comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 seconds ago
"Net spend" is such a silly way of assessing these things because when people talk about net spend they don't take into consideration the money the clubs make away from selling players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness though, it's arguably better than just focusing on total spend.
Take Tottenham... how many times has Levy sold one of their best players for a lot of money?
United and City don't need to do that to fund their purchases.
It's fraught with flaws, but it's not entirely irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool did well with the Coutinho cash but now might have to dip into the owners pockets a bit more for the CM rebuild or sell and I don't think they'd want to lose any of the players who would fetch good price?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 seconds ago
"Net spend" is such a silly way of assessing these things because when people talk about net spend they don't take into consideration the money the clubs make away from selling players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness though, it's arguably better than just focusing on total spend.
Take Tottenham... how many times has Levy sold one of their best players for a lot of money?
United and City don't need to do that to fund their purchases.
It's fraught with flaws, but it's not entirely irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure it is. United, in theory, should be able to spend more than Spurs because they make more money.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 seconds ago
"Net spend" is such a silly way of assessing these things because when people talk about net spend they don't take into consideration the money the clubs make away from selling players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness though, it's arguably better than just focusing on total spend.
Take Tottenham... how many times has Levy sold one of their best players for a lot of money?
United and City don't need to do that to fund their purchases.
It's fraught with flaws, but it's not entirely irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure it is. United, in theory, should be able to spend more than Spurs because they make more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, which means total spend is even more misleading, because it doesn't show where the money has come from to make those purchases.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 seconds ago
"Net spend" is such a silly way of assessing these things because when people talk about net spend they don't take into consideration the money the clubs make away from selling players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness though, it's arguably better than just focusing on total spend.
Take Tottenham... how many times has Levy sold one of their best players for a lot of money?
United and City don't need to do that to fund their purchases.
It's fraught with flaws, but it's not entirely irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure it is. United, in theory, should be able to spend more than Spurs because they make more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, which means total spend is even more misleading, because it doesn't show where the money has come from to make those purchases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just find the net spend thing lazy really. It's reality some teams can afford more than others. As you say total spend doesn't tell the whole story either.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
Funny how Net Spend isn’t mentioned anymore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have had the Net Spend Cup wrapped up for years now
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
‘We spend what we earn’ also seems to have gone out of fashion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't spend what you earn though. That's why you've been charged with over 100 financial breaches. 😂
Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
Agreed, though on a forum like this, it's probably unlikely we'll see any data that is substantial enough for us to claim a thorough review.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
The next step is to put a value on the trophies won. Winning the CL has more worth than a league cup.
Paying 850m for a league cup is a bit excessive...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TBF if you are going down that road then just staying in the EPL is worth more than competing in the CL every year. Hence why the RoE has an issue with the manufactured league.
comment by Jalisco Red - Total Hagball (U4195)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
Funny how Net Spend isn’t mentioned anymore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have had the Net Spend Cup wrapped up for years now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they did get £2tn for Courtinho
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
‘We spend what we earn’ also seems to have gone out of fashion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't spend what you earn though. That's why you've been charged with over 100 financial breaches. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m for 1 Carabao Cup though.
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm so... (U4388)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
Interestingthat said I am one of the football fans that only really pays a passing interest in what is spent, from when I first started watching football the first real "big" money transfer that made me sit up was Dalgleish to Liverpool from Celtic and I think that was around £440k? seemed absurd at the time then Francis I think it was went for the 1M
I do wonder if at some point in say the next 10yrs or so transfer spending will have to be limited by the authorities? personally dont care either way but could be a possibiity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ffs piffle. It’s Dalglish.
Now, apologise.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm so... (U4388)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
Interestingthat said I am one of the football fans that only really pays a passing interest in what is spent, from when I first started watching football the first real "big" money transfer that made me sit up was Dalgleish to Liverpool from Celtic and I think that was around £440k? seemed absurd at the time then Francis I think it was went for the 1M
I do wonder if at some point in say the next 10yrs or so transfer spending will have to be limited by the authorities? personally dont care either way but could be a possibiity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ffs piffle. It’s Dalglish.
Now, apologise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it was earlyish at work and I'm an atrocious speller, but its the right thing to do, "I'm sorry"
Always feels good that
Interesting period of history in football.
City and Liverpool were pretty even in those days, City broke the the record to buy Channon £300,000(?), Liverpool retorted by buying Kenny for £440,000.
The fortunes of the clubs took totally different trajectories after that point.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 hours, 46 minutes ago
Would like to see wages as part of this as well, although the figures would be frightening!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. The correlation to finishing position in the league is always more with wages rather than spend as ultimately, football isn’t an open market.
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 4 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm so... (U4388)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
Interestingthat said I am one of the football fans that only really pays a passing interest in what is spent, from when I first started watching football the first real "big" money transfer that made me sit up was Dalgleish to Liverpool from Celtic and I think that was around £440k? seemed absurd at the time then Francis I think it was went for the 1M
I do wonder if at some point in say the next 10yrs or so transfer spending will have to be limited by the authorities? personally dont care either way but could be a possibiity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ffs piffle. It’s Dalglish.
Now, apologise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it was earlyish at work and I'm an atrocious speller, but its the right thing to do, "I'm sorry"
Always feels good that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially down the S&M club
Sign in if you want to comment
Money Spent vs Trophies
Page 2 of 2
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 seconds ago
"Net spend" is such a silly way of assessing these things because when people talk about net spend they don't take into consideration the money the clubs make away from selling players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness though, it's arguably better than just focusing on total spend.
Take Tottenham... how many times has Levy sold one of their best players for a lot of money?
United and City don't need to do that to fund their purchases.
It's fraught with flaws, but it's not entirely irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool did well with the Coutinho cash but now might have to dip into the owners pockets a bit more for the CM rebuild or sell and I don't think they'd want to lose any of the players who would fetch good price?
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 seconds ago
"Net spend" is such a silly way of assessing these things because when people talk about net spend they don't take into consideration the money the clubs make away from selling players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness though, it's arguably better than just focusing on total spend.
Take Tottenham... how many times has Levy sold one of their best players for a lot of money?
United and City don't need to do that to fund their purchases.
It's fraught with flaws, but it's not entirely irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure it is. United, in theory, should be able to spend more than Spurs because they make more money.
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 seconds ago
"Net spend" is such a silly way of assessing these things because when people talk about net spend they don't take into consideration the money the clubs make away from selling players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness though, it's arguably better than just focusing on total spend.
Take Tottenham... how many times has Levy sold one of their best players for a lot of money?
United and City don't need to do that to fund their purchases.
It's fraught with flaws, but it's not entirely irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure it is. United, in theory, should be able to spend more than Spurs because they make more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, which means total spend is even more misleading, because it doesn't show where the money has come from to make those purchases.
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 26 seconds ago
"Net spend" is such a silly way of assessing these things because when people talk about net spend they don't take into consideration the money the clubs make away from selling players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness though, it's arguably better than just focusing on total spend.
Take Tottenham... how many times has Levy sold one of their best players for a lot of money?
United and City don't need to do that to fund their purchases.
It's fraught with flaws, but it's not entirely irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure it is. United, in theory, should be able to spend more than Spurs because they make more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, which means total spend is even more misleading, because it doesn't show where the money has come from to make those purchases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just find the net spend thing lazy really. It's reality some teams can afford more than others. As you say total spend doesn't tell the whole story either.
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
Funny how Net Spend isn’t mentioned anymore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have had the Net Spend Cup wrapped up for years now
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
‘We spend what we earn’ also seems to have gone out of fashion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't spend what you earn though. That's why you've been charged with over 100 financial breaches. 😂
posted on 1/3/23
Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
Agreed, though on a forum like this, it's probably unlikely we'll see any data that is substantial enough for us to claim a thorough review.
posted on 1/3/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
The next step is to put a value on the trophies won. Winning the CL has more worth than a league cup.
Paying 850m for a league cup is a bit excessive...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TBF if you are going down that road then just staying in the EPL is worth more than competing in the CL every year. Hence why the RoE has an issue with the manufactured league.
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Jalisco Red - Total Hagball (U4195)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
Funny how Net Spend isn’t mentioned anymore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have had the Net Spend Cup wrapped up for years now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they did get £2tn for Courtinho
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
‘We spend what we earn’ also seems to have gone out of fashion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't spend what you earn though. That's why you've been charged with over 100 financial breaches. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£850m for 1 Carabao Cup though.
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm so... (U4388)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
Interestingthat said I am one of the football fans that only really pays a passing interest in what is spent, from when I first started watching football the first real "big" money transfer that made me sit up was Dalgleish to Liverpool from Celtic and I think that was around £440k? seemed absurd at the time then Francis I think it was went for the 1M
I do wonder if at some point in say the next 10yrs or so transfer spending will have to be limited by the authorities? personally dont care either way but could be a possibiity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ffs piffle. It’s Dalglish.
Now, apologise.
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm so... (U4388)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
Interestingthat said I am one of the football fans that only really pays a passing interest in what is spent, from when I first started watching football the first real "big" money transfer that made me sit up was Dalgleish to Liverpool from Celtic and I think that was around £440k? seemed absurd at the time then Francis I think it was went for the 1M
I do wonder if at some point in say the next 10yrs or so transfer spending will have to be limited by the authorities? personally dont care either way but could be a possibiity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ffs piffle. It’s Dalglish.
Now, apologise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it was earlyish at work and I'm an atrocious speller, but its the right thing to do, "I'm sorry"
Always feels good that
posted on 1/3/23
Interesting period of history in football.
City and Liverpool were pretty even in those days, City broke the the record to buy Channon £300,000(?), Liverpool retorted by buying Kenny for £440,000.
The fortunes of the clubs took totally different trajectories after that point.
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 hours, 46 minutes ago
Would like to see wages as part of this as well, although the figures would be frightening!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. The correlation to finishing position in the league is always more with wages rather than spend as ultimately, football isn’t an open market.
posted on 1/3/23
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 4 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm so... (U4388)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
Interestingthat said I am one of the football fans that only really pays a passing interest in what is spent, from when I first started watching football the first real "big" money transfer that made me sit up was Dalgleish to Liverpool from Celtic and I think that was around £440k? seemed absurd at the time then Francis I think it was went for the 1M
I do wonder if at some point in say the next 10yrs or so transfer spending will have to be limited by the authorities? personally dont care either way but could be a possibiity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ffs piffle. It’s Dalglish.
Now, apologise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it was earlyish at work and I'm an atrocious speller, but its the right thing to do, "I'm sorry"
Always feels good that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially down the S&M club
Page 2 of 2