The table of net Premier League spend on transfers by clubs since 1992/93

[rebel]

Yes, Newcastle website, but interesting nevertheless -

https://www.themag.co.uk/2020/08/the-table-of-net-premier-league-spend-on-transfers-by-clubs-since-1992-93-newcastle-united/

[Arthur]

The table has Spurs - who have been in the P.L. since it's inception - as having spent only £203M. It's £47M less than it says we've spent (in half the number of seasons) and, if correct, only £5M more than Bournemouth shelled out during their far shorter five-season stay. And though escalating transfer fees since 1992 detract from comparisons with clubs that have not been in the P.L. since its beginning, Spurs' average-spend-per-year for the past 28 seasons works out as just £7.25M. I recognise that, unlike ourselves and The Cherries, Spurs haven't had to attempt to transform a good Championship team into one which can survive in the world's toughest league, and that Levy is perceived by many to be a frugal chairman. Nevertheless, this I cannot believe.

[rebel]

The table has Spurs - who have been in the P.L. since it's inception - as having spent only £203M. It's £47M less than it says we've spent (in half the number of seasons) and, if correct, only £5M more than Bournemouth shelled out during their far shorter five-season stay. And though escalating transfer fees since 1992 detract from comparisons with clubs that have not been in the P.L. since its beginning, Spurs' average-spend-per-year for the past 28 seasons works out as just £7.25M. I recognise that, unlike ourselves and The Cherries, Spurs haven't had to attempt to transform a good Championship team into one which can survive in the world's toughest league, and that Levy is perceived by many to be a frugal chairman. Nevertheless, this I cannot believe.

The figures quoted are net spend, so minus sales.

[filham]

Hard to believe that we have spent all of that , we must now be a buying club ,no longer a selling club.
Fulham spending more than Spurs that really is hard to digest, has any one told Mourinho.

[rebel]

Hard to believe that we have spent all of that , we must now be a buying club ,no longer a selling club.
Fulham spending more than Spurs that really is hard to digest, has any one told Mourinho.

It is kind of skewed, we spent over £100m in the relegation season.

[The Rational Fan]

I don't know why anyone is surprised, MAF spent enormous amounts on players for the long-term with many players only delivering in the first few seasons of their contract, but most failing to deliver over a few different managers, as the managers who bought them would have lead MAF to believe.

[rebel]

I don't know why anyone is surprised, MAF spent enormous amounts on players for the long-term with many players only delivering in the first few seasons of their contract, but most failing to deliver over a few different managers, as the managers who bought them would have lead MAF to believe.

Yes, but the Khan's spent over £100m on players, relegation season, I'm not sure we raised anything from sales that season.   

[mrmicawbers]

Qpr spent big when they got to the Prem and don't appear on that list.

[rebel]

Qpr spent big when they got to the Prem and don't appear on that list.

It's because they 'spent big', but the buys and sales must of cancelled each other out, meaning any difference was relatively marginal. The key word is 'net'.

In Man City world, 'net' means nothing.  :003:   

[snarks]

Qpr spent big when they got to the Prem and don't appear on that list.

It's because they 'spent big', but the buys and sales must of cancelled each other out, meaning any difference was relatively marginal.

Only those clubs whose net spend is over 100 million.

[General]

we're eighth, but spent almost half of our total spend in one year  2 years ago. We'd be 18th before then. And I reckon we've probably spent the extra £20-50m with the Khans.

[filham]

I have difficulty putting these big sums into perspective.
Let me try this.
Our best ever buy has to be Ivor at £4,000. For £250m we could have bought 60,000 Ivors.

[ALG01]

being net spend it is totally misleading and shows why numbers without context leads to wrong conclusions.

What we need to see is absolute spend on transfers and then compare that to where teams end up.

[rebel]

being net spend it is totally misleading and shows why numbers without context leads to wrong conclusions.

What we need to see is absolute spend on transfers and then compare that to where teams end up.

I think the article is demonstating that money buys success, it's quite telling. Man City has been dominant, clearly as a result of the players they have bought, the very, very deep pockets. They still can't adhere to Fair play Rules.