Where have you seen this? Regardless of what I think about Levy, I just do not believe this. Far more likely that the cause of Hugo not finding a new club yet is that nobody wants to match his wages and so he wants the club to make them up for the last year of his contract.
The ousting of Daniel (COYS)
- Thread starter ChappersES
- Start date
Dan Kp! never knowingly right about anything. People need to recognise clickbait intended to rile up an already angry fan base when they see it.
Keith Morris
Well-Known Member
- Jun 20, 2012
- 649
- 1,888
They finished bottom half and will again, it’s not the kind of success I’m after
They sacrificed their league position to focus on winning silverware as they didn’t have the squad depth for both.
Now, they’re in european competition and have european silverware to their name. We have no european football and no silverware for 15 years. Their talismanic captain left after hoisting a major european trophy. Our generational striker did not.
That is success by definition.
Wheeler Dealer
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2011
- 6,935
- 12,453
We are paying the price today because of the last 4 years of unforgivable bad decisions made by Levy, starting from sacking instead of backing Poch, the appointment of the busted flush (Mourinho) and his archaic tactics. The laughable appointment of Nuno, followed by the appointment of Conte, who came with a history of ego, tantrums and negativtiy. The end result of these 4 years has been the total demise of this club being a serious top 4 challenger for the foreseeable future. Man City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Liverpool, Arsenal and Man Utd have had their troubles, but they are much better equipped to mount a challenge then we are, which is soul destroying. We start the "Catch Up" process once again.
I'm optimistic, Ange will get us playing decent football, but worry we will fall well short against the top 6 sides this season unless we pull off a couple of Steller signings, which isn't going to happen
robin09
Well-Known Member
- Jun 4, 2005
- 6,800
- 7,697
Dan Kilpatrick. Although now there are other journos suggesting we’re letting him leave on a free out of respect. We’ll see tomorrow I guess.
Keith Morris
Well-Known Member
- Jun 20, 2012
- 649
- 1,888
They didn’t sacrifice anything, the league had gone, they and Moyes were lucky that Europe salvaged their season and they’ll dine out on it the next 10 years
Wheeler Dealer
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2011
- 6,935
- 12,453
Their opponents throughout the Europa Conference campaign were championship level at best. They battered a load of old dross.
-Afri-Coy-
Well-Known Member
- Jun 26, 2012
- 5,859
- 18,628
You’ve made some valid points here and I agree somewhat, but the point I was making is:
1. Our supposed direct rivals spend tons of money on flops all the time, we have one expensive flop to date. (Tanguy) Yes, we’ve had some mediocre signings but no where near your Antony/Pepe levels of spending on mediocre players.
2. Net spend IS a valid argument when your team is the 3rd highest revenue generating team in the world. Why do we have to have such a low net spend? We literally don’t need to keep it that low. We can afford to lose on some signings because the balance of things will always favour us if we keep spending. This is to a degree, I am not saying we should go broke trying but we should definitely be spending more than we have.
3. As much as everyone hates to admit it, modern football requires spending to be successful. If we want to finally win things, we need to be able to compete financially somewhat. Which we can, but our board refuses to do so.
4. I know there are gems to be signed for lower fees, but then why don’t we spend a chunk on a proper scouting network that’s at the same level as Dortmund or Leipzig, or Brighton? We don’t even need to go to that extent because we actually have the money to spend but if the reluctance is there, why not spend?
5. Burnley was an example, they are spending to try stay in the premier league. We simply cannot compete with the teams around us if we are only winning to spend the same as relegation fodder teams. It’s just not going to be sustainable long term.
Half of the reason why we’ve been stuck in the same place since peak Poch is because of our lack of ambition in terms of spending. We are at a point in football where you literally have to spend 50,60,70 million pounds to sign players that used to cost 30-40 million. It’s just the nature of the beast.
Our net spend only looks good on paper. It only looks good to the board and owners. We will win jackshit until that changes. I’d be happy to see another team that has had success by doing what we’re doing, because I can’t think of any. It’s either we spend to compete or we spend to have the world’s best scouting network and data driven software. We can’t just keep having a low net spend and expect to win things when the 9 teams around us are doing the opposite.
fishhhandaricecake
Well-Known Member
- Nov 15, 2018
- 19,354
- 48,358
Spot on, its certainly not all about just spending big, Chelsea spent about what £500mil last season and finished 12th!!!
Our strategy looks far far better now we have Ange, we are signing players of a profile that fit his style of play and this project.
That being said if we don't sign any more players this summer it will be vastly disappointing as we will be leaving ourselves short once again and given our large FFP limit and £100mil for Kane and also getting Kane, Lloris and a few other large earners off the books we really have no excuses as to not bringing in at least 2 more ideally 3 players even if that means not registering a few players who we can't sell and/or paying off some of their contracts if needed.
As for those saying about net spend, it seems we have the 5th highest net spend over the last 5 years!
I find the way Levy operates as frustrating as the next person but some in this thread seem to be spouting aggressive opinion as fact.
The issue is mostly that we've had a misaligned and just generally bad fit strategy and so have wasted a lot of money.
1) Manchester United: £-614.92m
23/24: £-132.13m
22/23: £-196.62m (3rd)
21/22: £-94.8m (6th)
20/21: £-54.96m (2nd)
19/20: £-133.02m (3rd)
2) Arsenal: £-582.91m
23/24: £-170.56m
22/23: £-144.08m (2nd)
21/22: £-116.25m (5th)
20/21: £-57.14m (8th)
19/20: £-91.59m (8th)
3) Chelsea: £-567.95m
23/24: £-59.63m
22/23: £-464.7m (12th)
21/22: £26.45m (3rd)
20/21: £-162.45m (4th)
19/20: £95.96m (4th)
4) Newcastle: £-418.28m
23/24: £-93.48m
22/23: £-147.05m (4th)
21/22: £-111.15m (11th)
20/21: £-33.1m (12th)
19/20: £-31.85m (13th)
5) Tottenham: £-402.16m
23/24: £-70.82m
22/23: £-118.93m (8th)
21/22: £-52.38m (4th)
20/21: £-83.08m (7th)
19/20: £-73.5m (6th)
6) Aston Villa: £-334.96m
23/24: £-73.26m
22/23: £-39.44m (7th)
21/22: £-2.39m (14th)
20/21: £-84.25m (11th)
19/20: £-133.76m (17th)
7) Manchester City: £-275.25m
23/24: £-68.09m
22/23: £9.97m (Champions)
21/22: £-38.55m (Champions)
20/21: £-93.5m (Champions)
19/20: £-81.9m (2nd)
8) West Ham: £-194.21m
23/24: £72.45m
22/23: £-147.39m (14th)
21/22: £-60.06m (7th)
20/21: £-7.94m (6th)
19/20: £-54.97m (16th)
9) Nottingham Forest: £184.83m
23/24: £-24.71m
22/23: £-162.6m (16th)
21/22: £-5.23m (4th in Championship)
20/21: £521,000 (17th in Championship)
19/20: £8.33m (7th in Championship)
10) Liverpool: £-167.51m
23/24: £-44.16m
22/23: £-48.38m (5th)
21/22: £-49.1m (2nd)
20/21: £-57.14m (3rd)
19/20: £32.14m (Champions)
Premier League net spend table over the last five years
Forget the league table, it's all about the Premier League net spend table. And Chelsea, Man Utd and Arsenal are ahead of the other 17.
www.football365.com
We also have the 5th highest wage bill which is usually the best correlation with performance, Brighton are 12th!! shows just how overperforming and well run they are, also how shockingly Everton have been managed lately. Also for all their spending Newcastle based on wages are also overperforming under Eddie Howe.
EPL 2023 Payroll Wages Tracker
A real-time look at the payroll totals for each 2023-2024 EPL team, including breakdowns by position.
| RANK | TEAM | ACTIVE PLAYERS | FORWARDS | MIDFIELDERS | DEFENSEMEN | GOALKEEPERS | TRANSFER FEES | EST. TOTAL SALARY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Manchester City F.C. | 23 | £22,100,000 | £85,540,000 | £66,680,000 | £12,012,000 | £29,100,000 | £186,332,000 |
| 2 | Chelsea F.C. | 28 | £43,160,000 | £55,380,000 | £53,404,000 | £9,620,000 | £120,000,000 | £161,564,000 |
| 3 | Arsenal F.C. | 29 | £45,760,000 | £59,660,000 | £50,230,000 | £4,080,000 | £186,600,000 | £159,730,000 |
| 4 | Liverpool F.C. | 22 | £41,912,000 | £29,380,000 | £45,220,000 | £11,440,000 | £112,000,000 | £127,952,000 |
| 5 | Tottenham Hotspur F.C. | 32 | £22,464,000 | £48,510,000 | £28,310,000 | £13,650,000 | £136,300,000 | £112,934,000 |
| 6 | Aston Villa F.C. | 22 | £20,436,000 | £35,880,000 | £30,240,000 | £6,240,000 | £33,000,000 | £92,796,000 |
| 7 | Newcastle United F.C. | 30 | £15,313,600 | £39,245,000 | £27,560,000 | £6,136,000 | £145,200,000 | £88,254,600 |
| 8 | Everton F.C. | 25 | £18,590,000 | £27,155,000 | £25,112,000 | £5,980,000 | £0 | £76,837,000 |
| 9 | West Ham United F.C. | 20 | £12,480,000 | £24,160,000 | £24,180,000 | £9,620,000 | £0 | £70,440,000 |
| 10 | Crystal Palace | 23 | £9,870,000 | £12,870,000 | £24,160,000 | £6,364,000 | £0 | £53,264,000 |
southlondonyiddo
My eyes have seen some of the glory..
- Nov 8, 2004
- 12,655
- 15,215
Imagine spending lots of money & knowing what the fuck we’re doing
One can only dream!
-Afri-Coy-
Well-Known Member
- Jun 26, 2012
- 5,859
- 18,628
Do you think wetspam fans give a crap about this? You’re trying to minimise their achievement. Guess what? They still WON a trophy.
We haven’t achieved that since 2008. That is the whole point of the game isn’t it?
Darth Vega
Well-Known Member
- Jul 28, 2013
- 1,705
- 10,470
Regarding net spend, who says it's low? It's lower this summer but that's because
a) we just received £100m for one player
b) it isn't over yet and there's a half-decent chance we bring in a couple more players anyway
When measured over a period of five years we are among the top four or five highest net spenders in the league which is exactly where we should be. We can't outspend Liverpool or City or Chelsea or Man United because these clubs make more money than us, whether that's organic or through dodgy means is neither here nor there.
At the time of writing the net spend table in the past five years looks like this:
1) Manchester United: £-614.92m
2) Arsenal: £-582.91m
3) Chelsea: £-567.95m
4) Newcastle: £-418.28m
5) Tottenham: £-402.16m
Again, a week ago our number would have been £502m, massively above Newcastle in 4th and a handful behind Chelsea and Arsenal but it isn't every day you receive £100m for a single player. This is where I think your argument falls apart - you say we've not spent a lot but the numbers betray that argument. How much more should we spending exactly, what is the acceptable figure? £600m? £700m?
If we signed Bissouma for £50m instead of £30m and Maddison for £60m instead of £40m would that make you happier because it would show more ambition and the net spend is even higher and overtaking Chelsea and Arsenal?
The point I'm making here is why is the focus not on the quality of who we sign? You're right in that spending = success in the modern day but again, we have spent, it's right there in black and white. You can't argue with maths even if it doesn't align with how you feel.
And on our recruitment, I actually think it's been pretty good overall. Discounting loan players and Forster we've signed around 21 players since the summer of 2021... 21. Not only is that an entirely new squad but the quality of them is surprisingly pretty good overall. I think almost everyone is happy with at least ten of those in Maddison, Bentancur, Romero, Bissouma, Van de ven, Kulusevski, Porro (maybe), Emerson, Sarr, Udogie, with a lot still possibly turning good with the likes of Richy, Solomon, Perisic, Vicario, Veliz and others.
I mean no disrespect but I don't understand your argument. The reality is that we have spent loads, more than the majority of teams in Europe and in line with what you expect a club of our revenue to be spending, the recruitment has mostly been good so far and in some cases excellent, and we have (finally) a manager in place to make the most of it.
As far as I see it Levy could have been totally and justifiably criticised at any time from 2001 through to 2019 for not spending enough, including during the stadium build. People have understandably been unable to remove themselves from this thinking because it has gone on for so long and it's something that has remained as a criticism even if it is demonstrably false. It's a boy who cried wolf situation, he's finally spent a shit ton of money and nobody believes him even if the evidence is a five minute Google search away.
We've spent a lot, we've mostly spent it well, we're just fucking clueless because we hire random managers that don't align with our vision (because said vision doesn't exist) so our squad looks like someone turned up to a Chinese buffet massively shitfaced and filled their plate with duck and ice cream and covered it all in mustard - I like all these things individually but together it doesn't make much sense.
It doesn't matter how much we spend for dinner if we don't actually know what we want to eat.
Last edited:
fishhhandaricecake
Well-Known Member
- Nov 15, 2018
- 19,354
- 48,358
Fantastic post
Led's Zeppelin
Can't Re Member
- May 28, 2013
- 7,364
- 20,241
Not really. The idea is to be better than your rivals. I couldn’t give a toss about winning a trophy specifically designed for serial losers.
You’re being realistic about our failures. You criticise ENIC and Levy for all their many shortcomings, and that’s all perfectly legitimate because shit, we failed to qualify for any European competition, and played the worst, most boring, unadventurous, dull, inept and unambitious football I ever remember Spurs playing. So your criticism is perfectly valid.
But West Ham were worse.
They won a genuinely tin-pot competition and the fact that it was their best day out in a lifetime just tells you how shite they’ve been for a lifetime.
Conte took us to 4th and kept us there - despite the owenrs, despite the perception / critcism of his neagtive football (we scored 112 goals in his 56 prem games - Liverpool 113, Woolwich 115 and City 150), despite losing three close friends in a short space of time (1 of them a coach at our club and I still believe that had a massive impact on the attitude / performance thereafter of some players) and despite suffering his own health issues.
The bad decsion wasn't hiring Conte, it was not making the steller singings you now say Ange needs to compete with top 6 - an opinion I don't disagree with.
Winning a cup better teams aren’t eligible for (on account of them being better) is a very odd concept.
who won the Papa Johns Trophy btw?
Led's Zeppelin
Can't Re Member
- May 28, 2013
- 7,364
- 20,241
It’s true though isn’t it?
true. But we live in a weird time where Harry Kane sees the bundesliga as worth winning ahead of playing in the best league in the world.
the idiots on soccer Saturday even raised whether Arsenal or West Ham had a better season and said it was genuinely debateable.
