[Football] Where should each EPL Team Be?

[Stato]

If you order the 20 EPL teams by current wage bill, the league should look like this:
1) Man Utd, 2) Man City, 3) Arsenal, 4) Chelsea, 5) Liverpool, 6) Spurs, 7) Villa, 8) West Ham, 9) Newcastle, 10) Everton,
11) Forest, 12) Palace, 13) Fulham, 14) Brighton, 15) Wolves, 16) Bournemouth, 17) Brentford, 18) Burnley, 19) Sheff Utd, 20) Luton

Doing the same for net transfer spend over the last five years:
1) Chelsea, 2) Man Utd, 3) Arsenal, 4) Spurs, 5) Newcastle, 6) Man City, 7) Villa, 8) West Ham, 9) Liverpool, 10) Forest,
11) Palace, 12) Sheff Utd, 13) Wolves, 14) Fulham, 15) Bournemouth, 16) Burnley, 17) Brentford, 18) Everton, 19) Luton, 20) Brighton

And for ten years:
1) Man Utd, 2) Man City, 3) Chelsea, 4) Arsenal, 5) Newcastle, 6) Spurs, 7)Liverpool, 8) West Ham, 9) Villa, 10) Palace,
11) Bournemouth, 12) Wolves, 13) Everton, 14) Fulham, 15) Forest, 16) Burnley, 17) Sheff Utd, 18) Brighton, 19) Brentford, 20) Luton

And from this, here is the table that 'should be', calculated by taking each team's mean average position from the three spend indicators above. I've also added columns to show where each team currently sits in the table and how far above or below they are compared to where their spend suggests they should be. The latter uses NSC's favourite red, amber, green system to show under/over achievement. Obviously the higher the number, the higher the over achievement measured against these spend variables.

Expected Position on Spend	Team	Actual Position	Difference
1	Man Utd	8	-7
2	Chelsea	7	-5
3=	Arsenal	2	1
3=	Man City	1	2
5	Spurs	5	0
6	Newcastle	6	0
7	Liverpool	3	4
8	Villa	4	4
9	West Ham	9	0
10	Palace	12	-2
11	Forest	17	-6
12	Wolves	13	-1
13	Everton	15	-2
14	Fulham	14	0
15	Bournemouth	11	4
16	Sheff Utd	20	-4
17	Burnley	19	-2
18	Brighton	10	8
19	Brentford	16	3
20	Luton	18	2

Seems to suggest that, although those billions can't hurt, City's dominance may not be only about the money. There are two teams who have chucked more at it and finished quite far behind.

Also, and this may have been suggested before, but those blokes who run Brighton must know a little bit about what they're doing...

 

[MJsGhost]

Stato by name...

I love stuff like this - excellent work Statman!

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

In an ideal world:

1st Brighton
2nd - 17th - who cares
18th Manure
19th Chelscum
20th Palace

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The net transfer spend metric seems a little bit of an unrealistic measure, especially in our case if you look at that stat before your summer sales then we'd surely have been a lot higher up the table and only because we managed to secure very large transfer fees for some players, it surely moved us to 20th. Getting extraordinary valve from our sales seems an odd way to measure it and wouldn't truly reflect the quality of transfers in or the squad there or the current squad values which would surely move us higher and closer to the current league position we occupy

Also the clubs at the top are less likely to get other clubs bidding very high amounts for their players so they are less likely to move on, as there are so few other clubs out there who would be in a position to attract those players and persuade them to even consider leaving a top six side.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Christ I hate Chelsea.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

There should be some sort of manager rating as obviously that's key with all the other guff, or maybe there is?

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

If you order the 20 EPL teams by current wage bill, the league should look like this:
1) Man Utd, 2) Man City, 3) Arsenal, 4) Chelsea, 5) Liverpool, 6) Spurs, 7) Villa, 8) West Ham, 9) Newcastle, 10) Everton,
11) Forest, 12) Palace, 13) Fulham, 14) Brighton, 15) Wolves, 16) Bournemouth, 17) Brentford, 18) Burnley, 19) Sheff Utd, 20) Luton

Doing the same for net transfer spend over the last five years:
1) Chelsea, 2) Man Utd, 3) Arsenal, 4) Spurs, 5) Newcastle, 6) Man City, 7) Villa, 8) West Ham, 9) Liverpool, 10) Forest,
11) Palace, 12) Sheff Utd, 13) Wolves, 14) Fulham, 15) Bournemouth, 16) Burnley, 17) Brentford, 18) Everton, 19) Luton, 20) Brighton

And for ten years:
1) Man Utd, 2) Man City, 3) Chelsea, 4) Arsenal, 5) Newcastle, 6) Spurs, 7)Liverpool, 8) West Ham, 9) Villa, 10) Palace,
11) Bournemouth, 12) Wolves, 13) Everton, 14) Fulham, 15) Forest, 16) Burnley, 17) Sheff Utd, 18) Brighton, 19) Brentford, 20) Luton

And from this, here is the table that 'should be', calculated by taking each team's mean average position from the three spend indicators above. I've also added columns to show where each team currently sits in the table and how far above or below they are compared to where their spend suggests they should be. The latter uses NSC's favourite red, amber, green system to show under/over achievement. Obviously the higher the number, the higher the over achievement measured against these spend variables.

Expected Position on Spend	Team	Actual Position	Difference
1	Man Utd	8	-7
2	Chelsea	7	-5
3=	Arsenal	2	1
3=	Man City	1	2
5	Spurs	5	0
6	Newcastle	6	0
7	Liverpool	3	4
8	Villa	4	4
9	West Ham	9	0
10	Palace	12	-2
11	Forest	17	-6
12	Wolves	13	-1
13	Everton	15	-2
14	Fulham	14	0
15	Bournemouth	11	4
16	Sheff Utd	20	-4
17	Burnley	19	-2
18	Brighton	10	8
19	Brentford	16	3
20	Luton	18	2

Seems to suggest that, although those billions can't hurt, City's dominance may not be only about the money. There are two teams who have chucked more at it and finished quite far behind.

Also, and this may have been suggested before, but those blokes who run Brighton must know a little bit about what they're doing...

I think that Man City are 2nd on two of those measures, and I'd argue that those are the two more relevant measures, tells us that:

Most of their success is down to money, even if they have spent it well.

Man U are a f***ing joke.

 

[SeagullinExile]

What is this EPL?

 

[Weststander]

Thank you @Stato I love stuff like this, it’s more important than ever as the money escalates at the top to note this, also to see relative to spend successes and car crashes. Liverpool and Albion stand out as huge success stories relative to the money pecking order. Both from clever, systematic recruitment and selling, Liverpool with a brilliant manager.

And net spend is a salient measure, highlighting owner financial doping, versus clubs who selling for great fees and reinvest wisely. Also versus clubs who horde ‘names’ as surefire way to win trophies … this often doesn’t come off.

 

[Stato]

Thank you @Stato I love stuff like this, it’s more important than ever as the money escalates at the top to note this, also to see relative to spend successes and car crashes. Liverpool and Albion stand out as huge success stories relative to the money pecking order. Both from clever, systematic recruitment and selling, Liverpool with a brilliant manager.

And net spend is a salient measure, highlighting owner financial doping, versus clubs who selling for great fees and reinvest wisely. Also versus clubs who horde ‘names’ as surefire way to win trophies … this often doesn’t come off.

Interesting that Liverpool bought Mac Allister from us and were prepared to break the bank to get Caicedo, whilst we were linked with moves for both Diaz and Nunez before they went elsewhere and then ended up at Anfield.