comment by Phenom - least knowledgeable spurs poster 2019/20 (U20037)
posted 2 minutes ago
ur the bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thnx m8
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 seconds ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if someone was using it as a deep analysis of accounts then yes, it would be bollox.
But if it's a cursory glance at investment in playing staff over a fixed period then it's probably a reasonable figure to look at, albeit with other factors taken into account.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
"I think Net spend at least gives an idea of whether a club is operating sustainably or buying success."
No it doesn't, as it's only one revenue stream and incomings and outgoings for it are accounted for it in different ways anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"gives an idea...."
Never said its the only measure.
Indeed wages are also key and there was one season where City's wages exceeded their entire revenue, before spending anything on transfer or anything else etc. I think that year they posted a record loss of about £200m
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 seconds ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if someone was using it as a deep analysis of accounts then yes, it would be bollox.
But if it's a cursory glance at investment in playing staff over a fixed period then it's probably a reasonable figure to look at, albeit with other factors taken into account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like a bit more detail than cursory and don't feel it has any merit like I just said. If you want to use it crack on.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
How the fack can the figure that tells you how much a club has spent in transfer fees, taking purchases and sales into account, be 'bollox'?
If used in the right context, of course it's worth looking at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's that the useful context is a lot slimmer than people assume it to be. You could have a net spend of 0 and still be making a profit or loss out of player transactions.
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any credit is due to club generally or Michael Edwards specifically; it's certainly not Klopp.
We have sold very, very well over the past few years though. Got very good money for some very average performers and got exceptional money for the top performers.
It's that work that has allowed the big money signings - and we have spent big, no doubt about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yep, agree with all of that. i'm half with winston, half with hoody on this, outgoings and incomings can be judged against one another, and where money from one sale is used to fund a purchase, you have to view the two as linked.
but this whole spreadsheet approach - we've sold players for x and bought players for y - is cobblers, and i spend my life working with spreadsheets.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
"I think Net spend at least gives an idea of whether a club is operating sustainably or buying success."
No it doesn't, as it's only one revenue stream and incomings and outgoings for it are accounted for it in different ways anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"gives an idea...."
Never said its the only measure.
Indeed wages are also key and there was one season where City's wages exceeded their entire revenue, before spending anything on transfer or anything else etc. I think that year they posted a record loss of about £200m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I remember this. I think it went on for three years as well actually.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 seconds ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if someone was using it as a deep analysis of accounts then yes, it would be bollox.
But if it's a cursory glance at investment in playing staff over a fixed period then it's probably a reasonable figure to look at, albeit with other factors taken into account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like a bit more detail than cursory and don't feel it has any merit like I just said. If you want to use it crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on the discussion as to whether the additional detail is needed of course and yes, thank you for your permission to 'crack on'.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And when for most clubs the wage bill is what is making up the bulk of their spending on the squad each year the arbitrary net spend figures don’t mean much.
You only had to look at net spend tables where Stoke, Bournemouth and Newcastle were apparently spending more on their squad than Liverpool and Spurs to see it’s balllacks.
Net spend is not bollox. People are thick.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
How the fack can the figure that tells you how much a club has spent in transfer fees, taking purchases and sales into account, be 'bollox'?
If used in the right context, of course it's worth looking at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's that the useful context is a lot slimmer than people assume it to be. You could have a net spend of 0 and still be making a profit or loss out of player transactions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that's probably a bit harsh and dependent on the individual.
I also think the net spend figure is a launchpad into a decent discussion - have seen it a lot of Liverpool and Spurs as an example.
Net spend gives you a start point and then a deeper look at wages in particular, begins to open up the discussion.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
"I think Net spend at least gives an idea of whether a club is operating sustainably or buying success."
No it doesn't, as it's only one revenue stream and incomings and outgoings for it are accounted for it in different ways anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"gives an idea...."
Never said its the only measure.
Indeed wages are also key and there was one season where City's wages exceeded their entire revenue, before spending anything on transfer or anything else etc. I think that year they posted a record loss of about £200m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely, because the model back then was to grow the asset and also the other revenue streams, which it did.
It doesn't even give that much of an idea though, because they don't correlate to the p&L in the same way.
Apologies to anyone that thinks net spend is bollox, I respect your view but for me that's insanity
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And when for most clubs the wage bill is what is making up the bulk of their spending on the squad each year the arbitrary net spend figures don’t mean much.
You only had to look at net spend tables where Stoke, Bournemouth and Newcastle were apparently spending more on their squad than Liverpool and Spurs to see it’s balllacks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends how you use it.
Spurs fans would have a decent case for looking at their net spend and questioning whether Poch was backed.
It would then require further detail but the stat isn't 'bollox', it's just limited.
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And when for most clubs the wage bill is what is making up the bulk of their spending on the squad each year the arbitrary net spend figures don’t mean much.
You only had to look at net spend tables where Stoke, Bournemouth and Newcastle were apparently spending more on their squad than Liverpool and Spurs to see it’s balllacks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've doubled our wage bill in five years and spent more than anyone else on agent fees I think. Certainly did a couple of years ago and fvck knows what the signing on fees were. It's bollox.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And when for most clubs the wage bill is what is making up the bulk of their spending on the squad each year the arbitrary net spend figures don’t mean much.
You only had to look at net spend tables where Stoke, Bournemouth and Newcastle were apparently spending more on their squad than Liverpool and Spurs to see it’s balllacks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've doubled our wage bill in five years and spent more than anyone else on agent fees I think. Certainly did a couple of years ago and fvck knows what the signing on fees were. It's bollox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it should be added to the outgoings. Net spend is at the centre of everything mate. Even FFP is based on net spend.
Perhaps you can argue how important it is but bollox? That's sensationalist and also patently wrong.
Net spend is an accurate reflection of investment in the form of transfer fees.
If it were bollox, it wouldn't be accurate.
What people actually mean is you can't use it to conclude anything, which I would agree with.
Agent fees and wages is just more expenditure, goes together with transfer fees.
It does nothing to make net spend become "bollox".
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any credit is due to club generally or Michael Edwards specifically; it's certainly not Klopp.
We have sold very, very well over the past few years though. Got very good money for some very average performers and got exceptional money for the top performers.
It's that work that has allowed the big money signings - and we have spent big, no doubt about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yep, agree with all of that. i'm half with winston, half with hoody on this, outgoings and incomings can be judged against one another, and where money from one sale is used to fund a purchase, you have to view the two as linked.
but this whole spreadsheet approach - we've sold players for x and bought players for y - is cobblers, and i spend my life working with spreadsheets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't view any transfer as linked tbh. It's the clubs role to maximise the value of any player assets that is no longer needed or no longer wants to stay at the club. We've done that better than most recently.
The players brought is about identifying the right players for the system and then paying an appropriate price.
Doing the sales part well means you have more financial freedom to operate in purchasing but ultimately the two are distinct in my head.
Robbing, yeah you’ve been spending a lot of money outside transfer fees. I also think the excellent business you’ve done with sales has given a false impression of what you’ve had to spend. You’ve been in a stable enough financial position to keep them around if needed.
Well I'm of the opinion that a piece of information that can't be used to conclude anything is bollox. Chocolate teapot territory.
Why is income from an asset any more relevant than from anything else? Why is a free transfer on massive wages and signing on fees put down as £0 and then lauded by Net spender types?
Liverpool have a brilliant net spend under Klopp but have spent far more money than before. It's a nonsense.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 54 seconds ago
Well I'm of the opinion that a piece of information that can't be used to conclude anything is bollox. Chocolate teapot territory.
Why is income from an asset any more relevant than from anything else? Why is a free transfer on massive wages and signing on fees put down as £0 and then lauded by Net spender types?
Liverpool have a brilliant net spend under Klopp but have spent far more money than before. It's a nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football clubs primarily improve or get worse on the back of those assets.
This isn't a chain of shoe shops we're discussing.
Fans who review the progress of their club's development will look to transfer fees and net spend as an indicator of investment, particularly if their club isn't performing very well.
Providing the person looking at it understands that no final conclusions can be drawn from it, I don't see the problem.
If people use the data in a flawed way then of course it's a nonsense, but the data in itself isn't.
When you review a business performance you take lots of data into account, sometimes in isolation and sometimes integrated.
We've paid the most in agent fees and wage bill increased, but again, there isn't that significant difference in what we paid vs what other clubs paid. It's not like we paid hundreds of millions more in agent fees and wages than our peers.
Spending big depends on who you compare us to. In the top 4 you can't say we have spent big, we've spent normally and significantly less than at least three, maybe four teams. But compared to the rest of the league, then of course we've spent big.
Net spend is very evidently a load of sheit as highlighted by the fact that Barca And Juve abs basically every other team have never done a ‘player swap’ and instead actually pay money for players to manipulate the balance sheet.
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
Robbing, United are a good example of this with Zlatan and Sanchez. Their time at the club cost us a lot more money than players that contributed a lot more to the net spend.
Sign in if you want to comment
Man City / Pep Defence Spending
Page 6 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Phenom - least knowledgeable spurs poster 2019/20 (U20037)
posted 2 minutes ago
ur the bollox
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thnx m8
posted on 29/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 seconds ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if someone was using it as a deep analysis of accounts then yes, it would be bollox.
But if it's a cursory glance at investment in playing staff over a fixed period then it's probably a reasonable figure to look at, albeit with other factors taken into account.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
"I think Net spend at least gives an idea of whether a club is operating sustainably or buying success."
No it doesn't, as it's only one revenue stream and incomings and outgoings for it are accounted for it in different ways anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"gives an idea...."
Never said its the only measure.
Indeed wages are also key and there was one season where City's wages exceeded their entire revenue, before spending anything on transfer or anything else etc. I think that year they posted a record loss of about £200m
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 seconds ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if someone was using it as a deep analysis of accounts then yes, it would be bollox.
But if it's a cursory glance at investment in playing staff over a fixed period then it's probably a reasonable figure to look at, albeit with other factors taken into account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like a bit more detail than cursory and don't feel it has any merit like I just said. If you want to use it crack on.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
How the fack can the figure that tells you how much a club has spent in transfer fees, taking purchases and sales into account, be 'bollox'?
If used in the right context, of course it's worth looking at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's that the useful context is a lot slimmer than people assume it to be. You could have a net spend of 0 and still be making a profit or loss out of player transactions.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any credit is due to club generally or Michael Edwards specifically; it's certainly not Klopp.
We have sold very, very well over the past few years though. Got very good money for some very average performers and got exceptional money for the top performers.
It's that work that has allowed the big money signings - and we have spent big, no doubt about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yep, agree with all of that. i'm half with winston, half with hoody on this, outgoings and incomings can be judged against one another, and where money from one sale is used to fund a purchase, you have to view the two as linked.
but this whole spreadsheet approach - we've sold players for x and bought players for y - is cobblers, and i spend my life working with spreadsheets.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
"I think Net spend at least gives an idea of whether a club is operating sustainably or buying success."
No it doesn't, as it's only one revenue stream and incomings and outgoings for it are accounted for it in different ways anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"gives an idea...."
Never said its the only measure.
Indeed wages are also key and there was one season where City's wages exceeded their entire revenue, before spending anything on transfer or anything else etc. I think that year they posted a record loss of about £200m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I remember this. I think it went on for three years as well actually.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 seconds ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if someone was using it as a deep analysis of accounts then yes, it would be bollox.
But if it's a cursory glance at investment in playing staff over a fixed period then it's probably a reasonable figure to look at, albeit with other factors taken into account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like a bit more detail than cursory and don't feel it has any merit like I just said. If you want to use it crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on the discussion as to whether the additional detail is needed of course and yes, thank you for your permission to 'crack on'.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And when for most clubs the wage bill is what is making up the bulk of their spending on the squad each year the arbitrary net spend figures don’t mean much.
You only had to look at net spend tables where Stoke, Bournemouth and Newcastle were apparently spending more on their squad than Liverpool and Spurs to see it’s balllacks.
posted on 29/9/20
Net spend is not bollox. People are thick.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
How the fack can the figure that tells you how much a club has spent in transfer fees, taking purchases and sales into account, be 'bollox'?
If used in the right context, of course it's worth looking at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's that the useful context is a lot slimmer than people assume it to be. You could have a net spend of 0 and still be making a profit or loss out of player transactions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that's probably a bit harsh and dependent on the individual.
I also think the net spend figure is a launchpad into a decent discussion - have seen it a lot of Liverpool and Spurs as an example.
Net spend gives you a start point and then a deeper look at wages in particular, begins to open up the discussion.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
"I think Net spend at least gives an idea of whether a club is operating sustainably or buying success."
No it doesn't, as it's only one revenue stream and incomings and outgoings for it are accounted for it in different ways anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"gives an idea...."
Never said its the only measure.
Indeed wages are also key and there was one season where City's wages exceeded their entire revenue, before spending anything on transfer or anything else etc. I think that year they posted a record loss of about £200m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely, because the model back then was to grow the asset and also the other revenue streams, which it did.
It doesn't even give that much of an idea though, because they don't correlate to the p&L in the same way.
posted on 29/9/20
Apologies to anyone that thinks net spend is bollox, I respect your view but for me that's insanity
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And when for most clubs the wage bill is what is making up the bulk of their spending on the squad each year the arbitrary net spend figures don’t mean much.
You only had to look at net spend tables where Stoke, Bournemouth and Newcastle were apparently spending more on their squad than Liverpool and Spurs to see it’s balllacks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends how you use it.
Spurs fans would have a decent case for looking at their net spend and questioning whether Poch was backed.
It would then require further detail but the stat isn't 'bollox', it's just limited.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And when for most clubs the wage bill is what is making up the bulk of their spending on the squad each year the arbitrary net spend figures don’t mean much.
You only had to look at net spend tables where Stoke, Bournemouth and Newcastle were apparently spending more on their squad than Liverpool and Spurs to see it’s balllacks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've doubled our wage bill in five years and spent more than anyone else on agent fees I think. Certainly did a couple of years ago and fvck knows what the signing on fees were. It's bollox.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because it's such a simplified version of accounting, myopic even, I don't feel it has any merit at all. Happy for you to crack on though Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And when for most clubs the wage bill is what is making up the bulk of their spending on the squad each year the arbitrary net spend figures don’t mean much.
You only had to look at net spend tables where Stoke, Bournemouth and Newcastle were apparently spending more on their squad than Liverpool and Spurs to see it’s balllacks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We've doubled our wage bill in five years and spent more than anyone else on agent fees I think. Certainly did a couple of years ago and fvck knows what the signing on fees were. It's bollox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it should be added to the outgoings. Net spend is at the centre of everything mate. Even FFP is based on net spend.
Perhaps you can argue how important it is but bollox? That's sensationalist and also patently wrong.
posted on 29/9/20
Net spend is an accurate reflection of investment in the form of transfer fees.
If it were bollox, it wouldn't be accurate.
What people actually mean is you can't use it to conclude anything, which I would agree with.
posted on 29/9/20
Agent fees and wages is just more expenditure, goes together with transfer fees.
It does nothing to make net spend become "bollox".
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Naby8 (U6997)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any credit is due to club generally or Michael Edwards specifically; it's certainly not Klopp.
We have sold very, very well over the past few years though. Got very good money for some very average performers and got exceptional money for the top performers.
It's that work that has allowed the big money signings - and we have spent big, no doubt about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yep, agree with all of that. i'm half with winston, half with hoody on this, outgoings and incomings can be judged against one another, and where money from one sale is used to fund a purchase, you have to view the two as linked.
but this whole spreadsheet approach - we've sold players for x and bought players for y - is cobblers, and i spend my life working with spreadsheets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't view any transfer as linked tbh. It's the clubs role to maximise the value of any player assets that is no longer needed or no longer wants to stay at the club. We've done that better than most recently.
The players brought is about identifying the right players for the system and then paying an appropriate price.
Doing the sales part well means you have more financial freedom to operate in purchasing but ultimately the two are distinct in my head.
posted on 29/9/20
Robbing, yeah you’ve been spending a lot of money outside transfer fees. I also think the excellent business you’ve done with sales has given a false impression of what you’ve had to spend. You’ve been in a stable enough financial position to keep them around if needed.
posted on 29/9/20
Well I'm of the opinion that a piece of information that can't be used to conclude anything is bollox. Chocolate teapot territory.
Why is income from an asset any more relevant than from anything else? Why is a free transfer on massive wages and signing on fees put down as £0 and then lauded by Net spender types?
Liverpool have a brilliant net spend under Klopp but have spent far more money than before. It's a nonsense.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 54 seconds ago
Well I'm of the opinion that a piece of information that can't be used to conclude anything is bollox. Chocolate teapot territory.
Why is income from an asset any more relevant than from anything else? Why is a free transfer on massive wages and signing on fees put down as £0 and then lauded by Net spender types?
Liverpool have a brilliant net spend under Klopp but have spent far more money than before. It's a nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football clubs primarily improve or get worse on the back of those assets.
This isn't a chain of shoe shops we're discussing.
Fans who review the progress of their club's development will look to transfer fees and net spend as an indicator of investment, particularly if their club isn't performing very well.
Providing the person looking at it understands that no final conclusions can be drawn from it, I don't see the problem.
If people use the data in a flawed way then of course it's a nonsense, but the data in itself isn't.
When you review a business performance you take lots of data into account, sometimes in isolation and sometimes integrated.
posted on 29/9/20
We've paid the most in agent fees and wage bill increased, but again, there isn't that significant difference in what we paid vs what other clubs paid. It's not like we paid hundreds of millions more in agent fees and wages than our peers.
Spending big depends on who you compare us to. In the top 4 you can't say we have spent big, we've spent normally and significantly less than at least three, maybe four teams. But compared to the rest of the league, then of course we've spent big.
posted on 29/9/20
Net spend is very evidently a load of sheit as highlighted by the fact that Barca And Juve abs basically every other team have never done a ‘player swap’ and instead actually pay money for players to manipulate the balance sheet.
posted on 29/9/20
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
Robbing, United are a good example of this with Zlatan and Sanchez. Their time at the club cost us a lot more money than players that contributed a lot more to the net spend.
Page 6 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10