Premier League squad cost
-
- Posts: 30626
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11034 times
- Has Liked: 5645 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Premier League squad cost
according to an article online
Full cost of each 25-man squad in the Premier League:
Manchester City - £810,870,000
Manchester United - £628,130,000
Chelsea - £577,100,000
Arsenal - £454,800,000
Liverpool - £454,250,000
Everton - £388,050,000
Tottenham Hotspur - £385,300,000
Leicester City - £317,450,000
Wolverhamton Wanderers - £241,980,000
Aston Villa - £229,350,000
West Ham United - £218,500,000
Newcastle United - £198,100,000
Southampton - £170,550,000
Brighton & Hove Albion - £159,100,000
Crystal Palace - £149,860,000
Sheffield United - £120,700,000
Leeds United - £120,300,000
West Bromwich Albion - £97,700,000
Fulham - £94,350,000
Burnley - £82,600,000
Full cost of each 25-man squad in the Premier League:
Manchester City - £810,870,000
Manchester United - £628,130,000
Chelsea - £577,100,000
Arsenal - £454,800,000
Liverpool - £454,250,000
Everton - £388,050,000
Tottenham Hotspur - £385,300,000
Leicester City - £317,450,000
Wolverhamton Wanderers - £241,980,000
Aston Villa - £229,350,000
West Ham United - £218,500,000
Newcastle United - £198,100,000
Southampton - £170,550,000
Brighton & Hove Albion - £159,100,000
Crystal Palace - £149,860,000
Sheffield United - £120,700,000
Leeds United - £120,300,000
West Bromwich Albion - £97,700,000
Fulham - £94,350,000
Burnley - £82,600,000
Re: Premier League squad cost
Of course it’s a thing that kids have trouble understanding, but this helps highlight it.
The difference between cost and value
The difference between cost and value
This user liked this post: Boss Hogg
Re: Premier League squad cost
We're deffinately punching then.
Re: Premier League squad cost
Presume this is the individual fees paid for each player and nothing wrong with that
But, from a business point of view, a more true picture would be to include fees received for players leaving during the same period (both in's and out's are part of the same balance sheet)
For example, Liverpool have been very good at maximising players sales and even Southampton have brought in a load of money when players have left. Player sales help to fund player purchases and keep total expenditure down.
But, from a business point of view, a more true picture would be to include fees received for players leaving during the same period (both in's and out's are part of the same balance sheet)
For example, Liverpool have been very good at maximising players sales and even Southampton have brought in a load of money when players have left. Player sales help to fund player purchases and keep total expenditure down.
-
- Posts: 5864
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1766 times
- Has Liked: 356 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: Premier League squad cost
The problem we're trying to solve is that there are rich teams and there are poor teams. Then there's fifty feet of crap, and then there's us. It's an unfair game.
-
- Posts: 4272
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
- Been Liked: 1024 times
- Has Liked: 1516 times
Re: Premier League squad cost
Well if our squad wasn't past its best, it'd be worth a lot more.
Bad money management unfortunately has led to us having this aged squad with barely a first team of desirable players.
Bad money management unfortunately has led to us having this aged squad with barely a first team of desirable players.
Re: Premier League squad cost
as if to prove a point...tarkys_ears wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:12 amWell if our squad wasn't past its best, it'd be worth a lot more.
Bad money management unfortunately has led to us having this aged squad with barely a first team of desirable players.
I understand this list is what was paid for the squads, not what they are currently worth so our squad's age bears no relevance here.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 4382
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1825 times
- Has Liked: 930 times
Re: Premier League squad cost
Cities owner 275 times richer than Garlick.
Fulham's owner is worth 100 times Garlick.
Closest if Shed U who is only 3 times richer.
Fulham's owner is worth 100 times Garlick.
Closest if Shed U who is only 3 times richer.
-
- Posts: 4272
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
- Been Liked: 1024 times
- Has Liked: 1516 times
Re: Premier League squad cost
Incredibly the average is 295 million, 8 teams have spend more, 12 have spent less. But the 8 teams who have spent more have spent over 4 billion and the 12 teams below have spent less than 2 billion. These numbers are absolutely insane.
The numbers are slightly skewed because players who aren't in the 25 man squad like Van Dijk haven't been counted.
The numbers are slightly skewed because players who aren't in the 25 man squad like Van Dijk haven't been counted.
Re: Premier League squad cost
It’s all well and good comparing squad values etc. But what does it really mean? Top clubs pay top money for top players. Have they have done for years.
Look at our back 5. Pope, Bards, Tarks, Mee, Taylor. To buy those (apart from Bards) nowadays would cost over £100m +. What if we bought McNeil too say £30m +. We’ve done outstanding in the market over the past few years. No doubt. Any club in our mini league so to speak would rather have saved upwards of £100m and have those 4 plus McNeil.
It’s one of those silly comparisons you see on social media. Thierry Henry £15m - Chris Wood £15m. Comparing fees from different eras is daft. And you could argue we bought a lot of our players in a different era (EPL money wise and player ability wise) to what they are now.
Look at our back 5. Pope, Bards, Tarks, Mee, Taylor. To buy those (apart from Bards) nowadays would cost over £100m +. What if we bought McNeil too say £30m +. We’ve done outstanding in the market over the past few years. No doubt. Any club in our mini league so to speak would rather have saved upwards of £100m and have those 4 plus McNeil.
It’s one of those silly comparisons you see on social media. Thierry Henry £15m - Chris Wood £15m. Comparing fees from different eras is daft. And you could argue we bought a lot of our players in a different era (EPL money wise and player ability wise) to what they are now.
Re: Premier League squad cost
Given our aged squad I think you would find us even further adrift from the rest based on current values
This is what a lack of investment in good recruitment brings - and that fault lies at the doors of Dyche and Rigg as much as Garlick
-
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2350 times
- Has Liked: 3178 times
Re: Premier League squad cost
So, if points were adjusted for squad cost would Burnley always be top of the Premier League?
Or, would it also need to be adjusted by player wages?
UTC
Or, would it also need to be adjusted by player wages?
UTC
-
- Posts: 2671
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
- Been Liked: 773 times
- Has Liked: 1431 times
- Location: Mostly Europe
Re: Premier League squad cost
Southampton?
Re: Premier League squad cost
They stood out to me. Because if we’re comparing squads cost that have been built up over the past (at a guess 10 years in terms of how long ago the earliest signing was that still plays) it’s only fair to compare what they’ve also got selling players.
A better compare would be net spend over the past 10 years. Southamptons looks quite an expensive squad but they’ve sold players for big money in that time. Benteke is a large amount of Crystal Palaces amount. If he only cost them £2m he’d have been playing in the Slovakian 7th division by now.
This user liked this post: Burnleyareback2
Re: Premier League squad cost
This "aged squad" thing is being way overdone.
Look at our first team.
Players who should be at their peak for five years yet: Pope, Taylor, Tarkowski, Brownhill, McNeil.
Players who are still at their peak and you would be a muppet to say we should have got shut: Mee, Westwood, Wood, Barnes.
That only leaves right back and right wing where we need new blood now or very soon.
There's a valid case for saying we go back to being a true selling club and make sure we sell our best players and replace them with younger ones; I'm not so sure it would make us better than we are now. Recently we haven't been a selling club. Isn't Keane the last star we have sold that we would have preferred to keep? and even then, his replacement was ready.
This user liked this post: Zlatan