I think you have to look at it another way too, how much they've earned from achieveing the position they did. For example, United spent 400k a point, but won the title and will have recovered/profited a ton from that.
Is this Net Spend? Or just money spent on transfers regardless of player sales?
Liverpool are catching us up.
has to be net spend or Spurs would of spent close 900,000 per point
6. West Brom - £0-spent-per-point
That is only based on last years transfer activity then, surely?
Spurs
They have spent 500m and have 2 mickey mouse cups to show for it.
Spurs also made a loss last year.
You feckers still dont make top 4 whatever spin you want to put on the table.
So Tottenham can't make CL this way either then
Good luck with the new stadium made of balsa wood
I guess teams like Chelsea, it's no big deal. If you can afford to spend that much per point and you get enough of them to get 3rd, then go for it. It's much more worrying for a team like Southampton (though would sacking Adkins have taken a chunk out of this) Surprised City's is as low as it is tbh
More revealing would be looking at the relationship between total expenditure (including wages) and points total, ideally over a period of time, since there is fluctuation in transfer expenditure from window to window.
comment by meltonblue (U10617) posted 6 minutes ago
That is only based on last years transfer activity then, surely?
-------------------------------
I was thinking that
It renders it pointless
It's the points less that hurt Spurs
This includes players sold after the 2011/2012 season
Just putting the finishing touches on Tiny Totts new stadium
http://s10.postimg.org/d8tivrak9/dhbkig.jpg
You can't play football on a baseball ground
Unless you're Derby 20 years ago
Mr C, if Spurs spent £100m a season, I'm sure we'd finish in the top4 every year.
2013-The year new & obscure ways are found to justify finishing 5th in the league. Call me old fashioned, but I always thought the aim of this beautiful game of ours was to win trophies?
I wonder what the overall figures would be, I'll even say from the beginning of the PL, are for per trophy?
2013-The year new & obscure ways are found to justify finishing 5th in the league. Call me old fashioned, but I always thought the aim of this beautiful game of ours was to win trophies?
----------
Bit rich coming from a Liverpool fan, no? You out spent us and finished 8th.
Sign in if you want to comment
Alternative view of the PL table (£s/Pts)
Page 1 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 22/5/13
I think you have to look at it another way too, how much they've earned from achieveing the position they did. For example, United spent 400k a point, but won the title and will have recovered/profited a ton from that.
posted on 22/5/13
Is this Net Spend? Or just money spent on transfers regardless of player sales?
posted on 22/5/13
Liverpool are catching us up.
posted on 22/5/13
LAL
posted on 22/5/13
has to be net spend or Spurs would of spent close 900,000 per point
posted on 22/5/13
6. West Brom - £0-spent-per-point
posted on 22/5/13
That is only based on last years transfer activity then, surely?
posted on 22/5/13
I spent feck all
posted on 22/5/13
Spurs
They have spent 500m and have 2 mickey mouse cups to show for it.
Spurs also made a loss last year.
posted on 22/5/13
You feckers still dont make top 4 whatever spin you want to put on the table.
posted on 22/5/13
So Tottenham can't make CL this way either then
posted on 22/5/13
Good luck with the new stadium made of balsa wood
posted on 22/5/13
I guess teams like Chelsea, it's no big deal. If you can afford to spend that much per point and you get enough of them to get 3rd, then go for it. It's much more worrying for a team like Southampton (though would sacking Adkins have taken a chunk out of this) Surprised City's is as low as it is tbh
posted on 22/5/13
More revealing would be looking at the relationship between total expenditure (including wages) and points total, ideally over a period of time, since there is fluctuation in transfer expenditure from window to window.
posted on 22/5/13
Lool spurs
posted on 22/5/13
comment by meltonblue (U10617) posted 6 minutes ago
That is only based on last years transfer activity then, surely?
-------------------------------
I was thinking that
It renders it pointless
posted on 22/5/13
Mr. C!
posted on 22/5/13
It's the points less that hurt Spurs
posted on 22/5/13
This includes players sold after the 2011/2012 season
posted on 22/5/13
Just putting the finishing touches on Tiny Totts new stadium
http://s10.postimg.org/d8tivrak9/dhbkig.jpg
posted on 22/5/13
You can't play football on a baseball ground
Unless you're Derby 20 years ago
posted on 22/5/13
Mr Chelsea
posted on 22/5/13
Mr C, if Spurs spent £100m a season, I'm sure we'd finish in the top4 every year.
posted on 22/5/13
2013-The year new & obscure ways are found to justify finishing 5th in the league. Call me old fashioned, but I always thought the aim of this beautiful game of ours was to win trophies?
I wonder what the overall figures would be, I'll even say from the beginning of the PL, are for per trophy?
posted on 22/5/13
2013-The year new & obscure ways are found to justify finishing 5th in the league. Call me old fashioned, but I always thought the aim of this beautiful game of ours was to win trophies?
----------
Bit rich coming from a Liverpool fan, no? You out spent us and finished 8th.
Page 1 of 7
6 | 7