Nope. Unless player sales are your only kind of income. You cannot budget for player sales and cannot predict what amount you may get. Clubs do not look at net spend unless they need an excuse for failure. Arsenal used it maby times but ultimately still failed. Liverpool have used it, especially rafa. All of it nonsense. To help you understand the only club with a negative net spend to win the premier league is man utd. Was it more of an achievement? Nope. Did it mean anything? Not a thing. Were we a better football club because of our impressive net spend? Like ****. We lost the best player in the world. Ask spurs how being the club with the lowest nesr spend of all premier league clubs since 92 feel about net spend. They will be full of excuses but little else. Then ask arsenal. Net spend. The worst argument in football.
I'm not using net spend as a predcitor of success, I'm using it to see how much we may likely have to spend on players.
No it means nothing. You tell me what it means? Also tell me why its first mention in football was by wenger after roman bought chelsea and spent a fortune. Did rafa net spend excuse have you convinved?
Try looking elsewhere then as net spend will tell you **** all. You dont even know what percentage of one time sales you actually re invest. The entire suarez money could have been put aside for stadium works or a new trainjng complex for all anyone knows. If you want to know how much you might have to spend just look at matchday revenue, tv money and prize money. You will get a much more accurate figure.
So you can tell me what it means. And also why only incomjng and outgoing transfers are used. Unless of course, clubs operate with the transfer budget completely seperate from the rest of their accounts... They dont though do they?
To try and argue that net spend means nothing is beyond daft. You wouldn't be taking this stance due to the fact that your net spend for the season is ****ing astronomical would you mate?
In terms of what a club can and can't spend it means quite a bit, especially since the introduction of FFP which DOESN'T take all accountancy figures into account, mainly just transfers and wages. So, in a thread where we are talking about how much money we could have to spend in January, it means quite a lot. Now, as I said before, if you have no interest in net spend, why are you on this thread...? There are plenty of threads you can (and have been) wumming on today, please leave the more serious discussions alone. You created a thread questioning where posters are and you've seen me refer to you as boring a few time recently, try putting two and two together and see if you can work it out. You never know, it might be a net figure
If net spend is meaningless then I guess Moyes did **** all at Everton after all £150m and 11 years wasted on nothingness
They do in essence............ As amortisation is added in outside of the main P&L that calculates the operating costs.
not sure how much money you will have in January but you've net spent 44m this year. http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/liverpool-transfers.html
