Last year was the order Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea?

TCW

There does that answer your question. Liverpool sneaking in the top four once in half a dozen years, despite spending the 4th largest amount, shows you how difficult it is for all other teams in the division to get to the top of the tree, that have nowhere near the same budgets.

If Liverpool have the 4th highest net spend why have they been finishing 6th-8th most of the last 5 years?

Spurs have a massive net spend most seasons and dont make the top 4

I have not even included the wages, assuming that the average wage of 20 professionals at the City and Chelsea are all on minimum £100 grand a week, that works out at £5,200 million a season for each player, so that works out at another £100 million per season spend on players wages alone, over five seasons, another half a billion spend. Easy to work out

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

yeah yeah



Spurs have a massive net spend most seasons and dont make the top 4





Spurs are bottom of the net spend league past five seasons. So no they don`t have a massive net spend every season.

It's all about keeping gems like Bale and Suarez in your teams, if you want to progress anywhere.
we've lost countless talents over the years, if we kept most of them i'm positive we'd have at least 1 pl medal in the last decade.

I don't think our average wage is over a hundred grand a week at Chelsea.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The NET spend per trophy since the Prem started makes better reading I feel.

Thanks Spurs.

admittedly they do spend more but lets see the end of the season.

If West Ham, Newcastle, Everton and Southampton finish above us then what will be our excuse?

Money is key but that doesn't mean you should play carp football or be disorganised and mentally weak.

The net spend is a red herring that should be ignored.

The only thing that matters, and of course money makes all the difference, is spend on purchase and wages offered which will impact on the standard of player that you acquire.

And if you are lucky enough to unearth a great talent cheaply, then you should have the balls to hang on to them.

And FFP is only going to maintain the status quo, because the bigger the club, the higher the competitions and sponsorship you can attract and the higher earnings you can post to pay top money and top wages within the rules.

I just dont see the point of the article when the OP is a Spurs fan and they spent over 100m last season to go backwards, I wouldnt be commenting

yeah yeah

I just dont see the point of the article when the OP is a Spurs fan and they spent over 100m last season to go backwards, I wouldnt be commenting




Spurs spent nothing last season net. This is what the article is about you clown, in fact like most seasons they are in profit. ie not just buying their position in the premiership.

TCW



I don't think our average wage is over a hundred grand a week at Chelsea.



I did say 20 of your professionals, I think you may prove it hard to show me the top 20 players at Chelsea are not averaging out at £100 grand a week, a lot of your top earners are on twice that. So if anything I have been very generous.

Ioavirgo

If West Ham, Newcastle, Everton and Southampton finish above us then what will be our excuse?




They all have a bigger net spend than Spurs over the past five years.

comment by sandy`s dad (U20025)
posted 3 minutes ago
yeah yeah

I just dont see the point of the article when the OP is a Spurs fan and they spent over 100m last season to go backwards, I wouldnt be commenting




Spurs spent nothing last season net. This is what the article is about you clown, in fact like most seasons they are in profit. ie not just buying their position in the premiership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy
We spent £100k no matter how you look at it. Unfortunately all we could attract with our money was a group of very average players plus spending a couple of very large sums on players who have yet to produce to the cost.

Net spend means absolutely nothing, why do you keep going on about it?

Chelsea Wage Bill 2013-14 £179m


Nearly twice as much on wages in one season, as the media keep saying Spurs spent in the same season. Over the next five seasons Chelsea are looking at spending nearly a billion just on wages at the current rate of wages being handed at Stamford Bridge.

Just me,

Net spend means absolutely nothing, why do you keep going on about it?



Of course it does, if Spurs suddenly go spend a couple of billion without money coming in of a similar amount, the club will cease to exist. All clubs have to balance the books as near as damn it, as do all businesses with a net spend at the end of the season, or business year. You cannot keep spending without something giving, and it usually means bust or bankruptcy.

The exceptions are clubs like City or Chelsea that have a bottomless pit of money at their disposal.

I assume when you get your wage packet, you spend it all on the first day, then nip down to the bank, borrow loads more to see you through the month. Thus giving you a very serious financial problem, when it comes to paying back the borrowed money.

comment by sandy`s dad (U20025)
posted 56 seconds ago
Chelsea Wage Bill 2013-14 £179m


Nearly twice as much on wages in one season, as the media keep saying Spurs spent in the same season. Over the next five seasons Chelsea are looking at spending nearly a billion just on wages at the current rate of wages being handed at Stamford Bridge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual figure should be double that, when you factor in contract renewal fees and loyalty clauses. Nowadays, these agency fees add up to a minimum of £5 million for a £50k contract.

comment by sandy`s dad (U20025)
posted 7 minutes ago
Just me,

Net spend means absolutely nothing, why do you keep going on about it?



Of course it does, if Spurs suddenly go spend a couple of billion without money coming in of a similar amount, the club will cease to exist. All clubs have to balance the books as near as damn it, as do all businesses with a net spend at the end of the season, or business year. You cannot keep spending without something giving, and it usually means bust or bankruptcy.

The exceptions are clubs like City or Chelsea that have a bottomless pit of money at their disposal.

I assume when you get your wage packet, you spend it all on the first day, then nip down to the bank, borrow loads more to see you through the month. Thus giving you a very serious financial problem, when it comes to paying back the borrowed money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy
Just not true. The reason the club do not go out and spend the amount of money you mention is because they do not have it and they realise they would cease to exist.

The team's performance does not depend on who no longer plays for you, it depends on WHO DOES. And the amount of money you CAN spend on the team and the quality of player you can attract, and the amount of money you have to spend on wages is key to everything, not who used to play for you.

And City and Chelsea do not have a bottomless pit, they are subject to FFP, but of course if you earn more because of your position in the hierarchy, the more you have to spend on players and wages within the FFP.

NET SPEND IS NO MEASURE of performance!!!!

what do you keep banging on about net spend for - you've chucked loads of Money at it season after season to try and take on the top 4 and you've FAILED...Modric and Bale went to Madrid and thats that

Of course it's relevant, much more so when put alongside wage bill. There are other factors, but you'd have to be in denial to pretend these two don't have a major impact.