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

[Makingtrax]

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.

If the flaws are pretty obvious how come the richest three teams have won most of the EPL titles. Is that black and white enough. You’re not thinking this through.

 

[Makingtrax]

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

Yeah Sheffield United are only at the bottom because they have no team cohesion and synergy. A new manager and they’ll be right up there beating City. Lol.

 

[CaseUteinberger]

That being said, incredible how well it works 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.

It is clear that spending money on quality players is directly correlated to league position over time. Of course there are other variables that are influential but spending is clearly the one. And it needs to be gross spend and not net spend for obvious reasons. Think ManC and Chelsea are prime examples that this works well. Even Liverpool couldn’t win until they splashed £75m on VVD. And as soon he is injured they languish outside the top 4. Good players are key and the easiest and most reliable way of getting them into the squad is to buy them.

That being said I think there are other variables that have a lot of impact and one being the quality of the coaches that train the team. ManU is a current good example. Think they will struggle to win under OGS, but who knows if they keep on bringing in enough good players. Even he might win something.

 

[Makingtrax]

Wonder if the mods could fix an intelligence test as part of the lobby. Would make this place a forum of wonder. Nothing special, a bit higher than a carrot would be fine.

 

[Makingtrax]

It is clear that spending money on quality players is directly correlated to league position over time. Of course there are other variables that are influential but spending is clearly the one. And it needs to be gross spend and not net spend for obvious reasons. Think ManC and Chelsea are prime examples that this works well. Even Liverpool couldn’t win until they splashed £75m on VVD. And as soon he is injured they languish outside the top 4. Good players are key and the easiest and most reliable way of getting them into the squad is to buy them.

That being said I think there are other variables that have a lot of impact and one being the quality of the coaches that train the team. ManU is a current good example. Think they will struggle to win under OGS, but who knows if they keep on bringing in enough good players. Even he might win something.

Think you’ve summed it up. Could we ‘sticky’ this post so no other moronic comments enter the fray. The club has invested 5th in the squad, so we should be doing better than 10th. If people want to give Arteta more time, fine. But that should be his yardstick.

 

[Blood on the Tracks]

If the flaws are pretty obvious how come the richest three teams have won most of the EPL titles. Is that black and white enough. You’re not thinking this through.

Because the teams that spend the most money ( and more importantly, spend the money well) are going to usually be successful. There's no ground breaking knowledge to that. A 10 year old could tell you that

A lot of money + knowing how to spend it well = Success, usually.

Looking at net spend / squad cost across the league, particularly outside the super powerful clubs, is never going to give you the full picture though. Net spend / squad cost data can only tell you so much.

You look at it in such as a data driven way that you're missing any nuance. Spending £100m on players doesn't mean that you've added £100m of value to your squad in real terms, necessarily, which is how you seem to look at it from a purely data point of view.

Teams spend poorly and well dependant on a host of factors that are totally out of the purview of net spend / squad cost. Manager ability, scouting quality, club structure etc.

You still haven't told me how you factor the likes of ESR and Saka into your formula either, because you can't factor them in, within the narrow parameters you use to predict a clubs success.

 

[Makingtrax]

Because the teams that spend the most money ( and more importantly, spend the money well) are going to usually be the most successful. There's no ground breaking knowledge to that, a 10 year old could tell you that

Looking at net spend / squad cost across the league, particularly outside the super powerful clubs, is never going to give you the full picture though. Net spend / squad cost data can only tell you so much.

You look at it in such as a data driven way that you're missing any nuance. Spending £100m on players doesn't mean that you've added £100m of value to your squad in real terms, necessarily, which is how you seem to look at it from a purely data point of view.

Teams spend poorly and well dependant on a host of factors that are totally out of the purview of net spend / squad cost. Manager ability, scouting quality, club structure etc.

You still haven't told me how you factor the likes of ESR and Saka into your formula either, because you can't factor them in, within the narrow parameters you use.

So you’re not even 10, Jesus! I guess that explains a lot. Net spend and squad cost are totally different metrics bro. And if all those other things are important why have Sp**s never won the Prem - you saying they always spend poorly, have 2nd class managers? Makes no sense. AM tells me they have a winner there now.

 

[Blood on the Tracks]

So you’re not even 10, Jesus! I guess that explains a lot. Net spend and squad cost are totally different metrics bro. And if all those other things are important why have Sp**s never won the Prem - you saying they always spend poorly, have 2nd class managers? Makes no sense. AM tells me they have a winner there now.

I know that Net Spend and Squad Cost are totally different metrics. I'm saying, neither are the perfect predictors you seem to want them to be

There's not one sole reason why Sp**s haven't won the title. There are going to be multiple factors at play and I think you know that, and yes, squad investment would be one of them.

That would be like me saying to you, why did Leicester win the title? It's multiple factors.

 

[say yes]

What happens if your net spend is 5th, but you end up finishing 4th because the team whose net spend was 4th had bad fan pressure / planes over the stadium (the only other factors which can influence performance) which made their form spiral uncontrollably @Makingtrax ? Has the manager of the team whose net spend is 5th but finished 4th performed excellently, even if the only reason they finished 4th was bad fan pressure at a different team?

 

[Makingtrax]

I know that Net Spend and Squad Cost are totally different metrics. I'm saying, neither are the perfect predictors you seem to want them to be

Oh man, they’re not perfect predictors.

 

[Makingtrax]

What happens if your net spend is 5th, but you end up finishing 4th because the team whose net spend was 4th had bad fan pressure / planes over the stadium (the only other factors which can influence performance) which made their form spiral uncontrollably @Makingtrax ? Has the manager of the team whose net spend is 5th but finished 4th performed excellently, even if the only reason they finished 4th was bad fan pressure at a different team?

My Nan used to give me riddles when I was a kid. I love em. The answer . . . no he hasn’t performed excellently. But imagine if he could do that for 20 years! Then you would know he was ****ing amazing.

 

[Red London]

The squad cost thing is a good indicator but obviously not the be all and end all. I feel like its changing a bit in modern football too. The biggest spending clubs will still win the league but the top 4 places can be achieved by clubs clever with their squad planning.

Everyone knows that spending money correlates to success. Thats why Wenger was heralded during his time here. However you can spend a lot of of money on utter ****e like United and us (Perez, Mustafi, Xhaka summer or paying probably 30m over Pepe's market value). The game has certainly changed with increased income for the league, and the more socialist structure we have here in England with TV money etc. I feel like it was easier to just buy a top player emerging from the lower sides back in the day, so money certainly did the talking. Big clubs could easily poach the best players similarly to the way Bayern and Juve operate in their respective leagues. However these days these lower sides e.g. Palace with Zaha, Villa with Grealish etc keep their star players for much longer as they don't need the money. When they do sell, they sell them for extremely inflated fees. Big teams can't do that every summer anymore, they need to become a bit more savvy as the teams around them could use their capital better and therefore be a better side.

The way I see it is a decade or so ago it was essentially however much you pay it would directly correlate to your league position, whereas today its more about how you use your money as a club. Well run teams with good DoFs and lines of communication down to the manager and scouts i.e. a Leicester can do really well with a well built side while clubs like Arsenal and United often waste money on players through being kinda arrogant, persisting to sign 'big club' players. Arsenal need to take a leaf out of Leciester's book, many of our signings need to be players we have analysed and seen that suits our system, rather than signing them because they are an established player. As a bigger club with more merch/gate/sponsorship fees we can still outmuscle a Leciester in the market (given we start finishing near them eventually), but we should only flex our financial muscle if the perfect player whos proven suits our system. The Özil signing just screamed 'yeh we will sign him just because he is top quality', and I geniunely see why we did it at the time but that kind of thinking has also hampered us. Its time to properly team build rather than try to pluck well known players on high wages, who may offer less than a much cheaper player.

 

[Makingtrax]

The squad cost thing is a good indicator but obviously not the be all and end all. I feel like its changing a bit in modern football too. The biggest spending clubs will still win the league but the top 4 places can be achieved by clubs clever with their squad planning.

Everyone knows that spending money correlates to success. Thats why Wenger was heralded during his time here. However you can spend a lot of of money on utter ****e like United and us (Perez, Mustafi, Xhaka summer or paying probably 30m over Pepe's market value). The game has certainly changed with increased income for the league, and the more socialist structure we have here in England with TV money etc. I feel like it was easier to just buy a top player emerging from the lower sides back in the day, so money certainly did the talking. Big clubs could easily poach the best players similarly to the way Bayern and Juve operate in their respective leagues. However these days these lower sides e.g. Palace with Zaha, Villa with Grealish etc keep their star players for much longer as they don't need the money. When they do sell, they sell them for extremely inflated fees. Big teams can't do that every summer anymore, they need to become a bit more savvy as the teams around them could use their capital better and therefore be a better side.

The way I see it is a decade or so ago it was essentially however much you pay it would directly correlate to your league position, whereas today its more about how you use your money as a club. Well run teams with good DoFs and lines of communication down to the manager and scouts i.e. a Leicester can do really well with a well built side while clubs like Arsenal and United often waste money on players through being kinda arrogant, persisting to sign 'big club' players. Arsenal need to take a leaf out of Leciester's book, many of our signings need to be players we have analysed and seen that suits our system, rather than signing them because they are an established player. As a bigger club with more merch/gate/sponsorship fees we can still outmuscle a Leciester in the market (given we start finishing near them eventually), but we should only flex our financial muscle if the perfect player whos proven suits our system. The Özil signing just screamed 'yeh we will sign him just because he is top quality', and I geniunely see why we did it at the time but that kind of thinking has also hampered us. Its time to properly team build rather than try to pluck well known players on high wages, who may offer less than a much cheaper player.

Are you mad? There’s more squad cost deniers on here than antivaxxers in QAnon.

 

[Red London]

Are you mad? There’s more squad cost deniers on here than antivaxxers in QAnon.

I think the usual debate is about how relevant it is these days. I see it as v important but the other things I mentioned are just as important if not more.

 

[Rimaal]

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

If you got the notion, I second that emotion.

 

[Makingtrax]

I think the usual debate is about how relevant it is these days. I see it as v important but the other things I mentioned are just as important if not more.

Nothing will be more important than money in football, ever. Liverpool have been fantastic the way they’ve been managed and the intelligent way they’ve bought and sold players. But they’ve only won the league once in 30 years and even on a high, the odd injury and the money teams have just soared past them again.

 

[Kav]

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.

It is certainly a useful tool to have but I believe we can agree that it is not all encompassing and does not factor into account a number of variables that impact on the perceived success or failures of a club.

 

[sykesy69]

It is certainly a useful tool to have but I believe we can agree that it is not all encompassing and does not factor into account a number of variables that impact on the perceived success or failures of a club.

Was it ever supposed to be? Wasn't it just a way to give a correlation to a predicted finishing position and Arteta needing to oveperform to get us to a better coveted place, which I'm sure nobody would've disagreed with at the start of the season.

You still haven't told me how you factor the likes of ESR and Saka into your formula either, because you can't factor them in, within the narrow parameters you use to predict a clubs success.

Isn't this just covered by if we had more money to spend on quality players, we wouldn't need to rely on the youngsters to help out as much? The better squads in the EPL don't usually have to rely so heavily on their youth to win them points. It's usually dripping them into the squad to help them mature into the players they need to be for the team without the massive pressure week in week out...

 

[Blood on the Tracks]

Nothing will be more important than money in football, ever. Liverpool have been fantastic the way they’ve been managed and the intelligent way they’ve bought and sold players. But they’ve only won the league once in 30 years and even on a high, the odd injury and the money teams have just soared past them again.

And this is exactly the point. Money in itself isn't the most important thing in football. Money spent wisely is the most important thing in football.

Liverpool are a perfect example. A well run club from top to bottom behind the scenes, great manager. They understand the market and how to extract value from it, for the most part. Something you couldn't really say of them too often over the past 25 or so years.

You use the injury crisis they have to at least partially justify their lower league position this season, which I think is accurate. If they finish 4th-5th this year that's not going to show up on your squad cost database is it? That's a factor outside of squad cost that to a large degree explains why they will underperform this season.

 

[Makingtrax]

And this is exactly the point. Money in itself isn't the most important thing in football. Money spent wisely is the most important thing in football.

Liverpool are a perfect example. A well run club from top to bottom behind the scenes, great manager. They understand the market and how to extract value from it, for the most part. Something you couldn't really say of them too often over the past 25 or so years.

You use the injury crisis they have to at least partially justify their lower league position this season, which I think is accurate. If they finish 4th-5th this year that's not going to show up on your squad cost database is it? That's a factor outside of squad cost that to a large degree explains why they will underperform this season.

No, if you don't have as much money it doesn't matter how wisely you spend it, or how good your manager is you won't beat the money teams very often . . . hardly at all. That's what the history of the premier league has shown us. And exactly why Liverpool have only beaten them once in 30 years spending 4th for most of that.

Think of it like racing against a Lamborghini with a Subaru Impreza, it doesn't matter how good your driver is, or your team, or what tyres you buy you'll only win once a blue moon if you take every bend perfectly and the Lamborghini driver makes mistakes.

This year Liverpool, still have Klopp, have still spent wisely but they've lost to money team yet again. It's all about odds. Think about it.