comment by Winston (U16525)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
for united though it is almost entirely irrelevant.
our biggest summers of sales (ronaldo and lukaku( brought in c. £80m apiece; over the last decade we have averaged c. £30m pa.
against that out last reported FY revenues were £630m (2019fy), with commercial income being £275m of that.
In other words those legendary noodle deals are worth roughly 9 x our player sales in terms of their importance to the club. For some clubs player sales are how they stay afloat, for us they're often an afterthought.
Net spend also means nothing considering so many teams don’t use it as their main income stream (Man Utd, Man City et al).
Notice when credible footballing accountants publish financial information (ie Swiss ramble) they never/rarely discuss net spend.
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
But also sales.
Liverpool have made umpteen millions from players we don't want or use. We're not missing Solanke and Ibe are we? £35m in the Net there.
If the rumours about the way Edwards has structured the deals we've actually got more money in the bank than before and yet have spent net. Really? I mean what's the point in that information? May as well have money made on Tuesdays' as a stat.
You know who does use NET spend a lot?
Tabloids.
Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
Love the noodles!
Of course, in United's case you can't really understand how it compares against club revenues unless you dig deeper.
But equally, if you compare our net spend with other clubs, you start to see that actually, our squad has seen a high level of investment, comparatively speaking.
As I said, you clearly can't come to any definite conclusions but you can use net spend to come up with a hypothesis to then prove or disprove imo.
Well I'm of the opinion that a piece of information that can't be used to conclude anything is bollox. Chocolate teapot territory.
----
Luckily net spend can be used to conclude some things.
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?
-----
It isn't. Net spend is total revenue less total expenditure. Of you don't include some elements of revenue or expenditure, then its not net spend.
What you think is bollox is calculations done by football fans and labelled as net spend which can be bollox sometimes. But it's not net spend. They only call it that.
Repeatedly posting net spend is bollox makes you look bad.
May as well have money made on Tuesdays' as a stat.
———
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
-----
So what do they use?
Net spend is total revenue less total expenditure.
Posting stuff like this makes us all look bad.
Net spend is total revenue less total expenditure.
------------
But it isn't is it, that's the point. It's bollox and if that makes me look bad to you Mamba I'm just going to have to live with it I guess.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
-----
So what do they use?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP only looks at the P&L.
I see this is gonna get a bit tetchy.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
-----
So what do they use?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP only looks at the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is also central to P&L
"Under UEFA guidelines, clubs are allowed to spend €5 million ($5.6 million) more than they earn per assessment period — which lasts three years. However, the limit becomes €30 million (previously €45 million) if these losses can be covered by the owners of the club or a related party. Since 2015, investments in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women's football are not included in the break-even calculations. UEFA plan to reduce this €30-million limit further, although this is yet to be decided. Football-related expenditures, such as transfers and wages, must be balanced with TV and match day revenue and any money raised from their commercial activities. Clubs must, under all circumstances, meet their transfer and employee salary commitments."
Yeah, right.
Clubs also amortise the values of all transfers across the length of a player contract. (Figures made you for ease of use) - VVD may have cost Liverpool £100m and they gave him a 5 year contract. Every year his amortised value increases by £20m - meaning that if Liverpool sold him a year into his contract for £80m then they would report a £60m + value in their books. It also highlights why selling youth players is so valuable for companies financial reporting
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
-----
So what do they use?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP only looks at the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is also central to P&L
"Under UEFA guidelines, clubs are allowed to spend €5 million ($5.6 million) more than they earn per assessment period — which lasts three years. However, the limit becomes €30 million (previously €45 million) if these losses can be covered by the owners of the club or a related party. Since 2015, investments in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women's football are not included in the break-even calculations. UEFA plan to reduce this €30-million limit further, although this is yet to be decided. Football-related expenditures, such as transfers and wages, must be balanced with TV and match day revenue and any money raised from their commercial activities. Clubs must, under all circumstances, meet their transfer and employee salary commitments."
Yeah, right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is not profit and loss. How basic do we need to go with this, let's start with you do realise that if you go and spend 60 million on a player, then that isn't classed as a 60 million loss on the P&L for that season...?
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 seconds ago
Clubs also amortise the values of all transfers across the length of a player contract. (Figures made you for ease of use) - VVD may have cost Liverpool £100m and they gave him a 5 year contract. Every year his amortised value increases by £20m - meaning that if Liverpool sold him a year into his contract for £80m then they would report a £60m + value in their books. It also highlights why selling youth players is so valuable for companies financial reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, and if anything net spend helps give you a clearer picture of investment - because amortisation is just an accounting procedure.
Here's an old article I wrote Mamba, it might help you -
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/306537
In contrast, how much has Pep spent on strikers considering City have been the highest scorers for the last 3 years l?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is not profit and loss. How basic do we need to go with this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the answer appears to be "very, very basic". does anyone here have a 10 year old child who can clarify?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 seconds ago
Clubs also amortise the values of all transfers across the length of a player contract. (Figures made you for ease of use) - VVD may have cost Liverpool £100m and they gave him a 5 year contract. Every year his amortised value increases by £20m - meaning that if Liverpool sold him a year into his contract for £80m then they would report a £60m + value in their books. It also highlights why selling youth players is so valuable for companies financial reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, and if anything net spend helps give you a clearer picture of investment - because amortisation is just an accounting procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It really doesn’t though - especially considering the majority of fees aren’t disclosed and can often fluctuate 10% depending on source
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is not profit and loss. How basic do we need to go with this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the answer appears to be "very, very basic". does anyone here have a 10 year old child who can clarify?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this really gonna be a debate?
Net spend is bollox?
I've seen it all now. I can die in peace.
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 seconds ago
Clubs also amortise the values of all transfers across the length of a player contract. (Figures made you for ease of use) - VVD may have cost Liverpool £100m and they gave him a 5 year contract. Every year his amortised value increases by £20m - meaning that if Liverpool sold him a year into his contract for £80m then they would report a £60m + value in their books. It also highlights why selling youth players is so valuable for companies financial reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, and if anything net spend helps give you a clearer picture of investment - because amortisation is just an accounting procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It really doesn’t though - especially considering the majority of fees aren’t disclosed and can often fluctuate 10% depending on source
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well obviously taking into account whether the figures you have are accurate!!
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is not profit and loss. How basic do we need to go with this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the answer appears to be "very, very basic". does anyone here have a 10 year old child who can clarify?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign in if you want to comment
Man City / Pep Defence Spending
Page 7 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
for united though it is almost entirely irrelevant.
our biggest summers of sales (ronaldo and lukaku( brought in c. £80m apiece; over the last decade we have averaged c. £30m pa.
against that out last reported FY revenues were £630m (2019fy), with commercial income being £275m of that.
In other words those legendary noodle deals are worth roughly 9 x our player sales in terms of their importance to the club. For some clubs player sales are how they stay afloat, for us they're often an afterthought.
posted on 29/9/20
Net spend also means nothing considering so many teams don’t use it as their main income stream (Man Utd, Man City et al).
Notice when credible footballing accountants publish financial information (ie Swiss ramble) they never/rarely discuss net spend.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
But also sales.
Liverpool have made umpteen millions from players we don't want or use. We're not missing Solanke and Ibe are we? £35m in the Net there.
If the rumours about the way Edwards has structured the deals we've actually got more money in the bank than before and yet have spent net. Really? I mean what's the point in that information? May as well have money made on Tuesdays' as a stat.
posted on 29/9/20
You know who does use NET spend a lot?
Tabloids.
posted on 29/9/20
Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
Love the noodles!
Of course, in United's case you can't really understand how it compares against club revenues unless you dig deeper.
But equally, if you compare our net spend with other clubs, you start to see that actually, our squad has seen a high level of investment, comparatively speaking.
As I said, you clearly can't come to any definite conclusions but you can use net spend to come up with a hypothesis to then prove or disprove imo.
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.
----
Luckily net spend can be used to conclude some things.
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?
-----
It isn't. Net spend is total revenue less total expenditure. Of you don't include some elements of revenue or expenditure, then its not net spend.
What you think is bollox is calculations done by football fans and labelled as net spend which can be bollox sometimes. But it's not net spend. They only call it that.
Repeatedly posting net spend is bollox makes you look bad.
posted on 29/9/20
May as well have money made on Tuesdays' as a stat.
———
posted on 29/9/20
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
-----
So what do they use?
posted on 29/9/20
Net spend is total revenue less total expenditure.
Posting stuff like this makes us all look bad.
posted on 29/9/20
Net spend is total revenue less total expenditure.
------------
But it isn't is it, that's the point. It's bollox and if that makes me look bad to you Mamba I'm just going to have to live with it I guess.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
-----
So what do they use?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP only looks at the P&L.
posted on 29/9/20
I see this is gonna get a bit tetchy.
posted on 29/9/20
Profit and loss, Member.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
-----
So what do they use?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP only looks at the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is also central to P&L
"Under UEFA guidelines, clubs are allowed to spend €5 million ($5.6 million) more than they earn per assessment period — which lasts three years. However, the limit becomes €30 million (previously €45 million) if these losses can be covered by the owners of the club or a related party. Since 2015, investments in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women's football are not included in the break-even calculations. UEFA plan to reduce this €30-million limit further, although this is yet to be decided. Football-related expenditures, such as transfers and wages, must be balanced with TV and match day revenue and any money raised from their commercial activities. Clubs must, under all circumstances, meet their transfer and employee salary commitments."
Yeah, right.
posted on 29/9/20
Clubs also amortise the values of all transfers across the length of a player contract. (Figures made you for ease of use) - VVD may have cost Liverpool £100m and they gave him a 5 year contract. Every year his amortised value increases by £20m - meaning that if Liverpool sold him a year into his contract for £80m then they would report a £60m + value in their books. It also highlights why selling youth players is so valuable for companies financial reporting
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
FFP doesn’t use net spend. No footballing accounting does. Never has as far as I’m aware.
-----
So what do they use?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP only looks at the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is also central to P&L
"Under UEFA guidelines, clubs are allowed to spend €5 million ($5.6 million) more than they earn per assessment period — which lasts three years. However, the limit becomes €30 million (previously €45 million) if these losses can be covered by the owners of the club or a related party. Since 2015, investments in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women's football are not included in the break-even calculations. UEFA plan to reduce this €30-million limit further, although this is yet to be decided. Football-related expenditures, such as transfers and wages, must be balanced with TV and match day revenue and any money raised from their commercial activities. Clubs must, under all circumstances, meet their transfer and employee salary commitments."
Yeah, right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is not profit and loss. How basic do we need to go with this, let's start with you do realise that if you go and spend 60 million on a player, then that isn't classed as a 60 million loss on the P&L for that season...?
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 seconds ago
Clubs also amortise the values of all transfers across the length of a player contract. (Figures made you for ease of use) - VVD may have cost Liverpool £100m and they gave him a 5 year contract. Every year his amortised value increases by £20m - meaning that if Liverpool sold him a year into his contract for £80m then they would report a £60m + value in their books. It also highlights why selling youth players is so valuable for companies financial reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, and if anything net spend helps give you a clearer picture of investment - because amortisation is just an accounting procedure.
posted on 29/9/20
Here's an old article I wrote Mamba, it might help you -
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/306537
posted on 29/9/20
In contrast, how much has Pep spent on strikers considering City have been the highest scorers for the last 3 years l?
posted on 29/9/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is not profit and loss. How basic do we need to go with this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the answer appears to be "very, very basic". does anyone here have a 10 year old child who can clarify?
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 seconds ago
Clubs also amortise the values of all transfers across the length of a player contract. (Figures made you for ease of use) - VVD may have cost Liverpool £100m and they gave him a 5 year contract. Every year his amortised value increases by £20m - meaning that if Liverpool sold him a year into his contract for £80m then they would report a £60m + value in their books. It also highlights why selling youth players is so valuable for companies financial reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, and if anything net spend helps give you a clearer picture of investment - because amortisation is just an accounting procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It really doesn’t though - especially considering the majority of fees aren’t disclosed and can often fluctuate 10% depending on source
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is not profit and loss. How basic do we need to go with this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the answer appears to be "very, very basic". does anyone here have a 10 year old child who can clarify?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 29/9/20
Is this really gonna be a debate?
Net spend is bollox?
I've seen it all now. I can die in peace.
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 seconds ago
Clubs also amortise the values of all transfers across the length of a player contract. (Figures made you for ease of use) - VVD may have cost Liverpool £100m and they gave him a 5 year contract. Every year his amortised value increases by £20m - meaning that if Liverpool sold him a year into his contract for £80m then they would report a £60m + value in their books. It also highlights why selling youth players is so valuable for companies financial reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, and if anything net spend helps give you a clearer picture of investment - because amortisation is just an accounting procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It really doesn’t though - especially considering the majority of fees aren’t disclosed and can often fluctuate 10% depending on source
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well obviously taking into account whether the figures you have are accurate!!
posted on 29/9/20
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Net spend is not profit and loss. How basic do we need to go with this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the answer appears to be "very, very basic". does anyone here have a 10 year old child who can clarify?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10