It seems that this debate over football finances has become a victim of my favoured element of linguistics - semantics.
What are we talking about when we the phrase 'football finances' is mentioned? Some refer to a gross purchase, others a net spend, and others speak in terms of salaries/wages. All of these aspects are key to any discussion on the state of football finances in the United Kingdom.
Lots of numbers, wonderful numbers have been presented to try and show how one club is acting in a more fiscally responsible way than other clubs. The enjoyable thing about a quantitative methodological approach using a data set such as the one that has been provided is how malleable the data set is.
The one, single, unifying feature of this discussion is this: money = championships. No matter how you look at it, the teams that spend high, reap the rewards. Is this to say that the highest spending club wins the title each and every season? No. As one poster has articulately demonstrated MUFC has had the highest (or lowest, I can't remember) net spend on two separate occasions, to go along with their 12 titles. MCFC has been busy in the transfer market over the past four seasons and have one title to show for it. CFC have been spending like mad since 2003-04 and have three titles to display at Stamford Bridge (though the real Stamford Bridge is in the East Riding of Yorkshire). Analyzing the data oneself one sees a fairly consistent trend in that high spending correlates directly to the ability to win championships. Looking at the past 20 years of the EPL, the four highest spenders - in terms of pounds sterling spent on annual player purchases - have won 16 of the 20 league titles.
What does this suggest? Simply put, money = championships. You have to spend, and spend considerably to win. This says nothing of selling, as that isn't forming part of this analysis. Including this current season, the four biggest spenders are:
1. CFC - £744.4 m
2. MCFC - £649.18 m
3. LFC - £552 m
4. MUFC - £482 m
With the exception of LFC, each of these clubs have won the championship. Some, obviously are better value than others, but that is not and has not been the point. Across the board and over the past 20 years, big spending teams win titles.
If economy of value is what one chooses to focus on, so be it. Certain clubs have provided a much greater return of investment than others, that is obvious from the data on hand. However, spending has a cumulative effect. For example, when Blackburn Rovers won the title in 1994-95, they spent £1.8 m on players that season. Looking more closely one would see that in the two previous years, they spent £8.19 m and £13.65 m respectively. They were purchased by lifelong Rovers fan Jack Walker during the 1990-91 season and he immediately invested some much needed capital into ailing Rovers. This eventually culminated in the 1994-95 EPL title. In short, looking at the numbers of a single season may prove to be misleading. Having a broader look across the history of the EPL provides a somewhat different perspective.
As stated earlier, money = championships. The single season highest spender does not always win the championship for that particular season - that has been established. But the teams that have spent the most, win the most - that has been established. So for one set of fans to decry another for "buying the championship" when that club has been one of the biggest spenders throughout the history of the league, seems a bit "off". If economy of value and a decent net spend make one feel better then by all means feel better. But, and this is the sticky wicket for pedants like myself, to claim some sort of moral high ground when discussing football transfer spending, and supporting a club that has spent nearly £500 m in player transfers doesn't fly. Fans of Wigan, Wolves and possibly even Everton can rue the fact at how the almighty pound is ruining football. Personally I don't think MUFC (or CFC, MCFC, LFC) fans can make the same argument and feel any sense of injustice.
Is that any more logical?
