Top6 spends analysed by MV 13/14 onwards

[CCTV]

So I've given the spends for top 6 elsewhere.
Income from Sales, Expenditure on acquisitions and net.

Following on from that, I've totted up the market value of those transferred players to see a bit more of the reality. I've converted figures to euros from pounds. €1 = £0.86. I've rounded to the closest million.

You can disagree with the market valuation of players, its not unreasonable. These MV's are cited from Transfermarkt.

LFC
● Earnt €800 mill from player sales valued at €1,315 mill.
Recouping 61% of their value
● Spent €1,298 mill on €1,591 mill of players.
For €1 spent, we signed €1.23 euros of player.
● for our net spend of €498 mill - our net gain in MV was €276m
55% effective by MV

Spurs
● Earnt €713 mill from player sales valued at €1,589 mill.
Recouping 45% of their value
● Spent €1,265 mill on €1,793 mill of players.
For €1 spent, they signed €1.42 euros of player.
● for their net spend of €553 mill - their net gain in MV was €204m
37% effective by MV

Manc
● Earnt €798 mill from player sales valued at €1,683mill.
Recouping 47% of their value
● Spent €1,974 mill on €2,220 mill of players.
For €1 spent, they signed €1.12 euros of player.
● for their net spend of €1,176 mill - their net gain in MV was €537 m
46% effective by MV

Manu
● Earnt €504 mill from player sales valued at €1,362 mill.
Recouping 37% of their value
● Spent €1,864 mill on €2,034 mill of players.
For €1 spent, they signed €1.09 euros of player.
● for their net spend of €1,360 mill - their net gain in MV was €672 m
49% effective by MV

Arse
● Earnt €417 mill from player sales valued at €1,494 mill.
Recouping 28% of their value
● Spent €1,407 mill on €1,920 mill of players.
For €1 spent, they signed €1.36 euros of player.
● for their net spend of €991 mill - their net gain in MV was €425 m
43% effective by MV

Cfc
● Earnt €1,347 mill from player sales valued at €3,270 mill.
Recouping 41% of their value
● Spent €2,499 mill on €3,684 mill of players.
For €1 spent, they signed €1.47 euros of player.
● for their net spend of €1,152 mill - their net gain in MV was €406 m
35% effective by MV

Conclusions:

Lfc the best at selling. Even though we've just lost a fair few on freebies.

Cfc get best bang for buck in buying. An area we could improve.

Lfc's net spending most effective per euro. This shows we are the best at transfers by net spending.

I'll have a check on these tomorrow evening. Bit pressed for time.

Limitations
Now MV is not a perfect measure.
It can rise and drop sharply.
It can be impacted by expected transfers to come soon.

Like Caicedo for example.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/moises-caicedo/profil/spieler/687626

He was bought for £4mill by brighton now reported on Transfermarkt as €28.2 mill probably due a sell on clause for Chelseas €116 mill.
In terms of market value when Brighton bought him he was valued at €5 mill. When Chelsea bought him he was valued at 90 mill. Obviously his market value rose drastically after one season.
6 mill in summer 22 -> 90 mill summer 23. Now maybe Caicedo turns out to hold his value.

But with Anthony for example he joined united for 95 mill.
He was valued at 35 mill in summer 22 at Ajax, he was valued at 75 mill when untied signed him and he's now valued at 35 mill.

Market values above are based on point of sale.
Salah for example we signed for 42 mill and he was valued at 40 mill. So we overpaid for Salah by MV. He did reach a 200 mill valuation thereafter and is now valued at 65 mill - age related.

Whereas Ronaldo was signed for 17 mill by manu more recently when valued at 35 mill. So Ronaldo was a better purchase than Salah by this means. Manu saved more money, but nobody really thinks ronny was a better value buy in 2021 than salah in 17/18.
Even freebie Matip outperforms Salah this way.

To track the valuations after purchase, well I can't be arsed. Too much effort, and not sure how.

Another consideration is wages offered when signed if you want to include them, that would be reasonable.
Again, can't be arsed and wages aren't exactly detailed in the accounts and media reports have a bit of a range.
I'd speculate united have done worst on wages of players bought, and of course cities financial reporting is very suspect.
Sterling took a small pay cut at city by reported figures when at the height of his powers. Which is highly unusual.... and they've never lost a star to bigger wages elsewhere. Cities players have been very loyal... or maybe tied up..

Anyway that's the figures I have to compare actual spending with market value estimates.

[CCTV]

https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631/saison_id/2023

This shows Chelseas summer 23 window - I've just added them up since 13/14 season.

Here Chelsea
● Earnt €269.4 mill from player sales valued at €482.6 mill.
Recouping 55.8% of their value
● Spent €467.8 mill on €517.75 mill of players.
For €1 spent, they signed €1.11 euros of player.
● for their net spend of €198.4 mill - their net gain in MV was €35.15 m
17.7% effective by MV

For our net spend of €111.3 mill, our net gain in MV was €44.7 mill.
40.2% effective

We added more value than Chelsea for less net spend.

[CCTV]

CCTV there is nothing to debate. You try to use the reckless spending of desperados like United and latterly Boehly’s Chelsea as evidence that a high net spend is bad when the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary.

Look at the teams in the top 5 net spend table since 2000 and count up what they have won.

You then will have a definitive answer. At least you will IF you can handle the truth.

I've analysed stats, including links youve posted, on gross spend since 2000 across Europe (you'd posted a top euro gross spend), gross & net since FSG took over.

When I pointed to us spending more than Real net since FSG took over, you replied Unique Madrid were incomparable...
You then returned with gross spend since 2000 between Unique Madrid & Liverpool. #comparable and here's why, from you.
I pointed out we'd outspend Real on gross since FSG took over. You then said Unique Mardid were incomparable, again...

Here's a thread I posted after this on analysis net spend v market values. Focused solely on the PL top6.
https://forums.lfconline.co.uk/showthread.php?310133-Top6-spends-analysed-by-MV-13-14-onwards&highlight=Top6%20net%20spend&p=2815830#pos t2815830

I'll post this reply there as a bump for replies on the topic. I've admitted where further analysis could yield better insight
But maybe you should make your case, in your own words, coherently

For me it's quite simple, the big clubs spend the big money. Klopp spent 946 million gross, a billion gross essentially.
The PL is socialist compared with la liga dividends. TV revenue hinders LFC, Manu, even Arsenal. Only Brighton & Ipswich outspent United net this summer...

Well run clubs, spend less net compared with their rivals. Real the prime example since 2011 by my analysis as I recall. Having to spend is inevitable.

[Steveo]

“Well run clubs”.

For you many things seem simple but reality is reality.

Well run can be defined in many ways. Comparing our net spend with Real’s Since FSG took over is totally ridiculous. You are comparing a club that was supposedly MILES off it. A sleeping giant in need of genuine investment…..to the single most successful club on the planet in 1980 - 1990 - 2000 - in 2010 and today - the most coveted club on the planet in 1980 - 1990 - 2000 - in 2010 and today.

A club that has been in a totally unique position to capitalise on the above - buying for far less and selling for far more than anyone else would find feasible to do.

A unique institution run to a degree by its fans and well known for consistently - over the longer term - spending the most money on the best, most glamorous and desirable players since the 1950’s.

Brighton are a well run club - so fucking what. The reality is our amazing manager wasn’t backed as well as Arteta despite the obvious need - and from 43 points behind us in 2020 they closed the gap in 3 years to be ahead of us 2022/23 and again in 2023/24.

This happened after they dropped the self sustaining model and we continued with the buy to let. It culminated in the best manager around walking early.

“well run” hmm

[CCTV]

LFC

20/21 -67.6m (mv gain +94.65)
Spent 84.8 value 182.5
Sold 17.2 value 87.85

21/22 -59.35 (mv gain +22)
Spent 91 value 155
Sold 31.65 value 133

22/23 -65.1 (mv gain 34.7)
Spent 145.8 value 165
Sold 80.7 value 130.3

23/24 -111.8 (mv gain 29.8)
Spent 172 value 191.5
Sold 60.7 value 161.7

Total 303.85 net.
Gross spend 493.6
Gross sales 190.25
Market value shift +181.15

https://www.transfermarkt.com/liverpool-fc/transfers/verein/31/plus/?saison_id=2023&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=



Arsenal


20/21 -66.85 (MV gain +43.55)
Spent 86 value 229.3
Sold 19.15 value 185.75

21/22 -136 (Mv loss -59.3)
Spent 167.4 value 185.85
Sold 31.4 value 245.15

22/23 -162.6 (Mv +171.8)
Spent 186.4 value 370
Sold 23.8 value 198.2

23/24 -165.9 (mv gain +131.6)
Spent 235.1 value 319.9
Sold 69.2 value 188.3

Total 531.35 net.
Gross spend 674.9
Gross sales 143.55
Market value shift +287.65

https://www.transfermarkt.com/arsenal-fc/transfers/verein/11/plus/?saison_id=2020&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=


Arsenal Spent a further 227.5 mill net,
181.3 gross.
And had a greater market value shift +106.5 mill

Per €uro Net-Spent
Arsenal gained 54 cent in market value.
LFC gained 59 cent in market value.


Emery's Villa

22/23 -46.14 (Mv +78.7)
Spent 100.14 value 242.7
Sold 54 value 164

23/24 -78.95 (mv gain 110.75)
Spent 111.5 value 179.45
Sold 32.55 value 68.7

Total 125.09 net.
Gross spend 211.64
Gross sales 86.55
Market value shift +189.45

Per €uro Net-Spent
Villa gained 151 cent.

Klopp clearly hindered by a few notable free transfer departures Gini, Bobby,

I'd emery's Villa have been better run than both lfc & arsenal over these past few years.