(Admin could you post this to the Man city, Arsenal and Liverpool boards as well... Thanks )
Taking a look back at THIS window, now that all is done and dusted, it turns out that other than City, none of the top sides actually spent any meaningful amount of money in the window (relative to their income).
So much for PL spending power
Arsenal
In
Cech 9.8m
Out
Podolski 2m
Szczesny Loan
Net - 7.8m
Liverpool
In
Benteke 32.7m
Firmino 28.8m
Clyne 12.4m
Gomez 3.3m
Milner Free
Ings Free?
Out
Sterling 49m
Borini 9.8m
Aspas 4m
Lambert 3.3m
Coates 2m
Balotelli Loan
Gerrard Free
Johnson Free
Net spent - 9.1m Think about that when laying into Rodgers next time...
ManU
In
Martial 36m
Memphis 28m
Schneiderlin 25m
Darmain 12.4m
Schweinsteger 6.5m
Romero free
Out
Di Maria 44.4m
Chicha 7.2m
Evans 8m
Nani 4.6m
RvP 3.9m
Rafael 2.6m
Januzaj Loan
Blackett Loan
Cleverly Free
Net spent 37.2m Thought the world said we broke the bank and are spending like maniacs....
Chelsea
In
Pedro 21.6m
Baba Rahman 17.6m
Begovic 7.8m
Kenedy 6.5m
Djilobodji 4m
Falcao Loan
Out
Luis 15m
Cech 9.8m
Romeu 5.2m
Kakuta 3.3m
Cuadrado Loan
Salah Loan
Drogba free
Net spent - 24.4m ... The kind of money Roman's Ex uses to wipe her bum...
Man city
In
De Bryne 55m
Sterling 49m
Otamendi 32m
Roberts 11.8m
Delph 7.8m
Out
Negredo 20.9m
Lopes 9.2m
Sinclair 3.2m
Boyata 2m
Milner Free
Lampard Free
Dzeko Loan
Jovetic Loan
Net spent - 120.3m Hmm... The consensus is that City has had a great window... Maybe if the other teams also got to spend a net of 120M , we'd all have had great windows too... Ok maybe not United That being said, City seem to have brought in quality.
Source of player prices: ESPN I believe they are mostly accurate or at least in the right ball park... Feel free to point out any errors or omissions
So what do you all think about your teams business over this window??
From a United perspective, while there's quite a bit of pessimism around, I still think we did OK. Compared with last season, we are on par in the GK dept. (not really by design ), better in defense (with Darmian settling well and Smalling/Shaw starting to put in a shift), much better in midfield and on par in attack imo, as RvP was decaying rotten wood, Falcoa was worse than a mule and Chicha was off in Madrid.
Transfer window blues
posted on 2/9/15
comment by helvellyn spur (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
Memphis_bleek
You have done an article transfers in and outs and have included Liverpool and not Spurs, who regularly finish above Liverpool. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i wouldn't call 5 times in 10 years regularly, ya muppet
posted on 2/9/15
comment by Keep It Greasey (U1396)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by helvellyn spur (U20567)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
Memphis_bleek
You have done an article transfers in and outs and have included Liverpool and not Spurs, who regularly finish above Liverpool. Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i wouldn't call 5 times in 10 years regularly, ya muppet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 out of the last 6 though is pretty regular
posted on 2/9/15
Don't think I've seen a single article suggest that Schweinsteiger was bought for less than 15m where's 6.5m come from?
posted on 2/9/15
comment by °°° Say My Name °°° (U18558)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
To be fair Rodgers could spend a lot more and it still wouldn't make any difference. He'd still be the worst manager in Liverpool history having been the only one to not win a trophy in 3 seasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obsessed.
posted on 2/9/15
As mentioned, you only have to look at the current PL standings, performances, goals scored, goals conceded and points accumulated to see whether spending money, regardless of how much, makes your team perform better.
In spite of this, after 4 games, it'd be folly to think that's how the season will pan out with regards to positions, points, individual player performances etc.
Guess we'll know more come Jan/Feb time as to who spent well and who should have bought more players.
posted on 2/9/15
City's spend is a reflection on what the owners are truly aiming for which is CL success. The rest of those clubs spends reflect theirs securing a top 4 place.
posted on 2/9/15
If people want to start putting up loan fees then Chelsea with 33 players on loan would probably have a negative net spend.
There's a limit to how precise you can get with these articles. The best people can do is make rough estimates and draw conclusions on that. What this article is trying to say is that City have spent far more than any of their competitors (which is true) on improving their first team squad. They've reaped some dividends already and it looks like they're on course for a strong season.
Other teams have made minor improvements (only City have bought 3 players for over £30m) and it looks like they'll be playing catch up.
posted on 2/9/15
You forgot -
Chelsea in:
Nathan - £4.5m
Hector - £4m
Chelsea out:
T. Hazard - £6m
+ Plus the other 31 on loan.
posted on 2/9/15
United have had a dreadful window,two NFL players seen one of them he has one trick, what will Martial bring ?not much more I suspect
Theres a retired german with his deckchair out on his holidays,a standard dogsbody from Southampton and the strange full back who pokes at peoples faces and gets booked a lot
posted on 2/9/15
The BBC, who I believe are British, had our net spend at £90m.