• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Cost per point since 2008

Status
Not open for further replies.

6TimesaRed

Not a Bot....
Administrator
Interesting Article... >> http://goo.gl/lmblwy

Manchester City have spent over £1MILLION on players per Premier League point since 2008... that's almost twice as much as next biggest spenders Chelsea

  • Manchester City have won 441 points since 2008 at a cost of £483million
  • Chelsea are next most expensive per point at £600,000
  • Everton are the most cost-effective club, earning £78,000 per point
Manchester City's two Premier League titles in the past three years have come at an astonishing cost, with the champions paying more per point than any other team.
Since City were bought by Abu Dhabi United Group the club have spent almost £500million on transfer fees alone - and the astronomical figure is even higher when wages are taken into account.

And despite having earned the third most points during the period, City's net spend per point dwarfs their rivals, coming in at a massive £1,096,000, according to a study by Arabian Business.

The next highest spenders per point are Chelsea, who have won just one title in the past six years despite spending £276m on players, at a cost of £598,000 for every point earned. Aston Villa and Stoke City are the next least efficient spenders, splashing out around £300,000 for ever point earned since 2008.

At the other end of the scale Everton are the thriftiest of the 11 sides who have been in the top flight for each of the past six seasons.

Under David Moyes and Roberto Martinez the Toffees have managed to make a net gain of almost £30m, earning £78,000 on player sales for every point won in the league.
However, an efficient pounds per point ratio isn't always enough - Fulham ranked third in the list over the past six years, collecting points at a bargain of £85,200 each, but it couldn't prevent them suffering relegation to the Championship last season.

Capture.PNG
 
I'm surprised to see us 5th top of the PL points table since 2008...especially as we've had such clueless managers who have spent so much money on shit players. The other revelation from that table is what a great job, relatively speaking, Wenger has done at Arsenal...they might not have won much but he's got them punching above their weight...four points behind City despite having spent 10x less.
 
I'm surprised to see us 5th top of the PL points table since 2008...especially as we've had such clueless managers who have spent so much money on shit players. The other revelation from that table is what a great job, relatively speaking, Wenger has done at Arsenal...they might not have won much but he's got them punching above their weight...four points behind City despite having spent 10x less.

To be fair, City did start with a much worse squad than Arsenal, so they had to spend more naturally, but your point remains. The problem with Wenger has never been making the best of what he's got, it's the complete lack of ambition he's displayed.
 
Is that when City were taken over?


Probably.

Just saying these things are heavily weighted to make them someone look worse. The year they pick is going to be the angle they want to take. If they pick the year after CR was sold, then United would look bad, the year before, they look good.

if they went back to 2004, Chelsea would look at lot worse, and so on...
 
I'm surprised to see us 5th top of the PL points table since 2008...especially as we've had such clueless managers who have spent so much money on shit players. The other revelation from that table is what a great job, relatively speaking, Wenger has done at Arsenal...they might not have won much but he's got them punching above their weight...four points behind City despite having spent 10x less.

Oh good, another Arsenal love in. Fuck Wenger and fuck Arsenal.
 
Probably.

Just saying these things are heavily weighted to make them someone look worse. The year they pick is going to be the angle they want to take. If they pick the year after CR was sold, then United would look bad, the year before, they look good.

if they went back to 2004, Chelsea would look at lot worse, and so on...

Agreed, the starting year does change things

rHiiHOo.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom