Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Premier League spending breaks £4bn barrier over last decade

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
    #1

    Premier League spending breaks £4bn barrier over last decade

    BBC
    Premier League clubs have spent more than £4.4bn on players since the transfer window was introduced 10 years ago with this summer's spending set to match last year's figure of more than £450m.
    • Millions spent since Jan 2003
    1. Chelsea 673
    2. Man City 572
    3. Liverpool 414
    4. Man United 352
    5. Tottenham 350
    6. Arsenal 214
    7. Aston Villa 201
    8. Sunderland 187
    9. Newcastle 174
    10. Everton 129
    11. West Ham 123
    12. Wigan 110
    13. Fulham 107
    14. Portsmouth 100
    15. Birmingham 92
    16. Blackburn 87
    17. Stoke 84
    18. Bolton 76
    19. Boro 71
    20. West Brom 64
    Source: Deloitte
    Roman Abramovich's billions have made Chelsea the Premier League's biggest spenders over the past decade with £681m going on transfer fees.


    Manchester City (£572m) and Liverpool (£414m) occupy second and third place, according to research conducted by Deloitte's Sports Business Group.
    Going into the final week of this summer's window, spending is on a par with this time last year with some £350m spent by Premier League clubs since the end of the season.
    "Over the last 10 years, Premier League clubs have invested over £4bn in transfer fees to bring the best playing talent to the league," Dan Jones, a partner in the Sports Business Group at Deloitte, said.


    "Testament to their success is the strength of the league and its commercial appeal, shown by the recently announced broadcast deal. With spending this summer set to be at a similar level to that of 2011, significant investment in playing talent, both in terms of player transfer fees as well as wages, looks set to continue in both the January and summer transfer windows."

    Once again, Chelsea look set to lead the way this summer having spent more than £75m on Eden Hazard (£32m), Oscar (£25m), Victor Moses (£9m) and Cesar Azpilicueta (£7m). Manager Roberto Di Matteo remains in the market for a striker.

    But none of Arsenal (Santi Carzola £16m, Olivier Giroud £10m, Lukas Podolski £11m), Manchester City (Jack Rodwell £15m), Manchester United (Robin Van Persie £24m and Shinji Kagawa £12m), or Liverpool (Fabio Borini £11m, Joe Allen £15m, Oussama Assaidi £3m) have come close to matching the £50m plus each club spent last summer.
    Expert analysis
    With the annual revenue of the Premier League increasing by over 80% since the introduction of the transfer window system to over £2.2bn per season, so it follows that we have seen considerable investment in player transfer fees during the same period. Dan Jones - Deloitte

    There is, however, still time for that to change. Last summer Premier League clubs spent more than £100m on deadline day itself, with £135m being spent on the final day of the January transfer window in 2011.
    City, Chelsea and Tottenham remain the likeliest to spend big over the final days of this window.

    Champions City remain determined to bring in a world-class midfielder and an attacking player, while Spurs, bolstered by the £33m sale of Luka Modric to Real Madrid, are also keen to sign another striker with Frenchman Loic Remy and Shaktar's Willian among the possible targets.
    Tags: None
    #2
    Net or gross?

    .
    Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



    May the Lord bless this post.

    Comment

      #3
      net probably

      Comment

        #4
        I wasn't looking for a serious discussion really.

        I think it's gross because it's just spending of each Premier League club. In reality, in many cases the expenditure of PL one club is the income of another PL club. But in these figures income generated by selling players is not used to offset their expenditure on getting players in.
        .
        Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



        May the Lord bless this post.

        Comment

          #5
          Us spending more than United is a bit of a shock.

          JURGEN KLOPP - LIVERPOOL MANAGER

          YNWA

          Comment

            #6
            us spending more than Utd is utterly depressing, we've had some great signings but when it goes wrong it has really gone wrong!

            The summer of Diouf, Diao, Cheyrou and last summer are prime examples

            Comment

              #7
              Originally posted by rcasemore View Post
              us spending more than Utd is utterly depressing, we've had some great signings but when it goes wrong it has really gone wrong!

              The summer of Diouf, Diao, Cheyrou and last summer are prime examples
              Examples which aren't included in the figures since they joined in summer 2002 and this pertains to transfers from the following transfer window, in January 2003, onwards.

              Why do you find that headline comparison between us and Man United so "utterly depressing"? I mean, I hate to harp on about this, and return us to the same old, tired debate but...

              If it's gross then clearly it means we've bought consistently badly. But if it's net then all it could (and probably does) mean is that we've had a higher turnover of players very probably for a number of reasons.

              I don't know why the latter would depress you particularly.
              .
              Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



              May the Lord bless this post.

              Comment

                #8
                Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                Examples which aren't included in the figures since they joined in summer 2002 and this pertains to transfers from the following transfer window, in January 2003, onwards.

                Why are you depressed by that headline figure? I mean, I hate to harp on about this, and return us to the same old, tired debate but...

                If it's gross then clearly it means we've bought consistently badly. But if it's net then all it could (and probably does) mean is that we've had a higher turnover of players very probably for a number of reasons.

                I don't know why the latter would depress you particularly.
                Doh

                I read the numbers as being Gross, could be net I suppose

                Comment

                  #9
                  I assumed it's net because gross would make for a much more complicated and less shocking story. But then I'm an old cynic.

                  I also assumed it's net because I can't believe we'd have outspent Man United over those ten years. But I could be wrong about that. Despite the odd £30m+ spent on the likes of Berbatov and Rooney, the pocketing of the Ronaldo transfer fee alone would bring down their net spend quite considerably.
                  .
                  Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



                  May the Lord bless this post.

                  Comment

                    #10
                    1bn of that was spent by Roman!*

                    *according to sky, so one of them was wrong
                    The times they are a changin'.

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X