Where's O'Neill Now?

[dave.woodhall]

I don't think it is strange that I back up my opinion with facts, I think it strange when people hold a firm opinion that is at odds with the facts.

And it isn't a question of what suits, it is a question of what authoritative and comparable data is available. Feel free to let me know where we can get comprehensive data on transfer spending.

You say other clubs spent more than us then say you can't prove it. That, by your own admission, is a fact.

I say that Spurs and Man City spent more than us.

I've previously posted the Spurs figures on here, taken from their annual accounts reports at http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/investor/investor_annual_report.html. I haven't bothered attempting to find a definitive source for the Man City spending figures because I don't think anyone doubts that they have spent more.

Over the course of Martin O'Neill's reign, which is what I was talking about, I do.

[Villa'Zawg]

I don't think it is strange that I back up my opinion with facts, I think it strange when people hold a firm opinion that is at odds with the facts.

And it isn't a question of what suits, it is a question of what authoritative and comparable data is available. Feel free to let me know where we can get comprehensive data on transfer spending.

You say other clubs spent more than us then say you can't prove it. That, by your own admission, is a fact.

I say that Spurs and Man City spent more than us.

I've previously posted the Spurs figures on here, taken from their annual accounts reports at http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/investor/investor_annual_report.html. I haven't bothered attempting to find a definitive source for the Man City spending figures because I don't think anyone doubts that they have spent more.

Over the course of Martin O'Neill's reign, which is what I was talking about, I do.

You doubt that Man City spent more than Villa over the course of Martin O'Neill's time at Villa?

[dave.woodhall]

You doubt that Man City spent more than Villa over the course of Martin O'Neill's time at Villa?

Yes. Now prove it.

[Percy McCarthy]

You doubt that Man City spent more than Villa over the course of Martin O'Neill's time at Villa?

Yes. Now prove it.

I wouldn't have thought so. They spent over £100m on Barry, Santa Cruz, Kolo Toure, Lescott, Tevez and Adebayour, and that was in one summer transfer window (2009). That's not counting Bridge, De Jong, Kompany, Wright-Phillips, Given, Johnson, Robinho, any of the players bought last summer before MON left, or any of the players signed by Sven, who spent quite a bit as well. Some reports say they've spent £325m on players since the takeover in 2008.

[eastie]

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html

This Transfer League Table is a record of the amount of money spent in transfer fees by English Premier League Football Clubs over the last five seasons.

The table also shows new investment which club owners have made available to their club managers. The new investment can be seen season by season on the Club page from the Teams Transfer menu.

The "Purchased" column in this table shows the money spent on players in transfer  fees by all the English Premier League for the last five seasons.
   
The "Sold" column shows the money received by the football club from the sale of players in the same period.

In the Nett" column the total  of transfer fees received from the sale of Players is subtracted from the total money spent in transfer fees on purchasing players since 2003. This Nett figure is the "new investment" made available each season to the manager to buy players.

The "per season" column is the "Nett" total divided by the number of years that have passed since 2006 giving  an average of the money spent in transfer fees by each premiership club each season since 2006.
 
 
 

     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
   
 # 2006 - 2011 Purchased Gross/Sold /Net/Per Season 
             
 1 Manchester City £455,670,000 £75,550,000 £380,120,000 £76,024,000 
 2 Chelsea £199,500,000 £101,800,000 £97,700,000 £19,540,000 
 3 Tottenham £230,300,000 £135,100,000 £95,200,000 £19,040,000 
 4 Aston Villa £145,350,000 £67,650,000 £77,700,000 £15,540,000 
 5 Sunderland £122,850,000 £65,725,000 £57,125,000 £11,425,000 
 6 Liverpool £253,240,000 £205,280,000 £47,960,000 £9,592,000 
 7 Stoke City £54,725,000 £10,920,000 £43,805,000 £8,761,000 
 8 West Ham £105,070,000 £68,225,000 £36,845,000 £7,369,000 
 9 Fulham £63,675,000 £28,875,000 £34,800,000 £6,960,000 
 10 Bolton £52,150,000 £26,750,000 £25,400,000 £5,080,000 
 11 Wolves £33,525,000 £8,225,000 £25,300,000 £5,060,000 
 12 West Bromwich Albion £46,585,000 £27,560,000 £19,025,000 £3,805,000 
 15 Everton £64,750,500 £48,250,000 £16,500,500 £3,300,100 
 14 Manchester United £164,300,000 £150,850,000 £13,450,000 £2,690,000 
 15 Birmingham City £64,875,000 £53,850,000 £11,025,000 £2,205,000 
 16 Blackpool £4,700,000 £250,000 £4,450,000 £890,000 
 17 Wigan  £58,500,000 £60,200,000 -£1,700,000 -£340,000 
 18 Blackburn Rovers £41,752,000 £47,290,000 -£5,538,000 -£1,107,600 
 19 Arsenal £85,150,000 £113,000,000 -£27,850,000 -£5,570,000 
 20 Newcastle £63,100,000 £112,650,000 -£49,550,000 -£9,910,000 
             
   Hull £23,250,000 £9,225,000 £14,025,000 £2,805,000 
   Middlesbrough £79,700,000 £64,850,000 £14,850,000 £2,970,000 
   Burnley £13,090,000 £10,575,000 £2,515,000 £503,000 
   Leeds United £2,100,000 £12,800,000 -£10,700,000 -£2,140,000 
   Portsmouth £75,600,000 £104,520,000 -£28,920,000 -£5,784,000 

[Villa'Zawg]

You doubt that Man City spent more than Villa over the course of Martin O'Neill's time at Villa?

Yes. Now prove it.

Would you care to explain why you don't think Man City spent more?

[KevinGage]

You can widen or narrow the timeline to suit whichever argument you choose though, that's the flaw in all of this.

I don't take the Swiss Rambler site or any similar cack handed attempt at tabulating as gospel when it comes to transfer deals. I do recall though that for three summers in a row (2007/2008/2009) we were listed as one of the top 2/3 spenders in England - in 2008 we were one of the highest spenders in Europe.

So for three out of the four years MON was with us, his backing extended to being in a position to spend more than Liverpool, Arsenal, Man U and - yes- Tottingham. So I genuinely can't see how anyone would still (desperately) attempt to make out that that he was in any way hard done by, or delivered a level of performance far in excess of his meagre resources.

It's not as if he inherited a Barnsley, or similar blank canvass either, at least five of the regular starting XI available to him in the first part of the 2006/07 season were top class internationals.

[dave.woodhall]

You doubt that Man City spent more than Villa over the course of Martin O'Neill's time at Villa?

Yes. Now prove it.

Would you care to explain why you don't think Man City spent more?

I don't have to; I don't know either way although the posts above do seem to provide some evidence. You, on the other hand, are quick to claim that Martin O'Neill was veritably impoverished, but can't actually prove it.

[eastie]

The table on the transfer site suggests our overall spend under mon after sales at £84m and spurs at £78m - although the table now suggests spurs have spent more there was a £17.5m spend last summer and we made a profit.

Therefore dave is correct that we spent more than spurs under o neills reign , and were 3rd in spending behind man city and Chelsea during mons 4 year reign.

[Villa'Zawg]

You doubt that Man City spent more than Villa over the course of Martin O'Neill's time at Villa?

Yes. Now prove it.

Would you care to explain why you don't think Man City spent more?

I don't have to; I don't know either way although the posts above do seem to provide some evidence. You, on the other hand, are quick to claim that Martin O'Neill was veritably impoverished, but can't actually prove it.

I didn't claim anything of the sort, I merely said people should look at the facts.

[dave.woodhall]

You doubt that Man City spent more than Villa over the course of Martin O'Neill's time at Villa?

Yes. Now prove it.

Would you care to explain why you don't think Man City spent more?

I don't have to; I don't know either way although the posts above do seem to provide some evidence. You, on the other hand, are quick to claim that Martin O'Neill was veritably impoverished, but can't actually prove it.

I didn't claim anything of the sort, I merely said people should look at the facts.

And the facts are........?

[5ft811st2 Durham]

You doubt that Man City spent more than Villa over the course of Martin O'Neill's time at Villa?

Yes. Now prove it.

Would you care to explain why you don't think Man City spent more?

I don't have to; I don't know either way although the posts above do seem to provide some evidence. You, on the other hand, are quick to claim that Martin O'Neill was veritably impoverished, but can't actually prove it.

O'Neill certainly never spent more than 12 million on any one player, whereas our rivals for champions league places  were spending 15 million plus routinely.

[Chris Smith]

The table on the transfer site suggests our overall spend under mon after sales at £84m and spurs at £78m - although the table now suggests spurs have spent more there was a £17.5m spend last summer and we made a profit.

Therefore dave is correct that we spent more than spurs under o neills reign , and were 3rd in spending behind man city and Chelsea during mons 4 year reign.

But we were playing a massive catch up game with Spurs etc. They have been spending at that level for several years before Randy arrived. When I did a comparison last year they had a squad of players thar cost about £80m more than ours.

[eastie]

According to the table the facts suggest only man city and Chelsea net spent more than villa during mons 4 years- suggesting that maybe 6 th place being the highest finish was not good enough for the money spent.

[eastie]

I'd accept that argument chris, the link provided in my  above post shows the transfer site has all figures from the start of the premier league and is very interesting to look at .