• Liverpool Message Board

  • Jason Jason Sep 4, 2013 18:47 Flag

    Summer Spending Table

    I thought this was pretty interesting and worth a post. I don't believe it accounts for sales and net spend, but then again, I don't particularly care because we did a lot of spending early before sales, and we did a lot of spending at the end without any big sales. That just opens the door for naysayers, but if you do want to account for it, just think of what we did recoup in money to spend in January, which will be accumulated by god knows how much in wages saved. Way too early to think January, but we could have another 30M to spend. Interesting to see how 1 buy puts Arsenal at the top. I like what Southampton did a lot, and Swansea too, despite their poor start, though coming soon! IMO, Spurs, City and Arsenal have the most to prove here

    The Premier League summer spending table
    1) Tottenham – £107m
    2) Manchester City – £102m
    3) Chelsea – £66m
    4) Liverpool – £49m
    5) Arsenal – £44m
    6) Southampton – £34m
    7) Cardiff – £34m
    8) Manchester United – £30m
    9) Norwich – £26m
    10) Everton – £26m
    11) Sunderland – £23m
    12) Swansea City – £21m
    13) West Ham – £20m
    14) Crystal Palace – £17m
    15) Aston Villa – £17m
    16) West Brom – £13m
    17) Hull City – £13m
    18) Fulham – £12m
    19) Stoke City – £6m
    20) Newcastle United – £2m

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Actually Jason, I do think you have to account for the net spend some how, as the fact is the amount raised from selling is a gauge on the quality that left a club, versus the spend, being the quality that came into the club. But to put it another way, City who have a huge gross and net spend this summer obviously brought in a lot of quality (or potential quality if they all settle) while Spurs on the other hand while the brought in a lot, and actually still had a healthy net spend, it will be the question of the season whether they brought in more or less quality than they lost by selling Bale who was rated the best player in the prem last term.

      One other spanner (wrench for the American) in the works, is how to factor in the loan deals which don't figure in the numbers here. We did not bring in the quality attacking player we wanted by spending 20M+, but instead secured the loan of Moses. I think in fact while everyone is talking up the great job Wenger did on the last day (I'm still not sure as he got a very, very good player who plays in an area where he already has very good players, rather than where they imo needed help), the best business may have been done by Everton. They lost a key player, but got more than market value for him, and secured a more than adequate replacement, plus got a top striker on loan.

      But end of the day transfers are investments in the club, and all have risks, so we don't know if what was paid was value for a while. For example a lot is being said about the money Spurs spend, and I grant the talent brought in needs to settle before you can judge them, but despite their good start, I'm not sure all the talk of how great Soldado is warranted when the club has yet to score from open play. Time of course will tell, but I just think the strong correlation between net spending and league finishing position will continue, but a focus on gross spending while great at generating headlines, won't necessarily be that predictive.

      • 1 Reply to dsteer_lfc_68
      • I think you can get bogged down by the numbers. The most important question is 'are we stronger now than before the window?' Time will tell but I really think we are. As has already been said, we haven't spent the dough available which may be useful in January.

        Everybody knows we are still slightly short up front - I worry about Studge's durability and there is a question mark over Suarez's commitment to the cause. On the whole though things are looking pretty good with definitely a good enough squad to keep us going!