How do NUFC compare in the spending stakes?

In my last article I bleated on about how I love my figures. I really do. It's geeky but I've spent years compiling them for one thing or another and my love for them stems from that.

So with that in mind I've managed to dig out some more for us all to ponder as I continue analysing a transfer window which could have been so much better.

In that last article I plucked out random stats associated by numbers to the transfer window just gone. I said that I'd probably miss something that somebody really wanted to know and that if I had all they had to do was ask and I'd see if I could sort something out for them.

Well one of the questions that was asked was about our spending on transfers and how it stacks up to other clubs and what they have done over the summer and so on. Don't say I never do anything for you Charlie Prince and Craig Chisholm because here, as requested, are the nuts of what each club has done, what they've spent, what they've made followed by what they've really spent - the net spend if you take the value of what they've sold off of the value of the players that they have brought in.

In alphabetical order, here goes.

Team	Bought (£)	Sold (£)	Balance (£) +/-
Arsenal	56,000,000	79,000,000	-23,000,000
Aston Villa	17,000,000	40,000,000	-23,000,000
Blackburn	13,000,000	18,000,000	-5,000,000
Bolton	7,000,000	7,000,000	0
Chelsea	77,500,000	19,500,000	58,000,000
Everton	0	12,500,000	-12,500,000
Fulham	17,000,000	1,270,000	15,630,000
Liverpool	63,000,000	24,000,000	39,000,000
Manchester City	78,000,000	25,300,000	54,700,000
Manchester United	51,300,000	9,800,000	41,500,000
Newcastle	13,200,000	12,600,000	600,000
Norwich	10,400,000	500,000	9,900,000
QPR	12,000,000	1,000,000	11,000,000
Stoke City	22,000,000	1,000,000	21,000,000
Sunderland	27,450,000	27,000,000	450,000
Swansea	9,250,000	80,000	9,170,000
Tottenham	6,000,000	30,500,000	-24,500,000
West Brom	4,500,000	7,000,000	-2,500,000
Wigan	7,000,000	11,500,000	-4,500,000
Wolves	11,400,000	1,000,000	10,400,000

These figures are compiled using the values given by Sky Sports. Where a fee is undisclosed I've had to do some digging to find out what the rumoured fee is. Generally speaking you can find out what the perceived fee is so I've used that as the benchmark. As an example, Yohan Cabaye's fee was undisclosed although it's reported that he cost around £4.5 million which is what I've used. I've also discounted the pennies and have only (only!) gone to the nearest £10,000 when calculating transfers. There have been some "SuperMac" type transfers for odd fees although in fairness it's only been the little known players who have moved onto lower league teams that I've had that problem with.

So what can we see from this? Well first off I guess we should start with our own team. The phrase "no capital outlay" is pretty much being demonstrated by us. There is absolutely no need for this to have been the case but nonetheless it's what Hinge & Bracket upstairs have decided to do. I just wish they'd have told Alan Pardew what they were planning to do as, once again, the decisions of the board have left him in a tricky position as he picks himself up from the floor after having the rug pulled from underneath him.

The total spend for us is £600,000 which is measly in fairness. A shame really when you consider that a cool £20 million outlay combined with the hard nosed approach of the board would have been enough to get us into top ten, maybe even Europa League, contention.

It's not the worst though. Seven teams made a profit this window, one spent nothing and another one spent less than us in total. That makes us 11th in the net spending tables by my reckoning.

Teams in that top bracket have just done what they always do and spent a fortune, but it's the teams at our level that I'm interested in. Wolves have spent a bit on two players but it's Fulham and Stoke who are the biggest spenders in our bracket. Of course it's worth bearing in mind that their figures are distorted by the signings of £10 million plus players but at the end of the day they have spent the money.

I'll be perfectly honest. When I was putting this table together I felt that we'd be somewhere near the bottom. I'd be willing to bet that if you were asked the question posed in the title that you'd assume pretty much the same, correct? It surprises me that we aren't in fairness.

So there you go. Something to digest perhaps? I know it doesn't justify our blatant lack of ambition, but in a strange way it makes me feel better knowing that other teams have spent less than us. I didn't think it was possible but apparently it is.

Apologies for the rather crude table. Those who have a background in scripting and coding html will probably tell me it's shyte, but I don't have a background in scripting or coding so I've just kept it simple enough for me to deal with.

Make what you want of these stats, but before people pipe up with comments like "what a load of crap" or some other really valuable contribution to the discussion, just remember I was asked to do this so if you have any issues with it direct it to Charlie Prince and Craig Chilsholm :razz:

Comments welcome :)