According to sky sports Chelsea made 800,000 net spend profit
Or in reality they made a massive loss. Again ..
According to sky sports Chelsea made 800,000 net spend profit
Slightly ridiculous comment, wouldn't you say? Net spend means everything, unless you're bankrolled by a billionaire and there is no FFP
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.

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.
Still doesn't mean nothing does it![]()
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?
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.
If you think net spend means nothing then you are dumber than you sound![]()
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?
![]()

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?
![]()
If net spend is meaningless then I guess Moyes did **** all at Everton after all
£150m and 11 years wasted on nothingness

I think we will do business in January too, assuming the right player is available, no need to #panicbuy and #panicloan like Man Utd![]()
Erm, Tobes just argued AGAINST UIR![]()

If net spend is meaningless then I guess Moyes did **** all at Everton after all
£150m and 11 years wasted on nothingness
I just argued against UiR AND Everton
Now Tobes has nowhere to go
#itsatrap