Toffeeweb - Talking Points - Out Of Control?

Out Of Control?

Having had a boring day I have compiled the following table with Information obtained from The Telegraph on wages and spending:

Team	     Transfers	Wages	Both
	      Net	Millions(£)
Chelsea		159.7	702.8	 863
Man City	415.27	443.8	 859
Man Utd		47.45	529.1	 577
Liverpool	68.65	453.4	 522
Arsenal		-31.9	440.4	 409
Villa		54.3	284.3	 339
Spurs		42.9	273.5	 316
Sunderland	64.15	201.5	 266
West Ham	11.9	233.3	 245
Fulham		44.575	192.2	 237
Everton		   0	205.5	 206
Newcastle	-7.75	201.5	 194
Bolton		 6	182.43	 188
Stoke		60.075	121.8	 182
Wigan		-9.1	159.4	 150
Blackburn	-41.138	146.4	 105
Wolves		35.9	67.9	 104
Birmingham*	36.675	63.6	 100
Hull		18.9	71.5	  90
Portsmouth*	-35.42	119.8	  84
WBA		11.15	68.1	  79
Mboro		 1.3	68.8	  70
Derby		12.95	26.1	  39
Reading		 1.82	33.1	  35
Burnley		 7.35	22	  29
QPR		20.55	0	  21
Blackpool	3.635	13.6	  17
Swansea		 8.85	0	   9
Norwich		 6.35	0	   6

Transfers relate to transactions between 2007-08 to 2011-12;
Wages relate to recorded data between 2007-08 to 2010-11

Birmingham and Portsmouth have missing wage details due to administration.

Patrick Murphy, West Lancs Posted 19/01/2013 at 22:07:59

back Return to Talking Points index : Add your Comments

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

Sam Hoare
946 Posted 20/01/2013 at 08:46:21

QPR didn't pay any wages? Sounds unlikely. Do you draw any conclusions from this table Patrick?

Ian Bennett
947 Posted 20/01/2013 at 08:47:09

Pat - So Newcastle not above us as 1 relegation season excluded? Only 2 clubs below us that have lower wage record and not been relegated?

Patrick Murphy
965 Posted 20/01/2013 at 10:58:05

Figures for 2011-12 don't include wages as they are not yet available that is why QPR, Swansea and Norwich show up as Zero.

Denis Byrne
967 Posted 20/01/2013 at 11:00:56

Sorry, I don't really understand what this means. However, any mention of footballers' wages always raises a load of questions so can anyone please help ...

What tax do players pay and what would be their 'take home' pay?

How do clubs get around this (what scam is applied to get around this so the poor players don't suffer)?

What are the exact proportions of the bubble top footballers live in?

Patrick Murphy
970 Posted 20/01/2013 at 11:00:39

Sam, one of the conclusions I draw is that the commercial department and the board have to get their act together and decide on a policy for the club going forward. It can't continue to sit on its hands and hope for someone to wave a magic wand.

For a club of Everton's size and stature having a zero sum figure for player recruitment means we have not moved forward from the days when Kendall was refused the money to buy Dion Dublin despite TWENTY YEARS of TV Money. David Moyes has on average net spend of approx £1.3m per season on transfers and £45m on wages.

If the trend continues for Everton, regardless of who is the manager, we will find ourselves returning to the dark days of bottom-half finishes. Everton are a 'well run' club in a badly managed game — what does that say?

The main thing the table shows is that the game is heading for a financial cliff; fair play or no fair play, the figures show how unsustainable it is for a business to throw more and more money at players year on year. How is it possible for clubs to be in perpetual debt while the TV cash cow continues to pour money into the game?

On another thread, each point that David Moyes has won in his tenure has cost on average £823,000 which in relation to most is a good effort, but is it good for the game?

Sam Hoare
975 Posted 20/01/2013 at 11:32:02

I agree Patrick. Very frustrating that we have been in the top 6 teams or so for the last ten years and yet the likes of Villa, West Ham, Fulham and Sunderland are above us in the table. More recently the likes of Southampton, Stoke and of course QPR are comfortable outspending us. Needless to say that our rivals for 4th Spurs, Arsenal and RS dwarf us in spending. At some point our place in the league will mirror our place in the financial tables... maybe when Moyes leaves?

Sur Jo
979 Posted 20/01/2013 at 11:57:01

NEW INVESTMENT IN THE CLUB!!!

Everton just refreshed its fleet of Iseki tractors with three new arrivals. The tractors feature air-conditioned cabs.

Take it easy, just wanted to have some fun :)
Bring on Southampton.

Eric Myles
003 Posted 20/01/2013 at 13:05:50

How do Blackburn have a net tansfer spend of -£43m? Their whole team isn't worth that much

Steavey Buckley
015 Posted 20/01/2013 at 13:45:11

The figures are meaningless unless the quality of the manager is included. Mark Hughes proved that with Man City and QPR, that him having plenty of money to spend was not good enough. He was sacked at both clubs for not delivering. Moyes has actually pounched above his weight. But some of the salaries he hands are a bit extravagant, considering Everton's financial plight.

Patrick Murphy
027 Posted 20/01/2013 at 14:20:32

Eric, that means that while they were in the PL for the period concerned they made a profit of £43m compared to what they spent whilst in the PL. If I had access to the info whilst they were outside of the top flight, I would have included it.

Steavey, the figures aren't meaningless as they help you to draw the correct conclusion that Hughes in comparison to Moyes is not as good as many believe he is.

If I had the time and inclination I would have liked to do a comparison manager by manager, but I would need a team of hundreds to help me research and collate the information.

Eric Myles
031 Posted 20/01/2013 at 14:32:27

Patrick, let me help you out with that:

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/managers-comparisons.html

Patrick Murphy
051 Posted 20/01/2013 at 15:36:44

Thanks Eric wonders of t'internet and all that.
Who would have thought that Walter Smith that most prudent of men would have a net spend of nearly 12m in 1998-99 but then BK sought to balance the books and we saw him have a net spend of -10m in the following 2 seasons.

Steavey Buckley
065 Posted 20/01/2013 at 16:20:02

Patrick Murphy: Hughes had about as much money as Mancini to spend, but it was Mancini who won the premier league. Because Mancini had a previous excellent record and experience in Seria A, 4 successive titles with Inter Milan.

Steavey Buckley
069 Posted 20/01/2013 at 16:27:25

Patrick Murphy: Liverpool compared to Everton, are the team that has regulary failed to achieve consideration the amount of money spent. If Everton had Liverpool's money, Everton would have achieved more. In every season, in the Telegraph reckoning, Everton where just short of 3 class players.

Patrick Murphy
100 Posted 20/01/2013 at 18:13:16

Steavey I agree with you, I just can't see where I have mentioned Liverpool or said anything that contradicts your point of view., All I have done is collate a few figures and put them in descending order, so I'm not sure what you're accusing me of exactly. There's no spin or deliberate misrepresentation as far as I can see.

Tony Horne
108 Posted 20/01/2013 at 18:56:34

Interesting. Even though it is transfer fees that grab the headlines it is wages that largely determine a clubs overall spending.

Alan Sugar talks a load of cobblers at times but I remember him complaining that all the money in football is disappearing into the back pockets of players and their agents.

Barry Rathbone
109 Posted 20/01/2013 at 19:05:45

Tony I agree, it's also interesting that in wage terms we are 8th.

Perhaps the trade off is - no transfer kitty but keep your manager - you finish where you pay!

Is that a miracle?

John Ford
110 Posted 20/01/2013 at 19:20:33

It's being a bit selective Barry. The figures taken as a whole tell us what we already know, that we get good returns for the money spent. Whether it's good enough is another question. Whatever anyone's view on that it continues to amaze me how supposedly smaller clubs continue to be able to spend more than we do.

The other thing which always jumps out when these figures are shown is just how wasteful Villa are.

Steve Pugh
129 Posted 20/01/2013 at 20:50:44

Barry, actually we are ninth. Supports those who say we punch above our weight

Barry Rathbone
149 Posted 20/01/2013 at 20:58:15

John I accept it is selective like all stats they are malleable and in fairness it is a Moyes quote "finishing where the wage bill is".

I just don't go with the miracle stuff, Moyes does his thing which is curates egg in my opinion and the bad bits should be highlighted. The improvement in play has brought better results, entertainment, league position and a 10% attendance growth all from squad manipulation - not additional funds. All advocated by umpteen posters on here for years.

No reason this couldn't have been done before and it's the same with the cups never has there been such opportunity with the CL clubs playing "squad rotation" in the early rounds.

It's there to be had but already he's fiddled about and bang! - out the league cup we go. My worry is he'll start his pretence at being Utd or Chelsea in the FA cup and start his fiddling again - too long without a trophy now. oh and don't get me started on his "derby" antics.

Tony J Williams
225 Posted 21/01/2013 at 10:58:33

"All from squad manipulation – not additional funds" — Look at the transfer figure, Barry, then consider that amount in 2012-13. I imagine it will be way above the zero figure, which shows that money = better players = better results.

Keith Conchie
334 Posted 21/01/2013 at 18:06:02

This just shows how good a job Moyes has done over the years with little money.

No other manager in the Premier League could get us where we are (challenging for Champions League place) and playing the football we do with the transfer budget he receives.

I can't understand why certain people on here continue to put him down.

IMWT!!!!!

Brent Stephens
343 Posted 21/01/2013 at 18:23:21

Barry #149. Can't agree, mate. It's only with the recent buys that he's had the critical mass of quality in the side to change the playing style.

Denis Richardson
380 Posted 21/01/2013 at 19:13:47

Brent/Barry- imo the answer's in the middle somewhere. Agree that the recent buys have played a big part but there was (for example) no obvious reason in my mind to hang onto billy for 2.5 years, who's subsequant transfer fee paid for Gibson and Jelavic. Should have sold him earlier and the money could have been reinvested earlier - admittedly we'll probably never know if the banks would have snatched the cash.

Selling Rodwell was also a good move, also probably could have sold earlier but I guess Moyes maybe wanted to give him a chance. Just didn't seem to come off. These were two sellable players who never really offered anything to the first team on a consistent basis, should have been sold to raise funds - as they eventually were.

For people wondering why smaller clubs have more cash than us, its simply because they have sugar daddy owners who put cash into the club (Fulham, QPR, Sunderland etc). Dont necessarily agree with this as a club should be self sufficient. However, we should be earning a lot more cash on the commercial side as it is. Increased TV money will save our bacon next season.

As for the initial table - just like any set of numbers, I guess you can use them whichever way you want to, to back your point up. Moyes has done well witj what he has but has also been incredibly negative at times and made some cock ups along the way. Then again no ones perfect. I don't however get how some peoply say he is the only manager who could have achieved that - so no other manager on the planet could have done the same, if not better? Another manager could have done better, worse or the same!

One of the things that has allowed Moyes to achieve what he has, imo, is longevity. The more time a manager has, the more time he has for trial and error re players. Keep the good ones and let the others go - after a while the team will be more or less decent and familiar. Anyway, onto tonights game...COYB!

Brendan McLaughlin
390 Posted 21/01/2013 at 19:42:24

Denis #380
Given that we had to give the Arteta money to the banks only a fool would conclude if we had sold him earlier that the Billy money would not have gone the same way

Denis Richardson
394 Posted 21/01/2013 at 19:56:17

Brendan - Arteta was sold in August 2011, Billy had already been with us for 2 years and it was long clear at that time that Moyes didnt want him. So what's your point - we could not sell anyone for 2 years becasue of the banks?

So we carry on paying a player we don't want 40k a week for 2.5 years instead? Somethng else sounds foolish to me...

Brendan McLaughlin
401 Posted 21/01/2013 at 20:08:26

Denis #394
Well if it sounds foolish you've only got yourself to blame. Where did I say we couldn't sell him because of the banks? Possibly we could have sold him but the money would have gone to the banks (which is what I actually said) & there would have been no money to invest in the team.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, 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 Talking Points submissions across the site.