Budget against achievements, Premier League 2023-24

[stavros]

This is something I did in the previous season too, but never got round to posting my findings. Basically over the season, because I'm a sad twat with a numerical mind and too much spare time, I've tracked each Premier League team's on-pitch player costs. It took a bit of setting up, but once you've got how much players cost a club in transfer fees the spreadsheet is fairly simple.

It's not perfect, as it doesn't account for wages, which whilst probably correlated to transfer fees don't align perfectly. For example I suspect Erling Haaland is amongst the highest paid players in the league, but cost the relatively small amount of £54m. From what I could find out the majority of Luton players cost the club nothing, which may not be entirely correct.

Anyway, the table below shows the average values. There's not a huge amount surprising in there, perhaps only Villa, Brighton and Palace overpeforming, and Manchester United and Chelsea underperforming. It makes me wonder whether you'd get a more interesting game if they properly levelled the playing field, although I appreciate relegation and promotion makes that difficult. It'd be interesting to know what others think.

Club​	Average cost (£m)​
Manchester City​	454.4444093567​
Chelsea​	392.8601023392​
Liverpool​	356.819625731​
Arsenal​	348.0697865497​
Manchester United​	338.4063488304​
Tottenham​	303.4219005848​
West Ham​	228.2819912281​
Newcastle​	225.4682953216​
Aston Villa​	188.7442894737​
Everton​	131.0665856725​
AFC Bournemouth​	112.8600935673​
Wolves​	94.1319649123​
Fulham​	92.5274590643​
Nottingham Forest​	90.5078187135​
Crystal Palace​	80.2309342105​
Brighton​	76.3339020468​
Burnley​	70.1792105263​
Brentford​	67.5519444444​
Sheffield United​	53.9542690058​
Luton​	9.1885087719​

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

It's kind of interesting but ultimately it's really just demonstrating what we all know isn't it. Definitely agree that a more level playing field would make things more interesting but it's so far from the way that things are set up and the mindsets of the people involved it's hard to even see what that would look like and there's definitely no chance of it happening. Certainly I don't see the financial fair play rules as doing it (or having any sort of intent to).

 

[two sheds]

I've often wondered about that - and there should be a separate league table showing number of points gained divided by the total costs. Am tempted to do it later on

 

[two sheds]

Aaaand we have it.

2023/24 Premier League Champions: Luton by some way
Runners up Brighton. RELEGATED Man Utd and Chelsea just beating Man City.

Congratulations Luton and Brighton
Tough luck Man Utd and Chelsea better luck next year in the Championship

Club​	Ave cost/player (millions)​	Points​	£million/point/player​
Luton​	£9.19​	26​	2.83​
Brighton​	£76.33​	48​	0.63​
Crystal Palace​	£80.23​	49​	0.61​
Brentford​	£67.55​	39​	0.58​
Fulham​	£92.53​	47​	0.51​
Wolves​	£94.13​	46​	0.49​
AFC Bournemouth​	£112.86​	48​	0.43​
Aston Villa​	£188.74​	68​	0.36​
Nottingham Forest​	£90.51​	32​	0.35​
Burnley​	£70.18​	24​	0.34​
Everton​	£131.07​	40​	0.31​
Sheffield United​	£53.95​	16​	0.30​
Newcastle​	£225.46​	60​	0.27​
Arsenal​	£348.07​	89​	0.26​
Liverpool​	£356.82​	82​	0.23​
West Ham​	£228.28​	52​	0.23​
Tottenham​	£303.42​	66​	0.22​
Manchester City​	£454.44​	91​	0.20​
Manchester United​	£338.41​	60​	0.18​
Chelsea​	£392.86​	63​	0.16​

 

[stavros]

I've often wondered about that - and there should be a separate league table showing number of points gained divided by the total costs. Am tempted to do it later on

I have that in my source spreadsheet, but I thought I'd keep it simple.

As I said, it's not an exact science, but it fills out from the takeaway stats commentators sometimes use, like "Jack Grealish's hair gel cost more than the Luton back four combined".

 

[tommers]

The string of digits after the decimal is really triggering me. Just do it in whole millions. It's a lot clearer.

Club revenue is probably a better metric. Big teams have great youth setups, which means they get players for "free" in your judgement, but young players join them because they've pumped millions into their set ups and enjoy success due to their superior income and spending power. What price Foden? Or TAA?

Also, Chelsea (for example) have spent millions on players that don't even get into their teams. Those aren't counted in this assessment but should count towards some kind of overall picture of how a club has done.

 

[tommers]

Tbf the results would probably be pretty much the same.

 

[tommers]

A graph would be nice, to show the difference between say the top 6 and the rest.

 

[two sheds]

I think the True Premiership Winner and two Truly Relegated Teams are the key items here

and yes I had to delete all the figures below the top four for the spreadsheet to accept it

 

[stavros]

I was thinking, whilst I've not done the above for any seasons other than the last two, it does suggest there were some clubs and particularly managers who did spectacularly well. If we assume that the spending gaps have always been roughly equivalent to the above, the likes of Allardyce's Bolton, Curbishley's Charlton, Moyes' Everton and Dyche's Burnley all excelled.

The other thing that strikes me, but evidently not chairmen and owners, is that backing a manager and giving them autonomy produces results. City have given Guardiola full control on selection and recruitment, as did Liverpool with Klopp, United with Fergie and Arsenal with Wenger. Modern day United and Chelsea are often given as examples as to why Guardiola is so good, given comparable spending, but Chelsea's success was almost despite Abramovich, and United haven't allowed anyone the power that Ferguson had.

 

[two sheds]

Luton manager says about recruitment, too:

Having an effective scouting network will help with that and although some supporters of other clubs across the EFL may want to see their side splash the cash, stability is the most important thing for a side that have had off-field issues in the past.

Nathan Jones reveals “secret” behind Luton Town success

Luton Town manager Nathan Jones believes the club's recruitment has been a key reason behind the club's meteoric rise to the top end of the Championship table, speaking to BBC Three Counties Radio.

footballleagueworld.co.uk

 

[stavros]

Oh, I should've cited Pullis' Stoke, alongside Big Sam, Curbs, et al. Rarely has there been a better coached side.