World Soccer Magazine published a fascinating table at the bottom of an article on the respective financial might of Chelsea and Manchester City yesterday, detailing player spend and sales for current English Premier League clubs over the last 10 seasons.
Liverpool have an average net spend of £18.1m as they chase former glories while Manchester United, who stole Liverpool’s place at the top of the English pile, had only a marginally higher net spend of £18.6m.
Fifth on the list is Aston Villa, largely on the back of an attempt to take over the world during Martin O’Neill’s reign, spending a net average of £11.1m.
Most fascinating of all is that 11 of the 20 have a net average spend of less than £4m per season. They spend big, but apart from the odd team spending some foreign country’s mineral wealth, they also sell big.
Bottom of the table of net biggest spenders in Everton, who sold £7.8m of talent more than they bought during the period. Newcastle United are also in a surplus, thanks in part to their recently departed director of football, Joe Kinnear, who completed his service without spending a penny.
Crystal Palace clearly have an eye for a bargain. They successfully negotiated a return to the Premier League, and then bought Joe Ledley as his Celtic contract ran down, with an average net spend of £722k.
The Silk from a Sow’s Ear prize has to go to Arsenal. The last decade has not been generous to Arsenal, however, their average net spend is only £1.5m per season having sold £277m worth of talent. Their business model is not right, i.e. they have not been able to compete with those who don’t seem to care if they break even, but they, more than any other club in Europe*, are primed for the Financial Fair Play era.
*apart from Celtic, of course.
[calameo code=000390171bffb0dd3dc4f lang=en page=128 hidelinks=1 width=100% height=500]
1,048 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- ...
- 28
- »
Scottish independence is fast becoming the only option
Even to a unionist like me, an Alex Salmond-led government is preferable to one that rewards greed and corruption
Alex Salmond has said that everyone in an independent Scotland would have the right to a home and a free education. Photograph: David Moir/Reuters
Those among my friends who have lost their religious faith have described it as a desolate process. Rather than experiencing a rush of euphoria at liberation from a restrictive credo, they speak of their sadness as, one by one, the illuminations on their once cherished pillars are extinguished. It may be approaching apostasy to equate separation from the divine with the dawning of scepticism about the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Yet when it becomes increasingly more difficult to find good reasons why Scotland should remain in the union you begin to wonder if your crisis of faith is curable or terminal.
The champions of the union these days have curiously little to say that is positive about their cherished political nirvana beyond the Queen, some shared former glories and a nebulous “stability”. When their anti-nationalist invective outweighs their pro-union adulation, you realise that they are not convinced either. Indeed, it seems now that the loudest supporters of the union are UK ministerial salarymen such as Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy or old Scottish Labour stalwarts such as Michael Kelly and Brian Wilson.
Alexander and Murphy would suffer most in the anti-Scottish backlash following independence while the other two have such an implacable hatred of Scottish nationalism that it might lead you reasonably to conclude that they would sooner accept the Taliban than the SNP. Indeed, the good Dr Kelly in his entertaining columns for the Scotsman states that the result of the referendum is already in the bag and thus the campaign is “boring”. Even now, nationalist strategists ought to be trying out Kelly’s words in an 84pt sans serif face across six columns in their campaign leaflets.
Last year, over coffee in Glasgow, I was discussing the strategy of the Better Together camp with a prominent Labour politician. I suggested to him that Labour’s problem in Scotland is that they had to develop a narrative that says good things about the union rather than simply parrot the predictable and scientifically questionable surveys of purple-faced and gin-soaked CBI types that claim we’ll be a developing country if we become independent.
One year later and, despite Douglas Alexander’s best efforts, Labour has still failed to sell the union on its own merits. Events since then may even have rendered the task impossible. Unionists, me included, have talked loftily about dangers of break-up and separation in a world that is thirsting for continuity and stability.
Yet we conveniently overlook the fact that London has already broken away from the United Kingdom and now exists as a world super-state governed by the greed of unhindered capitalism and recognisable as British only by its taxis and bad service. As the world’s most newly minted oligarchs continue to colonise the independent state of London, it becomes almost impossible for families on less than £250k to live decently there. Poor London families made homeless by the coalition benefit cuts are being evacuated as far north as Middlesbrough.
Last week, Goldman Sachs, one of the banks with its fingers in the till when global economic meltdown occurred, awarded an average bonus of £250,000 to each of its employees. The gap between the richest in our society and the poorest stretched a little more and we were reminded yet again that the UK government, despite its promises, allows greed, incompetence and corruption to be rewarded. (How many people do you think will go to jail for the Libor rate-fixing scandal?) Meanwhile, Westminster politicians are dividing the poor into categories marked “deserving” and “scum”.
The most common wet dream of every Bullingdon Tory is the national lottery. And what a jolly wheeze it is: get the poor to fund our biggest capital projects in exchange for a cruel fairy story. Now they’ve doubled the stake to £2, confident that the benefit cuts are increasing their customer base daily. In Glasgow, the boss of a council-run regeneration agency was given a £500k pay-off at a time when the Citizens Advice Bureau is reporting almost 1,000 calls a day from people whose families have been impoverished by the benefit cuts. Life for millions of people under the most rapacious and reactionary government in 150 years has diminished. To prevent the peasants revolting, however, they have been treated to exaggerated displays of unity euphoria such as the Olympics and assorted royal jubilees.
Labour in the UK long ago gave up any pretence at being the party of the marginalised and the vulnerable. Instead, it throws rotten fruit at the SNP when it says what Labour should be saying. Alex Salmond last week painted a handsome picture of what a new Scottish constitution following independence would look like. Every Scot, he said, would have a right to a home and free education. There will be no nuclear weapons. And we’ll decide who we’re fighting and who we’re not. Until Blair, Mandelson, Balls and Miliband hijacked the party, that was what I thought Labour stood for. Now they simply boo and hiss with the Tories and say it can’t be done.
Earlier this month, the UK Treasury declared that, following a period of intense and prolonged analysis of the economic numbers, each of us would be £1 a year worse off in an independent Scotland. Put another way, for £1 a year you will never have to endure the economic privations of a Conservative government ever again. You will not be penalised for being poor or old and nor will you suffer the pain of watching your young boys being killed in illegal wars or occupations.
We won’t be lacking friends, either. Of matters concerning oil and Europe in an independent Scotland, the Norwegian government officials I met in Oslo last month were very upbeat. “Come and talk to us before you commit to the EU,” they said, “and let us advise you how to manage your oil fund and how to negotiate with the oil companies.”
With each passing week, it becomes more difficult to support a union that doesn’t really exist anyway. Morally, it may soon become indefensible to remain in a state that rewards corruption and promotes inequality when you have an opportunity to leave it behind.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/20/scottish-independence-becoming-only-option?CMP=twt_gu
Swansea sack laudrup! 2 months ago he was touted as next Real Madrid manager!
Bookies and press will have Lennon one of the favourites for this job!
I don’t really want to get into the independence debate because how I feel now and how I felt 10 years ago are polar opposites, but has the SNP said if and how they will honour/finance pensions for those who worked in government offices, schools and the NHS in Scotland?Basically anyone who paid into a superannuation scheme in Scotland over the years?
Headlines tomorrow
Fulham fans boycotting craven cottage until Huns are back in SPFL
Big cup winners
I answered earlier and this only my opinion. I and most of the independent voters I know feel that at the demise of Lizzie will see the end of a monarchy in Scotland.
The official position is she will remain in her present position.
Pragmatically we feel we have little choice on this as any other option would lead to defeat.
I’ve been hangin over the fence, from the no side, for a while now, and don’t like the noises behind me. According to Better Together we’re spongers, livin on handouts from the rest of the UK, and are goin to subject ourselves to the equivalent of an economic and political nuclear winter. These arguments from the “no” campaign are pissng me off mightily. The arguments are basically saying to me: “we think you’re an idiot, you’re goin to listen to this crap and believe it, and you’re going to vote no because you’re scared”.
All the arguments for no are occurring right now under the union. England, which has massive gravity in terms of UK votes, is undoubtedly swinging to the right. As much as I have respect for the ordinary Joe I’ve met down there, they seem very susceptible to spivs selling simple answers.
I’m beginning to climb over that fence. I don’t like nationalism – these lines on the map were drawn by rich old thugs, but maybe a more influential vote is required.
Still unconvinced.
Why do the YES voters always try to set the agenda
People will not be beaten down
Your monetary union policy is shot …you know it …
Your giving decent folk a sore head
You’re ..even ..iPad !!!
eddieinkirkmichael
There’s so much more too it and you know it. It takes about 5 years for simple changes in government infrastructure, I could write you a book and how un-prepared Scotland is but I fear it would be wasted as you’ve made your decision with sweeping statements. To me it’s just a flag, I didn’t like seeing them at Parkhead, but in every day life I don’t really notice them. Just getting on in my life. I’m not campaigning either btw the way, I just think it a bit unfair the amount of Yes campaign stuff posted which is nonsense. I would like the blog it to be back about Celtic and for people just to decide on their vote and do it. I couldn’t a flying France what you are voting. If I want further educated on it I’l go to Indy Referendum Quick News.
eddieinkirkmichael
You see that’s just lazy journalism, lifted from the herald via facebook presummbly. Saw it earlier on, it’s keeping failing journos in a job, next week he’ll write one with a different theory and every week until September.
“The key difference is that while admittedly condemning the practice of homosexual behaviour, the Catholic Church does not preach hatred of gay people”
The above statement probably sums up my attitude to the notion of gay marriage.
I find “gay” and “marriage” to be a contradiction, personally.
I consider myself a logical person/thinker, and as such believe that for me to support a gay lifestyle, I would need to support the right of EVERYBODY to be gay.
I do not believe it is right to support gay rights on an individual couple basis – if you think it’s ok for Mr X and Mr Y to have a gay relationship, then you must support the notion that all gay relationships are ok.
This is were my logical brain prevents me supporting the gay lifestyle/choice….if EVERYONE woke up tomorrow and chose to be gay, then civilisation would cease to exist as procreation would end.
That is surely against human nature. Man needs woman for life to continue.
I cannot bring myself to condone a lifestyle that could, in THEORY, be seen to say it’s ok for civilisation to end.
Sounds too simple?…..to my mind its logical thinking.
Again, let me repeat, while admittedly condemning the practice of homosexual behaviour, I do not preach hatred of gay people.
HH
Eddieinkirichael
Truly excellent and informative posting. Thank you
Hh
Sorry Guardian*
g69 19:35
The reason I will be voting yes in September is summed up in two words, George Osborne
Surely four words – Baronet Gideon Oliver Osborne
Yes?
No?
Don’t know?
ThatsmethatisCSC
Evening all, and changing the subject slightly…
I’m looking forward to the Saturday’s game and hope that, after the tasteless events of last weekend, we send them homeward with another 9-0 tanking to mull over.
I noticed this on my wee brother’s FB page, dating back to 1983, when one of our neighbours was a Dons fan. When this picture was taken Celtic had won just one of the previous nine meetings with Aberdeen at Celtic Park, losing six of them! Hopefully the modern day form prevails this time around…
Just watched Sportscene it never amazes me how poor the coverage is.
Looks like sepia cameras and early 60 s one camera vision.
Dreadful
Aberdeen manager was despicable.
He had a chance to stand up for a fellow manager and codemn the “one or two fans” involved. He talks round it and praise his fans.
call me Gerry,
How about you support the right to marry someone of the same sex for those who want to and the right to marry someone of the opposite sex for everyone else?
Surely the same opportunity for all is logical?
call me Gerry
20:05 on
4 February, 2014
“The key difference is that while admittedly condemning the practice of homosexual behaviour, the Catholic Church does not preach hatred of gay people”
Yup, meanwhile ole John MacLean, former churnalist from the Isles, and noted anti-catholic used to enjoy stating that he hated Catholicism, not catholics.
I believe Ian Paisley said something similar.
call me gerry
20:05 on 4 February, 2014
My god is there more people like you in this world, if there is god help us.
You are a total moron
As a Scot living in England I hope for a yes vote so that we can save the subsidy we give to the govt in Holyrood
That should spice up the debate
tongueincheekCFC
Pogmathonyahun aka Laird of the Smiles
19:53 on
4 February, 2014
I don’t really want to get into the independence debate because how I feel now and how I felt 10 years ago are polar opposites, but has the SNP said if and how they will honour/finance pensions for those who worked in government offices, schools and the NHS in Scotland?Basically anyone who paid into a superannuation scheme in Scotland over the years?
Don’t be silly. Nats don’t bother with such fripperies like pensions, mortgages, and currency.
It’s all about the “fleg” for them.
Steinreignedsupreme – great news!
….pfayr supports weeoscar
What’s the arrangements for Saturday mate ?
googybhoy,
Agree. BBC Scotland sports coverage has barely moved on since the days of Archie MacPherson.
Compared to Sky and BBC network it is horrifically amateurish.
Squire, you won’t be surprised to hear that I agree with you. There is a person called Patrick Strudwick(possible spelling error) who has been given a lot of time on the BBC to spout the most hateful bile towards the Catholic Church. He has often appeared on Stephen Nolan’s late night show on five live. I pity him for his hatred. His bile is tolerated by the BBC because a lot of BBC staff support gay marriage. The past treatment of homosexuals in Britain was disgusting but nowadays they dominate the national agenda thanks to ‘The Guardian’, the BBC etc. They are a minority remember. A homosexual lobby group will soon challenge the Catholic Church by using some absurd human rights law. That is why I don’t accept Gordon J’s argument.
Wow gerry do you stay up all night worrying you might wake up gay tommorrow hahah might be a few less wars if your stupid arguement came true lol i am alf garnett would approve of your views also
Gordon_J backing Neil Lennon
20:10
The point I’m making is that IF EVERYONE chose homosexuality, I could not support that.
Would it then be hypocritical for me to support only SOME homosexuals but not ALL?
JimmyQuinnsBits
20:10
I am discussing sexuality choices…..not religion.
HH
Why in the days of high speed internet is the bbc still showing pixelated highlights on thier webpage
Couple of jobs opening up for Lenny in England… Swansea, maybe Norwich…
Hope not, but a bit worrying.
https://twitter.com/TheBoabie/status/430796637381070848/photo/1/large
I am definitely, definitely not going to the Swans, no way I am moving abroad.
italiabhoy
20:18 on 4 February, 2014
Don’t worry mate Lenny like the rest of us is here for 10 in a row HH
moonbeams wd. kano 2000 \o/ supporting neil lennon 99.9%. champions. c’mon wee oscar.
15:51 on 4 February, 2014
I am Neil Lennon and Peter Lawwell….hahahahahahaha
If Big fat Salary and his third rate superstars get beat on Friday night – do you think his latest best friend will seize an ideal opportunity for a bit of cost cutting?
Swansea will not be after Neil purely due to the style of football they want to continue to play.
John O’Neil
20:16 on
4 February, 2014
“They are a minority remember” – language John ;)
Maybe the Catholic Church should focus less on sexual matters for a wee while, it’s in danger of making a complete erse of itself.
Pope Francis, a man I’m respecting more and more each day, said something to that effect didn’t he?
hunskelper
20:11
I am more than willing to listen to other opinions. Please debate, rather than the name calling.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
thezombieslayer
20:17
what you call stupid argument, i call logical thinking. If that is the extent of your contribution to the subject, so be it.
HH
call me Gerry,
No one chooses to be gay any more than they choose to have red hair or green eyes.
I don’t really see the logic in your argument, maybe I’m not understanding it properly. What if everyone was gay? Well the simple answer is that they are not.
As a parallel to your line of thought – some women choose not to have children. Now if all women chose not to have children then the human race would die out, So as a society we should make all women have children just in case …