Spurs are lowest net spenders in the EPL

hughy said:

Bale.

Click to expand...

hughy said:

Bale.

Click to expand...

Dharmabum said:

http://www.tottenhamblog.com/2015/06/05/stats-show-spendthrift-spurs-are-out-punching-their-weight/?

Stats show spendthrift Spurs are out-punching their weight
BY TOTTENHAMBLOG · JUNE 5, 2015


A statistic showing the net spend of every Premier League club clearly demonstrates that Tottenham are performing beyond expectations.

Recorded over the last five seasons, the following table reveals that Spurs have actually made a profit in the transfer market over this period, at an average of £4,370,000. This makes the club the lowest net spenders in the Premier League, despite finishing within the top six in each of these seasons.



There’s two ways to look at this information. On one hand it is proof of the club being run in a financially sound manner at a time when a new stadium needs to be paid for.

Click to expand...

Nine while nine said:

Two things I get from the above chart.

Firstly, Liverpool spend £30m a year more than us on transfers (alongside the £44m or so they spend more than us per annum on wages) and still we get more points than they do.

Secondly, Hull bought the REF and still they got relegated. How crap were they?

Click to expand...

Dharmabum said:

There’s two ways to look at this information. On one hand it is proof of the club being run in a financially sound manner at a time when a new stadium needs to be paid for.

Click to expand...

arunspurs said:

We bought equally with Bale's money. So, can't see any change in net

Click to expand...

davidmatzdorf said:

But spending the Bale money on 7 players meant that we didn't have to spend a similar amount of money signing 6 of those players to fill places in our squad. So it does affect net spending in the end.

Click to expand...

davidmatzdorf said:

I think a more instructive way to look at this is to compare gross spending on players with last season's final league position:

Gross spending:

1. Chelsea
2. Manchester City
3. Manchester United
4. Liverpool
5. Arsenal
6. Tottenham

After that "top six", there's no one else even remotely close - only Southampton, a long way behind, who last summer were spending sales receipts from an exodus, as we did the summer when Bale left.

Final league position:

1. Chelsea
2. Manchester City
3. Arsenal
4. Manchester United
5. Tottenham
6. Liverpool

And, of course, guess who's 7th: Southampton.

Reputations for sensible management would cause many to anticipate that Arsenal and Tottenham would slightly out-perform their gross spending and so it has proved last season.

But what we find here is that it is gross spending that is a reliable indicator of league position, not net spending.

Net spending is only a reliable indicator of a club's ability to acquire talented young players and sell them at a profit.

Click to expand...

Dharmabum said:

There’s two ways to look at this information. On one hand it is proof of the club being run in a financially sound manner at a time when a new stadium needs to be paid for.

Click to expand...

Lilbaz said:

Where the fuck did West Ham get all that money? They were in massive debt last I heard. There are not many clubs I'd love to see go to the wall, actually there are only 2. Chelsea and West Ham.

Click to expand...

arunspurs said:

We bought equally with Bale's money. So, can't see any change in net

Click to expand...

SpursManChris said:

...and the other?

Click to expand...

hughy said:

Bale.

Click to expand...

Sevens said:

It perfectly demonstrates that ENIC will never be Audere Est Facere in the transfer market. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but the bottom line is ENIC's primary concern with Spurs is the bottom line. You offered them a life time choice of breaking even every year and winning several titles or finishing 2nd every year and making record profits then they'd go for the latter every single time.

Click to expand...