But what about the net spend?

[toffeeblue9]

I'm

I find most of what you have written - frankly as bad as those you claim are 'moronic'

You're as guilty of only looking at specific issues as they are.


Net spend AND Gross spend are an important indicators. As business manager will need to consider these year to year. As they might inform as to what available resources will be year to year.

'Cash flow' will only be known by examining: 'wages' and 'changes in wages year to year' along with 'other related costs' and importantly: 'gross revenue' AND 'net revenue' : both of which can be broken down and itemised further to identify where revenues are coming from or will come from. This can be very important in itself.

For instance in Everton's case they will be considering future revenues in everything that they are doing. They will know where those future (new) revenues will be coming from probably out to 3 to 5 years.


'Cash flow' in itself is a rather useless metric for planning purposes year to year. As no one will be able to understand it without breaking it down.

I read most of what you have said and whilst you make valid points about wages and other costs, most of what you have written appears to simply have a go at @davek .

The reality is Dave is merely making some specific points, you don't have to agree with them. I don't as I would always look further than Net spend and Gross spend.

Things like the Youth Setup. Stadium Development. Sponsorships. Equity investments.

Which from the outside are extraordinary items that can dramatically change the picture year to year.

Unfortunately you've fallen into the reverse trap and think that everything you've identified is correct. Whereas you are equally as lazy as the 'moron's you've accused of being lazy in your OP.


The truth is. Neither you or @davek are correct.

The truth is something in between.



Moshiri - IS investing in the club

In the squad (wiped out the debts in past two years; which has meant the club can invest in playing staff and/or infrastructure) which has also meant new tv + sponsorship revenues are being fully mobilised; brought in new sponsorship (new revenues); investing in infrastructure (BM Dock) by arranging financing facilities

There has been a net spend in both transfer fees and wages.

A massive gross spend.

Partially from new tv money. New sponsorship and Lukaku sale.

This was only possible as Moshiri wiped out previous debt and has himself ensured an expanding revenue base year to year for the club.


The difference in Everton to Randy Lerner's Aston Villa. Not all the money is going into transfer fees/wages. Its being spent on expanding the revenues and infrastructure. Wages are not out of control relative to our peers and Everton are not going into debt to finance it all.

Hence. This is 'proper' investment. Not paper investment. That simply looks good on paper.

I'm in Greece at the moment, so I'm not going to have time to reply to this properly.

But to summarise, you're reading waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too much into the post.

The fundamental argument is that "net spend" isn't a thing.

It isn't, because it doesn't tell you the real costs involved.

The cost of buying a player for £20m is greater than the benefit of selling a player for £20m, typically, because of the associated costs involved in acquiring a player.

And that's it. There's no more to the argument.

If you can disagree with that, let's just part as friends

 

[bizzaro]

I'm


I'm in Greece at the moment, so I'm not going to have time to reply to this properly.

But to summarise, you're reading waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too much into the post.

The fundamental argument is that "net spend" isn't a thing.

It isn't, because it doesn't tell you the real costs involved.

The cost of buying a player for £20m is greater than the benefit of selling a player for £20m, typically, because of the associated costs involved in acquiring a player.

And that's it. There's no more to the argument.

If you can disagree with that, let's just part as friends

Yes there is more. It's 'moronic' to say there isn't.

 

[fandjango]

How much have we received from the extra TV money over the past two seasons. 100m?

Look I think everyone can agree that football has gone crazy with regards to money. I guess we will only know at the end of the window whether we have improved or not but at the moment it's almost impossible to judge either way.

However we do need to buy two decent fullbacks.

Not sure what this has to do with the thread ?

 

[toffeeblue9]

Yes there is more. It's 'moronic' to say there isn't.

As far as representing spending, and debating the intricacies of football finance and business practices, of course there is more.

You are trying to widen the debate. I'm trying to simply show that "net spend" is a metric which is at best only a small part of the picture and there's nothing you've written in your lengthy ripostes which actually contradicts that. In short, we're not disagreeing

Unless you're taking offence to me indirectly labelling Davek as "moronic". In which, let me be more direct - he's a moron, and for far more reasons than him peddling the net spend line.

Right I have a slight hangover I need to address, it's been a pleasure

 

[bizzaro]

As far as representing spending, and debating the intricacies of football finance and business practices, of course there is more.

You are trying to widen the debate. I'm trying to simply show that "net spend" is a metric which is at best only a small part of the picture and there's nothing you've written in your lengthy ripostes which actually contradicts that. In short, we're not disagreeing

Unless you're taking offence to me indirectly labelling Davek as "moronic". In which, let me be more direct - he's a moron, and for far more reasons than him peddling the net spend line.

Right I have a slight hangover I need to address, it's been a pleasure

Yes it is true. It's only a single metric. But certainly an important one you tried to dismiss in your rambling mess of an OP.

Yes. The attacks on @davek were out of order. Labelling people morons when you are very much as guilty of focusing on one thing as he is.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Forget the net spend, what about Boomer?!?!

 

[Timhowardsswearbox]

Which has/will be financed by players sold, that Martinez bought. Martinez even gave Stones his debut if I recall.

Lukaku and Stones. There's a 140 million right off the bat.

McCarthy will be next and that'll be 160.

Stones was a Moyes signing. We got decent money for him but Martinez can take no credit for his development as defensively he had no idea. If we had him working under Koeman for a season he would be worth twice as much now.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

And what about Rockhead Rumple?

 

[ART]

Net Spend? if it helps Pickford buy them.