Found this on the Guardian forum. Don't know if it's 100% accurate, but it's pretty interesting:

Net transfer spending over the last four years (up to last week):

1. Man City : £259.0

2. Tottenham : £145.9

3. Sunderland : £89.5

4. Aston Villa : £78.4

5. Liverpool : £78.4

6. Chelsea : £64.7

7. Fulham : £47.0

8. Everton : £40.1

9. Stoke : £29.7

10. Man Utd : £29.4

11. Bolton : £25.3

12. Hull : £25.2

13. Birmingham : £23.7

14. West Ham : £21.3

15. Wolves : £16.1

16. Burnley : £2.5

17. Wigan : -£13.8

18. Portsmouth : -£19.0

19. Blackburn : -£21.9

20. Arsenal : -£41.3

It shows we've become a lot more prudent since the first couple of summers after RA took over (as if we didn't know that, but I doubt the rest of the football world is fully aware of the reality).

Out spent by Sunderland?

Roman get out the cash!

Arsenal LOST an average of £10m a year?! Goodness me, I knew they didn't spend much, but not THAT much!

Arsenal LOST an average of £10m a year?! Goodness me, I knew they didn't spend much, but not THAT much!

No. It means they've made that much more on selling players than they've spent. In other words, it's their overall balance for players bought and sold.

Man U's balance is obviously skewed by the recent sale of the greasy poser. Add £80 and it's clear they've spent a lot more on players than you would imagine going by those figures alone.

Bear in mind Arsenal just received £45-odd million for Touré and Adebayor.

Oh, my bad. *sheepish*

No. It means they've made that much more on selling players than they've spent. In other words, it's their overall balance for players bought and sold.

Man U's balance is obviously skewed by the recent sale of the greasy poser. Add £80 and it's clear they've spent a lot more on players than you would imagine going by those figures alone.

True, and that is while in heaps of debt. But when you look at their record the past three years, the lesson has got to be clear to Roman. A little extra investment in our squad might go a long way

True, and that is while in heaps of debt. But when you look at their record the past three years, the lesson has got to be clear to Roman. A little extra investment in our squad might go a long way

What amazes me is that nobody's noticed (or bothered to remark on) the missing m after £80!

Of course I blame the keyboard. It's the moody one with an M/m key that goes missing whenever it feels like it.

Of course I blame the keyboard. It's the moody one with an M/m key that goes missing whenever it feels like it.

Sounds like Man Utd's defence whenever the mighty Robbie Blake stares them down.

its funny that Aston Villa : £78.4M dollars on transfer but yet they have the smallest/ one of the smallest squad on the epl

I'm actually glad to see we've reigned it in a little, at least now we can't be constantly accused of buying our success

What this shows is that:

1. Despite the "turmoil" of the last 3 years, club management is sticking to their plan of breaking even financially, and eventually becoming a money making club. This is exactly what Kenyon stated when Roman first took us over in 2003.

2. It shows that RA is not the type of man to throw his money around with gay abandon (contrary to what you read in the papers). He made inital large investments over the first couple of seasons to turn us from a bordline top-4 club, to a serious Premiership challenger, and after that he has steadily reduced the amount of cash-splashing, as he hasn't had the need.

3. Both of the above points mean that (again contrary to what you read) RA and the club management do have a sound long-term plan, and aren't going to walk away from the club any time soon.

Looking at the other clubs of the list:

Man United and Liverpool - this list flatters them a bit, as they have just sold players to Madrid for massive money - otherwise they would both be a lot higher up the list. I think the only big-money sale that we have made in that time was Robben for about 20 million.

Spurs - hahahahaha. 145 million and they're still rubbish.

What this shows is that:

1. Despite the "turmoil" of the last 3 years, club management is sticking to their plan of breaking even financially, and eventually becoming a money making club. This is exactly what Kenyon stated when Roman first took us over in 2003.

2. It shows that RA is not the type of man to throw his money around with gay abandon (contrary to what you read in the papers). He made inital large investments over the first couple of seasons to turn us from a bordline top-4 club, to a serious Premiership challenger, and after that he has steadily reduced the amount of cash-splashing, as he hasn't had the need.

3. Both of the above points mean that (again contrary to what you read) RA and the club management do have a sound long-term plan, and aren't going to walk away from the club any time soon.

Looking at the other clubs of the list:

Man United and Liverpool - this list flatters them a bit, as they have just sold players to Madrid for massive money - otherwise they would both be a lot higher up the list. I think the only big-money sale that we have made in that time was Robben for about 20 million.

Spurs - hahahahaha. 145 million and they're still rubbish.

All great points and I have to agree. Chelsea is looking like a stable club financially and tbh I'm not too bothered that we are not paying as much as what we used to 2-3 seasons ago...

And yet, the media will still portray chelsea as the club that "sold its soul" to money and "bought" the league...not that I care

All great points and I have to agree. Chelsea is looking like a stable club financially and tbh I'm not too bothered that we are not paying as much as what we used to 2-3 seasons ago...

And yet, the media will still portray chelsea as the club that "sold its soul" to money and "bought" the league...not that I care

No, not by a long shot. Although I, like others, am pleased that we're thinking long-term, the club still makes huge losses each year.

Those figures must be bolox - we've bought every trophy we've ever won

No, not by a long shot. Although I, like others, am pleased that we're thinking long-term, the club still makes huge losses each year.

I guess what I ment to say was Chelsea is looking MORE like a stable club...we have good foresight, hence the planning for long-term, rather than the stable current situation...which makes you absolutely right :)

I guess what I ment to say was Chelsea is looking MORE like a stable club...we have good foresight, hence the planning for long-term, rather than the stable current situation...which makes you absolutely right :)

the top 5 clubs on that list have won 1 League cup between them in 4 years.

Just goes to show that money doesn't but sucess.

We'll not lose the "bought every trophy" tag until we start bringing young players through from our academy.

Hopefully that may be a couple together - Mancienne and Cork perhaps - and then a steady stream, although realistically that'll be no more than one each season.