02 03 2006 Chelsea's spending: facts and figures
I needed to do this as it has been bugging me for a long time.
I wanted to know how much Chelsea had spent in comparison to other clubs. I used 1990 as a starting point as I believe
that was when football began to regain its popularity, and clubs began to spend again. I did not include transfers under
£500,000, nor did I net off the amounts with transfers out (Tore Andre Flo anyone?) Here is the spreadsheet I
constructed.
Chelsea has spent by far the most since then. Around £400 million. Until Roman came along, we had spent £135 mio
and had trophies to show for it. Then comes Manchester United with around £260 mio, then Newcastle with £235 mio,
Liverpool with £230 mio and finally Arsenal with £166 mio.
What does this all prove?
Firstly it shows how well Arsenal have done with such a meagre spending bill. Wenger has turned many players into
world class members of the team. Vieira, Ljundberg and Henry are great examples. Liverpool and Manchester United
have also spent their fair share. This despite them having produced many home grown players. Over the last ten years,
John Terry is the only player who has come through the youth team setup to become a regular fixture for the Blues and
England. Graeme Le Saux is another example although arguably his best years were spent at Blackburn.
So despite the fact that Manchester United inherited many players for free (Giggs, Scholes, Neville & Neville, etc) in
effect they still had to spend nearly a quarter of a billion pounds. Liverpool similarly have had Fowler, Carragher, Owen
and Gerrard and yet also have spent a similar amount. Arsenal have had few home grown players. Wenger seems to be
buying many youngsters on the cheap in the hope that some of them will make it as world class players. He has bought
quantity rather than quality over the last two seasons. However, noone can doubt that during Arsenal's best period he
has managed his players well.
Newcastle United have had no home grown players of note that have risen through the ranks of their squad. They are
among the big spenders and have little to show for it.
So what can we conclude?
In the grand scheme of things Chelsea has not been a number one choice for quality youngsters to join. With their
history of success and the aura that surrounds them, up until last year any decent, young player would most probably
choose the big three of Manchester United, Arsenal or Liverpool to join instead of us. Now that Chelsea is in the early
days of a golden period where we are not just a good cup side, but also smashing other clubs to bits in the league, it is
time we stepped up the quality of our youth scheme.
The shelf life of our best players at the moment are perhaps another five to seven years, and it would be great if in five
years time we had a team which included at least three players who have risen through the ranks of our youth team.
This spreadsheet also proves that money does not buy success! Newcastle have spent so much with no silverware to
show for it. Even Wigan are going to have a more successful season than them having spent very little in comparison.
Out of the players we have bought in the last three years, very few have depreciated in value. Apart from Drogba and
Carvalho, and perhaps Shaun Wright Phillips, I would argue that many of our players are still worth what we paid for
them, if not more: Lampard, Cech, Robben, Duff, Gallas and Joe Cole to name a few.
In any case we need to see youngsters start to make the grade in the next few years. Perhaps Chelsea do not have the
catchment area other clubs such as West Ham do. In South West London rugby is a hugely popular sport too. I can't
imagine us finding our next player from the Kings' Road! Now is the prime time to attract them into joining our great club.