Premier League squad cost

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
Vegas Claret
Posts: 30275
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10917 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Premier League squad cost

Post by Vegas Claret » Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:39 am

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

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by Zlatan » Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:24 am

Of course it’s a thing that kids have trouble understanding, but this helps highlight it.

The difference between cost and value
This user liked this post: Boss Hogg

Ptgclaret
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:31 am
Been Liked: 21 times
Has Liked: 5 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by Ptgclaret » Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:40 am

We're deffinately punching then.

jojomk1
Posts: 4735
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 836 times
Has Liked: 574 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by jojomk1 » Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:59 am

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.

claptrappers_union
Posts: 5758
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 1747 times
Has Liked: 345 times
Location: The Banana Stand

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by claptrappers_union » Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:08 am

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.

tarkys_ears
Posts: 4237
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
Been Liked: 1016 times
Has Liked: 1484 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by tarkys_ears » Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:12 am

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.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by Zlatan » Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:01 am

tarkys_ears wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:12 am
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.
as if to prove a point...

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

CombatClaret
Posts: 4381
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
Been Liked: 1825 times
Has Liked: 929 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by CombatClaret » Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:15 am

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.

tarkys_ears
Posts: 4237
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
Been Liked: 1016 times
Has Liked: 1484 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by tarkys_ears » Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:18 am

Zlatan wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:01 am
as if to prove a point...

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.
Still rings true

dibraidio
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 3:34 pm
Been Liked: 505 times
Has Liked: 143 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by dibraidio » Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:49 am

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.

Dyched
Posts: 5939
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:34 am
Been Liked: 1921 times
Has Liked: 446 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by Dyched » Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:53 am

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.

jojomk1
Posts: 4735
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 836 times
Has Liked: 574 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by jojomk1 » Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:19 am

Zlatan wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:01 am
as if to prove a point...

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.
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

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by Paul Waine » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:45 pm

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

Burnleyareback2
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
Been Liked: 772 times
Has Liked: 1426 times
Location: Mostly Europe

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by Burnleyareback2 » Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:07 pm

Southampton?

Dyched
Posts: 5939
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:34 am
Been Liked: 1921 times
Has Liked: 446 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by Dyched » Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:14 pm

Burnleyareback2 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:07 pm
Southampton?
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

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Premier League squad cost

Post by dsr » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:11 am

jojomk1 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:19 am
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
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

Post Reply