Hahahahaha! The nerve of Moron! He truly is a nasty prick.

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-boss-jose-mourinho-accuses-arsenal-manchester-united-and-city-of-trying-to-buy-the-premier-league-title-10416580.html

Bear in mind not all of them have managed for 10 years straight.

Wenger has nearly spent as much as Ferguson.

That's outgoings only ya big mug.

It says spendings.

Although Ferguson supposedly spent that over 9 years whereas Wenger supposedly spent it over 10 years.
Of course Ferguson has a lot more to show for it.

shrug We know Arsenal has spent a hell of a lot less nett than any side that has won the league since the Invincibles.

Ferguson's stats will always be somewhat flattered by the £65m he turned around on Ronaldo, but he was a big spender.

Here's the last five years incidentally, we're gaining on the field and spending a lot more now than during the "youth project" era:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons

Thats always the qualifier isn't it, United's balance only looks better because of Ronaldo Chelsea's because of Luiz and Sp**s because of Bale, can't see how it changes the point.

Well what is the point then? The actual cold hard facts are:

1. We have spent less than United, less than City and less than Chelsea
2. The infographic above is spurious because it records gross, not nett spend, and it counts fees across multiple clubs for the likes of Mancini and Mourinho.

I don't see much mealy-mouthed qualification here.

Unless you're referring to the tortuous misrepresentation required to contrive any wisp of a hope of a dream of a thought of a semblance that we've rivalled the nett transfer and wages expenditure of clubs that have actually won the Premier League during the period 04-14. 

:ffs:

outgoings is relevant because if you spend 400m and have to sell your best players then you're either going to at best run in place or get worse. the team that spends 400m but has a net spending of 200m should have more talent in the squad than the team that spends 400m in the same period but has a net spending of 0 or in the negative. i'm sure you know that though.

I can understand Biggus' logic. It doesn't matter what the nett transfer is if you're looking at what kind of quality you bought. However, the main flaw in that perspective is that players going out represents loss of quality from the club- and when that quality are the likes of Cesc, Nasri, RVP, Hleb etc the difference is telling.

Biggus wrote:

Wenger has nearly spent as much as Ferguson.

True - but let's actually spend some time to think things through.

Wenger's maximum spend has come within the past two years, post Ferguson - his total over 10 years is €428 or £303. Prior to the summer of 2013, our highest transfer fee was around 16m and we very rarely spent more than 30m a summer.

Meanwhile, over 10 years, Manchester United as a club have spent £542m or €764. Source: http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/13/liverpool-have-spent-more-transfer-money-in-last-10-years-than-manchester-united-but-are-still-lagging-behind-red-devils-4985566/ (This does not take into account the current summer)

This would make Manchester United managers/coaches the third biggest spenders on the list.

The difference between Arsenal and United is therefore around £230m/€336 which is similar to the gap between Ferguson and Pellegrini/Mancini.

The fact that van Gaal's name is in there despite spending most of his time managing the Netherlands national team and AZ Alkmaar (where is resources have been limited) sums it up.

I know you mistrust stats and numbers, and it's easy to see why if you're not willing to look at the context behind them.

It's easy to see why you'd mistrust stats and numbers if your first instinct when faced with some straightforward facts about our overall level of spending is to try to massage the numbers to make it look like we're up there with United.

Burnwinter wrote:

It's easy to see why you'd mistrust stats and numbers if your first instinct when faced with some straightforward facts about our overall level of spending is to try to massage the numbers to make it look like Arsene was, is and will continue to be a flop with no excuse at all.

Fixed for ya.

Burnwinter wrote:

Well what is the point then? The actual cold hard facts are:

1. We have spent less than United, less than City and less than Chelsea
2. The infographic above is spurious because it records gross, not nett spend, and it counts fees across multiple clubs for the likes of Mancini and Mourinho.

I don't see much mealy-mouthed qualification here.

Unless you're referring to the tortuous misrepresentation required to contrive any wisp of a hope of a dream of a thought of a semblance that we've rivalled the nett transfer and wages expenditure of clubs that have actually won the Premier League during the period 04-14. 

:ffs:

Of course it is tabloid and simplistic and I make no claims  as to its truth.
You know my views well enough by now Burnsy- Spending like a drunken sailor never guarantees success- I reject that notion and i commend Wenger for his caution, however he has taken a virtue too far and it has hardened into a dogmatic dictum.
The reason he appears to have spent so much is that he has spent much of it on his projects, which were by and large 50/50.
I believe money is a secondary issue in the ability of a club to gain success, the history of the game is built on teams who time and again punch above their weigh due to the genius of their manager.
Wenger was one such manager 10 years ago but as they say time and tide wait for no man.

Game has been all about money for the last decade at least. There won't be a Nottingham Forest in a CL final, a Southampton winning the league, or anything like that anytime soon. Money and Bosman.

Look at Southampton and the players they have produced in the last decade; they have had players coming through like Bale, Walcott, Chambo, Lallana, Schneiderlin, Clyne, Shaw and Chambers. There are more good players too actually. 15-20 years ago they would have been able to keep most of those players around, and they would have most likely have been a top PL side for it. That doesn't happen anymore. Any half decent player is bought by a bigger club as soon as he shows a bit of promise, and earning triple the amount the smaller club can offer certainly helps. Before Bosman, clubs also got a transfer fee for a player sold whose contract had run out.

Biggus wrote:

The reason he appears to have spent so much is that he has spent much of it on his projects, which were by and large 50/50.

Twisting it nicely. 

Wenger has spent "so much" (ie significantly less than our rivals) because that's the requirement to achieve the results we've achieved. In the post-Abramovich era our league position, and every other top club's has been closely consistent with expenditure. We've been over this dozens of times so I'm not going to cite chapter and verse, just look it up. 

It's true a fraction of our overall outgoings could be reasonably traced back to "project" players. Perhaps a greater fraction than that of our rivals, since after all the difference has been that they've been spending more money on the same size squad and have consequently signed older, more expensive and more established players.

To win the title you absolutely have to buy it, the only question is how efficiently you can do so. 

I've had it with this by the way, the above will be my last post on that stupid infographic. Apologies for the grouchiness, it's all just so very old hat.