Is The Premier League Tougher Than It Used To Be?

[Macho]

I agree with you overall, specially since those two players are exception that confirms the rule, but I think the big difference in money in the league for smaller temas is more down to wages and not much to transfer fees, personally.

Raphina and Maximin wouldn't be earning as much anywhere, really.

Maximin is staying at Newcastle but he is a quirky character plus we don't know what clauses he has or what he was told when signing (he might have known about the takeover).

Last summer it was reported Raphina was engineering a move away to the top end of the table though, so even if it does come to wages you're still better off going to an Arsenal or above. Especially if you're an average player.

 

[Mraven]

@Mraven

If you go back to 15/16 City was spending just under £450m on their squad, much lower club like Watford was spending £37m. Today City has spent around £1085m, Watford £82m.

Now you’re thinking they’re keeping pace, both more than doubled, right? But look at the difference. City have an extra £500m+ whilst Watford only has an extra £40m+, what can you buy with that today?

The EPL is easier for those top clubs like Arteta’s managing, as the gap grows in spending and revenue.

I don’t know where you get your numbers from. Watford spent over £70mill in the 15/16 transfer window. Now that’s normal for a mid table PL team.

According to transfermarkt United and City are by far the largest spenders over the last 5 years and averages at about 100mill a year. Then there’s Arsenal at ~70 and then a large group of teams including Wolverhampton, West Ham, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Brighton, Chelsea and Everton spending around 40-50mill or year.

 

[Makingtrax]

Why did you use watford as an example and not everton, leicester, Sp**s, west ham, villa? Also, why did you ignore the fact that Sp**s can now attract someone with conte's pedigree or everton hiring ancelotti, something that would have never happened previously.

Compared to city the 40m increase looks insignificant, but once you look at the spending power of similar placed clubs in other European leagues it is more impactful.

Sp**s are in the financial top 6 bro. There are endless articles in the web about the fanancial gap growing between the big 6 and the rest of the clubs. Swiss Ramble has written several.

 

[Makingtrax]

I don’t know where you get your numbers from. Watford spent over £70mill in the 15/16 transfer window. Now that’s normal for a mid table PL team.

According to transfermarkt United and City are by far the largest spenders over the last 5 years and averages at about 100mill a year. Then there’s Arsenal at ~70 and then a large group of teams including Wolverhampton, West Ham, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Brighton, Chelsea and Everton spending around 40-50mill or year.

I’m talking the spending on the whole squad bro. CIES figures are published every year and used in the main stream media. Just type in Premier League.

Weekly Post 346

 

[Mraven]

I get what @samspade and @Mraven are saying (I think), they are essentially saying teams lower down the table are able to acquire better quality players too but correct me if I am wrong.

However, I would just point to Joelinton, or whoever Villa signed with that Grealish money and I would still .

However, I would just point to Joelinton, or whoever Villa signed with that Grealish money and I would still probably disagree.

Even the standouts like Saint-Maximin and Raphina, they were initially signed for nothing really. Side like Leicester, Brighton, etc have to gamble and find Ben White before he's Ben White.

Clubs like Arsenal can scout more specifically and splash on a Ben White if he meets all of their required specifications it's chalk and cheese really. I'm probably on a tangent but yeah.

Has it been so easy to find Ben White? I can name a lot of CB bought by the club over the last few years.

My point is that on average the increase in quality you get from a player is not linear with the price you pay. The better a team is, the more it costs to go up a level.

 

[Makingtrax]

My point is that on average the increase in quality you get from a player is not linear with the price you pay. The better a team is, the more it costs to go up a level.

Does that matter though? Football is such a low scoring game that an £80m striker doesn’t need to score twice as many goals as an £40m striker for a team to get twice the points. Because they’ve got a more expensive defence stopping the goals going in at the other end.

 

[Mraven]

I’m talking the spending on the whole squad bro. CIES figures are published every year and used in the main stream media. Just type in Premier League.

Weekly Post 346

So you’re saying Watfords spending “on the whole squad” is less than their net transfer spend that year? Must be low salaries they have over there.

 

[Mraven]

Does that matter though? Football is such a low scoring game that an £80m striker doesn’t need to score twice as many goals as an £40m striker for a team to get twice the points. Because they’ve got a more expensive defence stopping the goals going in at the other end.

It means that the difference between a 500mill squd and a 300mill squad is less than between a 300mill and a 100mill squad. So as you increase the level of funds for all teams the difference goes down

 

[Farzad Stoned]

How can you be the evangelist of squad cost and completely disregard the dramatic increase in relative spending power of mid table premier league clubs compared to their european counterparts?

View attachment 5303

The average squad cost of premier league clubs is now 2x higher compared to other leagues. You genuinely believe that this has had no impact on the overall strength of the league? The correlation with spending power and success is more nuanced than what you proclaim, but how can you of all people disregard this trend?

Exactly they claim we have no evidence but ignore the increased financial power of the league from top to bottom. Ignore the better results English teams are having in European competition and ignore the improved results of the national team as well. Then the people who tell us Xg and chances created tell you if a team is playing well, that the only way to judge league quality over time is their subjective eyeball test and quotes from ex players telling us how great their era was.

 

[Makingtrax]

We're missing the blindingly obvious here I think.

There's a limit to how good any team can be. We know this, there are only so many WC players around. Giving an already very strong team like Man City an extra couple of hundred million is going to improve them, but not massively. They've already got exceptional players in most areas and have great squad depth. The gains to them are marginal.

Give a side like Watford an extra £50m or so and the improvement to their squad in real terms (as long as they spend fairly well) is going improve them more than Man City because they're working from a much lower talent base and have a much wider room for growth.

The better the team / squad you have the harder it becomes to improve upon. Even with huge sums of money spent you're making marginal gains. It's the opposite with weaker sides.

Of course there’s a limit to how good a team can be in the EPL it’s called ‘top of the league’. All the rest are knockout tournaments.

You keep pedalling this £50m means a lot to a lower team but not much to a rich team, as if somehow the gap will close because of it. It won’t because in the last 5 years when Watford gained £50m, City gained. £500m, so it totally negates your argument.

 

[Makingtrax]

So you’re saying Watfords spending “on the whole squad” is less than their net transfer spend that year? Must be low salaries they have over there.

Mate, Watford have been a selling club for the last few years. In fact the last few years they’ve spent £94m, sold £126m and made £31m profit. Think they can afford wages.

 

[Makingtrax]

It means that the difference between a 500mill squd and a 300mill squad is less than between a 300mill and a 100mill squad. So as you increase the level of funds for all teams the difference goes down

The difference between those two examples are identical bro. £200m

 

[Farzad Stoned]

Mate, Watford have been a selling club for the last few years. In fact the last few years they’ve spent £94m, sold £126m and made £31m profit. Think they can afford wages.

Everton, Leicester, and West Ham all been spending money. These minnows are so cheeky they even bid 40 million to the Arsenal for ESR, tells me they are flush with cash

 

[Farzad Stoned]

Villa too is spending they were always the broke sister of big English clubs

 

[AberGooner]

Villa too is spending they were always the broke sister of big English clubs

Villa have spent big fees relative to the time for years. Collymore, Merson, Angel, Balaban, Bent. Spent a fortune in the Martin O'Neill era as well.

 

[Farzad Stoned]

Villa have spent big fees relative to the time for years. Collymore, Merson, Angel, Balaban, Bent. Spent a fortune in the Martin O'Neill era as well.

I am talking compared to the other big teams yes they won the European Cup and we’re great in the old days

 

[Makingtrax]

Everton, Leicester, and West Ham all been spending money. These minnows are so cheeky they even bid 40 million to the Arsenal for ESR, tells me they are flush with cash

Their owners have been forking out of their own pockets recently but it’s not sustainable. They’re making little impression in the league and the revenues of the big 6 is getting wider every year. The gap between Arsenal and say West Ham revenues has never been wider in the history of football.

 

[AberGooner]

I am talking compared to the other big teams yes they won the European Cup and we’re great in the old days

I'd hazard a guess they probably spent just as much as Arsenal did in the 2000's. Hardly 30 odd years ago.

 

[Farzad Stoned]

I'd hazard a guess they probably spent just as much as Arsenal did in the 2000's. Hardly 30 odd years ago.

Arsenal was notoriously cheap in the stadium days kind of a poor reflection of relative spending between two big clubs

 

[AberGooner]

Arsenal was notoriously cheap in the stadium days kind of a poor reflection of relative spending between two big clubs

You never mentioned anything about their spending compared to the big clubs in the post I originally quoted anyway. My point still stands though, they've always spent big fees relative to the time and continue to do so.