05 Feb 2026 21:01:57
I'm not sure if everyone, punters, pundits, posters, journo's actually understand the term NET spend or if they just enjoy the headline figure to support clicks (pundits, journo's in particular) and personal agendas (often rival fans) so I had a look at the last 5 years. No surprise really with Man U leading the way at £684.61 million, Arsenal in 2nd place at £675.77 million and Chelsea at £662.04 million.
It won't stop some using the GROSS figure to support their agenda or point of view but I prefer, as a businessman, to use NET figures (supporting my agenda of course) which is to try to encourage a more balanced view. P. S. interesting to note Liverpool are not even in the top 5 of spenders despite their huge outlay in the summer and neither are Man City.
06 Feb 2026 07:59:46
Because its also flawed. One year prior to your 5 year mark, arsenal had a net spend of 60m whereas our net spend was 200m, putting us way ahead of them in a 6 year metric. Net spend in a window is flawed because it doesn't account the amount spent previously on assets.
A better way to look at it in my opinion is money spent and money generated. Chelsea in my opinion have done very badly with money spent under new owners. However, they've done incredibly well in the money generated area too.
06 Feb 2026 08:32:29
Greenaway, I believe most, if not all, of our posters are aware of the difference between gross and net spend. The figures I have read put the net spend of the three clubs you mentioned between £755 million and £782 million. It doesn’t detract from the fact that we have spend a huge amount of money on players many of whom have not improved the squad.
We have been good at selling players but I’m not sure how long that can be maintained. Leaving aside players most of us would want to keep, I don’t see the potential of any significant profits in the current squad.
06 Feb 2026 09:27:54
Absolutely agree with your post Greenaway, I also point to net spending.
That being said, we have bought a billion worth of players and we still do not have what I deemed to be a top notch GK, a top notch CB and a top notch CF. I admit in the first window, TB was badly advised, some of the money was recouped and that is part of the net spend.
06 Feb 2026 11:08:39
If fans/posters find comparisons interesting then it should be on a like for like basis. My guess is Greenaway used a five year period because it covers the full term of our current owners. I think this is there fourth season. So, if a fans agenda is anti our current owners and they want to make a club transfer comparison gross or nett it should be over four seasons.
I personally haven’t got a clue what the gross spend of other clubs has been over the last five ish years and I personally don’t care that much as long as we are within the rules.
I wasn’t a fan of our squad for the last few years of the RA ownership and that includes a CL winning team. I was fed up with TT and Lamps both saying that the group of players were mentally weak.
My list of urgent wants would probably be different to most fans but I’m generally ok with the majority of our squad.
06 Feb 2026 12:31:22
Just one other thing and if you feel it’s important to make club transfer spend comparison, try not to get euros and pounds muddled up.
06 Feb 2026 21:52:42
Tom, here you go again about agendas; this time posters questioning spending being anti owners. The people I speak to at Chelsea are like me, indifferent about the owners. The reality is that we are owned by a private equity corporation and a rag-tag bunch of Billionaires, none of whom have any cultural background in football which is evidenced by their first few years of ownership.
06 Feb 2026 22:00:41
Im not even anti owners. I think we have owners who want to win, I just don't agree with the transfer strategy at all and think they've done terribly but if that makes me anti owners or means I have an agenda so be it.
07 Feb 2026 09:28:37
I would happily be a “rag tag” billionaire and if I think people have an agenda I will say so.
Our current owners have been involved (successfully) in sports ownership and management. Maybe be not football but that applies to a lot of club owners in our premiership. Our previous owner, as far as I know had no previous experience in sports or football club ownership.
07 Feb 2026 22:15:17
Tom, when you accuse people of having agendas : your favourite comment; you should stipulate what you think their agenda is. Boehly and Walter have experience of American sport whether successfully, I don’t know; no doubt you watch a lot of it. Our majority shareholders are a private equity firm who invest in technology and industry.
I was referring to football: their lack of cultural insight is evidenced by shiny clubs badges on shirts last season and this recent this recent CFC LDN bulls**. RA was a football fan and his record as our owner speaks for itself. You clearly have an agenda of your own.
08 Feb 2026 00:21:43
The thread is quite obvious and repetitive.
Of course I have an agenda.
Wealthy owners of other clubs have interests in other sports, at this moment in time I’m happy enough with our position. I would also prefer our owners to some other clubs owners.
I also don’t think being a football fan owner is a guarantee of success. RA was good for us but that wasn’t always the case at our club. In fact football fans as owners has its share of failures.
Ownership of football clubs has changed and in my opinion continue to change. My guess is the multi sport franchise model will grow.