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

Blood on the Tracks

Well-Known Member
Net spend during Arteta's time here:
1. Chelsea - £165m
2. United - £117m
3. City - £103m
4. Leeds - £96m
5. Aston Villa - £93m
6. Sp**s - £92m
7. Sheffield United - £78m
8. Arsenal - £66m
9. Everton - £64m
10. Liverpool - £43m

Blimey, if Arteta can finish the season strong it looks like we might have another overachiever on our hands here @Makingtrax

:shivering:

The Sheffield United net spend guy must be spitting feathers that Wilder hasn't been sacked yet :lol: :lol:
 

Riou

A-M's Resident Jobber
Trusted
Net spend during Arteta's time here:
1. Chelsea - £165m
2. United - £117m
3. City - £103m
4. Leeds - £96m
5. Aston Villa - £93m
6. Sp**s - £92m
7. Sheffield United - £78m
8. Arsenal - £66m
9. Everton - £64m
10. Liverpool - £43m

Blimey, if Arteta can finish the season strong it looks like we might have another overachiever on our hands here @Makingtrax

:shivering:

Who would have thought that Liverpool are overperforming and Leeds underperforming this season!
 

say yes

Not Trusted
Trusted
You want to compare the achievements of managers based on the couple of players bought in one season. Man you've lost it. 😂😂😂
I'm not comparing him to anyone! Just trying to judge him on net spend, as you suggest. It's more impartial.

What do you reckon par for Arteta is this season looking at that? Took over the club in 10th, net spend since of 8th: so compromise on 9th?
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
I'm not comparing him to anyone! Just trying to judge him on net spend, as you suggest. It's more impartial.

What do you reckon par for Arteta is this season looking at that? Took over the club in 10th, net spend since of 8th: so compromise on 9th?
You can't judge anything from net spend on one season. It only tells you the difference between the very few players you bought and those you sold. What can you learn from that?

The last few posts on this thread are embarrassing. Hope nobody from any decent football forum is reading the calibre of these posts. Clueless sh!te. :lol:
 

say yes

Not Trusted
Trusted
You can't judge anything from net spend on one season. It only tells you the difference between the very few players you bought and those you sold. What can you learn from that?

The last few posts on this thread are embarrassing. Hope nobody from any decent football forum is reading the calibre of these posts. Clueless sh!te. :lol:
Don’t get angry buddy, I’m trying to agree with you here!

How many windows do you think we need to give him before we can start to say whether Arteta has done a good job or not in relation to his net spend?
 

Macho

Has Trust Issues With Processes
Trusted
Lol it’s squad cost not net spend guys :no:

Net spend doesn’t say much you could sell your best player and promote a guy from academy that would skew the numbers for eg.
 

Macho

Has Trust Issues With Processes
Trusted
I'm trying to not crap on Mikel nowadays, but is it bad that I think no amount of money would help that guy?
 

say yes

Not Trusted
Trusted
Lol it’s squad cost not net spend guys :no:

Net spend doesn’t say much you could sell your best player and promote a guy from academy that would skew the numbers for eg.
Squad value better surely?

Squads can improve / decline in quality irrespective of transfer fees.
 

Macho

Has Trust Issues With Processes
Trusted
Squad value better surely?

Squads can improve / decline in quality irrespective of transfer fees.
Squad cost shows you the investment the club has put or willing to put into the team a bit better I think. Squad value wouldn't reflect that, you could be a club that buys low and sells high and doesn't care about winning anything.

Even squad salaries would be better than value. I prefer squad cost as a yardstick myself though it better reflects the table over the years on average.

If the plan was to finish midtable would we have forked out 45m on a 27 year old Partey? doubt it.
 

say yes

Not Trusted
Trusted
Squad cost shows you the investment the club has put or willing to put into the team a bit better I think. Squad value wouldn't reflect that, you could be a club that buys low and sells high and doesn't care about winning anything.

Even squad salaries would be better than value. I prefer squad cost as a yardstick myself though it better reflects the table over the years on average.

If the plan was to finish midtable would we have forked out 45m on a 27 year old Partey? doubt it.
Lots of problems with that system though, e.g. ranking clubs who make can’t sell flops like Mustafi / declining players like Özil higher.

And @Makingtrax seems pretty wedded to his net-spend idea; he’s built an entire USP around it and I don’t want to detract from that. What else would he have to post about?
 

Arsenal1508

Mods are unethical! Özil, come assist me please!
Squad cost shows you the investment the club has put or willing to put into the team a bit better I think. Squad value wouldn't reflect that, you could be a club that buys low and sells high and doesn't care about winning anything.

Even squad salaries would be better than value. I prefer squad cost as a yardstick myself though it better reflects the table over the years on average.

If the plan was to finish midtable would we have forked out 45m on a 27 year old Partey? doubt it.
Partey looks like a poor buy right now under Arteteta setup. 45 million transfer fee, joint highest earner, and always injured.
 

Macho

Has Trust Issues With Processes
Trusted
Lots of problems with that system though, e.g. ranking clubs who make can’t sell flops like Mustafi / declining players like Özil higher.

And @Makingtrax seems pretty wedded to his net-spend idea; he’s built an entire USP around it and I don’t want to detract from that. What else would he have to post about?
Can't speak for Trax but I doubt anyone would get that high off net spend tbh, it doesn't say much. Arsenal we tend to make a marquee signing or two every summer, plus bar a freak Leicester season the table tends to roughly reflect squad cost.

Last season with Chelsea and Man U filling up top 4 places almost by default behind City and Pool despite not being consistent is pretty much a perfect example of squad costs playing out.

Ole and Lampard aren't amazing managers but their squads and signings like Fernandes mid season carried them in the end. No one scope to measure performance is perfect though no, like I said I just prefer it.
 
Last edited:

Macho

Has Trust Issues With Processes
Trusted
All that being said, maybe add squad cost debates to the list of stuff banned from this thread along with Wenger?
 

Kav

Well-Known Member
No one can ban the trax!

In all seriousness squad costs and net spend are too reliant on simplistic metrics and do not account for practical variables in determining the success or failures of teams/ managers and is a poor basis for any comparative analysis of different teams with different challenges and situations to navigate.

For example squad cost or net spend won’t take into account Mike Ashley’s reluctance to spend or the fact that Wolves are particularly hinged with a certain agent and thus their recruitment is skewed in a particular direction or that clubs like Arsenal traditionally spend only what they earn and thus there is a reluctance to exceed spending beyond a certain percentage of income by the club.

This is outside of the variables like injury impact on squad performance and other variables that affect performances.
 

Blood on the Tracks

Well-Known Member
I'm not against using net spend / squad cost etc as as tool to judge roughly where a club should finish. It has it's uses.

The flaws are pretty obvious though. For example, how many points have Saka and ESR helped us win this season? That's not going to show up via those metrics though we likely would be significantly worse off league position wise without them.

Also it's too black and white. Just because you spend £100m on players it doesn't mean you're getting £100m of value from the money you spend. Maybe you get £50m of value from the £100m in real terms if you spend poorly. None of that is factored in.

Put it this way, Leicester would get much more value in real terms out of £100m than a club like Newcastle would do, and that's due to factors net spend / squad cost don't take into account. Manager quality, scouting network, ownership quality etc.

At the end of the day it just boils down to, the more money you spend, and just as importantly, how well you spend it determines how well you'll do..... Generally. You don't need to look at a load of stats for that, it's common sense.
 
Last edited:

Dj_sds -

Well-Known Member
I'm not against using net spend / squad cost etc as as tool to judge roughly where a club should finish. It has it's uses.

The flaws are pretty obvious though. For example, how many points have Saka and ESR helped us win this season? That's not going to show up via those metrics though we likely would be significantly worse off league position wise without them.

Also it's too black and white. Just because you spend £100m on players it doesn't mean you're getting £100m of value from the money you spend. Maybe you get £50m of value from the £100m in real terms if you spend poorly. None of that is factored in.

This is factually incorrect, as the metrics show. Player and personality fit, team cohesion and synergy, and adaptation capabilities are not measureable by data, which means they are meaningless.

Players are similar to robots. If you spend 50 million, their output will be 50 million. This is statistically proven!

Also, managers can not influence the final league position. Only fan pressure and what you spend.

Tell him @Makingtrax
 
Last edited:

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
Lots of problems with that system though, e.g. ranking clubs who make can’t sell flops like Mustafi / declining players like Özil higher.

And @Makingtrax seems pretty wedded to his net-spend idea; he’s built an entire USP around it and I don’t want to detract from that. What else would he have to post about?
Net spend:eek: Not really my thing. It's just about how well you buy and sell players, not about their quality.
 
Last edited:

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
In all seriousness squad costs and net spend are too reliant on simplistic metrics and do not account for practical variables in determining the success or failures of teams/ managers and is a poor basis for any comparative analysis of different teams with different challenges and situations to navigate.
That being said, incredible how well it works eh?. Looking at the history of the Prem. Top 3 spending clubs have won most of the titles. Next 3 clubs Liverpool, Arsenal, (Sp**s being the exception with some near misses) have won occasionally and the rest eg Leicester, once a blue moon, most never.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Match Prediction

  • Arsenal Win

    Votes: 11 29.7%
  • Draw

    Votes: 10 27.0%
  • Everton

    Votes: 16 43.2%
Top