Where did you get those numbers?
We had LVG for 2 seasons while Mourinho was here for 3
LVG 2014/15 - 195m, 2015/16 - 156m. Mourinho 2016/17 - 185m, 2017/18 - 198m, 2018/19 - 82m
Revenue Inflation Adjusted Transfers
- Thread starter bringbackbebe
- Start date
We had LVG for 2 seasons while Mourinho was here for 3
LVG 2014/15 - 195m, 2015/16 - 156m. Mourinho 2016/17 - 185m, 2017/18 - 198m, 2018/19 - 82m
Cool OP, not understanding people complaining about it as it's not meant to do anything but put into perspective historical transfers for United into terms of today's game. It also fits pretty well with price tags of modern players. Bellingham is the equivalent of Pogba before his transfer now, and the price tags are probably going to be bang equal.
ADM is always the one I look at on these lists and think "what if he wasn't a miserable rat cnut and wanted to actually be here?". He was brilliant at the time before the whole falling out with LVG, and after he left was great for PSG as well for years. A bit different from the other "flops" on the list in my opinion.
ADM is always the one I look at on these lists and think "what if he wasn't a miserable rat cnut and wanted to actually be here?". He was brilliant at the time before the whole falling out with LVG, and after he left was great for PSG as well for years. A bit different from the other "flops" on the list in my opinion.
It's an average per season, and then adjusted for revenue inflation.
So on your numbers LVG would be 175.5 before the inflation adjustment, and Mourinho 155 because of his low-spending third year. Add in that LVG's numbers will get more inflation because they happened longer ago, and the adjusted average spend per year feels about right.
This is a really interesting perspective OP, thanks for doing it. I've always felt that the inflation in average transfer fees (which I know this isn't, directly, but it's an interesting proxy) makes us so much quicker to jump to branding people "transfer flops" - I know that I hear a £30m+ price tag and immediately expect something incredibly special, effectively because people like Rio and Rooney came for cheaper. Having inflation-adjusted figures for old transfers is a much more useful perspective.
@bringbackbebe while it's true that Martial cost €50m upfront, around 36m gbp at the time, we have also paid another €20m in bonuses for him (25 league goals, 25 apps for France).
Lukaku wasn't a flop. Top scored and was one of our best players in his first year.
Was out of use in his second year, but we then sold him pretty much what he cost. If most of our transfers a similar return over the course of 2 years, I'd bite your hand off.
Was out of use in his second year, but we then sold him pretty much what he cost. If most of our transfers a similar return over the course of 2 years, I'd bite your hand off.
Great piece of work @bringbackbebe. As someone stated above we continue to back managers at around the same level its just in the last decade we have spent money terribly which feels about right.
Any information that doesn’t give you all information is completely useless. Omniscience is the only science!
I think I’d kill to have Berbatov up front for us at the moment.
It was an odd take. If you don't find information that someone has carefully compiled interesting, that's cool. But declaring it to be useless is kinda strange, particularly when there are clearly a number of people who found it in at least somewhat informative.
He's better than what we have.
But £90m is insane for what he actually offered.
Thank you!
Now there's a new surprise for me. Solskjær is actually the most frugal manager after Fergie? I did not expect that after the glorious English smorgasbord of Maguire, AWB and Sancho which cost us over 200 million!
Frugal smorgasbords are the best.
Good stuff OP.
The main issue which is reasonably well known is our inability to sell players in recent years.
We should have sold Dean Henderson to Chelsea for 40m, sold Lingard to West Ham for 15m but we hold on those players until they lose value.
Diallo will be an interesting one in the summer.
The main issue which is reasonably well known is our inability to sell players in recent years.
We should have sold Dean Henderson to Chelsea for 40m, sold Lingard to West Ham for 15m but we hold on those players until they lose value.
Diallo will be an interesting one in the summer.
Wouldnt Ole get lukakus sale but no corresponding purchase whereas Jose has his purchase and no corresponding sale? Numbers are slightly flawed in that regardThank you!
Now there's a new surprise for me. Solskjær is actually the most frugal manager after Fergie? I did not expect that after the glorious English smorgasbord of Maguire, AWB and Sancho which cost us over 200 million!
I would say it is flawed:
In the end, Solskjaer gets credit for a player that maintained his value instead of losing it (financially, Lukaku wasn't a bad signing under Mourinho). On the other hand, Ten Hag will have to take the losses on De Beek and Maguire when we sell them (both being very poor singings financially, and on the pitch). I wouldn't really say that is fair as it alleviates Solskjaer of the blame and put it on Ten Hag.
Since each manager has only been here a short time, I think they should only be responsible for the players they signed. The amount recovered on any eventual sales of those players should be what is offset against that. e.g. Lukaku's sales figure should be under Mourinho, but Mourinho would also have the full effect of an £80m loss on Pogba.
The revenue is the money clubs can spend on things, so adjusting transfer fees for revenue shows the proportion of revenue spent on transfers. Why wouldn't that be interesting? For instance, in 2001 United spent around 45 % of its revenue on transfers, while in 2020 around 20 %.
Agreed.
The price of a player has little to do value
The notion that say Maguire is a poor buy at 80 million but a good one at 30 million is nonsense, a player is worth what some one is prepared to pay, same as anything you buy like a pint of milk or a loaf of bread
He hasn't been replaced to the best of my knowledge. At least not an equivalent value
Yea it's very very interesting to see. It'd be good to see others teams %s as well for reference
But that's how management works. And didn't Solskjær kind of sideline Lukaku anyways? Things might have been different if he had insisted on playing him. This is all just speculation, of course.
Not to mention, the money generated from the Lukaku sale probably played a part in his transfer budget. Perhaps he wouldn't have gotten Bruno in the middle of the season if we kept Lukaku? I'm shitting bricks just thinking about it!
No, I think it's easier to just focus on the hard facts.
Great thread. Thanks for putting this together
Working on it starting with Arsenal since @Daydreamer referenced it. It'll be similar workings for properly run clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool, but for oil clubs like Chelsea or City, this metric is going to off since revenues are, for lack of a better word, rigged to a large extent. Maybe we should just use an avg of United, Arsenal, Pool values there. Or we simply use United's as a reference point to adjust everything else up?
Revenue is not money can spend on things.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Revenue is the club's total income over the accounting year, typically clubs can spend the money they make.
interesting. good research
They also have lots of other expenses, they can borrow money, they have previous debt, they don't pay for players when they buy them, wages play a big factor....
Yes, of course.
Great thread. Good work OP.
Repeating the same for Arsenal, compared to United's for gross spends:
Arsenal fans can comment on this better but a good they're a good 60m a season less than United in gross spending. Given they're a properly run club & have always been financially prudent, the move to a new stadium seems to have hit their competitiveness quite a bit. Not surprising that they've taken a while to play catch up to more successful teams. Recent spurt in spending seems to be paying off for them.
Spending by decade:
Top 10 transfers compared to United's:
Arsenal's Top 20 Transfers:
@Daydreamer
Next up, Liverpool.
Season Start | Arsenal - 2022 Eq. Fee £ | Man Utd - 2022 Eq. Fee £ |
2001 | 76,765,964 | 286,928,522 |
2002 | 30,762,317 | 135,400,805 |
2003 | 88,471,872 | 230,242,651 |
2004 | 17,982,088 | 108,691,730 |
2005 | 136,530,666 | 72,150,351 |
2006 | 47,620,603 | 63,722,533 |
2007 | 98,337,243 | 195,881,444 |
2008 | 46,260,800 | 105,004,672 |
2009 | 27,196,237 | 57,112,098 |
2010 | 36,513,467 | 68,494,227 |
2011 | 124,101,486 | 123,343,703 |
2012 | 112,911,777 | 136,012,274 |
2013 | 84,957,697 | 135,332,613 |
2014 | 176,948,928 | 269,310,346 |
2015 | 25,707,364 | 177,552,194 |
2016 | 147,484,100 | 236,444,275 |
2017 | 162,948,484 | 214,521,899 |
2018 | 97,002,863 | 91,873,819 |
2019 | 192,735,936 | 241,864,704 |
2020 | 91,084,176 | 115,123,680 |
2021 | 156,006,000 | 137,700,000 |
2022 | 164,000,000 | 225,600,000 |
Average | 97,378,639 | 155,832,206 |
Total | 2,142,330,068 | 3,428,308,540 |
Arsenal fans can comment on this better but a good they're a good 60m a season less than United in gross spending. Given they're a properly run club & have always been financially prudent, the move to a new stadium seems to have hit their competitiveness quite a bit. Not surprising that they've taken a while to play catch up to more successful teams. Recent spurt in spending seems to be paying off for them.
Spending by decade:
Decade | Total - 2022 Eq. Fee £ | Average - 2022 Eq. Fee £ |
2000's | 569,927,789 | 56,992,779 |
2010's | 1,161,312,101 | 116,131,210 |
2020's | 411,090,176 | 137,030,059 |
Top 10 transfers compared to United's:
Season Start | Player | 2022 Eq. Fee £ | Season Start | Player | 2022 Eq. Fee £ |
2019 | Nicolas Pepe | 90,699,264 | 2001 | Juan Veron | 141,450,727 |
2013 | Mesut Ozil | 84,957,697 | 2016 | Paul Pogba | 141,231,815 |
2017 | Aubameyang | 82,282,372 | 2002 | Rio Ferdinand | 128,409,369 |
2017 | Alexandre Lacazette | 77,433,590 | 2014 | Ángel Di María | 110,500,534 |
2014 | Alexis Sánchez | 64,782,557 | 2017 | Romelu Lukaku | 110,199,606 |
2003 | Jose Reyes | 56,104,114 | 2004 | Wayne Rooney | 107,892,526 |
2016 | Shkodran Mustafi | 55,540,601 | 2019 | Harry Maguire | 100,776,960 |
2021 | Ben White | 54,000,000 | 2001 | Ruud Van Nistelrooy | 95,642,841 |
2016 | Granit Xhaka | 53,636,352 | 2008 | Demitar Berbatov | 90,318,704 |
2020 | Thomas Partey | 52,488,000 | 2022 | Antony | 86,000,000 |
Arsenal's Top 20 Transfers:
Season Start | Player | Fee £ | 2022 Eq. Fee £ |
2019 | Nicolas Pepe | 72,000,000 | 90,699,264 |
2013 | Mesut Ozil | 42,500,000 | 84,957,697 |
2017 | Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang | 56,000,000 | 82,282,372 |
2017 | Alexandre Lacazette | 52,700,000 | 77,433,590 |
2014 | Alexis Sánchez | 35,000,000 | 64,782,557 |
2003 | Jose Reyes | 13,000,000 | 56,104,114 |
2016 | Shkodran Mustafi | 35,000,000 | 55,540,601 |
2021 | Ben White | 50,000,000 | 54,000,000 |
2016 | Granit Xhaka | 33,800,000 | 53,636,352 |
2020 | Thomas Partey | 45,000,000 | 52,488,000 |
2007 | Samir Nasri | 15,800,000 | 50,120,272 |
2022 | Gabriel Jesus | 45,000,000 | 45,000,000 |
2008 | Andrei Arshavin | 15,000,000 | 44,057,904 |
2012 | Santi Cazorla | 20,000,000 | 43,178,500 |
2001 | Giovanni Van Bronckhorst | 8,500,000 | 42,787,587 |
2005 | Aleksandr Hleb | 11,200,000 | 41,440,202 |
2018 | Lucas Torreira | 26,400,000 | 35,916,909 |
2019 | William Saliba | 27,000,000 | 34,012,224 |
2005 | Theo Walcott | 9,100,000 | 33,670,164 |
2021 | Martin Ødegaard | 30,000,000 | 32,400,000 |
@Daydreamer
Next up, Liverpool.
Exactly.
Last season United's salaries were 65.8% of revenue, the season before 65%, before that 56%, 53%, 50%.
In the first quarter of this season 57%.
For a long time, United kept salaries at 50% or lower.
To state the obvious, a higher % spent on salaries means a lower % of revenue available for other expenditures including transfers.
Transfers fees tend to reflect future revenues as least as much if not more than current revenues, as they are typically paid in instalments over several years. If teams have just signed a new TV deal worth double the previous amount, expect them to spend more on transfers.
In the first quarter of this season 57%.
For a long time, United kept salaries at 50% or lower.
To state the obvious, a higher % spent on salaries means a lower % of revenue available for other expenditures including transfers.
Transfers fees tend to reflect future revenues as least as much if not more than current revenues, as they are typically paid in instalments over several years. If teams have just signed a new TV deal worth double the previous amount, expect them to spend more on transfers.
Last edited: