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

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted
The issue is trax is so dogmatic in his views that the way its presented to me is squad cost team spends the most finishes 1, team finishes 2nd spent 2nd most and so on in sequence.

Will teams that spend more be successful, potentially, of course in theory they can access a better calibre of player. But money is well spread throughout the game now and lots of teams are spending money on duds and lots of teams are spending money on good and better players. And with lots of teams spending lots of money there will be an interesting mix. So it's not necessarily an argument of squad cost but who uses resources best.
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
@Makingtrax
To end this argument once and for all.

Last season’s premier league table:

C4FF3AC4-FD34-4EF4-B703-FE2123E6D199.jpeg


Last season’s squad cost league:

1) Manchester City - €1.014bn
2) Manchester United - €751m
3) Liverpool - €639m
4) Chelsea - €561m
5) Arsenal - €498m
6) Everton - €486m
7) Tottenham Hotspur - €465m
8) Leicester City - €312m
9) West Ham United - €259m
10) Newcastle United - €227m
11) Southampton - €218m
12) Wolverhampton Wanderers - €217m
13) Bournemouth - €215m
14) Aston Villa - €214m
15) Crystal Palace - €208m
16) Brighton & Hove Albion - €192m
17) Watford - €189m
18) Burnley - €132m
19) Sheffield United - €64m
20) Norwich City - €32m

League finish vs Squad cost:
  1. Liverpool: +2
  2. Man City: -1
  3. Man Utd: -1
  4. Chelsea: 0
  5. Leicester: +3
  6. Sp**s: +1
  7. Wolves: +5
  8. Arsenal: -3
  9. Sheffield Utd: +10
  10. Burnley: +8
  11. Southampton: 0
  12. Everton: -6
  13. Newcastle: -3
  14. Crystal Palace: +1
  15. Brighton: +1
  16. West Ham: -7
  17. Aston Villa: -3
  18. Bournemouth: -5
  19. Watford: -2
  20. Norwich: 0

So... only 3 clubs actually finished in the exact same position as their squad cost position in the table. In some cases the difference is huge, Sheffield finishing 10 places above their squad cost, for example.

Your squad cost theory has been vanquished.

/thread
:lol::lol::lol: Vanquished. You’ve just proved it.
  • 14 teams finished within three places of their squad cost.
  • 5 of the richest 6 teams finished in the top 6
  • Yet again the winner came from one of the three richest teams
  • Only 3 teams finished a long way from their squad cost.
Thanks bro.
 

Jack_the_boy

Definitely Not Manberg
:lol::lol::lol: Vanquished. You’ve just proved it.
  • 14 teams finished within three places of their squad cost.
  • 5 of the richest 6 teams finished in the top 6
  • Yet again the winner came from one of the three richest teams
  • Only 3 teams finished a long way from their squad cost.
Thanks bro.


What?

It’s a 20 club league. Any difference of 2 places or higher is a considerable difference. Squad cost may be one factor in estimating where a team finishes, but it’s no where near enough any deciding factor or as important as you claim it to be.
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
What?

It’s a 20 club league. Any difference of 2 places or higher is a considerable difference. Squad cost may be one factor in estimating where a team finishes, but it’s no where near enough any deciding factor or as important as you claim it to be.
It's by far the most important factor, if it wasn't, the correlation wouldn't be as good as what you kindly showed.

And more, despite the generality of it there are still some very important conclusions you can make from observation.

  • The winner of the league nearly always comes from one of the richest 3 teams
  • The squad cost as you go down the table is not linear, there's about 6 to 8 rich teams and the rest are pretty much of a muchness. That's why the teams at the top don't change much.
  • Those clubs performing over their squad cost position are performing well relative to their investment, those below are either badly coached or buying poorly.
 

Godwin1

Very well-known
It must have been 3/4 years ago now since I first posted in the squad cost thread confused as to why people were arguing with you about this so much. 2021 and it still doesn't make sense to me.
Don't think many really dispute the idea really, Trax just likes to bring it up when ever and where ever he can. I think the expectation that we should win the league should the big money teams all have terrible seasons and finish under 70 points isn't asking for the moon and stars though.
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
Squad quality and manager quality > Squad cost
If that were the case you would see the top six clubs beaten by lower clubs quite regularly, not once in 140 years by Leicester. You are most definitely wrong. History and statistics are against you.
 
Last edited:

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
Don't think many really dispute the idea really, Trax just likes to bring it up when ever and where ever he can. I think the expectation that we should win the league should the big money teams all have terrible seasons and finish under 70 points isn't asking for the moon and stars though.
But that's just a story put about to thrash Arsène with. There was a great article in the Independent about our horrendous, unprecedented injury record that year. Players that hitherto had not had many injuries like Coq and Cazorla that were injured early for months. The only reason Leicester won is because all the top 6 sides had problems, including us.
 

Jack_the_boy

Definitely Not Manberg
If that were the case you would see the top six clubs beaten by lower clubs quite regularly, not once in 140 years by Leicester. You are most definitely wrong. History and statistics are against you.

How so? City and Liverpool are finishing first and second because they have the best squads and the best managers at the moment. Reminder that Liverpool’s squad cost is not first or second.
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted
Hopefully my last ever post on this. Squad cost is an over simplistic way of explaining a complex set of outcomes. Can it be mildly useful as a gauge of success yes, but it is limited. The table above shows just how limited it is. One team finishing 10 places above squad cost. The fact that Trax states
'there's about 6 to 8 rich teams and the rest are pretty much of a muchness. That's why the teams at the top don't change much'
If it was an observable consistent theory it would run top to bottom and not just within the confines of a narrow set of data, notably the top 3 as he often refers to and then latterly the top 6 or 8.

His last point hits the nail on the head

'Those clubs performing over their squad cost position are performing well relative to their investment, those below are either badly coached or buying poorly'

And that's really the issue with squad cost. Just like league positions ranking 1 to 20 inevitably the cost of squads will rank 1 to 20. The 20th most expensive squad will want to finish above the 17th and the 5th most expensive team will want to finish above the teams more expensive and so on through out the league. A team can out perform its squad cost and still have a bad season. Which brings us full circle to yes it useful, yes it gives us an early bench mark but ultimately it is limited.
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
How so? City and Liverpool are finishing first and second because they have the best squads and the best managers at the moment. Reminder that Liverpool’s squad cost is not first or second.
No Liverpool were third, after a surge of spending from Coutinho’s money when they won the league, not 13th. Klopp and Pep at a bottom half club wouldn’t come anywhere near the league title. The winners of EPL have come from the top three spending clubs for every year but one.

You’re arguing black’s white. Liverpool have been spending 4th since the millennium and they haven’t won the title since 1990. Chelsea had won nothing until 2004, then they won 5 titles with different managers after being given the cash to buy quality players.
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
Hopefully my last ever post on this. Squad cost is an over simplistic way of explaining a complex set of outcomes. Can it be mildly useful as a gauge of success yes, but it is limited. The table above shows just how limited it is. One team finishing 10 places above squad cost. The fact that Trax states
'there's about 6 to 8 rich teams and the rest are pretty much of a muchness. That's why the teams at the top don't change much'
If it was an observable consistent theory it would run top to bottom and not just within the confines of a narrow set of data, notably the top 3 as he often refers to and then latterly the top 6 or 8.

His last point hits the nail on the head

'Those clubs performing over their squad cost position are performing well relative to their investment, those below are either badly coached or buying poorly'

And that's really the issue with squad cost. Just like league positions ranking 1 to 20 inevitably the cost of squads will rank 1 to 20. The 20th most expensive squad will want to finish above the 17th and the 5th most expensive team will want to finish above the teams more expensive and so on through out the league. A team can out perform its squad cost and still have a bad season. Which brings us full circle to yes it useful, yes it gives us an early bench mark but ultimately it is limited.
It’s not a theory ffs. It’s an observable, indisputable trend.

It’s only limited because you’re trying to make it out to be something it’s not.
 

Jack_the_boy

Definitely Not Manberg
No Liverpool were third, after a surge of spending from Coutinho’s money when they won the league, not 13th. Klopp and Pep at a bottom half club wouldn’t come anywhere near the league title. The winners of EPL have come from the top three spending clubs for every year but one.

You’re arguing black’s white. Liverpool have been spending 4th since the millennium and they haven’t won the title since 1990. Chelsea had won nothing until 2004, then they won 5 titles with different managers after being given the cash to buy quality players.

3rd is not 1st or 2nd is it? It may seem a small difference to you but in a meagre 20 club league it’s huge.
But you make a good point about them spending their Coutinho money well. The money can come from within it doesn’t have to be from a sugar daddy.
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
It must have been 3/4 years ago now since I first posted in the squad cost thread confused as to why people were arguing with you about this so much. 2021 and it still doesn't make sense to me.
It doesn’t make sense to me either, it’s as obvious as the nose on your face.

I think the main frustration with people is that it means Arsenal have long odds of winning the league, and fans don’t want to accept that. They’d much rather be able to blame ‘someone’, Arsène, Emery, Freddie, Arteta or whoever’s next.

Sp**s followers wouldn’t have such a hard time accepting the role of money because they haven’t won the league since 1961. :lol: But Arsène’s incredible trophy haul in comparison made our fans wrongly self entitled, because they had no clue how good he was. ‘Any manager can get top 4 with Arsenal’ after all.
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
@Makingtrax Why did you like my post? I’m not going to agree with your squad cost theory :lol:
Totally agree the money can come from any source, oligarch, excellent transfer deals etc.

I’m not interested in the first part of your post though. The fact is for all but one year the winners of the EPL come from one of the top 3 squad investors. It’s just a fact. Maybe a club spending 4th or 5th will win someday but even if they do, it might be a long time before they do it again. To beat all three of Chelsea, City and United is clearly quite difficult. Wonder why that is, when they’ve had so many different managers? :lol:

Edit: It’s not a theory.
 
Last edited:

say yes

Not Trusted
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:
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
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:
You want to compare the achievements of managers based on the couple of players bought in one season to big up the bloke who's got us 10th. Man you've lost it. 😂😂😂
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Match Prediction

  • Arsenal Win

    Votes: 15 48.4%
  • Draw

    Votes: 6 19.4%
  • Sheffield United Win

    Votes: 10 32.3%
Top