Skip to main content

Are City or Liverpool the bigger spenders?

Simon Jordan claimed on TalkSport, “Klopp’s net spend is £28m-a-year, Pep’s is £100m-a-year.  The Swiss Ramble examines this claim.

In thae period since Klopp arrived at Liverpool in October 2015, City have reported £656m net spend, averaging £131m a year, which is over twice as much as Liverpool £318m (£64m average). In fact, Liverpool have also been outspent in this period by Man United £630m, Chelsea £465m, Arsenal £428m and Everton £359m.

In terms of gross spend, City have spent just under a billion in the last five years, the same as Chelsea, while Liverpool’s outlay is only around two-thirds as much at £660m. Even on a gross basis, the Reds are below under-performing Man United £850m and Arsenal £676m.

So Simon’s estimate of £100m annual net spend was fairly close for Pep (£115m), but significantly understated Klopp at £28m (actually £62m.

In terms of wages, Liverpool are much closer to City with their £1.4 bnn in the 5 years up to 2020/21 being just 9% lower than City’s £1.5 bn.

In conclusion, Simon Jordan is correct that Klopp’s net spend is lower than Pep’s (though not by as much as he said), but a more meaningful comparison would also consider wages. On that basis, Pep has still spent more, but the difference is far smaller.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wolves get raw deal from FFP

  I used to see a lifelong Wolves fan for lunch once a month.   He was approaching ninety, but still went to games.   Sadly he passed away the other week. As football finance guru Kieran Maguire has noted, Wolves continue to be constrained by financial fair play rules.  Radio 4 this morning described them as this year's 'crisis club' and the pessimists have certainly been piling in. Martin Samuel wrote sympathetically in the Sunday Times yesterday, saying that the Premier League drives talent away with regulatory red tape: 'Why could Al-Hilal sign Neves? Because Wolves needed the money. And why did Wolves need the money? Because the club had to comply with an artificial construct known as financial fair play. So Wolves are going skint, yes? No. There is no suggestion that Wolves are in financial trouble, only that they are failing to meet the rigours of FFP. Wolves’ owners appear to have the money to run the club, and invest in the club, and in fact came up with a pow
Post a Comment
Read more

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000.  The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts.  Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is
Post a Comment
Read more

Charlton takeover approved

The long awaited takeover of Charlton Athletic by SE7 Partners from Thomas Sandgaard has been approved:  https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/se7-partners-obtain-efl-approval-for-charlton-athletic-takeover/ Charlton have had unhappy experiences with owners for over a decade, so how this works out will remain to be seen.  There is certainly potential there, but will it be realised? This interview with Charlie Methven gives detail not available elsewhere:  https://thecharltondossier.com/charlie-methven-on-the-record/
Post a Comment
Read more