Premiership Big spenders Summer 2012

[daib0]

Hi again,
All this of spending big or not this summer’s transfer window – there are worries and complaints on most premier forums to be honest. It depends what sort of figures one uses. If you take and add up EXPENDITURE for new players and simply DEDUCT money when you sell your players off I think that’s the most reliable way of doing it, as all clubs ALSO release players. Therefore, on the table below the highest spenders (after balancing incoming & outgoing) appear first, those who sell more than buy will be near the bottom then …


How does it come out? Well, very surprising for some!!:


Chelsea FC -90.948.000 £
Manchester United -47.163.600 £
Manchester City -35.112.000 £
Southampton FC -33.176.000 £
Liverpool FC -28.292.000 £
Aston Villa -19.562.400 £
Queens Park Rangers -16.794.800 £
West Ham United -15.967.600 £
Stoke City -14.291.200 £
Sunderland AFC -13.728.000 £
Norwich City -9.213.600 £
Reading FC -5.192.000 £
Newcastle United -3.489.200 £
West Bromwich Albion -2.200.000 £
Everton FC +748.000 £
Tottenham Hotspur +1.742.400 £
Wigan Athletic +2.257.200 £
Swansea City +5.693.600 £
Ars*nal FC +11.484.000 £
Fulham FC +17.318.400 £


Thoughts, both on Spurs  and the others ? …

[dimexi]

In response to trying to broaden the current debates.

It is interesting to see that Spurs are one of the few clubs in the black. Well, not surprising as Levy is a bit of a tight pursed chap. However, in a way I would have expected it to be more, especially as we did not sign that striker we were hoping for.

This also highlights where some people have it slightly wrong about Levy. These figures do not exactly show a chairman making money off the back of selling the squad. It shows a sensible approach to running a club. Although, it could be pointed out that with the loss taken on a number of released or sold players, it may highlight a poor buying policy ( for squad players, rather than the modric's, Berbatov's etc.) as well!

[RiffHard]

In response to trying to broaden the current debates.

It is interesting to see that Spurs are one of the few clubs in the black. Well, not surprising as Levy is a bit of a tight pursed chap. However, in a way I would have expected it to be more, especially as we did not sign that striker we were hoping for.

This also highlights where some people have it slightly wrong about Levy. These figures do not exactly show a chairman making money off the back of selling the squad. It shows a sensible approach to running a club. Although, it could be pointed out that with the loss taken on a number of released or sold players, it may highlight a poor buying policy ( for squad players, rather than the modric's, Berbatov's etc.) as well!

For some reason I am happy that our balance is positive. I've heard that UEFA wants to tighten screws on overspending and huge losses and this could actually work for us because the likes of Chelsea and Man City will be tied up.

[aspursfan]

Unbelievable how much money Abramovich is continuing to pour into Chelsea.

What good will financial fair play do when the damage has already been done? I think all it will do is cement the teams who have already spent a fortune in the top positions.

[RiffHard]

Unbelievable how much money Abramovich is continuing to pour into Chelsea.

What good will financial fair play do when the damage has already been done? I think all it will do is cement the teams who have already spent a fortune in the top positions.

I've understood that the new rule states that clubs must earn their money (tickets, merchandise etc.) and cannot rely on sugar-daddies who simply write another check when there is a need. That means neither Chelsea nor Man City would actually be rich clubs - their owners would be, but their bank accounts would not be clubs' bank accounts.

[aspursfan]

Unbelievable how much money Abramovich is continuing to pour into Chelsea.

What good will financial fair play do when the damage has already been done? I think all it will do is cement the teams who have already spent a fortune in the top positions.

I've understood that the new rule states that clubs must earn their money (tickets, merchandise etc.) and cannot rely on sugar-daddies who simply write another check when there is a need. That means neither Chelsea nor Man City would actually be rich clubs - their owners would be, but their bank accounts would not be clubs' bank accounts.

What's to stop them from doing things like City's £400 million Etihad sponsorship deal?

[RiffHard]

Unbelievable how much money Abramovich is continuing to pour into Chelsea.

What good will financial fair play do when the damage has already been done? I think all it will do is cement the teams who have already spent a fortune in the top positions.

I've understood that the new rule states that clubs must earn their money (tickets, merchandise etc.) and cannot rely on sugar-daddies who simply write another check when there is a need. That means neither Chelsea nor Man City would actually be rich clubs - their owners would be, but their bank accounts would not be clubs' bank accounts.

What's to stop them from doing things like City's £400 million Etihad sponsorship deal?

I sincerely hope matters like this will be looked into. But, yes, football is one corrupt business. Always has been and always will be.