njligernj
Player Valuation: £15m
If that table doesn't prove once and for all that net spend is NOT the sole key to success, nothing will.
What on earth? I realize you want it to not be true but FFS you can't take the spend from an incomplete window and use it as evidence.
The last decade says hello ...
Nett Spend 03/04 - 13/14 Purchased Gross Sold Nett Per Season
1 Manchester City £860,920,000 £269,950,000 £590,970,000 £45,459,231
2 Chelsea £936,509,000 £384,850,000 £551,659,000 £42,435,308
3 Manchester United £669,550,000 £284,150,000 £385,400,000 £29,646,154
Also nobody considers it the sole key to success. City didn't win everything by virtue of being number one. But if you take the top three that's a fairly high percentage of the trophies won over the last decade.
There are outliers -- us ... Spurs because of big sales etc -- depending on your definition of "success." But there is a very strong correlation. It's one of the strongest correlations that exists in sports for predicting future performance.
It's funny how people who don't understand statistics seem to think nobody has ever thought of causation before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
We know. It doesn't change the fact that biggest net spend = trophies most (not literally all ... but most) of the time.
Last edited: