You do realise you've listed a load of kids that who apart from Pickford (who isn't really a kid) are almost completely unknown. They could turn out great but how many of Martinez's bargain buys with bags of potential turn out?
You can't buy a team full of potential, that's not how it works. You need to buy a combination of proven PL players and International quality, combined with real potential. The players you listed were all bought at 26/27, with the exception of Rooney who was on a free and Williams who was always a stop gap based on us getting the thick end of £50 for Stones.
Been reading a number of posts over the last few days about "net spend" and how people assume Moshiri isn't investing money in the club etc and Everton are simply spending the "Lukaku money" etc.
Davek and I have had each other on ignore for a long time, but I've picked up from the posts of other people that he is (unsurprisingly) making this argument, along with a few other people.
To be blunt, it's moronic. It illustrates a lack of understanding of how finances in football work.
I 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.
There is far more that goes into player costs than transfer fees. Unless the number being offered up clearly includes wages (which is more than half of the equation), and ideally at least a nod towards agent fees and image rights payments, you can safely disregard it as not reflective of that club’s available resources to bolster its squad. To try and debunk this myth about "net spend", I thought it might be helpful to examine some of the actual costs involved in a typical transfer to all of the parties involved
Buying a player
A transfer fee which is publicised is not necessarily the true value of the cost incurred by the buying club for purchasing a player. Teams will agree between them a value which they will feel is a fair price, but there are numerous other financial considerations to the transaction for the purchasing club
- Agents Fees - Often overlooked by the casual fan, most teams will enlist the services of an agent when buying a player. The costs for using an agent varies from deal to deal, but 2012 figures published by FIFA showed that 28% of the money spent on transfers was being paid to agents and third parties, this includes money paid by buying clubs, selling clubs and by the players themselves where they have agreed to pay the agent involved a fixed fee or percentage of their signing bonus/overall remuneration package - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jan/08/fifa-transfers-agents-third-parties - In the recent example of Romelu Lukaku, the reported cost to Man Utd of Mino Raiola's services was £12m - this is on top of the reported £75m transfer fee. Regardless of the agent involved, the costs are usually significant.
- VAT - Transfers between clubs in the UK are subject to VAT at the current rate of 20% of the value of the transfer fee. Whether or not VAT is included in the "publicised" transfer fee is totally dependent on the clubs involved. The selling club may include VAT in the figure to help to illustrate to their fans the hefty fee they received, while the buying club may exclude it to try to sell the narrative that they have negotiated a great deal for themselves. An example would be the British record transfer of Alan Shearer in 1996 - £15m was indeed the transfer fee that Blackburn Rovers received, whilst Newcastle had to pay 17.5% (the rate of VAT at the time) extra on top of this, as the official invoice from Blackburn Rovers illustrates - clearly this can add considerable cost to a deal.
- The Premier League - Yes, they take their slice of the action as well. The Premier League charge a transfer levy of 4% on top of the transfer fee. So transfer fee of £10 million, automatically becomes £10.4 million. Charitable bunch that they are, they state that the sums received by the League by way of levy shall be used to pay premiums due under the Professional Footballers’ Pension Scheme and any surplus shall be added to the Professional Game Youth Fund. Page 225 of last season's Premier League Handbook for anyone who is interested - http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...169074163/2016-17_Premier_League_Handbook.pdf
- Add-ons and installments- The majority of transfer deals these days are paid in installments, it would be rare to find an example of a transfer which was paid in full, up front (again confusing the "net spend" theory), most transfers also include some form of additional add-ons, usually performance related to the player or the buying club. Sometimes these are publicised as part of the overall transfer fee (again, this would depend whether it was the buying or selling club who are the source of the information). Take a look at the transfer documents relating to the 2015 transfer of Wilfried Bony to Manchester City for a typical example of how a transfer arrangement like this is constructed
- Signing Bonuses - Any agent worth their salt will negotiate a signing bonus for a player signing with a new club. As a rule of thumb, the typical sort of signing bonus involved in a transfer deal these days is about 10% of the transfer fee (I can't give you a source for that, it's information given to me by a colleague whose brother works for an agency - take that one with as much scepticism as you like). The payments for a "signing bonus" are usually staggered over the course of the players contract and are normally owed, in full, if the player leaves the club before that contract is over. A typical example which relates to the transfer of Bebe to Man Utd in 2010...
- Wages - This is better understood by your casual football fan because the vast majority of us are paid wages by our employer, as footballers are. The strange thing about wages, though, is that they are almost universally overlooked when engaging in the "net spend" debate. A great example would be Zlatan Ibrahimovic. He arrived at Manchester United last summer for no transfer fee, so your average "net spend" theorist puts that as a zero in the "transfer fees paid" column and moves on. Completely overlooking the fact that Zlatan added an annual cost of over £19 million to Manchester United based on his salary alone. If United had spent and received nothing in transfer fees and just taken Zlatan on a Bosman free deal, they would have been added over £19m to their costs over the last season. The excellent Football Leaks book has been a great source in laying bare the true cost of some deals - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...n-Utd-signing-Ibrahimovic-Pogba-revealed.html
- Image Rights - On top of their (already considerable) basic wages, footballers now typically demand payment from clubs to use their image in advertising and publicity. This was first exploited by David Beckham and is now commonplace in football contracts. Footballers will typically run a separate company which "owns" their image rights and this company will be paid by the club the player plays for in exchange for allowing them to use the player in advertisements etc. Often these image rights companies are based offshore, allowing them to exploit tax loopholes in the payments they receive (whereas PAYE tax is difficult to negotiate around on basic salary). The following is an excerpt from Juan Mata's contract at Chelsea (available on the Footballleaks site) which relates to image rights and illustrates how players negotiate not only image rights lump sum payments, but also percentages of any net receipts from appearances or endorsements
Hopefully this gives you an idea about the complexities (and significant cost) involved in any single transfer and player contract and how "net spend" is the laziest, least well-informed argument out there in football discussion. It is simply not a measure which is considered by clubs when looking at the cost of transfer activity. Cash flow, player trading profits from an accountancy perspective, etc (none of which I've chosen to go into here) are all factors, but "net spend" most certainly is not. 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.
Not at the moment but when we buy Giroud and Sigurdsson that's the best part of 80m that will effectively be worthless in 4 years.
Been reading a number of posts over the last few days about "net spend" and how people assume Moshiri isn't investing money in the club etc and Everton are simply spending the "Lukaku money" etc.
Davek and I have had each other on ignore for a long time, but I've picked up from the posts of other people that he is (unsurprisingly) making this argument, along with a few other people.
To be blunt, it's moronic. It illustrates a lack of understanding of how finances in football work.
I 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.
There is far more that goes into player costs than transfer fees. Unless the number being offered up clearly includes wages (which is more than half of the equation), and ideally at least a nod towards agent fees and image rights payments, you can safely disregard it as not reflective of that club’s available resources to bolster its squad. To try and debunk this myth about "net spend", I thought it might be helpful to examine some of the actual costs involved in a typical transfer to all of the parties involved
Buying a player
A transfer fee which is publicised is not necessarily the true value of the cost incurred by the buying club for purchasing a player. Teams will agree between them a value which they will feel is a fair price, but there are numerous other financial considerations to the transaction for the purchasing club
- Agents Fees - Often overlooked by the casual fan, most teams will enlist the services of an agent when buying a player. The costs for using an agent varies from deal to deal, but 2012 figures published by FIFA showed that 28% of the money spent on transfers was being paid to agents and third parties, this includes money paid by buying clubs, selling clubs and by the players themselves where they have agreed to pay the agent involved a fixed fee or percentage of their signing bonus/overall remuneration package - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jan/08/fifa-transfers-agents-third-parties - In the recent example of Romelu Lukaku, the reported cost to Man Utd of Mino Raiola's services was £12m - this is on top of the reported £75m transfer fee. Regardless of the agent involved, the costs are usually significant.
- VAT - Transfers between clubs in the UK are subject to VAT at the current rate of 20% of the value of the transfer fee. Whether or not VAT is included in the "publicised" transfer fee is totally dependent on the clubs involved. The selling club may include VAT in the figure to help to illustrate to their fans the hefty fee they received, while the buying club may exclude it to try to sell the narrative that they have negotiated a great deal for themselves. An example would be the British record transfer of Alan Shearer in 1996 - £15m was indeed the transfer fee that Blackburn Rovers received, whilst Newcastle had to pay 17.5% (the rate of VAT at the time) extra on top of this, as the official invoice from Blackburn Rovers illustrates - clearly this can add considerable cost to a deal.
- The Premier League - Yes, they take their slice of the action as well. The Premier League charge a transfer levy of 4% on top of the transfer fee. So transfer fee of £10 million, automatically becomes £10.4 million. Charitable bunch that they are, they state that the sums received by the League by way of levy shall be used to pay premiums due under the Professional Footballers’ Pension Scheme and any surplus shall be added to the Professional Game Youth Fund. Page 225 of last season's Premier League Handbook for anyone who is interested - http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazon...169074163/2016-17_Premier_League_Handbook.pdf
- Add-ons and installments- The majority of transfer deals these days are paid in installments, it would be rare to find an example of a transfer which was paid in full, up front (again confusing the "net spend" theory), most transfers also include some form of additional add-ons, usually performance related to the player or the buying club. Sometimes these are publicised as part of the overall transfer fee (again, this would depend whether it was the buying or selling club who are the source of the information). Take a look at the transfer documents relating to the 2015 transfer of Wilfried Bony to Manchester City for a typical example of how a transfer arrangement like this is constructed
- Signing Bonuses - Any agent worth their salt will negotiate a signing bonus for a player signing with a new club. As a rule of thumb, the typical sort of signing bonus involved in a transfer deal these days is about 10% of the transfer fee (I can't give you a source for that, it's information given to me by a colleague whose brother works for an agency - take that one with as much scepticism as you like). The payments for a "signing bonus" are usually staggered over the course of the players contract and are normally owed, in full, if the player leaves the club before that contract is over. A typical example which relates to the transfer of Bebe to Man Utd in 2010...
- Wages - This is better understood by your casual football fan because the vast majority of us are paid wages by our employer, as footballers are. The strange thing about wages, though, is that they are almost universally overlooked when engaging in the "net spend" debate. A great example would be Zlatan Ibrahimovic. He arrived at Manchester United last summer for no transfer fee, so your average "net spend" theorist puts that as a zero in the "transfer fees paid" column and moves on. Completely overlooking the fact that Zlatan added an annual cost of over £19 million to Manchester United based on his salary alone. If United had spent and received nothing in transfer fees and just taken Zlatan on a Bosman free deal, they would have been added over £19m to their costs over the last season. The excellent Football Leaks book has been a great source in laying bare the true cost of some deals - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...n-Utd-signing-Ibrahimovic-Pogba-revealed.html
- Image Rights - On top of their (already considerable) basic wages, footballers now typically demand payment from clubs to use their image in advertising and publicity. This was first exploited by David Beckham and is now commonplace in football contracts. Footballers will typically run a separate company which "owns" their image rights and this company will be paid by the club the player plays for in exchange for allowing them to use the player in advertisements etc. Often these image rights companies are based offshore, allowing them to exploit tax loopholes in the payments they receive (whereas PAYE tax is difficult to negotiate around on basic salary). The following is an excerpt from Juan Mata's contract at Chelsea (available on the Footballleaks site) which relates to image rights and illustrates how players negotiate not only image rights lump sum payments, but also percentages of any net receipts from appearances or endorsements
Hopefully this gives you an idea about the complexities (and significant cost) involved in any single transfer and player contract and how "net spend" is the laziest, least well-informed argument out there in football discussion. It is simply not a measure which is considered by clubs when looking at the cost of transfer activity. Cash flow, player trading profits from an accountancy perspective, etc (none of which I've chosen to go into here) are all factors, but "net spend" most certainly is not. 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.
I accept that but it's why the argument over net spend is important and even the one over Martina. If this is the year we really go for it then we can't start the season with our hands tied behind our backs. If it's not then wtf are we doing especially if Moshiri has no intention of spending 100m to replace these players.
If you're building a football team based solely on the numbers then that's moneyball (didn't the Shermans at the pit try that like?)
I think you've made a good stab at explaining the additional costs and fees associated with transfers.
The point I see that you are seeking to show is that if we spend 100mil and then recover 100mil from sales means we are worse off due to the additional costs incurred. Solely looking at our club and not comparing with other sides.
It's basically bringing the 'normal' business methodology into football which just doesn't work. You can look at the net spend situation as much as you want but even with the costs and associated extras you aren't including book values, investment potential, our own income generated from media rights and merchandising, contracts blah blah blah
It's like a bottomless pit and far different to a usual business model....I looked at something similar with a group of Italians who specialize in this about a decade ago....honestly it was way beyond me...
I'll stick with net spend, because it's a simple way of calculating how much has been spent against your peers and also shows the perceived investment in your own team
So it's a calculated risk? Does starting the season with Martina or no cover for Baines improve those odds. Because frankly if we are all in I would like the odds to be as much in our favour as possible. I would also like to know that our sugar daddy isn't going to walk away from it if it all goes pear shaped.
Correct. But it works both ways and there are many other factors to include which you haven't listed and to be honest probably don't want to waste your weekend going through either
Net spend is about 'perception'. I don't think anyone believes it to be black/white.
Agreed it is too simply. However disproving the net spend argument doesn't prove Moshiri has spent anything. Even you admit he probably hasn't.
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
