Arsenal’s lineup more expensive than United’s?
Football can be a funny ol’ game. You can (in your mind) be playing the best football on the planet, and then along comes a team shorn of their best attackers (transfered away) and defenders (ban / injury), a team that everyone has derided as going downhill, and then you’re taught a footballing lesson to rival…the footballing lesson they taught you the year before.
And to rub salt in the wounds, you can’t even use the money excuse anymore. Here’s what a United fan posted on TeamTalk yesterday:
I would like to draw some interesting facts and statistics to everyone’s attention, to end the myth about United’s spending and Arsenal’s excuses for winning silverware.
From today’s game, the Arsenal starting line-up cost a total of £84.45m vs United’s £73.6m which contained FOUR players from the youth academy (not to mention Giggs coming on). I obtained the figures from transferleague.co.uk.
Here are the United transfer costs: Rooney (27), Carrick (18.6), Nani (13.5) Evra (5.5), Park (4), Rafael (2.5), VanDS (2.5) with Scholes, Brown, Evans and Fletcher a product of the youth academy.
Arsenal’s is as follows: Nasri (15.8), Arshavin (15), Gallas (cost a £20m player minus £5m Arsenal received = £15m), Vermaelan (10), Fabregas (cost Van Bronkhort (£8.5m player)), Rosicky (7), Sagna (6), Denilson (3.4), Almunia (2.5), Song (1) and finally Clichy (0.25).
Another interesting fact is that Manchester United’s line up cost less than what Real Madrid paid for Cristiano Ronaldo. I think that should finally end all the petty excuses about arsenals lack of spending.
Topics: Arsenal, English Premier League, Football Transfers, Manchester United
Football News 24/7
This is moonshine. Fabregas did not cost £8.5 million, and Gallas did not cost £15 million net. You cannot calculate the transfer figures in this way.
Nor have you included Berbatov. And then we have Rio Ferdinand and Owen Hargreaves.
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:16Talking about the ‘starting lineup’ only here.
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:20I think your maths is a bit wonky….
Even your source says “Gallas – SWAP” and “Cesc – FREE”.
You can’t pick and choose which parts of data you want to use.
Or maybe you own the Glazer’s personal calculator…
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:19Interesting sums there!
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:19Gallas 5m? Fabregas cost 8.5m?
ridiculous.
almunia 1,5
rosicky 6,8
song 1
gallas +5
denilson 3,4
sagna 7,4
nasri 12,7
vermaelen 10
cesc 700,000
clichy 250,000
arshavin 15
£53,8m
that is less than rooney, carrick and nani put together. and nani cost more like £20 than the 13.5 you put there.
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:23Arshavin is Arsenal’s most expensive player ever so how can Nasri (who cost 12mil if you must know) cost more?
Evidently your figures are wrong.
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:23not to mention the £32m waste you had on the bench along with other very expensive players.
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:23Nasri & Arshavin £12m & £13m respectively. According to you Cole was worth £20m so that’s a figure taken from thin air, and you made up ‘Fabregas (cost Van Bronkhort (£8.5m player)’.. We signed him from the youth team and knowing that Barca didn’t want him to go, why do you assume he was part of a swap deal?!
Get your facts right..
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:25Nasri didn’t cost 15.8 million, Arshavin is our record buy at 14 million. Fabregas was a token payment & Barca didn’t get van bronckhorst in exchange for him. Almunia was just under a million & Song was 500k. As for Gallas nobody can say what figure was agreed for Cole, all we know is they gave us 5 million so to claim he was 15 is stupid.
Not sure what idiot made up those figures but they are completely wrong.
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:27Here are the REAL facts:
Nasri – £7.5m
Fabregas £0.5m (joined BEFORE VanBronkhorst!!!)
Denilson £0.8m
Song £0.3m
And no mention that United brought on two subs worth – £48m!!! And would’ve had £30m Ferdinand had he not been sent off.
Idiots like this try to be clever but then look very very stupid. The likes of Fletcher, Brown are no more products of Youth than Clichy, Fabregas – just not as good!
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:34Stupid. How can you class Cole as a £20m player if he was a product of the youth academy! You might as well value all the ManU academy players on the same basis. If you don’t then the cost to the squad of Gallas is minus £5m. The van Bronkhorst transfer wasn’t connected with Fabregas despite what the myth makers tell you.
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:35This is laughable.
Arsenal’s is as follows: Nasri (11.8), Arshavin (15), Gallas (A player we produced – £5million = minus £5m), Vermaelan (10), Fabregas (free), Rosicky (6), Sagna (6), Denilson (3.4), Almunia (2.5), Song (1) and finally Clichy (0.25)
50.95
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:40Gallas (cost a £20m player minus £5m Arsenal received = £15m)
Fabregas (cost Van Bronkhort (£8.5m player)
Riiight.
My idiot filter is in the off-mode, I see.
February 1st, 2010 @ 13:02The correct:
Arsenal’s is as follows: Nasri (12), Arshavin (14), Gallas (swap), Vermaelan (8), Fabregas (free – Youth), Rosicky (7), Sagna (5), Denilson (3.4), Almunia (1), Song (0.5) and finally Clichy (0.1).
Less than 51 mils..
February 1st, 2010 @ 13:09Because I’m bored at work, I’ve use non-mythical maths on my non-glazer calculator
Gallas = 3m
(doing your maths! 20m rated Cole minus 12m rated gallas minus 5m payment = 3m)
Nasri = 8m
(8m that could rise to 13.7m depending on performance)
Arshavin = 12m
Song = 1m
Cliche = 0.25m
Vermaelan = 10m
Fabregas = free
Almunia = 2.6m
sagna = 6m
rosicky = 7m
denilson = 2.4m
real arsenal total = 52.25m
compared to united’s 73.6m team.
With the 20m less spent, arsenal could have bought Alminia a pair of fairly nice high heels better enabling him to reach nani’s cross and tip it over the goal rather than in.
February 1st, 2010 @ 13:25Or alternatively buy a 20m goal keeper to replace our very average one.
What a load of rubbish. Cesc cost compensation of pesnuts not £8.5M and Gallas was valued at £10M +£5M cash for Cole. Nani cost £17M and Arshavin was closer to £12M and Nasri was less that Arshavin so it is actually nearer £67M Arsenal vs £80M ManU.
February 1st, 2010 @ 13:49thing is, Arsenal bought these players with their own money. Not someone elses. So it’s not even comparable
February 1st, 2010 @ 14:02You numpty. Talk about twisting the figures to suit your argument. Gallas cost £15m? Who valued A Cole at £20, you? Arsenal did not ‘pay’ £15m for Gallas so you can’t include that in your figures. And Fabregas £8.5m? He was nothing to do with the V Bronckhorst deal and you know it.
February 1st, 2010 @ 14:19And not to mention the fact you’re only talking about the starting lineups here. How about Berbatov, Vidic and Ferdinand? And players like Veron before that. I don’t think Man Utd fans are qualified to talk about money in any shape or form, your club have spent as much money as anyone.
So if you grow your own player and play him on the pitch he counts as “nothing” on the squad cost, but as soon as you use him in a deal for another player then you have to take his value into account?
Someone hasn’t thought this through at all….
Ps – most of the figures are seriously made up, and would you care to comment on the rest of the squads?
February 1st, 2010 @ 14:25Arsenal never make their transfer details public. Pure conjecture I’m afraid.
February 1st, 2010 @ 14:35+1 for the trolling article, Soccerlens
February 1st, 2010 @ 14:42Yeah, sure Nasri cost 15.8 and Nani cost 13.5. haha
February 1st, 2010 @ 14:48and Vermaelen was 10 million euros, not pounds (ajax website). gallas was a swap. fabregas free. manu were better, but this article is pure bullshit
This article is using statistics in the same way like this:
February 1st, 2010 @ 17:42If it was found out 99.9% of heroine users use marijuana, so almost anyone who uses marijuana uses heroine.
It also might be that, 99.9% of heroine users drink milk. Come to conclusions yourself.
The Statistics in this article is twisted and analyzed to be in the favor of the point that the person writing it wants to prove.
Also, Arshavin is our most expensive player ever bought…
Soccerlens – news you can trust?
LOLOLOL
February 1st, 2010 @ 20:47I like how this article was written (and I use the term loosely) by “Soccerlens” and is quoting an cut and paste does not make an article.
February 1st, 2010 @ 23:30Eh. First the death and destruction of the SL forums, and now absolute bullshit like this. United bias much?
Also, note that I hate both teams, yet the figures above are terrible.
February 2nd, 2010 @ 00:35the figures are off but either way a £50m+ team should be doing better than that.
it pains me to think that i’m counting on this same arsenal team to beat chelsea this weekend. go gunners! lol
ONE UNITED..!
February 2nd, 2010 @ 09:46a 50m team is 3rd in the league..? I don’t see whats so shameful about that?
All teams have off days….=/
February 2nd, 2010 @ 17:49a 50m team is 3rd in the league..? I don’t see whats so shameful about that?
All teams have off days….=/
Whats shameful is a blog posting such biased rubbish..especialy a blog whos tagline is ‘news you can trust’…
February 2nd, 2010 @ 17:50Whats shameful is a blog posting such biased rubbish..especialy a blog whos tagline is ‘news you can trust’…
February 2nd, 2010 @ 17:50Let’s not forget about inflation… 27 Mil for Rooney years ago is A LOT more today.
February 2nd, 2010 @ 21:19To add to what’s already been pointed out about the flawed figures:
These are (speculated) transfer fees only and do not include the wages of the players. Arsenal are well known for a strict and (relatively) frugal wage policy, making the upkeep of the team cheaper than ManU’s.
When discussing the “cost” of a team, or starting XI, it is well worth remembering the wages, as the majority of these players make several hundred thousand pounds a week. That quickly adds up to far more than the transfer fees.
February 3rd, 2010 @ 04:16The reason utd fielded a (so called) much lower cost squad against arsenal is because most of their expensive signings are flops like anderson, berba, hargreaves and carrick.
February 3rd, 2010 @ 07:55A Vespo: The key measurement of wages is the wages to revenue ratio and Utd’s is better than Arsenal’s.
That was no win argument for the Gooners I’m afraid. You’ve refuted the numbers which I am prepared to accept. But based on what I saw last Sunday you have just made the argument that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys!
February 3rd, 2010 @ 08:24Monkeys who are third in the table
:rolls eyes:
Man Utd fans are always so disrespectful of opponents. I wonder what Rooney, Ferdinand and co would say about their fans talking like this about their fellow players..
February 3rd, 2010 @ 09:36@erwf: I thought you weren’t an Arsenal fan????
You need to find a sense of humour somewhere!
February 3rd, 2010 @ 23:57obviously the article author is a Biased Manchester United Fan (Biased as all Man-United Fans)
deliberately missed out Berbatov & Ferdinand!!!
were did the £32 million for Berbatov go, he’s the biggest flop ever. Rio Ferdinand was £30 from leeds and that was back in the old days.
So: arguable 2 man-uited players costed as much as the whole Arsenal team
The Gallas and Fabregas figures in the article are laughable & Nani, Hargreaves and Anderson were £17m each!
Plus, Arsene Wengers turned around more players and never spent ridculos amounts of money to try and buy his way to the top.
February 10th, 2010 @ 16:49