Net Transfer Spend – We’re Still Playing Catch Up
Preface
You know you’re in trouble when a blog post carries a preface! This post is hefty by blog standards, even mine, and it is statistically and graphically rich, but that’s not the reason for this quick heads up. That said, don’t start reading expecting a quick 300 word blog!
I had most of the data here at hand and this is a post that I’ve been meaning to pull together for some time. However, I’ll be perfectly straightforward and admit that writing this was motivated by some of Gabrielle Marcotti’s Tweets on Tuesday and, to a greater degree, his article on Wednesday.
It’s not that his article was without merit, far from it, but to me it lacked balance and adequate context. Some of the comments below that article showed me exactly who it resonated with, so I wanted to set MON’s spend in a fairer context.
I also received a slight boost in traffic on Tuesday, as I suspect all Aston Villa websites did, but visitors weren’t coming here to read me peddling a baseless rumour, they were actually coming from Liverpool and Man Utd websites to the Transfers page. This information was then being used as a barometer of O’Neill’s management credentials. Unfairly so in my opinion.
And lastly, I’ve just been chatting with Mr Marcotti, so far as one can engage in a chat on Twitter, and I found him a thoroughly engaging and not an unreasonable man. So much as one can appear engaging and not unreasonable on Twitter. There is a little snark in this post, just a soupçon really, but it’s not personal, I am aiming it at opinion only. I just wanted to make that clear, it’s not my style, but some frustration inevitably crept into my writing here and I may be guilty of making a jab a couple of days ago that wasn’t justified.
That must all sound incredibly boring and probably quite pretentious, so if you’re still with me at this point, to lighten the mood before you begin, here is a picture of some cute kittens. The post commences when you’re done with the cuteness. Awwwww, aren’t they simply adorable!!
One of the interesting things about Tuesday’s silly MON rumours was the reaction of fans of other clubs, specifically the clubs frequently tipped as future employers of our manager. Liverpool and Man Utd fans, I think, are fairly divided about MON’s credentials, while the majority of Celtic fans would have him back in a heart beat. That’s my impression anyway, I could, of course, be way off.
A lot of discussion centred around the money MON has spent on re-building the Aston Villa squad to date and that seemed to be held up as if some kind of barometer of his abilities as a manager.
These Tweets were typical of many floating around the Twitisphere, the top was re-Tweeted a lot, the second is a link to this site:-
Both points are incredibly blinkered and shortsighted, so I’d like to address them here.
Establishing Context
Amusingly, it was as if the amount of money that we have spent on bringing new players to Villa Park in the last few years was a secret and the information was passed around like a new discovery. I’m not surprised that so many people hadn’t been paying attention, but to then hold that spend against the spend of the clubs we’re chasing over the same period is disingenuous at best. At worst, well, let’s just say that I don’t want to get into petty name calling.
However, it’s a really simple concept; first you have to accept that the preceding decade or two actually happened and that the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd spent heavily during it. How many times did we hear about Man Utd breaking another British transfer record over the years? Until MON brought Ashley Young to Villa in January 2007 our club record transfer fee was the £9.5m we paid for Juan-Pablo Angel. That was in 2001. To date, Ash remains the 3rd most expensive player at the club behind James Milner and Stewart Downing.
Once a squad full of players costing big bucks to bring in has been assembled, they tend to be worth similar amounts, sometimes more, when they’re sold on. Occasionally a lot more. The effect on the net transfer spend is obvious, I won’t waste anyone’s time with a patronizing explanation, even in jest.
Oh, go on then…
How many apples did Liverpool get for Xabi Alonso again? Need I mention Christiano Ronaldo? Until last summer, when Gareth Barry went to Man City for £12m, the only player to leave Villa Park in a double digit sale was Dwight Yorke in 1998. In fact, that £12.6m deal with Utd remains our record transfer fee received. You see what I’m driving at here?
OK, let’s get a little more serious. Graph Time!
This graph details the amounts spent and received in transfer fees by 8 key Premiership teams and Newcastle since the Premiership began. It’s as clear as day that there’s no real comparison between Villa and the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd who have spent, but also received big fees, and certainly nothing like the vulgarity of Chelsea and Man City.
During the 2003/04 season, Chelsea spent £153million. They followed that up with £47m in 2004/05 and £91m in 2005/06, all net. It absolutely beggars belief that someone would forget or dismiss that and then put Chelsea’s spending, at a time when they were able to take their foot off the gas, against our investment during a period of regeneration.
There’s also a certain amount of irony in the fact that we’re effectively operating in the wake of inflation that they left in the transfer market after they were finished throwing their money around. We’re now being judged on how much we spend on players who are effectively more expensive than they should be because of the Chelsea’s and Man City’s of the world.
Ultimately, sight should not be lost of the fact that Chelsea have laid out considerably more than half a billion pounds on purchasing players since the Premiership began in 1992. I suspect in these times of mega bank bailouts that we’ve become desensitized to the term ‘billion’, never mind ‘million’, but that is still mind blowing for me. More than half a BILLION pounds.
Spend to Sell Ratio
Liverpool and Man Utd’s approach to spending on players has changed somewhat since their new owners took charge, although it’s fair to concede that the £80m received for Ronaldo frequently distorts the picture.
Liverpool
| Before Hicks/Gillette | Currently | ||
| Purchased | Sold | Purchased | Sold |
| 270.61m | 112.02m | 416.86m | 216.12m |
Prior to Hicks and Gillette getting their hands on Liverpool the club was spending 2.42 times as much on new players as it was making on selling players. During the Hicks and Gillette years, though, that rate is more like 1.40.
Man Utd
| Before Glazers | Currently | ||
| Purchased | Sold | Purchased | Sold |
| 248.90m | 120.37m | 415.35m | 276.07m |
The two clubs are almost neck and neck in terms of outlay on buying players, but Utd have made considerably more back. As I say, Ronaldo’s fee clearly makes a huge difference. Prior to the Glazers’ arrival, Utd were spending 2.07 as much as they received on players on bringing new players in, but since then it’s just 1.07. However, take out the £80m and it would have been 2.20, assuming everything else remained equal.
Aston Villa
| Before Lerner Buyout | Currently | ||
| Purchased | Sold | Purchased | Sold |
| 136.39m | 76.68m | 253.24m | 111.23m |
Under Randy Lerner, Villa have spent 3.38 as much as we’ve received back which is a massive change from the 1.78 rate under Doug Ellis. This highlights the neglect we had suffered for so many years under Doug’s stewardship and we’re really just running to catch up now.
The current overall ratio of spend to sell is 2.28 at Villa, 2.12 at Utd, and 1.93 at Liverpool, but the other two have each spent more than £150m more than us gross over the years.
The point here being that for many years Liverpool and Man Utd spent at a high ratio in comparison to what they recouped on sales, while Villa did not. Villa happen to be addressing years of remaining overly prudent at around the same time that the bigger clubs, or certainly these two, for whatever reasons, are pulling their spending back.
You should follow Aston Villa Central on Twitter here.
I’ll bet you’ve put a lot of work into this blog Dan.
You explain the case very well though.
It’s just ridiculous trying to compare the top 4 when you consider the starting point and I always knew Spurs were some way in front too, but I’d never seen any figures.
Man city need no mention, so that’s 6 clubs ahead of us.
Hence 7th would be par and any higher is good.
It’s just a shame some fans simply don’t see it and expect more than is reasonably fair.
That said, I do think the club played some part in the increased expectations.
As for Marcotti’s article, yes it was reasonably well balanced, but centred more on the negative side of things to my mind.
As for some of the replies, I felt like cutting my throat and couldn’t even be bothered to post my POV
thanks villan. yeah, this one has been bouncing around in my head for a while, tuesday brought it out. bit of a monster, but worth doing as it will stand the test of time.
marcotti’s view is basically that we’re more or less where we should to be, no better, no worse, so MON isn’t the messiah that some people think he is.
i’m as pro-MON as they come, but i make no such claims and he’s not above criticism here, although i try to keep it constructive. my issue was the using of the money spent as a barometer when most of it was spent recently and we just haven’t had time to see if pay off.
one example: we dropped £8m on delph, a player that is really for next season. we have a long term strategy being judged on a short term basis.
“marcotti’s view is basically that we’re more or less where we should to be, no better, no worse, so MON isn’t the messiah that some people think he is.”
Yes, but that’s exactly why Marcotti’s article is so negative imo.
It’s all based on the assumption that we aren’t going to get better.
I think given at least next season and maybe the one after that, we will.
Of course, time will tell.
it’s certainly manna from heaven for the crowd who are more negatively focused. but i agree that the judgment is focused on where we are now, not where we could be if this all slots into place over the next season or two.
time will indeed tell, but the negativity can eventually become to a self-fulfilling prophecy if we’re not careful, which is another topic i have bouncing around my little head at the moment.
my real fear is that the boo boys force MON out and then we have to start all over again. even if the next manager is “better”, we still go through another rebuilding period we can’t afford.
Once again an excellent report ..especially the kittens .
thank you, the one on the left is called phil.
“it’s certainly manna from heaven for the crowd who are more negatively focused. but i agree that the judgment is focused on where we are now, not where we could be if this all slots into place over the next season or two.”
Perhaps I have a few years on you, but I’m prepared to wait, as long as I see things are progressing.
Whilst I can understand the “I want it now” attitude, that requires megabucks. I’ll piss myself if Man City don’t get top 4 this season, fwiw.
You can either see the likes of Delph as someone who’s going to be good or a waste of money.
I see the former.
“time will indeed tell, but the negativity can eventually become to a self-fulfilling prophecy if we’re not careful, which is another topic i have bouncing around my little head at the moment.”
Absolutely.
“my real fear is that the boo boys force MON out and then we have to start all over again. even if the next manager is “better”, we still go through another rebuilding period we can’t afford.”
Who’s better that would come to us?
Maybe Moyes (who I very much respect) or Hodgson (who I also respect but did nothing at Blackburn).
I’m not madly convinced by either.
It’s just nice to see that you’re balanced in your views and it’s not all kneejerk reactions
yup, as long as we’re progressing, bit by bit, i’m on board. the concern i have is that there will probably be a plateau period, or even a step backwards, along the way and clearly there won’t be the patience or understanding among the fans to handle that.
when i first started getting involved in the “online debate”, which sadly was a couple of years ago and the content was essentially identical to now, i asked the question ‘if not MON, then who?’.
there were no realistic alternatives that anyone could reasonably describe as a better option.
i like moyes, as you do, and match your appraisal of hodgson too. good candidates if we needed to find someone should MON move on, but not to replace him.
i believe we have a man at the helm who can get us to where we want to be, given time, but, more importantly, leave a legacy for the next man to continue.
sustainability once again.
“i believe we have a man at the helm who can get us to where we want to be, given time, but, more importantly, leave a legacy for the next man to continue.”
Hmm, we’re too close in our way of thinking, it seems.
I’ll have to try and look into ways of debate.
How about I pick you up on your lack of capital “I”s when you start a sentence?
Keep up the good work.
heheh, i know!!
it’s a bad habit, but it’s the coder in me. plus, if i’m honest, i do it to annoy grammar nazis!! 
Your section showing the team MON inherited and how much it has improved in comparison to Man Utd and Pool is a bit disingenuous.
If your comparing MON’s transfer policy to Benitez’s you have to remember he didn’t inherit Alonso, Reina, Kronkamp, Garcia, Morientes etc.. he purchased them. The squad which Benitez inherited was desperately poor too, but for ageing stalwarts like Hyypia and Hammann. Gerrard was considered good and a future Vieira but never idolised in the way he is now (world class platitudes, etc)until they won the CL final.
MON is good but his transfer policy lacks that bit of invention that is needed to bridge the financial gap.
no, that’s exactly my point. comparing MON’s spend over the last 4 years to the likes of Rafa is disingenuous because it ignores what he and others had already spent.
you almost make my point for me. Rafa apparently spent a net £50m over 04/05 & 05/06, but we’re to ignore that and then say that MON has spent more than Rafa in the last 4 years? a period which including receiving £30m for Alonso? i don’t think so.
the relative qualities within that transfer spend is entirely subjective and outside of what i was trying to tackle here. incidentally, i wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you in that area. i think we’d all like to see some amazing new talent unearthed or some grand marque signing, but, as i say, that’s not the point of this post.
The problem with Martin O’Neil’s approach is that he values perspiration over inspiration. It’s unreasonable, even stupid, to expect that your team will outgraft every other team since perspiration is a limited resource. The unlimited, if more unreliable resource is inspiration.
Very interesting read. I’m a Liverpool Supporter so certainly wouldn’t dream of giving opinion on Villa affairs I know little about.
When we try to compare Benitez’s reign to the other clubs over that period, we often take into account that he had to completely rebuild from when he arrived. It was interesting to see you compare clubs from the start of the premier league, and see how level we are with UTD in terms of spend, something I hadn’t really considered before.
I think what I’ve learned from reading this is that the comparison of each clubs spending is slightly floored (not just on this blog but in general) although it does make logical sense. Each club has it’s own situation. Each has had it’s own good/bad management (both on and off the pitch) at different times thus making the job of fairly scrutinising each manager and club pretty impossible.
thanks for the comment, i don’t disagree.
in fact, the point about Rafa rebuilding is pretty much the point i was making here. it seemed grossly unfair to hold MON’s management record up to scrutiny against his spending and almost take the view that ‘he can’t be that good because he’s spent £85m and hasn’t delivered champions league yet’.
with close to 80% of that spend coming in the last two seasons it seems harsh to judge him this way at this time. especially when we’re not out the running for 4th yet, although we’re clearly not the favourites.
the main point though is that after many years of investment, the “big four” are in a position where they’re effectively dealing in more expensive players both in sales and purchases. the net spend will be comparable to teams dealing in cheaper players.
if we reach the point where we’re selling more gareth barry’s than gavin mccann’s, then our net spend will fall back into line too.