But what about the net spend?

[formerly manx toffee]

Some men just want to watch the world bum.

There are websites for that

 

[Florin]

There are websites for that

Underrated post

 

[Titus Bramble]

Hardly any Evertonian.

also, how did we buy Schniederlin and Lookman?

Schneiderlin is a great footballer. Makes such a difference to our midfield

Lookman is exciting but still has a way to go yet. Will be interesting to see how he develops

 

[Woolly Blue]

The next time someone tries to simplify a debate about a teams relative lack of spending by using "net spend" as a measure, please feel free to give them the cyber equivalent of a bitch slap.

Haha, I think your article is flawed mate, and I shall explain why.

Using net spend is a method of comparing what clubs do with their money and how successful they are. I grant you, it's a crude measure, and anyone who worships the "net spend" god while ignoring all the other factors which go towards making a club succesful, is in danger of looking a bit silly.

But anyway, to critique your article :-

Agents Fees

All ( well, almost all ) transfers go through agents. Those agents percentages will be different, but, overall they'll be broadly similar. So, if Club A have a headline net spend of 100 million and club B have a headline net spend of 150 million, and agents fees are the same percentage wise, then all that means is the numbers get inflated by much the same amount, and you might end up with net spend + agent fees of 125 and 187 million.

The outcome is the same though. Club A spends less than Club B, so, unless they've been particularly smart in the market, Club B will end up with better players.

VAT

Exactly the same argument applies here, all clubs pay VAT at the same rate, Club B will end up spending proportionally more than Club A, and will almost certainly end up with better players.

Premier League %

It's another percentage, and the same argument applies

Add Ons and instalments

You yourself are basically saying these are the norm, so add-ons, in percentage terms are likely to be broadly similar, and the instalment payments will likely be phased much the same for all transfers, so, yet again, it makes little to no difference in the grand scheme of things. The more you spend, the better players you're likely to get.

So, a summary so far shows that though Agents Fees, VAT, the PL levy and add ons and instlaments add to the headline net spend figure, in relative terms of money spent, they make little difference. If your headline net spend figure is higher than someone elses, you'll likely end up with better players.

Wages and Image Rights

On these, I'm partly in agreement with you, but only partly. As a general rule, the more you spend on a transfer fee for a player then the more you'll spend on wages and image rights for them. To be fair, this is only a general rule, because with someone like Zlatan, he didn't command a transfer fee, so that scenario breaks the rule. Also, players with only 12 months on their contract will generally cost less than they would have if they'd got two years left on their contracts, but, over a reasonable timescale of two or three years, clubs will probably end up buying ( or getting on frees ) a similar spread of players compared to what was left on their previous clubs contract. So, in the short term, buying someone like Zlatan effects how your cash is spent, but, in the longer term, it probably evens itself out.

One thing you didn't touch on wrt wages though, is the effect of bringing players through the ranks, or players who've been bought relatively early in their careers. These players cost relatively little, so would't show up in a net spend summation, but their wages will likely increase towards a player whose book value is much higher than they are, so, if you can buy young players who go on to become regular first team players at the level you've tried to compete at , then you've reduced your net spend in comparison to your rivals

The other thing which can reduce dependence on net spend is Player Trading. Basically, buy low, sell high, increase your gross spend, but minimise your net spend.

Your article's a good one, but I think you've let @davek get to you too much, and the result was therefore biased to take up a position contrary to his, which is a shame, because you've plainly got some good stuff knocking about in your head. Don't let him get to you, he's just some blert on the internet !

 

[davek]

Haha, I think your article is flawed mate, and I shall explain why.

Using net spend is a method of comparing what clubs do with their money and how successful they are. I grant you, it's a crude measure, and anyone who worships the "net spend" god while ignoring all the other factors which go towards making a club succesful, is in danger of looking a bit silly.

But anyway, to critique your article :-

Agents Fees

All ( well, almost all ) transfers go through agents. Those agents percentages will be different, but, overall they'll be broadly similar. So, if Club A have a headline net spend of 100 million and club B have a headline net spend of 150 million, and agents fees are the same percentage wise, then all that means is the numbers get inflated by much the same amount, and you might end up with net spend + agent fees of 125 and 187 million.

The outcome is the same though. Club A spends less than Club B, so, unless they've been particularly smart in the market, Club B will end up with better players.

VAT

Exactly the same argument applies here, all clubs pay VAT at the same rate, Club B will end up spending proportionally more than Club A, and will almost certainly end up with better players.

Premier League %

It's another percentage, and the same argument applies

Add Ons and instalments

You yourself are basically saying these are the norm, so add-ons, in percentage terms are likely to be broadly similar, and the instalment payments will likely be phased much the same for all transfers, so, yet again, it makes little to no difference in the grand scheme of things. The more you spend, the better players you're likely to get.

So, a summary so far shows that though Agents Fees, VAT, the PL levy and add ons and instlaments add to the headline net spend figure, in relative terms of money spent, they make little difference. If your headline net spend figure is higher than someone elses, you'll likely end up with better players.

Wages and Image Rights

On these, I'm partly in agreement with you, but only partly. As a general rule, the more you spend on a transfer fee for a player then the more you'll spend on wages and image rights for them. To be fair, this is only a general rule, because with someone like Zlatan, he didn't command a transfer fee, so that scenario breaks the rule. Also, players with only 12 months on their contract will generally cost less than they would have if they'd got two years left on their contracts, but, over a reasonable timescale of two or three years, clubs will probably end up buying ( or getting on frees ) a similar spread of players compared to what was left on their previous clubs contract. So, in the short term, buying someone like Zlatan effects how your cash is spent, but, in the longer term, it probably evens itself out.

One thing you didn't touch on wrt wages though, is the effect of bringing players through the ranks, or players who've been bought relatively early in their careers. These players cost relatively little, so would't show up in a net spend summation, but their wages will likely increase towards a player whose book value is much higher than they are, so, if you can buy young players who go on to become regular first team players at the level you've tried to compete at , then you've reduced your net spend in comparison to your rivals

The other thing which can reduce dependence on net spend is Player Trading. Basically, buy low, sell high, increase your gross spend, but minimise your net spend.

Your article's a good one, but I think you've let @davek get to you too much, and the result was therefore biased to take up a position contrary to his, which is a shame, because you've plainly got some good stuff knocking about in your head. Don't let him get to you, he's just some blert on the internet !

Allow me to abridge that lot for you:

"davek was right; you were wrong."

 

[johnnydawg68]

I dont need to. I have him on ignore for a reason.

It's all bunkum to try and avoid the FACT that we are seeing zero difference to our plan we've had for years: sell players-----> buy players with the proceeds.

If some need to believe those days are over to have some pride in their club again and believe we've made some great leap forward that's nice for them. It isn't true though.

The only time that changes is when we keep our best players and buy good ones to join them. That necessitates a net spend...funnily enough.

All due respect Dave, the only one we didn't really want to sell was Lukaku and I wouldn't exactly characterize that as a "plan", more of acknowledging reality.

United sold Ronaldo. That wasn't their "plan" though. Besides we literally have 6 more weeks in the window. Just because a simple cocktail napkin addition/subtraction says it's negative doesn't mean it's going to stay that way.

End of the day, who cares? All that matters is have we made our squad stronger or not? Let's judge that when the music stops.

 

[blue62]

Haha, I think your article is flawed mate, and I shall explain why.

Using net spend is a method of comparing what clubs do with their money and how successful they are. I grant you, it's a crude measure, and anyone who worships the "net spend" god while ignoring all the other factors which go towards making a club succesful, is in danger of looking a bit silly.

But anyway, to critique your article :-

Agents Fees

All ( well, almost all ) transfers go through agents. Those agents percentages will be different, but, overall they'll be broadly similar. So, if Club A have a headline net spend of 100 million and club B have a headline net spend of 150 million, and agents fees are the same percentage wise, then all that means is the numbers get inflated by much the same amount, and you might end up with net spend + agent fees of 125 and 187 million.

The outcome is the same though. Club A spends less than Club B, so, unless they've been particularly smart in the market, Club B will end up with better players.

VAT

Exactly the same argument applies here, all clubs pay VAT at the same rate, Club B will end up spending proportionally more than Club A, and will almost certainly end up with better players.

Premier League %

It's another percentage, and the same argument applies

Add Ons and instalments

You yourself are basically saying these are the norm, so add-ons, in percentage terms are likely to be broadly similar, and the instalment payments will likely be phased much the same for all transfers, so, yet again, it makes little to no difference in the grand scheme of things. The more you spend, the better players you're likely to get.

So, a summary so far shows that though Agents Fees, VAT, the PL levy and add ons and instlaments add to the headline net spend figure, in relative terms of money spent, they make little difference. If your headline net spend figure is higher than someone elses, you'll likely end up with better players.

Wages and Image Rights

On these, I'm partly in agreement with you, but only partly. As a general rule, the more you spend on a transfer fee for a player then the more you'll spend on wages and image rights for them. To be fair, this is only a general rule, because with someone like Zlatan, he didn't command a transfer fee, so that scenario breaks the rule. Also, players with only 12 months on their contract will generally cost less than they would have if they'd got two years left on their contracts, but, over a reasonable timescale of two or three years, clubs will probably end up buying ( or getting on frees ) a similar spread of players compared to what was left on their previous clubs contract. So, in the short term, buying someone like Zlatan effects how your cash is spent, but, in the longer term, it probably evens itself out.

One thing you didn't touch on wrt wages though, is the effect of bringing players through the ranks, or players who've been bought relatively early in their careers. These players cost relatively little, so would't show up in a net spend summation, but their wages will likely increase towards a player whose book value is much higher than they are, so, if you can buy young players who go on to become regular first team players at the level you've tried to compete at , then you've reduced your net spend in comparison to your rivals

The other thing which can reduce dependence on net spend is Player Trading. Basically, buy low, sell high, increase your gross spend, but minimise your net spend.

Your article's a good one, but I think you've let @davek get to you too much, and the result was therefore biased to take up a position contrary to his, which is a shame, because you've plainly got some good stuff knocking about in your head. Don't let him get to you, he's just some blert on the internet !

More subjective nonesense. Wages are a major part of the argument and this window we have increased our wage bill exponentially. Cash flow is also a major issue, at the moment our outflow is way behind our likely inflow on the basis of the number and value of deals done. None of this would've happened 18 months ago, we were not in a position to play the market this way and ANY sane minded individual knows this. It explains why EVERY commentator and journalist accepts and appreciates what is happening and it's a shame that we can't just enjoy the moment, it's been a long time.

 

[davek]

All due respect Dave, the only one we didn't really want to sell was Lukaku and I wouldn't exactly characterize that as a "plan", more of acknowledging reality.

United sold Ronaldo. That wasn't their "plan" though. Besides we literally have 6 more weeks in the window. Just because a simple cocktail napkin addition/subtraction says it's negative doesn't mean it's going to stay that way.

End of the day, who cares? All that matters is have we made our squad stronger or not? Let's judge that when the music stops.

Should have invested last summer and done something last season. He'd have stayed then.

If a player leaves this club it's because they're frustrated the club will never ever get it right...oh, and because they know that their departure is required for cash to come in and to renew the squad.

Same old same old.

As said elsewhere: if they fall on their faces next season they are going to feel a massive backlash.

They better get it right.

 

[toffeeblue9]

Haha, I think your article is flawed mate, and I shall explain why.

Using net spend is a method of comparing what clubs do with their money and how successful they are. I grant you, it's a crude measure, and anyone who worships the "net spend" god while ignoring all the other factors which go towards making a club succesful, is in danger of looking a bit silly.

But anyway, to critique your article :-

Agents Fees

All ( well, almost all ) transfers go through agents. Those agents percentages will be different, but, overall they'll be broadly similar. So, if Club A have a headline net spend of 100 million and club B have a headline net spend of 150 million, and agents fees are the same percentage wise, then all that means is the numbers get inflated by much the same amount, and you might end up with net spend + agent fees of 125 and 187 million.

The outcome is the same though. Club A spends less than Club B, so, unless they've been particularly smart in the market, Club B will end up with better players.

VAT

Exactly the same argument applies here, all clubs pay VAT at the same rate, Club B will end up spending proportionally more than Club A, and will almost certainly end up with better players.

Premier League %

It's another percentage, and the same argument applies

Add Ons and instalments

You yourself are basically saying these are the norm, so add-ons, in percentage terms are likely to be broadly similar, and the instalment payments will likely be phased much the same for all transfers, so, yet again, it makes little to no difference in the grand scheme of things. The more you spend, the better players you're likely to get.

So, a summary so far shows that though Agents Fees, VAT, the PL levy and add ons and instlaments add to the headline net spend figure, in relative terms of money spent, they make little difference. If your headline net spend figure is higher than someone elses, you'll likely end up with better players.

Wages and Image Rights

On these, I'm partly in agreement with you, but only partly. As a general rule, the more you spend on a transfer fee for a player then the more you'll spend on wages and image rights for them. To be fair, this is only a general rule, because with someone like Zlatan, he didn't command a transfer fee, so that scenario breaks the rule. Also, players with only 12 months on their contract will generally cost less than they would have if they'd got two years left on their contracts, but, over a reasonable timescale of two or three years, clubs will probably end up buying ( or getting on frees ) a similar spread of players compared to what was left on their previous clubs contract. So, in the short term, buying someone like Zlatan effects how your cash is spent, but, in the longer term, it probably evens itself out.

One thing you didn't touch on wrt wages though, is the effect of bringing players through the ranks, or players who've been bought relatively early in their careers. These players cost relatively little, so would't show up in a net spend summation, but their wages will likely increase towards a player whose book value is much higher than they are, so, if you can buy young players who go on to become regular first team players at the level you've tried to compete at , then you've reduced your net spend in comparison to your rivals

The other thing which can reduce dependence on net spend is Player Trading. Basically, buy low, sell high, increase your gross spend, but minimise your net spend.

Your article's a good one, but I think you've let @davek get to you too much, and the result was therefore biased to take up a position contrary to his, which is a shame, because you've plainly got some good stuff knocking about in your head. Don't let him get to you, he's just some blert on the internet !

I think you've slightly missed the angle I was coming at this from

It's not really supposed to be a comparison of us vs other teams, it's more about that headline "net spend" figure being massively inaccurate and pointless

Really basic example - let's assume we sell a player for £50m (transfer fee) to one Premier League side and buy a player for £40m from another Premier league side

By the logic I'm arguing against, we've got a negative "net spend" of £10 million there

What that fails to take into account is that we may have paid for the services of an agent as the selling club and we may have had to pay a loyalty bonus to the player we sold, eating into the £50 million transfer fee we received

Then we look at the player we bought for £40m - we've had to pay VAT on top of that of an extra £8m. We've had to pay a Premier League levy of £1.6m on top of that. We are already at £49.6m before we come onto agents fees, signing fees and everything else. In fact despite receiving £10m more in actual transfer fees, we've spent considerably more on acquiring a player who cost that much less.

My point isn't how much better or worse we currently are than our peers, it's that anyone quoting "net spend" on transfer fees is giving you, at best, a small part of the story and a very misleading one at that.

But then I think you know this as I can tell you understand it all

 

[ilikecheese]

Dave is gonna absolutely fume when we have a £25m player on the bench.

 

[thebluenosebolt]

Should have invested last summer and done something last season. He'd have stayed then.

If a player leaves this club it's because they're frustrated the club will never ever get it right...oh, and because they know that their departure is required for cash to come in and to renew the squad.

Same old same old.

As said elsewhere: if they fall on their faces next season they are going to feel a massive backlash.

They better get it right.

Every club sells mate.. It just depends how that fee is then injected into the squad. Lukaku wanted to leave as we will not win titles or compete in the champions league at this present time in his eyes. He deserved his move... More than did his part (in the goal scoring area) for this club...dont really believe anyone would doubt that fact. We have actually improved the squad from last season.... Bringing Rooney back has cemented that for me. Lukaku can now spread his wings in the champions league and we will see how that pans out..... No hard feelings. I truly believe the team had benefited from this though. Everton at its best was always a team effort, Hopefully We will see that come full circle this season... If not, Koeman out !!

 

[Woolly Blue]

More subjective nonesense

I disagree

Wages are a major part of the argument and this window we have increased our wage bill exponentially. Cash flow is also a major issue,

On those bits, I agree.

 

[Woolly Blue]

it's more about that headline "net spend" figure being massively inaccurate and pointless

Mate, it's not pointless. All the costs associated with transfer fees are directly proportional to your net spend. The proportions might differ a bit between clubs and years, but saying looking at net spend is pointless makes you look almost as silly as saying it's the be all and end all. Net spend is important, but I agree, it's by no means everything.

The truth sits somewhere in the middle, but the middle, like the fence, is a bit boring and doesn't raise the passions that taking diametrically opposing positions does, but the middle is the reality.

Allow me to abridge that lot for you:

"davek was right; you were wrong."

No David.
The OP is wrong, you're wrong and I'm wrong too, but I'm closer to the truth than either of you !

 

[billyblue80]

I don't care about net spend. I care about the team and squad being better two or three more good additions and that will be the case.

 

[johnnydawg68]

Should have invested last summer and done something last season. He'd have stayed then.

If a player leaves this club it's because they're frustrated the club will never ever get it right...oh, and because they know that their departure is required for cash to come in and to renew the squad.

Same old same old.

As said elsewhere: if they fall on their faces next season they are going to feel a massive backlash.

They better get it right.

Can't go back, and you're giving Lukaku more credit than is warranted. He was always going to leave it was a matter of when.