Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A

Spending That Money

By Jason Heng :  09/07/2007 :  Comments (16) :
An intriguing analysis from Jason Heng.

PDF download

Reader Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Andy McNabb
1   Posted 09/07/2007 at 08:23:53

Report abuse

Very interesting! I appreciate your comment at the end about it not being complete Gospel but it surely points clearly towards giving credit to Moyes and other managers (grudgingly) like Allardyce. Thanks for the research, I have a Chelsea friend who needs to read this!
mick wrende
2   Posted 09/07/2007 at 08:45:36

Report abuse

A fascinating analysis but it just confirms the old saying that you can prove anything with statistics! In fact the clubs that have won trophies have all had to spend much larger amounts of money. Bolton may have spent the least/point but have won nothing. Chelsea have spent the most but have won loads. The exception appears to be Arsenal but they havent won much recently. I bet if you went back to analyse them when they won the title they would be easily in the top 4 spenders. Sadly this shows that Everton are doomed to be also rans unless we can raise some hefty investment.
Brian Baker
3   Posted 09/07/2007 at 09:57:43

Report abuse

These figures are pretty meaningless as they do not take into account monies coming in from players sold.

If you deduct monies from main players sold you get the net spend:

£10m - W Rooney

£1.75m - T.Radinski

£3m - S.Davies

£3m - K.Kilbane

£5m - P.Koldrup

£2m - M.Bent

£2.45m - T.Graveson

£1.75m - T.Linderoth

£57m (in) - £29m (out)

= £28m net spend since 2001.
John McClane
4   Posted 09/07/2007 at 10:46:55

Report abuse

Decent look at transfers that. I would be intrigued how weighting in wages would alter the results. Bolton have been great at getting in free transfers, although that means they may have to pay the player a large signing on fee and wage.

The other thing regarding the teams at the very top end of the table is that there is only a total of 114 points on offer. Thus the return on the big transfers that you need to get you up there is always going to be small - diminishing returns or something.
Rupert Sullivan
5   Posted 09/07/2007 at 11:08:31

Report abuse


A very interesting review, I would raise two points however

1) You do not take into account players sold as per Brian’s point
2) You do not take into account players on frees going through or their wages

I believe that the wages aspect for clubs such as Bolton and Man City may well skew their points to millions ratio somewhat (as it would even further for Chelsea of course!)
Jason Heng
6   Posted 09/07/2007 at 12:36:27

Report abuse

1. Taking account into players sold would certainly be useful in offering a different perspective.

However, it may be fair to assume that managers do not intentionally sell players to achieve their footballing targets. More likely to be forced by circumstances: player wanting to leave; contract ending; or simply in need of cash.

2. Wages - good idea. But does anyone have the figures?
Ste Bold
7   Posted 09/07/2007 at 13:18:39

Report abuse

Great analysis, and I think that it does help show that Moyes does spend our cash wisely (not budging on Nugent a recent example) but also that with our current budget we can?t compete at the top level.

Along with net sales and wages John Mclane?s point about diminishing returns would make an interesting addition to the analysis. The difference between winning the league by just a point may have been that 20 million summer signing. At 20 million/point it?s statistically poor but who cares about stats if it wins you the title? Maybe the rankings could be weighted by how difficult is is to win the league, or finsih 6th...
John Lloyd
8   Posted 09/07/2007 at 13:45:42

Report abuse

Very interesting, dispels a few myths but proves a few to be correct also. As said by someof the other lads commenting. Getting wages figures would be very interesting but I would imagine them figures to be a lot harder to get our hands on!!
Alex Doyle
9   Posted 09/07/2007 at 16:05:47

Report abuse

The actual total of fees raised during Moyes time is £42m. That?s counting monies received for Rooney as £23m. I can only spot £10m on the player list on this site.

How much money have sky put into the coffers in this time and we have a net spend of just £3m per season.

Too many people have been far too soft on the board for too long.
Joe Rourke
10   Posted 09/07/2007 at 15:49:30

Report abuse

Wages are possibly a more important a financial factor in these things...take James Beattie for example...if I remember correctly he signed for 4.5 years at approx 35K a week?...that?s £8.2 million in wages over 5 years to Beattie that £14.2 million for the two parts of the deal or about £11.4 million to date (for a total of 15 goals so far!)...contrast the Cahill deal(s)...£2M transfer and one saeon at about £15K...with two subesquent seasons at £35K...thats about £6.4 million to date (for 27 goals and he?s not even a striker - I certainly don?t begrudge him his new raise!)...if you look at the return per goal its £760 K for Beattie versus £240 K in favour of Cahill...but hey, statistics can be used to justify anything!!!
David Kendall
11   Posted 09/07/2007 at 18:36:45

Report abuse

Factor in domestic cup performances and see that impressive Moyes record in its proper context. Wouldn?t many managers of clubs around Everton on those tables have outperformed Moyes, if you take into account the likely effect Cup runs would have had on league form, and given average size and quality of squads?
Tom Collie
12   Posted 10/07/2007 at 04:52:15

Report abuse

Interesting and highly complicated way to spout the usual ’I love Moyes rubbish’.

The lengths his acolytes will go to boost his mediocrity never ceases to amaze me.

Crack on boys, pity that with DM ( and BBB) in charge we ain’t going anywhere, your love will continue to be unrequited, not to mention misguided.

Nothing personal.


Tony Ainscough
13   Posted 11/07/2007 at 13:51:06

Report abuse

Andy i am sure your Chelsea friend wont give a flying f@ck when you show him these stats, they have won 5 trophies in 3 years.As any fan will tell you that is all that matters
14   Posted 11/07/2007 at 17:50:07

Report abuse

Slow Moyes....
Spend money, buy good players, 6M for Nugent is a bargain. Why don’t you be so stingy. Act fast dude
15   Posted 11/07/2007 at 17:54:09

Report abuse

Sorry...I asked you why you are so stingy Mr. Slow Moyes
Abdul Salim Ahmed Ibrahim
16   Posted 12/07/2007 at 07:41:22

Report abuse

I don’t understand why it takes us longer to sign a player than it took Thaksin and Bates to sign a football club!

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to Column articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.

© ToffeeWeb

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.