Transfer League 2006-2011

flahavaj

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html

Let the fun and games begin.

City runaway winners unsurprisingly.

Frisbee

Looking at that every night before he goes to sleep is what makes Wenger happy.

L'prof

That's relegation form from us there, shocking stuff

tommyhaas

Goes to show just how well Utd, Arsenal and Everton have done without spending big. Conversely, Spurs, Villa and Sunderland have done quiet poorly in this regard

L'prof

tommyhaas wrote: »

Goes to show just how well Utd, Arsenal and Everton have done without spending big. Conversely, Spurs, Villa and Sunderland have done quiet poorly in this regard

In fairness though, the Ronaldo money drove United down that table. They have spent the 5th most in the league!

Paul Tergat

L'prof wrote: »

In fairness though, the Ronaldo money drove United down that table. They have spent the 5th most in the league!

I was just about to post in before the Ronaldo money skews the figures stupid argument that people always come out with

edit: going to qualify it by saying that its net spend thats important, not gross spend

Pauleta

Jaysis the amount of money Martin O'Neill wasted at Villa was astonishing and it was clear that if had stayed on this season they still would of had a pants season anyway.

tommyhaas

L'prof wrote: »

In fairness though, the Ronaldo money drove United down that table. They have spent the 5th most in the league!

But its not about spending, it's about net profit. Part of being shrewd in the market involves selling players at the right time, as well as just buying, something Wenger has done well over the years

To discount the Ronaldo money would be lead to an inaccurate table. Utd lost an exceptional player for huge money, didn't spend massively on a replacement yet still maintained their status as the best side in the league

L'prof

p_larkin99 wrote: »

I was just about to post in before the Ronaldo money skews the figures stupid argument that people always come out with

How clever.

p_larkin99 wrote: »

going to qualify it by saying that its net spend thats important, not gross spend

I'm not disagreeing, just being pedantic! Net spend isn't the be all and end all though. When you already have a very good base of players, it's easier to generate cash for new signings by selling some dead wood.

Paul Tergat

L'prof wrote: »

How clever.

I edited my post to make it look like I wasnt just being a twat about it, its just really tiresome

L'prof wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing, just being pedantic! Net spend isn't the be all and end all though. When you already have a very good base of players, it's easier to generate cash for new signings by selling some dead wood.

Agree with this yeah, but if we are to apply context I'm sure you will agree that the way United have done this is to run the club properly and its not as if we are spending beyond our means. The solid base was built on us generating high revenue - success - good youth development cycle. I think our ability to generate money shouldn't be a factor in saying that net spend isn't the most important thing.

tommyhaas

L'prof wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing, just being pedantic! Net spend isn't the be all and end all though. When you already have a very good base of players, it's easier to generate cash for new signings by selling some dead wood.

Its all relative though, those players had to get there in the first place, which means they were either bought ie increase in spending or brought through the ranks ie no transfer money spent on them. The net spend IMO is an accurate reflection on how a club is run. In Utd's case in particular, it demonstrates how good a job SAF has done while also showing how much of a drain on the club the Glaziers are

If you were to discount the Ronaldo money for Utd, you could by the same logic discount the Torres money from the Chelsea figures

L'prof

p_larkin99 wrote: »

Agree with this yeah, but if we are to apply context I'm sure you will agree that the way United have done this is to run the club properly and its not as if we are spending beyond our means. The solid base was built on us generating high revenue - success - good youth development cycle. I think our ability to generate money shouldn't be a factor in saying that net spend isn't the most important thing.

I'm not sure they've always done it this way though, have they? They've never exactly been shy in the transfer market and even in recent seasons (under the financial strain the Glazier debt put them under), they've thrown money around. I'm not saying they massively overspend, but they have done so.

Helix

Pauleta wrote: »

Jaysis the amount of money Martin O'Neill wasted at Villa was astonishing and it was clear that if had stayed on this season they still would of had a pants season anyway.

youd be amazed by the amount of people who don't realise that either

and that's just transfer fees

it doesnt take into account the £55k he put emile heskey and steve sidwell on per week, or the £40k he put a 30 year old habib beye on when he signed him as backup on a 3 year deal

even that doesnt scratch the surface

Paul Tergat

L'prof wrote: »

I'm not sure they've always done it this way though, have they? They've never exactly been shy in the transfer market and even in recent seasons (under the financial strain the Glazier debt put them under), they've thrown money around. I'm not saying they massively overspend, but they have done so.

So you think the club hasnt been run well over the premiership years and we have spent beyond our means?

L'prof

p_larkin99 wrote: »

So you think the club hasnt been run well over the premiership years and we have spent beyond our means?

Not what I was saying exactly, but I do think that ye've spent beyond yer means, but as I said already not overly so!

Gonzovision

Had no idea Spurs had spent that much.

Paul Tergat

L'prof wrote: »

Not what I was saying exactly, but I do think that ye've spent beyond yer means, but as I said already not overly so!

Sorry if this is going OT and ill make this my last post on it.

I dont get how you can say that we have spent beyond our means - we havent spent money that we didnt have, we have (prior to Glaziers) been really healthy financially and spent what we made. That to me is very much spending withing our means.

All coming back to the original point though, for me its a non-argument to use the high figure and use it against us.

L'prof

p_larkin99 wrote: »

I dont get how you can say that we have spent beyond our means - we havent spent money that we didnt have, we have (prior to Glaziers) been really healthy financially and spent what we made. That to me is very much spending withing our means.

So United were debt free before the Glazers arrived?

eagle eye

Pauleta wrote: »

Jaysis the amount of money Martin O'Neill wasted at Villa was astonishing and it was clear that if had stayed on this season they still would of had a pants season anyway.

Prove it or gtfo. And I know you can't and there is no way of knowing how Villa would have done with O'Neill in charge. FFS he finished 6th three years on the trot. Ridiculous statement.

Helix

eagle eye wrote: »

Prove it or gtfo. And I know you can't and there is no way of knowing how Villa would have done with O'Neill in charge. FFS he finished 6th three years on the trot. Ridiculous statement.

its not a ridiculous statement, there were signs at the end of last season that things were about to go tits up from a defensive point of view. mon assembled one of the most expensive squads of middle of the road british players ever seen in the game, the majority of them fast approaching the wrong side of 30, on huge contracts, and a good many of whom he had fallen out with and refused to play.

you asked me where i expected villa to finish under mon before the season started, i said 8-12th, we managed that under houllier, despite the fact that we underwent one of the worst injury crises any team has had in the premiership to date, plus mon's decision to throw his toys out of the pram at a point where he would cause maximum disruption.

if anything we are much better off now than we would have been under mon. we've signed the goal scorer we were so desperate for, we've stopped playing hoofball, and the players are starting to look like they can get the ball down and control the game. we would never have gotten there under o'neill, and every day he was in charge was another day the wage bill spiralled out of control and another day further away from fixing the huge problems his reign brought with them

finishing 6th doesnt even begin to tell the story of the damage that man almost did on villa. ask celtic and leicester fans about the finances at their clubs after he left them too, he's got a reputation for it

Mr. Guappa

eagle eye wrote: »

Prove it or gtfo. And I know you can't and there is no way of knowing how Villa would have done with O'Neill in charge. FFS he finished 6th three years on the trot. Ridiculous statement.

Obviously no one can say how Villa would've done had O'Neill remained in charge but I'd be extremely sceptical that they would have maintained a top-6 place. On paper it looks at first glance that O'Neill did a great job at Villa but if you look more closely you'll see that he left them with a squad of aging/average players on big-money. He didn't build a squad that was set for a sustained run at the top 4.

eagle eye

Helix wrote: »

finishing 6th doesnt even begin to tell the story of the damage that man almost did on villa. ask celtic and leicester fans about the finances at their clubs after he left them too, he's got a reputation for it

I don't really want to get into this much here. But you have a billionaire owner so finance isn't a major problem, well from here on in it is but not last season. The only basis you have to go on with where O'Neill would finish this season is previous performances and then gauge the affect of losing a top player.

And everything points to 6th again because you lost Barry and it didn't change things so he showed he could deal with losing a top player.

Anything else is just wild conjecture and predicting things based on what happened during the season. And there is no reason to believe that Villa would have had the same injury crisis under a different manager. Different tactics, training, formations means that a lot of those injuries are unlikely to have happened. You could have had the same season but based on O'Neill's history with Villa its just ridiculous to predict that.

I don't think there's anything suprising about that table really. Is there?

Mitch Connor

L'prof wrote: »

So United were debt free before the Glazers arrived?

Yes.

eagle eye

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Obviously no one can say how Villa would've done had O'Neill remained in charge but I'd be extremely sceptical that they would have maintained a top-6 place. On paper it looks at first glance that O'Neill did a great job at Villa but if you look more closely you'll see that he left them with a squad of aging/average players on big-money. He didn't build a squad that was set for a sustained run at the top 4.

What?

Cuellar 29, Collins 27, Warnock 29, Clark 21, Downing 26, A. Young 25, Delph 21, Agbonlahor 24. Thats just regular starters under O'Neill and two guys that everyone was expecting to break though in Clark and Delph. Then you have young Reo-Coker who is 27 I think but O'Neill didn't play him much, Albrighton who has come through this year and is very young, Guzan who looks a decent keeper and is only in his mid twenties and Delfouneso who was starting to break through last season as well and there are other young players there too that I can't think of this minute.

And please don't come back pointing out that somebody had a bad or injury prone season because when they were playing for O'Neill they looked decent for most of his time there.

Mr. Guappa

eagle eye wrote: »

What?

Cuellar 29, Collins 27, Warnock 29, Clark 21, Downing 26, A. Young 25, Delph 21, Agbonlahor 24. Thats just regular starters under O'Neill and two guys that everyone was expecting to break though in Clark and Delph. Then you have young Reo-Coker who is 27 I think but O'Neill didn't play him much, Albrighton who has come through this year and is very young, Guzan who looks a decent keeper and is only in his mid twenties and Delfouneso who was starting to break through last season as well and there are other young players there too that I can't think of this minute.

And please don't come back pointing out that somebody had a bad or injury prone season because when they were playing for O'Neill they looked decent for most of his time there.

A.Young and Milner were his two best signings, Downing has only got going at Villa since O'Neill left. Cuellar, Collins and Warnock are nothing more than average players. Take a look at his spending history here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1301712/Buy-buy-Martin-How-ONeill-spent-120million-years-Aston-Villa.html

Some of the notable signings are:
Luke Young £5m
Nigel Reo-Coker 8.5m
Curtis Davies £10m
Steve Sidwell £5.5m
James Collins £5m
Nicky Shorey £4m
Carlos Cuellar £7.8m
Marlon Harewood £3.5m

NONE of those represent value for money.

Pauleta

eagle eye wrote: »

Prove it or gtfo. And I know you can't and there is no way of knowing how Villa would have done with O'Neill in charge. FFS he finished 6th three years on the trot. Ridiculous statement.

When he did jump ship there were loads of players coming out of the woodwork to stick the knife in and there reports of celebrations in the dressing room. He lost the team. They dont seem like a likable bunch in fairness but that team were going nowhere fast.

Le King

L'prof wrote: »

In fairness though, the Ronaldo money drove United down that table. They have spent the 5th most in the league!

Don't understand this skewing figures rubbish. The £80 Million was representative of his value at the time. Then someone takes away the £80 Million and says we should be 5th. Unreal stuff.

Anyway to have a go, for some.

eagle eye

Le King wrote: »

Don't understand this skewing figures rubbish. The £80 Million was representative of his value at the time. Then someone takes away the £80 Million and says we should be 5th. Unreal stuff.

Anyway to have a go, for some.

It doesn't even matter whether he was worth it or not. Fact is United bought and sold him for a very big profit just like every other club has done. Lets take Adebayor out of the Arsenal figures and they won't be looking as good. Lets take out Alonso from the Liverpool figures and they won't look the same. Or Berbatov from the Spurs figures or RSC from the Blackburn Rovers figures, Lescott from Evertons total and on and on. Just because they got so much for him means diddly squat, they sold him and it makes the assessment true.

Pauleta

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

A.Young and Milner were his two best signings, Downing has only got going at Villa since O'Neill left. Cuellar, Collins and Warnock are nothing more than average players. Take a look at his spending history here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1301712/Buy-buy-Martin-How-ONeill-spent-120million-years-Aston-Villa.html

Some of the notable signings are:
Luke Young £5m
Nigel Reo-Coker 8.5m
Curtis Davies £10m
Steve Sidwell £5.5m
James Collins £5m
Nicky Shorey £4m
Carlos Cuellar £7.8m
Marlon Harewood £3.5m

NONE of those represent value for money.

Plus Stephen Ireland was worth around 8 million of the Milner deal.

invinciblePRSTV

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

A.Young and Milner were his two best signings, Downing has only got going at Villa since O'Neill left. Cuellar, Collins and Warnock are nothing more than average players. Take a look at his spending history here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1301712/Buy-buy-Martin-How-ONeill-spent-120million-years-Aston-Villa.html

Some of the notable signings are:
Luke Young £5m
Nigel Reo-Coker 8.5m
Curtis Davies £10m
Steve Sidwell £5.5m
James Collins £5m
Nicky Shorey £4m
Carlos Cuellar £7.8m
Marlon Harewood £3.5m

NONE of those represent value for money.

L Young & NRC did represent value for money, it's just old monny fell out with both of them. Cuellar is decent if unspectacular. The rest have veered between occasionally decent (Collins & Warnock), anonymous (Sidwell) or just plain ****e (Shorey, Davies & Harewood).

invinciblePRSTV

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Obviously no one can say how Villa would've done had O'Neill remained in charge but I'd be extremely sceptical that they would have maintained a top-6 place. On paper it looks at first glance that O'Neill did a great job at Villa but if you look more closely you'll see that he left them with a squad of aging/average players on big-money. He didn't build a squad that was set for a sustained run at the top 4.

I'd say Villa would easily have finished 6th this season even with Milner gone, it was the awful injury run (the worst in my life time as a Villa supporter) and the manager walking out that banjaxed the season before it even started.

JPA

eagle eye wrote: »

Prove it or gtfo. And I know you can't and there is no way of knowing how Villa would have done with O'Neill in charge. FFS he finished 6th three years on the trot. Ridiculous statement.

Prove it? Is opinion not allowed?

flahavaj

I often wondered alright why people say the Ronaldo money "skews" the figures etc. It was a good price for thesecond best player inthe world. Why does no one say the £50m received for Torres skewed Liverpool's figures, or the £35m received for Carroll skew Newcastle's? It is what it is, United developed a player they signed for £12m into one of the best players on the planet and were re-imbursed accordingly when he moved on. Good for them.

If anything Madrid got a bargain given his goals per game since he joined them.

whatawaster

Shows how laughable it was really that Benitez was a source of such ridicule to many.

5th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 7th - isn't such a bad record is it. When you look at spending it stands up well compared to every team in the league bar the geniuses that are Wenger and Fergie

missingtime

p_larkin99 wrote: »

edit: going to qualify it by saying that its net spend thats important, not gross spend

You sound like a liverpool fan there

Helix

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I'd say Villa would easily have finished 6th this season even with Milner gone

not a chance, the cracks were already appearing at that stage, i cant imagine we'd have finished far different than where we did

invinciblePRSTV

Helix wrote: »

not a chance, the cracks were already appearing at that stage, i cant imagine we'd have finished far different than where we did

Nah not buying it. Given how the PL panned out this year if the misfortune that befell Villa this season hadn't occurred i reckon the team would have comfortably finished top 8.

the untitled user

eagle eye wrote: »

FFS he finished 6th three years on the trot.

While having spent more money than all the teams who played in the CL during that period.

whatawaster

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Nah not buying it. Given how the PL panned out this year if the misfortune that befell Villa this season hadn't occurred i reckon the team would have comfortably finished top 8.

which is awful given how much O'Neil spent

invinciblePRSTV

whatawaster wrote: »

which is awful given how much O'Neil spent

Lol, pool fans and O'Neill, the bitterness never ends.

whatawaster

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Lol, pool fans and O'Neill, the bitterness never ends.

I have no problem with O'Neill. He is, however, one of the most over-rated managers in the game. He spent a fortune at Villa, and while i'd never say he did a terrible job, he under-achieved given that they were consistently spending big.

Helix

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Lol, pool fans and O'Neill, the bitterness never ends.

hes right though

Paully D

1992-2011:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/1992-to-2011.html

Sunderland 7th which I expected to be honest, basically because our selling figures are low due to players leaving for **** all when we inevitably got relegated :pac: and Keane allowed to spend big in his first 3 Premier League transfer windows.

We spent a massive amount under Keane just to stay up (it was worth it), and Bruce has now started trying to balance the books whilst bringing in the quality that 5 years in the Premier League allows you to do.

The 11th highest spenders in the Premier League since it's inception and hopefully we can finally establish ourselves as a top 10 club over the coming seasons.

Liverpool spending almost £500m whilst never winning the Premier League (:eek:) although they have made a lot back and Tottenham spending £400m really surprised me to be honest. I suppose Newcastle could be up there too with just over £321m spent and no trophies to show for it either.

Pauleta

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Lol, pool fans and O'Neill, the bitterness never ends.

Whats the deal with O'Neill and Liverpool fans?

#15

Pauleta wrote: »

Whats the deal with O'Neill and Liverpool fans?

I've often wondered the same thing.

Mr. Guappa

Pauleta wrote: »

Whats the deal with O'Neill and Liverpool fans?

O'Neill's refusal to sell Gareth Barry to them is the only thing I can think of?
Or Celtic beat them in Europe under O'Neill?