Does money buy success?

[Mic09]

It's a given that teams like Man City can have £60-70m players sitting on their bench. And in a normal year they will walk the league.

But look at Chelsea. they buy numerous £100 players, have unlimited funds, and yet, they struggle. Look at Man United - they spent more than City, yet struggled over the last few years. 

I would hazard a guess that money helps teams move up the ladder, but is not indicative of success by any means. 

One team spends 100m on Mudryk, another uses Mitrovic who everyone thought is just a solid Championship striker, no good enough to really make a mark in the PL. 

A good strategy, solid coaching,a proper "project" and a little bit of good fortune can really push you up the league. Do that over 2-3 seasons, add the revenue that comes with success to add that little extra, and I really believe you can break the top 4. 

Yes, the classic top 6 of English football always seem to come out on top. But they too, struggle. I guess their margin for error is a bit greater than that of the rest.

And the fact that any PL team can get a very good European manager means everyone can have a solid tactic and match management.

I think that years of good coaching have put Liverpools and Spurs high up the league.

But just because you have the money, does it mean you are destined for top 6? Is top 6 really a thing that is based on money alone?

[PieFacE]

It's not really a question that's black and white. Man City show spending money can bring success. Everton show that you need spend money wisely otherwise you end up in a poor position. 

Strategy and club culture is more important than money, but money sure helps if you have a decent plan. 

[Don_Simon]

Money buys you an invite to the party. 

 

[MrBlack]

I'd say they're probably equally important.  Without money, your strategy and culture alone isn't getting you into Europe, let alone winning anything. 

I guess with the PL rights the way they are though, any club can get "enough" money to make a success of it if they get their culture right (see Brentford and Brighton)

8 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

Strategy and club culture is more important than money, but money sure helps if you have a decent plan. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by MrBlack

[Zatman]

No but it helps a lot. Still got to make good calls

United overpaid for likes of Pogba, Maguire etc and Have little to show for it

[HanoiVillan]

19 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

It's not really a question that's black and white. Man City show spending money can bring success. Everton show that you need spend money wisely otherwise you end up in a poor position. 

Strategy and club culture is more important than money, but money sure helps if you have a decent plan. 

What matters is:

a] qualifying for Europe, and really just the Champions League - this matters because then truly elite players who reliably put up top numbers year after year will be interested in joining. Without that, you are fishing in the same pool of good-but-not-truly-excellent players that everyone else is in. 

However, qualifying for the Champions League is not enough on its own, as Leicester showed a few years ago. What makes Newcastle, who may well qualify, and then will be able to buy truly elite players, different from Leicester? That is:

b] the common perception among people in the football industry that you will continue to qualify for the Champions League, over and over again in the future. This is the part that's about money. Players, managers, agents - they all have to believe that your club doing well isn't just a one or two-season aberration but a 'new normal' and for that you really need to suddenly become conspicuously loaded or to be one of the traditionally biggest clubs in the country. 

Everton spent as much as they did *because* they were trying to become 'elite' through spending alone, but look at the calibre of player it got them - they were no better than the players bottom half teams have. So the issue is not that having money makes no difference, but that spending it alone might not be enough - you need to be seen to have it, to be very likely to continue to have it, and to be a big club for the future. Man City got that rep, Everton didn't, Newcastle will get it and are doing so currently. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by HanoiVillan

[Mic09]

21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What matters is:

a] qualifying for Europe, and really just the Champions League - this matters because then truly elite players who reliably put up top numbers year after year will be interested in joining. Without that, you are fishing in the same pool of good-but-not-truly-excellent players that everyone else is in. 

However, qualifying for the Champions League is not enough on its own, as Leicester showed a few years ago. What makes Newcastle, who may well qualify, and then will be able to buy truly elite players, different from Leicester? That is:

b] the common perception among people in the football industry that you will continue to qualify for the Champions League, over and over again in the future. This is the part that's about money. Players, managers, agents - they all have to believe that your club doing well isn't just a one or two-season aberration but a 'new normal' and for that you really need to suddenly become conspicuously loaded or to be one of the traditionally biggest clubs in the country. 

Everton spent as much as they did *because* they were trying to become 'elite' through spending alone, but look at the calibre of player it got them - they were no better than the players bottom half teams have. So the issue is not that having money makes no difference, but that spending it alone might not be enough - you need to be seen to have it, to be very likely to continue to have it, and to be a big club for the future. Man City got that rep, Everton didn't, Newcastle will get it and are doing so currently. 

But point a) is less and less relevant. Elite isn't judged by money alone. Mudryk is not elite. 

Conceivably, any PL team can temp a very good player from Spain or Italy to play in England. 

Look at Kamara. 10 years ago he would have been at Chelsea. He landed at Villa, but could have played for West Ham or Leicester. 

Also, the margins are getting finer. Splashing an extra 60m on a player doesn't mean they will bring anything extra. 

Buendia is better than Mount. Mount is a "100m" player (he isn't, but he would be in this market). Buendia we bought for £30m.

 

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

But just because you have the money, does it mean you are destined for top 6? Is top 6 really a thing that is based on money alone?

No, but only because the "top 6" exist.  Yes to the second part - or, at least, 80% of it.

[KAZZAM]

Money indeed does buy success but you need clever people at the top firstly. 

Unfortunately you get alot of blaggers when it comes to 'top' jobs and if you get that wrong the rest follows suit. Ed Woodward/Gerrard/Boehly all at different levels at club football all causing disaster. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

But point a) is less and less relevant. Elite isn't judged by money alone. Mudryk is not elite. 

Conceivably, any PL team can temp a very good player from Spain or Italy to play in England. 

Look at Kamara. 10 years ago he would have been at Chelsea. He landed at Villa, but could have played for West Ham or Leicester. 

Also, the margins are getting finer. Splashing an extra 60m on a player doesn't mean they will bring anything extra. 

Buendia is better than Mount. Mount is a "100m" player (he isn't, but he would be in this market). Buendia we bought for £30m.

I'm a bit confused by what point you're making here. Of course it is true that the best players at Villa can be better - or at least having better seasons - than off-form players at top 6 sides. However, while Kamara is an excellent player, as is Martinez, either we get better or they leave. At the end of the day whatever theory you have needs to reckon with the reality that most years 4 or 5 of 'the big 6' finish in the top 6 places; that a disastrously bad season for Chelsea is pretty much exactly as good as a good season for us; and that while West Ham and Leicester can go from top 4 contention to relegation candidates in the blink of an eye, that will never ever happen to one of the 'elite' clubs. What is your alternative explanation?

[Oaks]

Money improves the chances off success not gauarentee it, but certanly improves it. PSG for instance still look miles off a champions league with Neymar/Mbappe/Messi up front.

[villa89]

3 hours ago, Don_Simon said:

Money buys you an invite to the party. 

Pretty much. In general the team with highest wage bill wins the league. If you look outside England then this is usually the case in other leagues. In England even the like of us and Everton can buy players for £40m and pay them £150K a week. When you have that kind of money if you are smart and buy the right players you can contend in any league. Look at Arsenal this season, their squad isn't costing mega millions but they have enough money to have Odegaard and Jesus. The problem happens when you are Brighton or Southampton or someone who has a wage ceiling. Once you hit that then any good player will leave because they can double their money elsewhere and you'll never really compete. We used to have that problem but we aren't as badly affected anymore.

[NoelVilla]

Not if given to Martin O'Neill to spend.

[GlobalVillan]

Yes

[Strog]

If used and spent wisely, then yes.

[AXD]

2 hours ago, Oaks said:

Money improves the chances off success not gauarentee it, but certanly improves it. PSG for instance still look miles off a champions league with Neymar/Mbappe/Messi up front.

PSG wouldn’t be in the CL or have those players without the artificial money. Same with City and Chelsea, they are top clubs now because they bought their success/titles. A bad season for Chelsea is just a bad season, the money will make sure they challenge again in the future.

[bannedfromHandV]

Money gives you a platform, it’s what you do with it that counts 

[GlobalVillan]

Another way of framing it is that NOT having money guarantees you won't be successful. 

[VillaJ100]

Not everyone who spent loads was successful, but everyone who was successful long term spent loads

[Rds1983]

7 hours ago, Mic09 said:

But look at Chelsea. they buy numerous £100 players.

Think I can see where Chelsea have gone wrong.