Spending Obscene Amounts of Money Does Not Guarantee Success

[whitelion]

There are no guarantees of course, but finishing positions in the PL correspond fairly closely to budgets and if you underachieve the first outcome is the sacking of the manager usually. There may be a difference of a couple of places from time to time but the top 6 budgets were the top 6 finishers last season although the placings were a bit mixed up. Two of the bottom three spenders were relegated too. Only Burnley overachieved in that regard.

The idea that our team spirit will overcome bigger budgets is not based in reality I'm afraid.

I'm sure our budget was ninth last season.

 

[Daddies_Sauce]

The idea that our team spirit will overcome bigger budgets is not based in reality I'm afraid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/7626796.stm

A one off? yes possibly, could it happen again, absolutely, Citeh fans singing "shall we buy a ground for you", what ever happened to the multi-million, lime green booted Jo, Stephen Ireland etc.You might have the big price tags, but you still need to deliver.

 

[Blackadder]

Nicked off Facebook.

Annual spending on defence:
USA £820bn
Cuba £700m
Man City £200m
Bosnia £180m
Congo £135m

 

[Seasidesage]

I'm sure our budget was ninth last season.

It was but the PL is a different kettle of fish, usually. Is it possible? Yes, Burnley prove that, but it's tough and the balance of probability would be against it. That said we bring three good players in and things may look very different. It's a long way from a done deal currently but we do need to get some options in soon.

 

[Seasidesage]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/7626796.stm

A one off? yes possibly, could it happen again, absolutely, Citeh fans singing "shall we buy a ground for you", what ever happened to the multi-million, lime green booted Jo, Stephen Ireland etc.You might have the big price tags, but you still need to deliver.

Also true. But most of the PL sides have got a lot better at recruiting. City had money and no clue what to do with it back then. It's different now. People still buy dogs of course, but less often generally and they are buying so many that even if some fail then they always have another overpriced option.

 

[McTavish]

There are no guarantees of course, but finishing positions in the PL correspond fairly closely to budgets and if you underachieve the first outcome is the sacking of the manager usually. There may be a difference of a couple of places from time to time but the top 6 budgets were the top 6 finishers last season although the placings were a bit mixed up. Two of the bottom three spenders were relegated too. Only Burnley overachieved in that regard.

The idea that our team spirit will overcome bigger budgets is not based in reality I'm afraid.

The finishing positions tend to correspond most closely with the amount spent on wages rather than the amount spent on transfers (although the two are not unrelated) - paying existing, proven players more money to keep them at the club tends to be a much better use of money than splashing out on big transfer fees. As has been said by a few of the more astute posters on here, keeping Dale Stephens (and Dunk) has probably been one of the better pieces of business done by the club.

 

[kevo]

Next season they nearly went down and sacked there title winning manager. Definitely a fluke which i stand by but a brilliant one and there's no denying that.

How on earth can winning the Premier League be "a fluke"? A fluke is winning a match you don't deserve, but to finish top after an entire season can't possibly be a fluke! They won it fair and square by getting more points than City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool etc over the course of 38 games. That's not luck - that's ability and belief.

 

[Seasidesage]

The finishing positions tend to correspond most closely with the amount spent on wages rather than the amount spent on transfers (although the two are not unrelated) - paying existing, proven players more money to keep them at the club tends to be a much better use of money than splashing out on big transfer fees. As has been said by a few of the more astute posters on here, keeping Dale Stephens (and Dunk) has probably been one of the better pieces of business done by the club.

Thinks that's pretty fair TBH. Dunk and Stephens are both PL quality IMO in fact I suspect whatever the outcome of next season, we'll be fighting off bids for Dunk next summer. Wages are the key determining factor in getting the right guys in. By far the trickiest part too. Still time to change things...

 

[withdeanwombat]

Manchester City have spent on transfer fees alone more than the cost of two Amex Stadiums.

Don't know what that wage bill will be.

Must be selling dozens of replica shirts.

 

[Weststander]

The finishing positions tend to correspond most closely with the amount spent on wages rather than the amount spent on transfers (although the two are not unrelated) - paying existing, proven players more money to keep them at the club tends to be a much better use of money than splashing out on big transfer fees. As has been said by a few of the more astute posters on here, keeping Dale Stephens (and Dunk) has probably been one of the better pieces of business done by the club.

True, but with big wages paid to new players too. For a new PL club, it's not simply a case of paying your existing Championship level players far more and stay up. Stains and Bournemouth immediately bought many new players, on big wages according to their accounts payroll bills, and look at those two clubs now.

 

[N17]

http://www.totalsportek.com/money/premier-league-clubs-transfers-net-spend-last-5-years/

 

[studio150]

Just shows the gulf between the haves and have nots.
But will it buy a trophy

 

[N17]

Spurs haven't bought a single player in this window and have so far raised around £80mn in player sales.

According to the numbers in that link we are around Eur 80mn in credit since 2012-2013. We have the 6th highest turnover and 6th highest wage bill but have averaged 4.25 in the league over the last 8 seasons so on that basis are 'out performing'.

 

[whitelion]

View attachment 87551

Just shows the gulf between the haves and have nots.
But will it buy a trophy

I will laugh my socks off if we get a result against a team costing almost half a billion pounds.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

How on earth can winning the Premier League be "a fluke"? A fluke is winning a match you don't deserve, but to finish top after an entire season can't possibly be a fluke! They won it fair and square by getting more points than City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool etc over the course of 38 games. That's not luck - that's ability and belief.

They also managed to avoid injuries, so that a formation that worked well for them was able to stay largely intact while those of their rivals, who were involved in European competitions, chopped and changed. Plus many players (Mahrez, Vardy, Drinkwater, Morgan, Okazaki, Albrighton, Huth) were having the best seasons of their careers. And in Kante they'd made a bargain signing, who could pass and tackle but also ran all day and made it seem as though they had 12 men on the field in every game.

 

[Elvis]

Man City have had a higher defence budget this summer than 26 countries. Those countries include Ghana,Albania and Paraquay.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

True, but with big wages paid to new players too. For a new PL club, it's not simply a case of paying your existing Championship level players far more and stay up. Stains and Bournemouth immediately bought many new players, on big wages according to their accounts payroll bills, and look at those two clubs now.

Although, as has been pointed out before, the new players at Bournemouth have not contributed that much. Josh King, who was out of contract at Blackburn, has arguably been the only real success among the signings in the past two seasons.

 

[b.w.2.]

It's simple. Invest in the squad to maximise the chance of surviving. No investment means almost certain relegation. We simply have not done enough (yet).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Saladpack Seagull]

There is no way we can compete with the Top Six in the PL. Even a draw against such opposition will be a major achievement. But if we accept that and concentrate on winning those games where we HAVE got a chance, then MAYBE we'll still be there at the end of the season. Getting turned over by Citeh or Chelsea is not the end of the world, and plenty of other teams will be as well. The top clubs are all about Champions League qualification; we are only concerned (at least for the coming season) with survival. If we do that, then we can start setting our sights a bit higher.

 

[Weststander]

Spurs haven't bought a single player in this window and have so far raised around £80mn in player sales.

According to the numbers in that link we are around Eur 80mn in credit since 2012-2013. We have the 6th highest turnover and 6th highest wage bill but have averaged 4.25 in the league over the last 8 seasons so on that basis are 'out performing'.

They'll spend in the next five weeks with Levy often leaving it right to the wire. The Bale £86m in 2013 gives the overall five year credit.

True, that they have over performed compared to their spending.