Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Money Doesn't Guarantee Success?
Written by wadey on Wednesday, 10th Feb 2016 14:44

Due to all the arguments about not spending money on players and other people saying 'spending doesn't guarantee success', I decided to do some research. I've looked at every club that has been promoted since we were relegated in 2002.

That's 39 clubs over the past 13 seasons. And I've looked at what they spent across two seasons; the year they went up and the year previous.

2002/03
Portsmouth:
01/02 = £5m
02/03 = £1.24m
Total = £6.24m

Leicester City:
01/02 = £13.5m
02/03 = £0 (administration)
Total = £13.5m

Wolverhampton Wanderers:
01/02 = £15.5m
02/03 = £0
Total = £15.5m

Promotion Average: £11.74m


2003/04
Norwich City:
02/03 = £0
03/04 = £1.3m
Total = £1.3m

West Bromwich Albion:
02/03 = £12.7m
03/04 = £4m
Total = £16.7m

Crystal Palace:
02/03 = £3.2m
03/04 = £200,000
Total = £3.4m

Promotion Average: £7.13m


2004/05
Sunderland:
03/04 = £0
04/05 = £1m
Total = £1m

Wigan Athletic:
03/04 = £2.7m
04/05 = £1.3m
Total = £4m

West Ham United:
03/04 = £2.1m
04/05 = £1.1m
Total = £3.2m

Promotion Average: £2.7m


2005/06
Reading:
04/05 = £900,000
05/06 = £1.9m
Total = £2.8m

Sheffield United:
04/05 = £400,000
05/06 = £5.1m
Total = £5.5m

Watford:
04/05 = £280,000
05/06 = £1.3m
Total = £1.58m

Promotion Average: £3.29m


2006/07
Sunderland:
05/06 = £4.4m
06/07 = 12.1m
Total = £16.5m

Birmingham City:
05/06 = £6m
06/07 = £15.3m
Total = £21.3m

Derby County:
05/06 = £450,000
06/07 = £7.5m
Total = £7.95m

Promotion Average: £15.25m


2007/08
West Bromwich Albion:
06/07 = £2.1m
07/08 = £19.4m
Total = £21.5m

Stoke City:
06/07 = £1.9m
07/08 = £5.2m
Total = £7.1m

Hull City:
06/07 = £2.4m
07/08 = £2.3m
Total = £4.7m

Promotion Average: £11.1m


2008/09
Wolverhampton Wanderers:
07/08 = £5.6m
08/09 = £6.3m
Total = £11.9m

Birmingham City:
07/08 = £22m
08/09 = £2.6m
Total = £22.6m

Burnley:
07/08 = £1m
08/09 = £3m
Total = £4m

Promotion Average: £12.83m


2009/10
Newcastle United:
08/09 = £26.4m
09/10 = £4.7m
Total = £31.1m

West Bromwich Albion:
08/09 = £15.4m
09/10 = £4.8m
Total = £20.2m

Blackpool:
08/09 = £1m
09/10 = £800,000
Total = £1.8m

Promotion Average: £17.7m


2010/11
Queens Park Rangers:
09/10 = £3m
10/11 = £4.5m
Total = £7.5m

Norwich City:
09/10 = £1m
10/11 = £3.7m
Total = £4.7m

Swansea City:
09/10 = £2m
10/11 = £1.5m
Total = £3.5m

Promotion Average: £5.23m


2011/12
Reading:
10/11 = £2m
11/12 = £1.5m
Total = £3.5m

Southampton:
10/11 = £2.2m
11/12 = £4.2m
Total = £6.4m

West Ham United:
10/11 = £11.8m
11/12 = £9.25m
Total = £21.05m

Promotion Average: £10.31m


2012/13
Cardiff City:
11/12 = £2.1m
12/13 = £9.8m
Total = £11.9m

Hull City:
11/12 = £1.2m
12/13 = £6.3m
Total = £7.5m

Crystal Palace:
11/12 = £600,000
12/13 = £1.3m
Total = £1.9m

Promotion Average: £7.1m


2013/14
Leicester City:
12/13 = £4.4m
13/14 = £400,000
Total = £4.8m

Burnley:
12/13 = £1.7m
13/14 = £0
Total = £1.7m

Queens Park Rangers:
12/13 = £37.8m
13/14 = £8.9m
Total = £46.7m

Promotion Average: £17.73m


2014/15
Bournemouth:
13/14 = £3m
14/15 = £3.6m
Total = £6.6m

Watford:
13/14 = £0
14/15 = £750,000
Total = £750,000

Norwich City:
13/14 = £22.5m
14/15 = £15.2m
Total = £37.7m

Promotion Average: £15.01m


So, according to these figures, only twice have all three teams been promoted by spending less than £5 million across a two-year average (04/05 and 05/06).

Only three times have clubs all three clubs been promoted by spending £5 million - £10 million across a two-year average (03/04, 10/11 & 12/13).

The team to have been promoted, spending the least amount across two seasons, are Watford in 2015. They are also the only club out of 39, to have spent less than £1 million (£750,000).

There are also only a further six clubs that have been promoted by spending less than £2million.

Ten clubs have been promoted by spending between £2 million and £5 million. Eight clubs have gone up by spending between £5 million and £10 million. The remaining 14 clubs have spent £10 million plus.

The overall average needed to be spent to gain promotion is £10.54 million across a two year period.

Ipswich have only spent £492,500 since the end of January 2013 (not including loan fees and the minimal compensation for youngsters Dylan Connolly and Adam McDonnell).

I know money doesn't guarantee promotion, but according to theses figures, you can't get promoted without it.




Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.

BlueandTruesince82 added 14:50 - Feb 10
This is a pointless exercise, you have to look at how much the rest of the league spent to see if it holds water. its all very well saying you need to spend 10 million but several of the clubs that didn't make it have spent have 15 then the argument holds no water.

Good effort and interesting reading but you have to look at the spending of all clubs in the league to know if what you say is true, and getting truly accurate picture is impossible as many fees and undisclosed and how do you account for frees and wages, just because someone hasn't paid out a big fee doesn't mean they haven't paid out big money in other ways.
4

Illinoisblue added 14:54 - Feb 10
when is part 2 of the blog where you list amount spent for every team in the league and compare that to final position in league?
1

homer_123 added 15:33 - Feb 10
As others have said - without the context of what other clubs spent and where they finished, this is meaningless.
0

DoobDude added 15:38 - Feb 10
Excellent research here. Best blog post I've seen for a while.
Doesn't seem to have stopped the whining above but for me it is definite proof that you can't get promoted on the cheap.

1

wadey added 15:48 - Feb 10
As I have stated MONEY DOESNT GUARANTEE SUCCESS. But at no point in here, has a team been promoted by spending hardly any money. That's the whole point. Money is not going to guarantee promotion. But according to the stats, spending no money suggests that promotion can't be done. That's the point
0

wadey added 15:50 - Feb 10
It doesn't matter if clubs have spent and not made it. At no point has a club been promoted by spending less that £750,000 across two years, let alone the 'less than £500,000' that we have spent in the last 3 years
1

wadey added 15:51 - Feb 10
Obviously no one read the last sentence. Apart from DoobDude
1

jonbull88 added 16:00 - Feb 10
But isn't out wage bill £16m+? Meaning we in fact spend over £16m a season 😉
0

Mullet added 16:27 - Feb 10
Well going by your last sentence, aren't all clubs spending money year upon year? No one plays for free etc.

There's so many holes and problems in this it tells us virtually nothing. Not least of all because you've picked an arbitary amount of time and not accounted for changing TV deals, FFP, academy changes etc.

I'm not sure if you set out to prove something and couldn't or just didn't look at the whole picture.
1

Stato added 18:47 - Feb 10
Leicester are proof that once in a very rare blue moon a club can have fantastic success without spending fantastic money and Derby are proof that spending lots of money guarantees nothing. The interesting point I think Wadey makes is can you get promoted from the Championship if the pool of players you restrict yourself to are mostly free or very low transfer fees and it as nobody has yet done that the answer seems to be no. Forget wages and the overall budget for a moment and just consider the restricted pool of players only available on frees. Of course Watford got round this with loans from an associated club but as that doesn't apply to Ipswich let's not dwell on irrelevant examples. The two issues with our current approach are that we are only pursing that pool of players available on a free and with few exceptions that means we only freshen the squad each summer as that's when contracts expire. Sears was an exceptional addition to the squad but for Ipswich we are really only looking at loan additions once the summer window closes. This current strategy looks flawed in that it hasn't produced results and all I expect to hear back is that spending loads doesn't guarantee anything. The compromise for me is to either give Mick the same financial backing that Keane and Jewell had or sack Mick and bring in someone like the Pompey manager to see if he can get results on the restricted budget we have. The definition of madness is to continue to do the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. I'm hoping we don't watch the club repeat these mistakes next season expecting to get a different result because I don't think Mick is good enough to get us up on this budget. Something has got to change and if we're stuck with the budget let's give another manager a chance to see if he can be the first to take a club up on a genuine shoestring.
4

Mullet added 19:05 - Feb 10
Leicester spent a fortune trying to get out of this league - massive wages for season upon season just look at their squad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Leicester_City_F.C._season

Look at who Leicester got for free that year as well as who they spent money on. The main problem is none of this includes undisclosed fees so is utterly meaningless too.


0

Pip50 added 20:34 - Feb 10
Ah that will be why the three biggest spending clubs in Boro Hull and Burnley (Prem money accepted) are 1 2 and 3 in the Championship then !
0

BlueandTruesince82 added 21:26 - Feb 10
Out of curiosity what did each of the relegated teams?

If each relegated team spent even say 2 million each based on applying the same limited data within the same limited context that proves you have to spend more than 2 million in order to stay up.

If you fancy running the numbers I'd be genuinely interested to see them
0

Guthrum added 01:48 - Feb 11
Looking at your own figures, quite a few of those clubs spent relatively little (under £2m over the two season period) and achieved promotion.
0

wadey added 10:10 - Feb 11
Mullet, yes you're right, this doesn't include any undisclosed fees. Which only adds to my argument as that would mean each club spent MORE than what's on here. I can't exactly add undisclosed transfers (the answer is in the word). So either way a lot of clubs would have spent more due to these transfers.

Guthrum, yeah a few clubs did manage to get up spending under two million. And I'm not saying we need to go out and spend 5 or 6 million. But no club has gone up by spending such little as we have. and as BossMan writes, the pool that we select our players from are limited to when their contracts expire.
0

wadey added 10:12 - Feb 11
Mullet Wikipedia is the worst site to use as proof. That site can be edited by a monkey. Use www.transfermarkt.co.uk
0

carsey added 11:14 - Feb 11
For all of those picking holes in the research I would suggest it was a good attempt without getting too bogged down and for me shows that you do have to spend to achieve in professional football. The problem with Town IMO is we have a management set up who can't/won't spend money to real quality through the doors. Whether this is because the owner won't finance it or the manager thinks he can do it with loans/frees/journeymen is irrelevant unless we spend some serious money or get some real quality through the academy and start playing proper football we are destined to remain in the 2nd division.
1

Guthrum added 14:15 - Feb 11
Wikipedia can be edited by a monkey, but there are large numbers of human editors who quickly correct errors and remove unsourced material. Its inaccuracy is hugely overstated. I'm not convinced that transfermarkt is always correct or up-to-date.
0

BwoodBlue added 15:00 - Feb 11
Watford don't count - they had innumerous players on loan from their sister clubs in Italy and Spain who were Lower Prem/Upper Championship class
1

hogster1970 added 15:43 - Feb 12
well reserched and its a interesting blog, how ever what makes it a bit ambiguous is the fact that the season before promotion on alot of the teams that spent big was the fact they was in the prem that season so had the money to spend, and ofcourse got relegated any how,

the big question is on the teams that are now in complete mire buy not getting promoted back, bolton being one and are 180m in debt, unforchantly there is to many joe average players on big money wages and at the end of the day they aint that great,
0

stormypetrel added 10:43 - Feb 13
Wadey...good read, food for thought .....I think a clubs spending on wages is relevant ....it is a clear indication of the investment however I take the point about restricted pool ....however that pool has produced some quality for the club....and some players of dubious quality...
0
You need to login in order to post your comments

Blogs 295 bloggers

About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024