So Team B is managed better.

I will grant you that. But that's excactly the problem most posters have on here. @HairSprayGooners is a good example. They see that two teams, say Arsenal and Liverpool have the same net spend, and think it's because one manager is better than the other that Arsenal is below.

If you don't look at net spend but consider squad cost instead, the reason is laid out for you . . their transfer success has increased the money to be spent on players giving Liverpool a better quality squad. Net spend doesn't show you that at all. People mistakenly think they've spent the same money.

 

[RacingPhoton]

I will grant you that. But that's excactly the problem most posters have on here. @HairSprayGooners is a good example. They see that two teams, say Arsenal and Liverpool have the same net spend, and think it's because one manager is better than the other that Arsenal is below.

If you don't look at net spend but consider squad cost instead, the reason is laid out for you . . their transfer success has increased the money to be spent on players giving Liverpool a better quality squad. Net spend doesn't show you that at all. People mistakenly think they've spent the same money.

True. net spend/league position should not be used as a metric to evaluate tactics and coaching of a manager. For that, squad cost/league position is much better. By this measure, Wenger was great. He did fantastically well with a squad that didn't cost as much as our competitors.

To evaluate the overall way a club is run, netspend/league position is a better metric. This is where Arsenal had fallen behind even when Wenger was with us. This blame falls on everyone from top to bottom - Kroenke(for not firing Gazidis when he was doing bad), Gazidis(one of the main reasons we are ****ed now) and Wenger(he did have a say in transfers and he was not decisive enough to kick out the mediocre players as early as possible).

 

[Makingtrax]

True. net spend/league position should not be used as a metric to evaluate tactics and coaching of a manager. For that, squad cost/league position is much better. By this measure, Wenger was great. He did fantastically well with a squad that didn't cost as much as our competitors.

To evaluate the overall way a club is run, netspend/league position is a better metric. This is where Arsenal had fallen behind even when Wenger was with us. This blame falls on everyone from top to bottom - Kroenke(for not firing Gazidis when he was doing bad), Gazidis(one of the main reasons we are ****ed now) and Wenger(he did have a say in transfers and he was not decisive enough to kick out the mediocre players as early as possible).

I'd say I agree with that, if people really understand that net spend isn't anything to do with your actual investment in the squad.

Thanks bro, great to have an intelligent and sensible debate without name calling or one up-man-ship and all the other sh!t that goes on.

 

[Mrs Bergkamp]

@Makingtrax and @RacingPhoton. Good points raised and what can sound complex is made simple in your posts. A slight deviation that I would add in terms of league position is that big intangible called luck eg we lost all our FB's some years ago. It takes time to build a squad and get good depth but I will be interested to see how Liverpool do without VVD and Allison and revisit this in January.

 

[RacingPhoton]

@Makingtrax and @RacingPhoton. Good points raised and what can sound complex is made simple in your posts. A slight deviation that I would add in terms of league position is that big intangible called luck eg we lost all our FB's some years ago. It takes time to build a squad and get good depth but I will be interested to see how Liverpool do without VVD and Allison and revisit this in January.

Luck factor with injuries can be offset to a little bit with squad management and having a half decent bench. But as you said, it is still a factor. Mane, Salah and Firmino played with high level of intensity for entire seasons in both PL and CL without getting injured while our players face rugby tackles regularly is something that is hard to cover with just statistics. I am pretty sure that Liverpool will get ****ed this season. Overall, there will be an interesting fight for top 4.

 

[Makingtrax]

@Makingtrax and @RacingPhoton. Good points raised and what can sound complex is made simple in your posts. A slight deviation that I would add in terms of league position is that big intangible called luck eg we lost all our FB's some years ago. It takes time to build a squad and get good depth but I will be interested to see how Liverpool do without VVD and Allison and revisit this in January.

Without VVD and Allison they'll dip compared to last year, just like they surged when they arrived. When you lose your top players it's inevitable. We really missed Cazorla, he was a lovely player.

 

[Oxeki]

Another wenger fan thread

 

[HairSprayGooners]

Debunking the "squad cost measure" is quite simple. All transfer fee statistics are taken from TransferMarkt.com

For starters you have so many variables to consider.

• Injuries to players involved in said squad cost. Good examples here are Keita and the Ox at Liverpool. Total cost of £92M, yet they've hardly played.
• Managerial changes, managers not liking certain players. Good example is Arsenal with Pepe and Saliba in recent times. £102M worth of player added to our squad cost despite being out of favour and one not even playing.
• Manchester United are a good example against squad cost taking you to the top. Between the years of 1986-2013 Sir Alex Ferguson spent £701M on footballers. Averaging £26M a year SAF won 38 titles, including 13 league titles and two champions league titles. An incredible feat and quite easily the best manager in footballing history. Now, in the 8 years since Ferguson left Manchester United they have spent £1.1 billion on footballers, not won a single premier league title, not even challenged for it and have been in and out of the champions league.
• If you look at Arsène Wengers time at Arsenal it would be unfair to compare his overall time to someone like SAF, due to financial restrictions up until 2012/13. But when Arsène joined to when Vieira left we spent £247M. In the period between Vieira leaving and Mesut joining we spent £214M. And in the 4/5 year period between Mesut joining and Arsène leaving we spent £412M.

So you've got long term injuries and managerial changes and in general managerial ability that make a huge difference to squad cost. A team like Liverpool can spend almost half what United have spent come close to winning one title, win another, win a champions league and reach a CL final and challenge for ANOTHER title. There's your measure. I'm not saying squad cost isn't important, because of course City and Chelsea will always win titles here and there because of their spend. But there's so many more things to it than just spend.

 

[bergholt]

Between the years of 1986-2013 Sir Alex Ferguson spent £701M on footballers. Averaging £26M a year SAF won 38 titles, including 13 league titles and two champions league titles.

£26m was a pretty different amount in 2013 than in 1986. Not sure quoting his "total spend" is at all useful.

 

[A_G]

@Makingtrax on A-M

Spoiler

 

[HairSprayGooners]

£26m was a pretty different amount in 2013 than in 1986. Not sure quoting his "total spend" is at all useful.

That's absolutely fair. If we use the year 2000 as a base Ferguson spent £594M in that period. Less than Liverpool and a lot less than Chelsea and City. I believe he won 7 premier league titles in that period.

 

[Jack_the_boy]

Debunking the "squad cost measure" is quite simple. All transfer fee statistics are taken from TransferMarkt.com

For starters you have so many variables to consider.

• Injuries to players involved in said squad cost. Good examples here are Keita and the Ox at Liverpool. Total cost of £92M, yet they've hardly played.
• Managerial changes, managers not liking certain players. Good example is Arsenal with Pepe and Saliba in recent times. £102M worth of player added to our squad cost despite being out of favour and one not even playing.
• Manchester United are a good example against squad cost taking you to the top. Between the years of 1986-2013 Sir Alex Ferguson spent £701M on footballers. Averaging £26M a year SAF won 38 titles, including 13 league titles and two champions league titles. An incredible feat and quite easily the best manager in footballing history. Now, in the 8 years since Ferguson left Manchester United they have spent £1.1 billion on footballers, not won a single premier league title, not even challenged for it and have been in and out of the champions league.
• If you look at Arsène Wengers time at Arsenal it would be unfair to compare his overall time to someone like SAF, due to financial restrictions up until 2012/13. But when Arsène joined to when Vieira left we spent £247M. In the period between Vieira leaving and Mesut joining we spent £214M. And in the 4/5 year period between Mesut joining and Arsène leaving we spent £412M.

So you've got long term injuries and managerial changes and in general managerial ability that make a huge difference to squad cost. A team like Liverpool can spend almost half what United have spent come close to winning one title, win another, win a champions league and reach a CL final and challenge for ANOTHER title. There's your measure. I'm not saying squad cost isn't important, because of course City and Chelsea will always win titles here and there because of their spend. But there's so many more things to it than just spend.

Squad cost theory officially debunked!

 

[Makingtrax]

Squad cost theory officially debunked!

I'm guessing that's irony

 

[Jack_the_boy]

I'm guessing that's irony

No, it’s bait. I just want to see your comeback

 

[Makingtrax]

I'm guessing that's irony

No, I've seen you've put a like in that fool's post. :rofl:

 

[Makingtrax]

I'm not saying squad cost isn't important, because of course City and Chelsea will always win titles here and there because of their spend.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[Makingtrax]

@Makingtrax on A-M

Spoiler

Can't believe Jury and Mark Tobias were banned and @HairSprayGooners is still trolling and insulting at will. He lives a charmed life.