What current squads around Europe cost to assemble

antihenry

CAF GRU Rep
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
7,389
Location
Chelsea FC
Interesting graphic. The PSG situation in France is ridiculous. Monaco tried at one point to challenge them, but they have sold most of their assets by now.

The rest makes sense, those that spent the most dominate their leagues. Atletico have done a great job, considering.

 
Suprised that our is so much. Maybe it is so muc because was reasemblead the last.
 
Robbie Boy said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because it ignores stuff like

a) Player a might have signed for 50 million 6 years ago but now is only a bit part player as he advances in years
b) A team like Chelsea might sign someone like Cuardardo for 30 million and loan him out and it wouldn't mean anything on those charts.
c) It ignores any money brought in. Sure Liverpool spend a lot but they've had a lot coming in as well
 
Twigginater said:
Because it ignores stuff like

a) Player a might have signed for 50 million 6 years ago but now is only a bit part player as he advances in years
b) A team like Chelsea might sign someone like Cuardardo for 30 million and loan him out and it wouldn't mean anything on those charts.
c) It ignores any money brought in. Sure Liverpool spend a lot but they've had a lot coming in as well
Click to expand...

Well yeah, it's not a fecking detailed net spend chart done up by an accountant. It's just a very simplistic spending chart. It factors nothing in other than player cost. It is what it is.
 
Liverpool's squad was more expensive than ours? :lol:
 
Twigginater said:
Because it ignores stuff like

a) Player a might have signed for 50 million 6 years ago but now is only a bit part player as he advances in years
b) A team like Chelsea might sign someone like Cuardardo for 30 million and loan him out and it wouldn't mean anything on those charts.
c) It ignores any money brought in. Sure Liverpool spend a lot but they've had a lot coming in as well
Click to expand...

Really don't see how any of that applies to the graph which is what a team spent on the registered squad. Nothing wrong with the graphic.

A) Reflects assumed value and not expenditure C) well most of the time this is just recycled money as most top clubs aren't making massive profits in signings anyway
 
PSG's squad cost more than every other team in their league combined. :lol:
 
Its going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better.

We are probably another 100m away from city, and probably 200+ away from barca and madrid.
 
Oo0AahCantona said:
Its going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better.

We are probably another 100m away from city, and probably 200+ away from barca and madrid.
Click to expand...

This stuff is silly.

Quality coaching, clever signings, team cohesion, player confidence and a little bit of luck can't impact upon the success of top clubs? Well, it can.

Spending x amount of money on players won't bridge any gaps. A couple of better players in key positions would be ideal, but it's a small matter by comparison with the wider footballing set up in place at a club.

It's why Arsenal are competing with us with a cheaper squad, and why Newcastle remain terrible despite the eight highest outlay in the division.

We're a work in progress, more money will be spent, but it isn't the be all and end all.
 
Varun said:
I know it isn't a popular opinion on here but I'd fancy us to beat Atletico over 2 legs.
Click to expand...
Probably should be the unpopular opinions thread but I'd fancy us to beat anyone in Europe except Bayern, Barca, Real, Chelsea or City.
 
Señor said:
Probably should be the unpopular opinions thread but I'd fancy us to beat anyone in Europe except Bayern, Barca, Real, Chelsea or City.
Click to expand...

Chelsea don't belong to that group really.

Too many uncertainties in football but I do agree with your sentiment in general. Handful of clubs that are definitely much superior to us. Atletico isn't one of them at all.
 
Varun said:
Chelsea don't belong to that group really.

Too many uncertainties in football but I do agree with your sentiment in general. Handful of clubs that are definitely much superior to us. Atletico isn't one of them at all.
Click to expand...
I don't think Chelsea are that much better than us but I reckon Mourinho would have enough over Van Gaal to beat us over two legs. Likewise I don't think we're better than Atletico or even City but we would be more likely to beat them over two legs than if it was a one off leg.
 
The only comforting thing from that table is that Liverpool are so much worse at this than we are.

At the end of this season we will find out how much value we are getting from our squad cost compared to the likes Real, Barca, City & Chelsea. This is the first big test, time for excuses is over.
 
Last edited:
pierrethesnack said:
Sunderland...130 million Euros and the squad looks worse than ever. What a completely useless club that is.
Click to expand...

Dortmund cost as much as West Ham and Sunderland. Pretty much shows you that doing great business you can crack the top 4 in England. With the new TV deal, if a real smart manager/sporting director combo starts working at some of these mid-table teams it will happen. You can´t do poop competing with 25M against 300M, but 150M against 500M. That´s possible.
 
prarek said:
Its not so much about the quality but the style of play for me.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is. Our style is so much more suited to playing teams that are as good or better than us and fancy 3 points. I'm more confident about us beating Liverpool than I was about beating Newcastle or Swansea.

Señor said:
I don't think Chelsea are that much better than us but I reckon Mourinho would have enough over Van Gaal to beat us over two legs. Likewise I don't think we're better than Atletico or even City but we would be more likely to beat them over two legs than if it was a one off leg.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but I don't think Mourinho could outsmart van Gaal tactically. It'd be 1 dull game though :D
 
JustFootballFan said:
Dortmund cost as much as West Ham and Sunderland. Pretty much shows you that doing great business you can crack the top 4 in England. With the new TV deal, if a real smart manager/sporting director combo starts working at some of these mid-table teams it will happen. You can´t do poop competing with 25M against 300M, but 150M against 500M. That´s possible.
Click to expand...
One thing that needs to be considered is the quality of home players. Germany and Spain produce much better domestic talent. So English clubs are already playing catch up before money is brought into the equation. Having 3-4 quality home players alone should make up for 80-100 million.
 
prarek said:
One thing that needs to be considered is the quality of home players. Germany and Spain produce much better domestic talent. So English clubs are already playing catch up before money is brought into the equation. Having 3-4 quality home players alone should make up for 80-100 million.
Click to expand...

Well nobody stopping them from doing that either. Tottenham does it all the time. They just sell off. Convincing the players to stay is the difficult part, see Kagawa, Sahin, Goetze and Lewandowski at Dortmund. Also nobody stopping teams from buying guys like Martial or Coman, when they virtually cost nothing. We are only talking about a 12-24 months difference between 5M and 30-50M.

Konoplyanka was available for free. He goes to Sevilla. That´s great business. That´s why at €77M they have won consecutive EL titles. That would have been a good signing for United, too.
 
For all its limitations the comparison in the OP seems fair to me. We've spent a cocking fortune assembling our squad and should soon be up there as one of the very best teams in Europe. It might just be a season too soon but we should certainly see a big improvement on 2014/15 in the league, as well as a solid campaign in Europe.

If this doesn't happen and if we're not one of the very best teams around next season then we can conclude our money hasn't been wisely spent and somebody (i.e. our manager) should be held accountable for that by losing his job.
 
JustFootballFan said:
Dortmund cost as much as West Ham and Sunderland. Pretty much shows you that doing great business you can crack the top 4 in England. With the new TV deal, if a real smart manager/sporting director combo starts working at some of these mid-table teams it will happen. You can´t do poop competing with 25M against 300M, but 150M against 500M. That´s possible.
Click to expand...

I suppose. But one difference is that Dotmund have it much easier in the German marked than, say, West Ham in the British. Dortmund will get anyone that Bayern don't take, while West Ham is pretty far down the pecking order in England.

But I think you're right, and I hope it happens!
 
Varun said:
That's exactly what it is. Our style is so much more suited to playing teams that are as good or better than us and fancy 3 points. I'm more confident about us beating Liverpool than I was about beating Newcastle or Swansea.
Click to expand...
That game last season where we outplayed and thrashed City gives me hope. I think City have shown weakness against possession based sides at times. Arsenal did the same to them. Not to mention their european ventures. City seem obsessed with playing pretty football. On the other hand Atletico are relentless and don't mind playing ugly. Their defense is also one of the best, if not the best in Europe that's been tried and tested at the highest levels against the best teams. I think we would really struggle to break them down.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
For all its limitations the comparison in the OP seems fair to me. We've spent a cocking fortune assembling our squad and should soon be up there as one of the very best teams in Europe. It might just be a season too soon but we should certainly see a big improvement on 2014/15 in the league, as well as a solid campaign in Europe.

If this doesn't happen and if we're not one of the very best teams around next season then we can conclude our money hasn't been wisely spent and somebody (i.e. our manager) should be held accountable for that by losing his job.
Click to expand...

Pretty much how I see it.
 
Spending bizarre amounts is the only way to bring success nowadays. But it's who you spend it on that matters.

It's a shame, because football is in a poor state. How on earth do we bring young English talent through? I watch my 10 year old brother travel up and down the country every week with his academy, and train 3 days a week after school, yet he probably has less than a 1% chance of making it to the Premier League. It's so sad... I hate the way football has become money driven.
 
prarek said:
That game last season where we outplayed and thrashed City gives me hope. I think City have shown weakness against possession based sides at times. Arsenal did the same to them. Not to mention their european ventures. City seem obsessed with playing pretty football. On the other hand Atletico are relentless and don't mind playing ugly. Their defense is also one of the best, if not the best in Europe that's been tried and tested at the highest levels against the best teams. I think we would really struggle to break them down.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that we couldn't take city. Their style would be good for us. They are a top side though and I couldn't say with conviction that we'd beat them.

Atletico would be a tough game, don't get me wrong. They won't be as open as the likes of city are but I don't think they are all that. Good solid unit more than anything. Posters saying they are comfortably better must have watched a different team to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.