Page 1 of 4
Net spends per club as against points earned - Not for everyone
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:00 pmby account deleted by request
Club No. of managers Net Spend Pts Won Pts/£m
Blackburn 5 £0.5m 341 682
Arsenal 1 £22m 522 23.2
Bolton 4 £19m 328 17.3
Fulham 5 £19m 293 15.4
Everton 1 £25m 369 14.8
The Mancs 1 £101m 544 5.4
Villa 4 £64m 347 5.4
Boro 2 £62m 306 4.9
Newcastle 10 £69m 336 4.9
Liverpool 2 £117m 456 3.9
City 4 £101m 312 3.1
Spurs 7 £113m 342 3.0
Chelsea 4 £300m 540 1.8
Just covers the clubs that have been in the top flight since Moyes took over at Everton. Same with all the figures.
Newcastle 10 managers! Arsenal only spent £22m net in 7 years!
All details ripped from TLW from an article in the Guardian.
If you don't like stats it might be best to just move on to another thread. 
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:27 pmby fivecups
Very interesting Saint.
Chelsea's points won don't look right - I think they should be around 540?
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:33 pmby Madmax
Arsenal seem the best from the pack.. Considering net spend and points is fairly good.. Mannure aswell, spent alot but 16 mill less than us but produced 88 more points... All top 5 in the list not bad at all..
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:38 pmby puroresu
This is why Wenger will always have a job as Arsenal. They will never find another manager who is so economical. Going by these figures even if they didnt finish in the top 4 finacially it wouldnt cripple them.
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:42 pmby ConnO'var
Interesting numbers mate.... but I think fivecups is right... the chelsea points total is off.
But that's besides the point..... Lends credence to that old chestnut..... spending a lot of dosh doesn't always guarantee results. Spending wisely is the way to go..... and that's a damning indictment of the quality of our spending in the last 7 years....
And you're right.... the numbers quoted for arsenal is unbelievable.
As always, the stats don't tell the whole story, but at 1st glance, the conclusions passes the "funny looks" test.
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:42 pmby account deleted by request
fivecups wrote:Very interesting Saint.
Chelsea's points won don't look right - I think they should be around 540?
Yeah Chelsea's points look wrong to me too mate. I will see if I can find the original article in the Guardian and check.
I will edit it to 540 mate you were spot on
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:13 pmby Sabre
The stats are self explaining, the right thing to do is to sack the manager every year and a half, and spend little.
A reasonable comparison should be to remove out of the equation the small clubs and leave the top four.
That numbers are solid enough to say that Arsenal with the amount of net spending they've done, they have competed very well, making decent appearances in Europe and winning the league aswell.
Wenger is a good manager.
Our numbers are not good and certainly say that under Houllier and Rafa we've spent too much. My personal view is that the big buys were well done, but there were too many Itandjes. 4 Itandjes make an Alonso.
If Rafa has to stay, I'd encourage to make him the big buys as good as he has done so far. But 5 Itandjes are 15 M, and that's unacceptable when we read in a Ciggy's post that we have serious economic troubles.
Chelsea's numbers are ridiculous. But when you're a small club that means nothing in Europe, you have to pay more to bring players to your cause. The other day a Spanish player summed it up, he said that 10 years ago nobody wanted to go to Chelsea, today it would be an honour. So in a way, it's normal that clubs like Chelsea and City have to pay a bigger price than Manchester or Liverpool. Anyhow, even if we consider that, the numbers of Chelsea are bad.
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:17 pmby GOAT_2.0
Newcastle haven't had 10 managers they've had about 6
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:27 pmby Reg
You need to add income and profit which should show whether the expenditure was justified.
Expenditure, Points/Pound and Income/Annual Profit = Good business or frivilous money splashing etc..
For example our european cup income (and Ure and Chavs) would tell a different story and go along way to justifying the expenditure, whereas the closest Moyes has been to the continent is playing down at Portmouth. Limited expenditure with limited returns.
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:28 pmby account deleted by request
GOAT_2.0 wrote:Newcastle haven't had 10 managers they've had about 6
I am not sure if it was meant as a joke, or maybe they have counted the caretaker managers who have filled in between managers as well?
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:30 pmby Effes
It's the points won that counts
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:30 pmby Madmax
GOAT_2.0 wrote:Newcastle haven't had 10 managers they've had about 6
Joe Kinnear 29-09-2008 Present
Chris Hughton 08-09-2008 29-09-2008
Kevin Keegan 16-01-2008 04-09-2008
Nigel Pearson 09-01-2008 16-01-2008
Sam Allardyce 15-05-2007 09-01-2008
Nigel Pearson 06-05-2007 15-05-2007
Glenn Roeder 02-02-2006 06-05-2007
Graeme Souness 13-09-2004 02-02-2006
John Carver 30-08-2004 13-09-2004
Bobby Robson 02-09-1999 30-08-2004
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:37 pmby GOAT_2.0
s@int wrote:GOAT_2.0 wrote:Newcastle haven't had 10 managers they've had about 6
I am not sure if it was meant as a joke, or maybe they have counted the caretaker managers who have filled in between managers as well?
Fair enough I wasn't counting the caretakers
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:44 pmby account deleted by request
Reg wrote:You need to add income and profit which should show whether the expenditure was justified.
Expenditure, Points/Pound and Income/Annual Profit = Good business or frivilous money splashing etc..
For example our european cup income (and Ure and Chavs) would tell a different story and go along way to justifying the expenditure, whereas the closest Moyes has been to the continent is playing down at Portmouth. Limited expenditure with limited returns.
I don't think Liverpool have made a profit since about 2000 Reg. I think we only made a profit then because we sold off 9.9% ownership to Granada for £22million and then sold off the dot com for another £20million about a year later.
Posted:
Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:00 pmby dawson99
Do you include money earned from cup competitions in that?
Or sales of merchandise, stuff like that?
The reason some spend more, is the revenue they have helps them.