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

[Makingtrax]

Posters are constantly quoting net spend with no regard for the fact that it takes years to build a squad. The only true measure of real investment is the club's overall spend on their squad of players. Below are the figures in Euros that CIES calculate every year for Europe's top leagues. And they've just come out.

The figures show that the EPL is getting ever stretched between the haves and the have nots. There seems to be 3 tiers of investment.
1. Top tier clubs circa €600-1bn
Over that range City, United, Chelsea and Liverpool are out in front (Chelsea overtaking Liverpool this year)
2. Mid range circa €400-600m
Arsenal, Everton, Tottenham and Leicester (actual just below, but the only club spending in the £300m range.
3. Low investing clubs circa €100-300m
All the other teams

The Arsenal is still a mid range investing club, spending just over half way up the EPL €900 range ( the mid point being €550). Arteta will have to over perform to beat those quality squads above them and get into the top 4. The pundits are still talking about a top 6, but as you can see that's a false assumption. There is no top 6. There's a top spending 4, a mid spending 4 and then the rest all lumped into a small 200m euro range at the bottom. So based on spending, there's my prediction for top 8. United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Everton, Tottenham, Leicester.

 

[Trilly]

lock

 

[A_G]

Top 6 is just a reference to the clubs that traditionally qualify for Europe. It's never been a reference to the six biggest spenders, even though that usually ends up being the case.

Not sure what this means for squad cost since Man United and Chelsea being above Liverpool proves that big fees don't always mean more quality.

 

[Makavelii]

Don’t lock. It’s an interesting post.

I would argue though that it’s about how you spend it not how much you spent.

Liverpool haven’t spent much more than us according to that table. But they’re way better than us.
What’s the difference?
They applied a data driven approach from the ground up and systematically recruited according to this approach.
Arsenal have lacked any strategy in the transfer market.

If we can build a real long term strategy and spend wisely using data and analytics combined with the right experienced leaders - then we can catch up while spending less. Just live Liverpool did.

 

[Makingtrax]

Top 6 is just a reference to the clubs that traditionally qualify for Europe. It's never been a reference to the six biggest spenders, even though that usually ends up being the case.

Not sure what this means for squad cost since Man United and Chelsea being above Liverpool proves that big fees don't always mean more quality.

It means they've got the best chance of finishing in the top 4, which is exactly what happened last year.

 

[A_G]

It means they've got the best chance of finishing in the top 4, which is exactly what happened last year.

Nobody would argue that. But if City continue to underperform and Liverpool sputter with injuries, United will consider it a failure if a club like Everton were to win the league and they finish 2nd.

 

[Makingtrax]

lock

Idiot. You're supposed to be a trusted poster.

There are a mountain of posts from posters about our net spend compared to other clubs almost daily. Well here they can see what it finally amounts to. You'd rather discuss hypothetical of the week, what if Arsenal players went on the pitch without boots.

 

[Makingtrax]

Nobody would argue that. But if City continue to underperform and Liverpool sputter with injuries, United will consider it a failure if a club like Everton were to win the league and they finish 2nd.

You think Everton will win the league, after just 5 games?

 

[Makingtrax]

Don’t lock. It’s an interesting post.

I would argue though that it’s about how you spend it not how much you spent.

Liverpool haven’t spent much more than us according to that table. But they’re way better than us.
What’s the difference?
They applied a data driven approach from the ground up and systematically recruited according to this approach.
Arsenal have lacked any strategy in the transfer market.

If we can build a real long term strategy and spend wisely using data and analytics combined with the right experienced leaders - then we can catch up while spending less. Just live Liverpool did.

Yeah, and it doesn't say how they got to this point, whether it's owner investment, borrowing like United or playing the transfer game, like Pool. But here's where they've arrived.

 

[say yes]

This article was pretty much made for this thread:

 

[Makingtrax]

This article was pretty much made for this thread:

Absolutely. Liverpool have generated a high squad investment without owner investment or borrowing.

It can't be easy to do though, else other teams would have done it.

 

[Makingtrax]

Nobody would argue that. But if City continue to underperform and Liverpool sputter with injuries, United will consider it a failure if a club like Everton were to win the league and they finish 2nd.

Pool and City have had injuries to crucial players and Pool don't have the Anfield crowd to help them. Still think they'll finish somewhere in the top 4 though. Arsenal managed to finish 2nd despite those horrendous injuries in 15/16.

 

[A_G]

You think Everton will win the league, after just 5 games?

Just saying hypothetically, finishing 2nd to a club like Everton would be viewed as a failure even though that's where they would be expected to end up based on SC.

Pool and City have had injuries to crucial players and Pool don't have the Anfield crowd to help them. Still think they'll finish somewhere in the top 4 though. Arsenal managed to finish 2nd despite those horrendous injuries in 15/16.

The difference for Liverpool is that they haven't built their squad in a way where the immediate back-ups are all injury prone as well.

 

[Riou]

This thread will eventually descend in to madness.

 

[Makingtrax]

Just saying hypothetically, finishing 2nd to a club like Everton would be viewed as a failure even though that's where they would be expected to end up based on SC.

The difference for Liverpool is that they haven't built their squad in a way where the immediate back-ups are all injury prone as well.

That's not strictly true. When Cazorla was finished fairly early on, Flamini ended up playing pretty much every match, can't remember him being injured.

 

[Makingtrax]

This thread will eventually descend in to madness.

This thread is based on straight facts, why should it?

 

[Kysus]

lol @ your arbitrary cut-off point

 

[Makingtrax]

lol @ your arbitrary cut-off point

Of course it's a continuum, but those 8 teams stand out above the rest wallowing around between 100-300m euros. Arsenal have spent just over half City'smoney. Where would your cut off points be? Which ever way you look at it, there's no top 6.

 

[Trilly]

Idiot. Your supposed to be a trusted poster.

There are a mountain of posts from posters about our net spend compared to other clubs almost daily. Well here they can see what it finally amounts to. You'd rather discuss hypothetical of the week, what if Arsenal players went on the pitch without boots.

I was joking man.

Is that this week's hypothetical? Think we'd slip down the table if that was the case.

 

[truth_hurts]

We spend less because we are tight. The other reason is that we are poor in the market. We earned nothing from Ramsey and Sanchez leaving. Also, Özil, Mustafi, Sokratis and possibly even Guendouzi will leave on a free. That's around 200m of sales potentially lost.

Chelsea and Liverpool are great at player sales.

We can not discount the fact that we are so far behind largely because we have been so poor in the transfer market.

We spent 70m on Xhaka and Mustafi, whilst losing stars for nothing. Liverpool spent 100m on Van Dijk and Thiago.

We spent 120m on Lacazette and Pepe, whilst Liverpool spent 55m on Mane and Salah.