Income from player sales since 2010 (Karen Brady Twitter post)
Ok everyone I know there’s some of you that are good at researching facts!
Ms Brady has gone on Twitter to say we have spent 264 million on players since 2010
Can someone tell me how much we have brought in on players leaving since 2010!
Who’s gonna be first
Ms Brady has gone on Twitter to say we have spent 264 million on players since 2010
Can someone tell me how much we have brought in on players leaving since 2010!
Who’s gonna be first
Comments
"For those asking, at a glance, we had the spend at £272m so not too far off (and £8m in their favour)
They received £132m in fee's for same period, giving a net spend of £140m over their 8 years (£17.5m per season on average)"
Hmmmmm
Thoughts?
Add £12m extra per year for the new stadium (as DG said) that is also an extra £24m.
The new stadium supposedly has generated an extra £47m and adding this to £132m makes £179m which means if we hadn’t moved we may have only spent £93m or £11.5m per year.
Some, including Brady herself, would argue player's wages would need to be taken into consideration (we do have some big earners at the club), but in isolation, an average net spend of £17.5 per season is very low for a club looking to challenge for the top 6.
It's more than all bar Palace outside top 6 for the last 5 years, so presumably other clubs are showing even less ambition?
On average per season we have outspent almost all potential rivals.
That is a fact.
The bottom line for me is we have moved to the new stadium with a view to compete with the top 6.
£17.5m per season will not achieve that, IMO.
Now if we revisit these numbers in another seven years, and over that time our average spend is, let's say, £50m, then I'll applaud the board for genuinely trying to compete.
Comparing apples and pears only shows that apples aren't pears.
The point of referencing other clubs is to show our spending in relation to our rivals.
Since it is higher than almost all of them, including Leicester, who won the title, it suggests:
a) we are as ambitious, or more, in terms of spending as our rivals
b) just spending money isn't the answer
Whatever was said about top 6, the situation has now changed significantly.
It seems to me that all other teams can hope for is to be the best of the rest.
The gap between the cost of the squads, and the money that the current top 6 have now is far too big for pretty much any club to bridge, imo.
Even if we had new owners who were prepared to spend money like water, the FFP rules would restrict what we could manage to do; since our wage spending is above (or very near) the threshold of £67m, we would only be able to increase wages by £7m per season, outside generating funds by player sales (which would reduce our Net spend...) , increased match-day income, or commercial revenue.
A single player on £100k p/wk would use up most of that £7m.
Net Spend last 5 Years
......................... Purchased Gross....Sold................Nett............AV.Per Season
Manchester City £723,850,000 £217,750,000 £506,100,000 £101,220,000
Manchester United £611,800,000 £174,550,000 £437,250,000 £87,450,000
Chelsea £667,459,000 £410,450,000 £257,009,000 £51,401,800
Arsenal £300,940,000 £116,850,000 £184,090,000 £36,818,000
Crystal Palace £192,035,000 £56,700,000 £135,335,000 £27,067,000
West Ham £188,450,000 £81,870,000 £106,580,000 £21,316,000
Leicester £203,000,000 £97,750,000 £105,250,000 £21,050,000
West Bromwich £139,850,000 £40,209,000 £99,641,000 £19,928,200
Watford £144,200,000 £51,650,000 £92,550,000 £18,510,000
Everton £332,600,000 £242,100,000 £90,500,000 £18,100,000
Brighton £75,805,000 £12,000,000 £63,805,000 £12,761,000
AFC Bournemouth £88,450,000 £24,830,000 £63,620,000 £12,724,000
Liverpool £471,300,000 £419,080,000 £52,220,000 £10,444,000
Newcastle United £206,300,000 £155,600,000 £50,700,000 £10,140,000
Stoke City £101,700,000 £58,250,000 £43,450,000 £8,690,000
Huddersfield Town £44,615,000 £14,400,000 £30,215,000 £6,043,000
Burnley £96,850,000 £61,450,000 £35,400,000 £7,080,000
Tottenham £341,450,000 £339,400,000 £2,050,000 £410,000
Southampton £237,800,000 £285,550,000 -£47,750,000 -£9,550,000
Swansea £145,575,000 £195,060,000 -£49,485,000 -£9,897,000
Net spend doesn't tell the whole story does it ?
Both Liverpool and Spurs have a lower net spend but have a higher rate of purchase than us by getting good returns on their outgoing transfers. Our 20 mill per annum is decidedly average , and is funded out of revenue, like most mid table clubs I reckon. With the exception of Palace, all of the clubs above us substantially outspend us, as well as 6 clubs below us in the net spend table.
There is a seperate one for the premiership - I'll try and find out what its called.
Net Spend last 5 Years
......................... Purchased Gross....Sold................Nett............AV.Per Season
Manchester City £723,850,000 £217,750,000 £506,100,000 £101,220,000
Manchester United £611,800,000 £174,550,000 £437,250,000 £87,450,000
Chelsea £667,459,000 £410,450,000 £257,009,000 £51,401,800
Arsenal £300,940,000 £116,850,000 £184,090,000 £36,818,000
Crystal Palace £192,035,000 £56,700,000 £135,335,000 £27,067,000
West Ham £188,450,000 £81,870,000 £106,580,000 £21,316,000
Leicester £203,000,000 £97,750,000 £105,250,000 £21,050,000
West Bromwich £139,850,000 £40,209,000 £99,641,000 £19,928,200
Watford £144,200,000 £51,650,000 £92,550,000 £18,510,000
Everton £332,600,000 £242,100,000 £90,500,000 £18,100,000
Brighton £75,805,000 £12,000,000 £63,805,000 £12,761,000
AFC Bournemouth £88,450,000 £24,830,000 £63,620,000 £12,724,000
Liverpool £471,300,000 £419,080,000 £52,220,000 £10,444,000
Newcastle United £206,300,000 £155,600,000 £50,700,000 £10,140,000
Stoke City £101,700,000 £58,250,000 £43,450,000 £8,690,000
Huddersfield Town £44,615,000 £14,400,000 £30,215,000 £6,043,000
Burnley £96,850,000 £61,450,000 £35,400,000 £7,080,000
Tottenham £341,450,000 £339,400,000 £2,050,000 £410,000
Southampton £237,800,000 £285,550,000 -£47,750,000 -£9,550,000
Swansea £145,575,000 £195,060,000 -£49,485,000 -£9,897,000
Net spend doesn't tell the whole story does it ?
Both Liverpool and Spurs have a lower net spend but have a higher rate of purchase than us by getting good returns on their outgoing transfers. Our 20 mill per annum is decidedly average , and is funded out of revenue, like most mid table clubs I reckon. With the exception of Palace, all of the clubs above us substantially outspend us, as well as 6 clubs below us in the net spend table.
We are actually 12th out of 20 clubs in average annual outlay on transfers, and also on average income from outgoing players -
£37, 690,000.00 Ave Spend over 5 years
£16, 374,000.00 Ave Sales over 5 years
Top Average annual Spend - Man City - £144,770,000.00 per annum
Bottom Average annual Spend - Huddersfield - £8,923,000.00
Top Average Annual Income - Liverpool - £83,816,000.00
Bottom Average Annual Income - Brighton - £2,400,000.00
Obviously skewed due to Huddersfield and Brighton being newly promoted, but shows the real gulf in money washing around the premiership annually.
But by all means correct it ;ok
We'll have to agree to differ.
Net spend doesn't tell the whole story, bu it does tell a significant story.
Personally, I think the actual amount going out of the club is the significant figure.
I don't really understand how you work out that 6 clubs below us substantially outspend us.
If you are only taking gross figures, then I don't really see how that is relevant.
Everton spent £330m to our £188m, but ended up only actually spending £90m to our £106m after subtracting player sales.
They didn't outspend us by £140m, they simply bought £140m worth more of players.
The figures I quoted are from the PL rules, which does apply to us.
I didn't suggest it was the club's intention.
It is my own conclusion.