|
Post by Robin van Bergkamp on Jul 12, 2012 23:34:02 GMT
Football Fan Cast issued a table of EPL net spending over the past five years. These are the amounts spent by the clubs after player sales have been subtracted from the total 1. Man City £382,150,000 2. Chelsea £190,700,000 3. Stoke City £60,075,000 4. Aston Villa £53,550,000 5. QPR £35,650,000 6. Man Utd £34,150,000 7. Liverpool £26,800,000 8. Fulham £23,600,000 9. West Brom £15,915,000 10. Sunderland £11,850,000 11. West Ham £8,100,000 12. Norwich £6,950,000 13. Swansea £6,570,000 14. Tottenham £5,590,000 15. Wigan -£2,750,000 16. Southampton -£3,150,000 17. Everton -£10,815,000 18. Reading -£21,250,000 19. Arsenal -£21,280,000 20. Newcastle -£43,400,000 The ArticleIt shows the last 6 clubs as having made a profit from their buying and selling transactions which while offering evidence that Arsenal have done well in outperforming many other clubs on a consistent basis, nevertheless also gives credibility to any suggestion that we have been a selling club at worst or one which fails to re-invest for success. By that I mean, real success that translates into trophies. Over to you pals
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Jul 12, 2012 23:42:44 GMT
Robin I know what you mean but .... we are a football club not an investment bank !
What are we going to do with that £21m ? No point having £21m if you are not going to do anything with it. What this also shows is we can spend more bloody money on players than the pittance we currently spend.
Some might be proud of this net spend, but I am actually embarrassed by it - we are sacrificing success on the pitch to have a healthy bank balance we will do nothing with.
|
|
|
Post by Robin van Bergkamp on Jul 13, 2012 0:11:00 GMT
Robin I know what you mean but .... we are a football club not an investment bank ! Quite my point Mr Head. The supporters of the board and CEO will say till the cows come home that we have done well while ignoring how much more we will have gained by investing a little more to get success on the pitch which itself will translate into even more receipts. All very short-sighted I'm afraid. They use it to tout around a healthy balance sheet for the benefit of our majority shareholder. This is the hidden part of the sustainable model often spun to us the supporters. Now with the dummy CEO having said in defence of Arsene last year that Arsene was a manager unlike any other who came to them asking to understand their sustainable model and who pledged to do whatever he could to keep the team in contention while maintaining the model, brings me to a belief that Arsene himself is complicit in this outcome. I say that £6.5m a year buys his silence and his pain. All as we know, need to be shown the door and pronto!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Jul 13, 2012 8:23:57 GMT
Now here is the really telling fact:
We could have been second in that table, outspending Chelsea over those 5 years and still made a profit!!!
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Jul 13, 2012 9:03:30 GMT
Yeah absolutely. You can actually make a profit by spending more money, success brings money and no doubt we could still sell on players for vast profit.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Jul 13, 2012 9:12:31 GMT
This is true HH, but I was being more simplistic than that... Assuming everything else the same, we could have spent well over £200m net in the last 5 years and still been profitable, requiring no external sugar daddy investment.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Jul 13, 2012 10:22:04 GMT
I see - yeah for sure. We have taken cost cutting to an extreme ... and we, the fans .. are seeing no benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Robin van Bergkamp on Jul 13, 2012 10:34:08 GMT
Well Mr Head I'm afraid to say and we all know it, that the cost cutting was not intended to benefit the fans as our majority shareholder. Come to think of it the highest paid person in the club too and that poodle of a CEO who draws a pretty substantial annual bonus.
|
|
|
Post by ammaar on Jul 13, 2012 10:38:04 GMT
This is true HH, but I was being more simplistic than that... Assuming everything else the same, we could have spent well over £200m net in the last 5 years and still been profitable, requiring no external sugar daddy investment. Gazidis at an AGM last year: ''We do not have the funds to compete with the Manchester City's and Chelsea's of this world'' Pfft, yeah right!
|
|
|
Post by Robin van Bergkamp on Jul 13, 2012 10:46:13 GMT
It's all red herring stuff of course. By throwing in Chelsea and City, he's deflecting attention away from the fact that no one is asking us to compete with them on player purchases. Instead what we are asking is identifying players and contracting them early, the way David Dein used to do. Now instead we delay matters until other clubs sniff around our potential signings and gazump us with better offers. Time to dump Gazidis and Law.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Jul 13, 2012 11:37:45 GMT
This is true HH, but I was being more simplistic than that... Assuming everything else the same, we could have spent well over £200m net in the last 5 years and still been profitable, requiring no external sugar daddy investment. Gazidis at an AGM last year: ''We do not have the funds to compete with the Manchester City's and Chelsea's of this world'' Pfft, yeah right! Exactly. From the same man who said a chunk of our cash that we built up over the last 5 years of profits had to be ring fenced to pay wages The guy is a liar, and makes me sick to the stomach.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Jul 13, 2012 11:47:54 GMT
Its like the same extremes used by the "sheeple" on Not606 to make their point .. ."we can't compete with Chelsea and City". Nobody is saying we have to ... but do we have to compete with Villa and Sunderland We certainly can afford to spend £25m on players !!!
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Jul 13, 2012 11:50:32 GMT
Its like the same extremes used by the "sheeple" on Not606 to make their point .. ."we can't compete with Chelsea and City". Nobody is saying we have to ... but do we have to compete with Villa and Sunderland We certainly can afford to spend £25m on players !!! That was just another excuse used by a few on not606 to beat dissenters into submisson
|
|
|
Post by Robin van Bergkamp on Jul 13, 2012 14:30:52 GMT
Its like the same extremes used by the "sheeple" on Not606 to make their point .. ."we can't compete with Chelsea and City". Nobody is saying we have to ... but do we have to compete with Villa and Sunderland We certainly can afford to spend £25m on players !!! Players with an 's' indeed the operative word. I can't see AFC paying beyond £15m for a single player and go back once again to that ludicrous method of valuing a purchase whereby the player's first three years salary is added to the cost of acquisition of the player. Talk about pulling wool over one's eyes and another thing - Gazidis is not smart enough to establish his own accounting convention. You cannot reinvent the wheel!!!
|
|
|
Post by pneawf on Jul 13, 2012 16:20:10 GMT
We should be spending more. As HH points out, spending creates profit. If we reached the SF instead of the QF of the CL we make a few million. If that same investment every season creates similar improvements then before you know we are winning trophies and increasing profits even more. Our current policy can only result in things getting worse.
|
|