But what about the net spend?

[toffeeblue9]

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.



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 !

Mate, just refer to the example I gave you

Negative net spend becomes positive net spend in just one simple example, the costs associated with acquiring a player greatly outweigh the proportional benefits of selling one

Do that example 5 times over and a negative net spend of £50m becomes, conservatively, a positive net spend of £50m just on VAT, agent fees and PL levies alone

Put another way, "net spend" isn't even a concept to people who run football clubs in the way that it's described here

 

[Woolly Blue]

Mate, just refer to the example I gave you

Negative net spend becomes positive net spend in just one simple example, the costs associated with acquiring a player greatly outweigh the proportional benefits of selling one

Do that example 5 times over and a negative net spend of £50m becomes, conservatively, a positive net spend of £50m just on VAT, agent fees and PL levies alone

Put another way, "net spend" isn't even a concept to people who run football clubs in the way that it's described here

I'm not being deliberately awkward here, but, in your previous post you said

My point isn't how much better or worse we currently are than our peers

, but, when you look at net spend, people tend to look at net spend tables, so we compare our net spend to our rivals, and pretty much all the arguments you put forward fall flat on their face because they apply to all clubs equally ( well, not equally, but not far off ).

So yes, the absolute net spend figure hides all sorts of rubbish, but the relative amounts don't. If your net spend is more than your rivals, then, all other things being equal ( which most of the time they are ), your squad will improve more than theirs, so telling people to ignore net spend just doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, I'm done here for the evening, so I ain't ignoring any response you might make, but it was an interesting discussion, so, though we might not agree on it, well-in for taking the time to put your article together

 

[toffeeblue9]

I'm not being deliberately awkward here, but, in your previous post you said , but, when you look at net spend, people tend to look at net spend tables, so we compare our net spend to our rivals, and pretty much all the arguments you put forward fall flat on their face because they apply to all clubs equally ( well, not equally, but not far off ).

So yes, the absolute net spend figure hides all sorts of rubbish, but the relative amounts don't. If your net spend is more than your rivals, then, all other things being equal ( which most of the time they are ), your squad will improve more than theirs, so telling people to ignore net spend just doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, I'm done here for the evening, so I ain't ignoring any response you might make, but it was an interesting discussion, so, though we might not agree on it, well-in for taking the time to put your article together

Morning, I don't really disagree with anything you've said so far other than the (important) point about about net spend not being important.

Again, my argument here is not about us relative to our peers - it's about seeing these "only spending the Lukaku money" comments or "net neutral" or "net negative" spend comments, because they're wholly misleading and that's why "net spend" is telling you one small part of the equation which, in isolation, is useless. Arguments that we are not investing is what is driving this, not parity with everyone else.

Let's take the example of our summer transfer dealings so far. To simplify things, let's ignore add-ons, installments and even ignore image rights for now. We'll also say for the sake or argument that signing fees are about 10% of the transfer fee and agents fees are 5% of the transfer fee (which is ridiculously low, but I just want to make a point). Then I'll take the reported wages for the next year (although I've gone on the low side for a few of them). I've even not included any signing fee or agents fees for Wayne Rooney, since there's no transfer fee for us to balance it against, although clearly we will have made payments for both. Essentially, I am providing figures here which are a fair bit lower than the true costs, but they'll do for illustration of the point...

Then let's take the players we have released and sold, look at the publicised transfer fees and the wages saved (I've over-estimated on a couple of these). I also haven't bothered to include loyalty bonuses we may have had to make to players as part of this, nor agent payments we may have made to facilitate their sales, nor any other outgoing (or saving for that matter).

It's really crude but the "net spend" theory here is that we have a negative net spend of about £10m so far in this window. When in actual fact those very basic figures show we're actually spending a net £20m or so more and add in image rights, payments to Rooney and his agent etc etc etc and in reality you are talking about considerably more than that

I'm not interested what everyone else in the league is doing and I understand that you're saying it's relevant - maybe it is in the grand scheme of things, but for now all I'm really saying is this lazy "spending the Lukaku money" and "neutral/negative net spend" stuff is plain wrong because it's giving impressionable people the idea that we are not spending any money and it's just not true

 

[thevorpalblade]

apologise in advance that this is going to be lengthy, but for those of you who can be bothered, point the next idiot who mentions "net spend" in the direction of this explanation. To save myself a bit of time, some of this is taken from various good articles on the subject available on the internet.

An excellent post.

Is such detail recorded/saved/archived elsewhere so that people like myself can quick access it in the future?
Historically there has also been excellent postings on the Financial Fair Play and the 'other one'. (Apologies for not remembering the poster).

These types of article interest me, and I'm sure others, but will get lost as time passes and threads get longer.

Moderators! Any suggestions?

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

 

[WA Toffee]

perhaps we should have sold Lukaku for 10 million, then we would have a much larger net spend and therefore be a much better run club.

 

[toffeeblue9]

Seems like this is topical

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ow-a-transfer-deal-really-works-a7837031.html

It's all about net spend though, isn't it?

We often hear tell of things like “net spend” and “war chests,” which purport to quantify the spending power of a particular club during a particular transfer window.

However, no club takes “net spend” into account when conducting business and no manager is ever “handed a war chest.” These misguided ideas of how clubs conduct business rely solely upon transfer fees and completely fail to take wages into account. In reality, clubs spend more on wages and compensation than they do on transfer fees.

 

[GeorgeK]

Morning, I don't really disagree with anything you've said so far other than the (important) point about about net spend not being important.

Again, my argument here is not about us relative to our peers - it's about seeing these "only spending the Lukaku money" comments or "net neutral" or "net negative" spend comments, because they're wholly misleading and that's why "net spend" is telling you one small part of the equation which, in isolation, is useless. Arguments that we are not investing is what is driving this, not parity with everyone else.

Let's take the example of our summer transfer dealings so far. To simplify things, let's ignore add-ons, installments and even ignore image rights for now. We'll also say for the sake or argument that signing fees are about 10% of the transfer fee and agents fees are 5% of the transfer fee (which is ridiculously low, but I just want to make a point). Then I'll take the reported wages for the next year (although I've gone on the low side for a few of them). I've even not included any signing fee or agents fees for Wayne Rooney, since there's no transfer fee for us to balance it against, although clearly we will have made payments for both. Essentially, I am providing figures here which are a fair bit lower than the true costs, but they'll do for illustration of the point...

Then let's take the players we have released and sold, look at the publicised transfer fees and the wages saved (I've over-estimated on a couple of these). I also haven't bothered to include loyalty bonuses we may have had to make to players as part of this, nor agent payments we may have made to facilitate their sales, nor any other outgoing (or saving for that matter).

It's really crude but the "net spend" theory here is that we have a negative net spend of about £10m so far in this window. When in actual fact those very basic figures show we're actually spending a net £20m or so more and add in image rights, payments to Rooney and his agent etc etc etc and in reality you are talking about considerably more than that

I'm not interested what everyone else in the league is doing and I understand that you're saying it's relevant - maybe it is in the grand scheme of things, but for now all I'm really saying is this lazy "spending the Lukaku money" and "neutral/negative net spend" stuff is plain wrong because it's giving impressionable people the idea that we are not spending any money and it's just not true

OK. We are spending the Lukaku (and other players) money plus the extra TV money.

Does that make you happy?

The fact remains that since the takeover we have spent a lot of money but what's also true is there's no evidence that Moshiri is willing to invest in the team out of his own pocket. If that's the case also in the future given we have sold off our young stars we could be in a bit of trouble in a few years. Koeman doesn't care about that. As fans maybe we should.

Say what you want about Martinez but he left us with a lot of value in the squad and seemed to be good for our academy. He just never bought us a bloody play maker persevering with Barkley and now Barkley has f-ed off anyway.

 

[toffeeblue9]

OK. We are spending the Lukaku (and other players) money plus the extra TV money.

Does that make you happy?

The fact remains that since the takeover we have spent a lot of money but what's also true is there's no evidence that Moshiri is willing to invest in the team out of his own pocket. If that's the case also in the future given we have sold off our young stars we could be in a bit of trouble in a few years. Koeman doesn't care about that. As fans maybe we should.

Say what you want about Martinez but he left us with a lot of value in the squad and seemed to be good for our academy. He just never bought us a bloody play maker persevering with Barkley and now Barkley has f-ed off anyway.

Again, I am not suggesting he has funded any transfer activity out of his own pocket - he may have injected some working capital of his own money, but then again he may very well not have (I tend to doubt it in all honesty)

What he has done is pay off debts to allow us to use more of our own revenue in the transfer market. He has helped us attract better commercial deals, again allowing us greater ability to act in the market. What he is looking for us for us to be self-sustaining, rather than being a club he continually needs to subsidise. It's the same theory with the new stadium - it will, in theory, lead to greater revenues for us and he wants it to be self-financing

There is a prescribed limit as to how much of Moshiri's own money he could use to fund transfer splurges, even if he were so inclined to do so. But for the avoidance of doubt, my own opinion is that he has transformed us off the pitch, without doing the traditional sugar daddy thing of throwing his own money at player transfers, he has certainly invested in other ways, though.

 

[GeorgeK]

Again, I am not suggesting he has funded any transfer activity out of his own pocket - he may have injected some working capital of his own money, but then again he may very well not have (I tend to doubt it in all honesty)

What he has done is pay off debts to allow us to use more of our own revenue in the transfer market. He has helped us attract better commercial deals, again allowing us greater ability to act in the market. What he is looking for us for us to be self-sustaining, rather than being a club he continually needs to subsidise. It's the same theory with the new stadium - it will, in theory, lead to greater revenues for us and he wants it to be self-financing

There is a prescribed limit as to how much of Moshiri's own money he could use to fund transfer splurges, even if he were so inclined to do so. But for the avoidance of doubt, my own opinion is that he has transformed us off the pitch, without doing the traditional sugar daddy thing of throwing his own money at player transfers, he has certainly invested in other ways, though.

And I'm not disputing any of that either. I was never even one to hate Kenwright. Most owners don't spend a lot of their own money. It's the exceptions that do.

You aren't hearing my point. If he isn't going to be a sugar daddy then signing a load of players for pretty big money all over the age of 27 is going to come back and bite us because a) we aren't even close to being good enough to get top 4 and b) we will need another squad rebuild relatively soon.

 

[Baines' left foot]

A commendable attempt to educate the morons but there will always be some who will choose to believe what they want no matter how much evidence is thrown their way. Granted they are a special type of moron but there you go.

 

[toffeeblue9]

And I'm not disputing any of that either. I was never even one to hate Kenwright. Most owners don't spend a lot of their own money. It's the exceptions that do.

You aren't hearing my point. If he isn't going to be a sugar daddy then signing a load of players for pretty big money all over the age of 27 is going to come back and bite us because a) we aren't even close to being good enough to get top 4 and b) we will need another squad rebuild relatively soon.

Right, got you.

Well, so far this summer we've signed 5 players who are 24 or under and one player on a "free transfer" on a 2 year contract who is 31, so that hasn't given me any real cause for concern so far.

To be fair Gueye, Bolasie and Williams were all 27 or over last summer and there is potentially Giroud and Sigurdsson to come, so I think you actually have a valid point here. They'll all be big earners with little re-sale value, so we are essentially losing those transfer fees with no real potential to see a return on them.

Yeah, it's a valid enough concern, guess you'd just have to trust that the increased revenues we are attracting means we would be able to replace those players down the line when it becomes necessary

 

[GeorgeK]

An excellent post.

Is such detail recorded/saved/archived elsewhere so that people like myself can quick access it in the future?
Historically there has also been excellent postings on the Financial Fair Play and the 'other one'. (Apologies for not remembering the poster).

These types of article interest me, and I'm sure others, but will get lost as time passes and threads get longer.

Moderators! Any suggestions?

The same financial fair play article that justified us selling Stones.

Honestly I would take all this stuff with a pinch of salt. Just people pushing an agenda.

 

[GeorgeK]

Right, got you.

Well, so far this summer we've signed 5 players who are 24 or under and one player on a "free transfer" on a 2 year contract who is 31, so that hasn't given me any real cause for concern so far.

To be fair Gueye, Bolasie and Williams were all 27 or over last summer and there is potentially Giroud and Sigurdsson to come, so I think you actually have a valid point here. They'll all be big earners with little re-sale value, so we are essentially losing those transfer fees with no real potential to see a return on them.

Yeah, it's a valid enough concern, guess you'd just have to trust that the increased revenues we are attracting means we would be able to replace those players down the line when it becomes necessary

Gueye, Schneiderlin, Bolasie, Sigurdsson, Giroud, Rooney, Williams.

That's 140m-150m in transfer on players that will be past their peak or finished in 3 years.

If we are sell to buy that's a huge worry. IMO.

We will only increase our revenue with success on the pitch. We haven't closed the gap to the top 6. The teams above us are buying our best players and we are getting their handoffs.

As for the stadium. Long way to go. Even longer way to go before it's a net positive rather than a drain.

I know that sounds doom and gloom but we shouldn't be going for the likes of Sigurdsson and Giroud. We need to be going after the likes of Dolberg and Lanzini.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Gueye, Schneiderlin, Bolasie, Sigurdsson, Giroud, Rooney, Williams.

That's 140m-150m in transfer on players that will be past their peak or finished in 3 years.

If we are sell to buy that's a huge worry. IMO.

We will only increase our revenue with success on the pitch. We haven't closed the gap to the top 6. The teams above us are buying our best players and we are getting their handoffs.

As for the stadium. Long way to go. Even longer way to go before it's a net positive rather than a drain.

I know that sounds doom and gloom but we shouldn't be going for the likes of Sigurdsson and Giroud. We need to be going after the likes of Dolberg and Lanzini.

Only it isn't, as you're ignoring the flip side. We've bought a striker who in the current market is a £25m player for £5m in Sandro. We've got a CB at £25m who is only 24, in 3 years time as the market gets even crazier what'll he be worth? Same goes for Lookman, DCL, Kenny, Davies, Holgate, Pickford, Dowell, et al.

The stadium funding model means that it shouldn't be any form of drain from the day it opens it, as naming rights will more than cover the annual cost btw