• ! ! ! 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

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
In some cases it’s not even close. Sheffield Utd finished 9th and Burnley finished 10th. Must be bottom 5 on your graph.
What graph?
Compared to £1bn spend of City and the other high spending clubs, most of the clubs below 8th are all pretty close for squad cost, they could finish anywhere.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Yes you can. They are not buying just German players.
I've never seen an analysis or comparison across different leagues. Bayern have always done well in Europe compared to Premier League Teams. Last year they won, City spent a lot more and didn't. So what's your point, that Flick is so much better than Pep? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:

Jack_the_boy

Definitely Not Manberg
What graph?
Compared to £1bn spend of City and the other high spending clubs, most of the clubs below 8th are all pretty close for squad cost, they could finish anywhere.

There is a sizeable difference of £200m between places 10 and 15th on your expenditure graph. Yet two teams who finished in the top 10 are below 15th in squad cost?
 

HairSprayGooners

My brother posted it ⏩
Doesn’t that tweet torpedo your “squad is relegation quality so leave Mikel alone” argument btw?

If a manager with little spending power can climb the table what’s Mikel’s excuse for doing so poorly?

Mustafi, Sokratis, Özil, Pepe, Saliba for example. Cost of around £190M, not even being used or completely out of favour. When a new manager comes in he'll shake things up, have players he doesn't want.

One of my main arguments would be you can only view squad cost in a certain way, whats the point in doing it when it includes players who have a value of 35M like Mustafi but arent even playing... especially when the current manager didn't buy him.
 
The squad value is what is important not the squad cost or net spend. Our squad cost may be high but half the squad are worthless. Good scouting, coaching, management, youth development etc all play their part along with investment into the squad to increase the value of the squad.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
There is a sizeable difference of £200m between places 10 and 15th on your expenditure graph. Yet two teams who finished in the top 10 are below 15th in squad cost?
There is, but that's not squad cost. That was expenditure between 2013 and 2021 to answer Hairspray's question about what's happened since Fergie left.

The squad investment of all 10 teams in the bottom half of the Premiere League are all squashed between €102m and €262mThat's a small gap. They could finish anywhere.

There's a bigger gap between 1st and 2nd place City €1036m, United €844m.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
The squad value is what is important not the squad cost or net spend. Our squad cost may be high but half the squad are worthless. Good scouting, coaching, management, youth development etc all play their part along with investment into the squad to increase the value of the squad.
What is squad value though? Quality of players or their sale price on the open market. And how is either a measurable metric?
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Mustafi, Sokratis, Özil, Pepe, Saliba for example. Cost of around £190M, not even being used or completely out of favour. When a new manager comes in he'll shake things up, have players he doesn't want.

One of my main arguments would be you can only view squad cost in a certain way, whats the point in doing it when it includes players who have a value of 35M like Mustafi but arent even playing... especially when the current manager didn't buy him.
This is why teams finish a few places below their squad cost, it's a measure of how badly you're being coached or doing transfer deals.

My point is they rarely finish more than 3 or 4 places away, whatever **** up they make. It was huge shock when Leicester won, as it would be if Arsenal were to finish 15th. Now why is that? Because everybody knows roughly where a team should be finishing based on their squad investment. Squad cost as a very rough measure of where teams should be in the table is universally accepted by everybody.
 

Godwin1

Very well-known
The table is 2013 to 2021 in response to a question about what's happened since Fergie left.
Changing the subject, some of the clubs at the top have done good business. Chelsea's net spend of 390 million over 8 years is surprising, Liverpool at 264 is impressive considering their recent achievements. Even Sp**s while not achieving any trophies only spending 182 is nothing considering they're hovering around the top.
 
What is squad value though? Quality of players or their sale price on the open market. And how is either a measurable metric?

Estimated value I suppose from looking at the market and comparisons with other players etc. In our case the value of the squad is much lower than the cost. Whereas say the Liverpool or Spuds teams are worth more than the squad cost. Of course throughout the vast majority of Wenger's Arsenal career our squad was generally worth more than we paid, it's pretty telling that no one is after our players anymore.
 

bergholt

Well-Known Member

Country: Australia
Estimated value I suppose from looking at the market and comparisons with other players etc. In our case the value of the squad is much lower than the cost. Whereas say the Liverpool or Spuds teams are worth more than the squad cost. Of course throughout the vast majority of Wenger's Arsenal career our squad was generally worth more than we paid, it's pretty telling that no one is after our players anymore.

Yeah, I tend to agree with value vs cost. Saka would have zero contribution to cost but significant to value.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Estimated value I suppose from looking at the market and comparisons with other players etc. In our case the value of the squad is much lower than the cost. Whereas say the Liverpool or Spuds teams are worth more than the squad cost. Of course throughout the vast majority of Wenger's Arsenal career our squad was generally worth more than we paid, it's pretty telling that no one is after our players anymore.
If you look on transfermarkt, they attempt to estimate player values, as do CIES, but I find some of their figures a bit ridiculous and often over the top.

Good post. Our transfer business has been rock bottom recently and it shows on the pitch and in results. That, plus Arteta's mistakes are the main reason we're below our squad cost position, whilst Wenger always finished above it for 20 years straight.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Changing the subject, some of the clubs at the top have done good business. Chelsea's net spend of 390 million over 8 years is surprising, Liverpool at 264 is impressive considering their recent achievements. Even Sp**s while not achieving any trophies only spending 182 is nothing considering they're hovering around the top.
Exactly, the ratio of net spend to overall spend tells you how good your transfer business is. Look how good our transfer business was under Wenger during the stadium build between 2004 and 2013. Arsène literally spent nothing and got top 4 every year. It was a ridiculous achievement. And by 2013 there were already fans moaning he hadn't won the league. I couldn't believe it, his achievement was immense. Most fans understand nothing about the real world of football. Ferguson and Wenger were special. Wenger spent less than Stoke City.

CA94-DB96-9-E81-4-E87-A9-CF-FFB201-B15-D97.jpg
 
I think they do. The story of how the fans turned a well run successful brand into a mid table humdrum club will long be written about.

It's early days yet, let's give it a couple more years of patience before claiming we are a humdrum club, we will save huge wages on contracts expiring in the summer and we have a promising group of young players that we can hopefully build on. People were ready for a change after years of contract failings and then Xhaka and Mustafi put the icing on the cake.
 

Latest posts+

Top Bottom