No
Last edited:
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Do you have wage bills too? Always think that’s an even better gauge
Do you have a point?
Premier League wage bills:
Chelsea – £212,090,000Manchester United – £211,875,000
Manchester City – £182,640,000
Liverpool – £158,788,000
Tottenham – £110,438,000
Woolwich – £97,878,000
Aston Villa – £89,880,000
Everton – £80,707,000
West Ham – £80,060,000
Newcastle – £76,220,000
Leicester – £73,190,000
Crystal Palace – £67,624,000
Nottingham Forest – £67,460,000
Fulham – £56,668,000
Wolves – £52,702,000
Southampton – £51,496,000
Leeds United – £48,100,000
Bournemouth – £42,276,000
Brighton – £35,685,000
Brentford – £30,170,000
As expected, also miles behind the first 4 in wages
It's also clear to see that Brentford & Brighton (the 'Br Brothers' if you will) are punching well above their weight!!!
Also it's evident (in Everton & Leiectsers case) that half decent spending doesn't guarantee you half decent league position!
We are simply an anomaly to everything statistics are supposed to tell you!
These figures are not net spend, so don't really mean much. There are lots of other different aspects to clubs finances. Wages, income (gate money, TV money, sponsorship etc.). Plus, you have some 'imaginative' accounting used by certain clubs. Here are more figures, which again don't mean a lot, on there own.
Premier League Net Spend 2022/23 |
| Club | Money Spent | Money Received | Net Spend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chelsea | £540.53m | £59.96m | £480.57m |
| Manchester United | £215.05m | £11.71m | £203.34m |
| Newcastle United | £163.84m | £2.03m | £161.81m |
| Nottingham Forest | £162.87m | £6.19m | £156.68m |
| West Ham | £171.49m | £19.05m | £152.44m |
| Woolwich | £170.04m | £21.04m | £149.00m |
| Tottenham | £157.25m | £34.25m | £123.00m |
| Southampton | £127.00m | £4.86m | £122.14m |
| Wolves | £156.55m | £53.36m | £103.19m |
| Bournemouth | £73.46m | £0m | £73.46m |
| Liverpool | £121.39m | £71.35m | £50.04m |
| Fulham | £62.32m | £18.48m | £43.85m |
| Brentford | £45.53m | £3.18m | £42.35m |
| Aston Villa | £88.53m | £47.74m | £40.79m |
| Crystal Palace | £41.20m | £4.83m | £36.38m |
| Leeds United | £128.67m | £100.35m | £28.33m |
| Manchester City | £133.03m | £141.34m | -£8.31m |
| Everton | £69.13m | £103.60m | -£22.45m |
| Leicester City | £42.43m | £71.96m | -£29.53m |
| Brighton | £49.27m | £121.91m | -£72.64m |
By what metric would one expect us to outspend richer clubs?
You would have to stretch that. For example City have spend over £1bn net but due to the huge squad they built but have had quite low spend last few seasons as the squad has already been put together.
Only thing that stands out for me is clubs with small stadiums and historically smaller fanbases like City and Chelsea spending miles above what they should be due to doping. Other teams mostly spending par for the course.
Yes, but my point was the cost of the squad doesn't really mean much taken on it's own. Remember the season we spent nearly 100m on 5 or 6 players after the sale of Bale. In effect, we spent nothing, we just swapped one player for six.
By the same token, you just made the same argument I did.....
1 year net doesn't depict much at all....
Unless we are to indulge the idea that Man City are paupers?
The figures for Man City are a snapshot. They have spent several seasons, and loads of money, acquiring a world class squad. There isn't a great deal you can do to improve it, just the odd tweak every season for now.
Interesting stats. No idea how true they are. But…The recruitment we really need for a to exit the ENIC clowns and bring in Brighton’s entire leadership.
Our revenue is comparable with Chelsea and Liverpool - slightly less but not by the wage delta shown
It won’t matter whilst Levy and Cullen are at the helm. A toxic corporation, built on distrust, cheap value and speculative luck and no accountability. Lack of strategy and poor leadership, coupled with a culture of failure.
Without doubt, Klopp/Pep wouldn’t last two years whether we recruit BHA’s entire football staff (assuming the disgusting bald miser is at the helm surrounded by the echo chamber of toxicity).
Wonder if there's a metric like total wages divided by minutes played for the club. Basically, a way of seeing how much a club spends on wages that are actually contributing to the club's on-pitch performance. I suspect that a sizeable chunk of what we spend is on loan elsewhere.
No shit!!
With all due respect, that's not a strategy in any meaningful sense and we've literally just seen the Chavs attempt each aspect of it and fail (inc the new spendy ownership).
Much like 'be like Brentford', 'be like City' or the classic 'be like Dortmund' won't wholesale translate either........ Of course there are good practices we can seek to emulate, but a club must devise an approach which is bespoke to their specific predicament/needs/goals. We had a model that was working for us for a while but along the way; the game changed and/or we deviated..... It's up to us to come up with new solutions to evolving problems.
In the broadest terms; our quest remains the same.... Find a way to punch above our weight...... Get the 6th/7th richest club in the league consolidated as a contender and not just an occasional top 4 team.
Last edited:
Then Brighton are the model to emulate. Astonishing return against outlay.