MONEY

1992 -2007 (transfer) spending of (wannabe)-topclubs:

interesting stuff pretty comprehensive (looks pretty accurate, checked the Arsenal figures)

http://biawc.110mb.com/

(there are tabs at the bottom for club details, had to laugh about a few old transfers I forgot)

2008: De Guzman's year wrote:1992 -2007 (transfer) spending of (wannabe)-topclubs:

interesting stuff pretty comprehensive (looks pretty accurate, checked the Arsenal figures)

http://biawc.110mb.com/

(there are tabs at the bottom for club details, had to laugh about a few old transfers I forgot)

They're full of poo at Liverpool. Take into account the ridiculous prices extracted out of Roman, it's pretty even apart from Arsenal.

Wenger did great financially, but I sometimes would prefer he would spent a little more on proven/older players.

IT's crazy how Chelsea in just 4 or so years jumped up and doubled net spending on everyone else.

I've not had time to completely take this to pieces yet but on first look the facts are fairly inconsistent. Some of the transfer fees are inflated while others are trimmed. The name of the website (Benitez is a whinging c**t) should give you some idea which way the bias is tapered.

Talib Kweli wrote:I've not had time to completely take this to pieces yet but on first look the facts are fairly inconsistent. Some of the transfer fees are inflated while others are trimmed. The name of the website (Benitez is a whinging c**t) should give you some idea which way the bias is tapered.

There is bias in what they are trying to prove, but the figures are mostly accurate, and it's a correct reflection of what has happenend. So i don't see how the bias changes anything.

Talib Kweli wrote:I've not had time to completely take this to pieces yet but on first look the facts are fairly inconsistent. Some of the transfer fees are inflated while others are trimmed. The name of the website (Benitez is a whinging c**t) should give you some idea which way the bias is tapered.

there is a reference to the bottom (where he got the figures from)

L r d wrote:

Talib Kweli wrote:I've not had time to completely take this to pieces yet but on first look the facts are fairly inconsistent. Some of the transfer fees are inflated while others are trimmed. The name of the website (Benitez is a whinging c**t) should give you some idea which way the bias is tapered.

There is bias in what they are trying to prove, but the figures are mostly accurate, and it's a correct reflection of what has happenend. So i don't see how the bias changes anything.

yep think the general picture is fine.

2008: De Guzman's year wrote:1992 -2007 (transfer) spending of (wannabe)-topclubs:

interesting stuff pretty comprehensive (looks pretty accurate, checked the Arsenal figures)

http://biawc.110mb.com/

(there are tabs at the bottom for club details, had to laugh about a few old transfers I forgot)

just checked our transfer activity in 2006:

the cashley deal = Gallas + adebayor + Diaby


great piece of business by Le Boss

L r d wrote:

Talib Kweli wrote:I've not had time to completely take this to pieces yet but on first look the facts are fairly inconsistent. Some of the transfer fees are inflated while others are trimmed. The name of the website (Benitez is a whinging c**t) should give you some idea which way the bias is tapered.

There is bias in what they are trying to prove, but the figures are mostly accurate, and it's a correct reflection of what has happenend. So i don't see how the bias changes anything.

the bias makes a difference, shaving or adding 10% here and there all adds up. Not to mention the Obi deal and several inconsistent guesstimates. The bias makes it impossible to take any of it seriously or count it as reliable in any way. Any similarity that study has with the truth is purely circumstantial.

Mostly accurate isn't good enough.

Talib Kweli wrote:

L r d wrote:

Talib Kweli wrote:I've not had time to completely take this to pieces yet but on first look the facts are fairly inconsistent. Some of the transfer fees are inflated while others are trimmed. The name of the website (Benitez is a whinging c**t) should give you some idea which way the bias is tapered.

There is bias in what they are trying to prove, but the figures are mostly accurate, and it's a correct reflection of what has happenend. So i don't see how the bias changes anything.

the bias makes a difference, shaving or adding 10% here and there all adds up. Not to mention the Obi deal and several inconsistent guesstimates. The bias makes it impossible to take any of it seriously or count it as reliable in any way. Any similarity that study has with the truth is purely circumstantial.

Mostly accurate isn't good enough.

The Obi deal is accurate. It was well documented that man utd recieved 12 mill from chelsea. There is only 1 or 2 cases where they have possibly shaved 10% actually less than that, and even there they are probably correct. Any minor differences don't change much in the context of things. Maybe you take issue with them calling Benitez a whiny c**t, well email them about that, don't dispute corrext figures

The name of the website is a 100% true statement.

L r d wrote:

The Obi deal is accurate. It was well documented that man utd recieved 12 mill from chelsea. There is only 1 or 2 cases where they have possibly shaved 10% actually less than that, and even there they are probably correct. Any minor differences don't change much in the context of things. Maybe you take issue with them calling Benitez a whiny c**t, well email them about that, don't dispute corrext figures

I thought United paid £4m for Mikel? There's no mention of that there. I disagree lrd, the differences on there own may be minor but when added together amount to a significant sum. The name of the website does little to add to the credibility of the "facts"

In the end we didnt Chelsea paid 16 m for him 12 to us 4 to Lyn.

the £4m to Lyn was merely compensation.

So far, he's been worth the hassle we went through to 'sign' him. Just needs to keep his discipline under control, but like Fabregas he's still v young, I'm sure they'll both improve this area as they mature.

robert wrote:IT's crazy how Chelsea in just 4 or so years jumped up and doubled net spending on everyone else.

We did buy an entire squad though. The foundations were already there at the other big 3 clubs.

PS. Shows you how little Fergie spent on most of his squad. If my calculations are right, you spent about £110-120m on 4 players, so £40m on the rest over 15 years can't be bad.