« Ronaldinho’s Barcelona Tribute Video | Home | Soundoff: Hopping The Rivalry Fence. »

Prem Finances: Opposite Ends Of The Spectrum, Featuring Manchester City.

By: chris | August 27th, 2010

premfinances

This very excellent graph from Footbalistic illustrates one simple comparison: money spent on transfers versus points earned in 09/10.

There are no mysteries lying behind the curtain on polar ends of the graph: Arsenal have forged a system of turnover via the continued production of their youth system and Man City spend money like a drunken lotto winner at the strip club – value never enters the equation.

And given the latter’s binge this summer, €2.2m will sound like an absolute bargain next summer.

Some Related Stories:

Category: English Premier League

« Ronaldinho’s Barcelona Tribute Video | Home | Soundoff: Hopping The Rivalry Fence. »

The Offside RSS Feeds

bigfella

This is just stupid. Why is it restricted to spending during last season. How much the squad cost altogether is more important. A club might have spent 100 million the season before and nothing last season. That wouldn't show up on the graph. Plus, as somebody already mentione, wages also come into the equation.
Michael

Yes, Arsenal did buy Cesc, Walcott, Vela, etc. I think that is valid. However they were really young and not yet accomplished. Wenger's transfer strategy is frustrating but right now you have to say he has a good rate of return on his buys. If I remember correctly two sides have to agree on a transfer. Barca did sell us Cesc. I guess they forget that.
bulers

"Arsenal have forged a system of turnover via the continued production of their youth system"

Really? It's more buying other clubs' youths. Who has their youth system "produced" who actually made a significant impact?
Avespoli

This only tells half the story. Wages are just as important, if not moreso, than transfer fees.
OffsideSarah

I still cant believe that Portsmouth matched (or outspent) the top 3 teams last year and yet ended up dead last. Proof that money alone does not give you success.
brenton

Remember that it's money spent per point, not absolute numbers. So while Chelsea spent about the same amount per point, they had more than four times as many points (86 to 19), so in effect spent more than four times as much as Portsmouth. Doing a bit of math:

Chelsea:
86 pts x 325,000 = approx. 28 million euros

Portsmouth:
19 pts x 375,000 = approx. 7 million euros
Daryl

I'm not great at reading anything but the simplest of graphs, but am I right in thinking this looks bad for Sunderland? Looks like they spent the second highest amount of cash per point and still only finished 13th.
agiamba

Definitely should be questioning whoever makes the call there.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Search The Offside