It meant just as little as when we sold ronaldo and spent 45million of it. That little. Its very selective and without the whole picture it means absolutelt nothing. Just more use of stats to suit an agenda. I mean tobes, these guys now adamant it means so much, ridiculed yourself whenever you brought it up in evertons favour. Treble put it a good way. If you sell your car for 2000 and buy another for 4000 did it actually cost you 2000? Nope. Plus we lost valueable assets for nothing because we got what we needed out of them while they were here. The day net spend means something more than a very flawed argument is the day football dies. Give me players returing after a decade of service over making 80million in sales any day.
Still waiting for someone tp tell me what it means. The list is getting long. Here are tge fans of clubs who cannot explain why its so important but are adamant it is. Arsenal Everton Liverpool Tottenham Special mentions for chelsea. Surely someone knows why and can explain why a carefully selected section of a clubs accounts mean so much. When it suits obviously. When it doesnt suit we all just laugh at the club using the argument. Usually arsenal. Still? Must hurt that despite all tge arguments for and against, united win the net spend trophy too. Woop. What do we win. Gerrez already won tge internet so whats left?
See, you're falling into the trap of there only being one opinion for all Liverpool supporters there aren't you? That or you're mixing up serious comments with piss taking comments Using Treble's example: You buy a car for £2,000 and then sell it for £2,000 before buying another for £4,000. In the end its cost you £4,000 net If you buy a car for £2,000 and then sell it for £3,000 before buying another for £4,000. In the end its cost you £3,000 net If you get lucky, you buy the first car for a bargain £1,500, sell it for £3,000 and then find another bargain with the second car buying it for £3,000. you've only spent £1,500 net despite having the exact same cars. If you started with the original £4,000 budget then you still have £2,500 to spent. Therefore, net matters #basicmaths Edit: especially in times of FFP, ask Man City
I wish you could buy a car for 1500 and sell it for double. Without spending a penny on it. This is why its pointless. Its not as simple as that. It becomes much more complicated and transfer fees are only a part of it. Hence the net spend argument has no meaning.
Net spend is an important indicator of the level of resources invested into the clubs playing squad. It should never be taken as being reflective of the full story in isolation, but it's still a valid stat. Total player investment is more accurate figure though i.e. net fees plus wages.
Obviously it was an example much like the one from Treble you posted. Is it unfamiliar for a player (which was the point of the example) to double in value? C.Ronaldo, G.Bale and L.Suarez being brilliant examples how it can be much more than double! Of course it has meaning, if a club manages its finances well, buys and sells well, etc then the money goes much further. That IS the point. It has nothing to do with winning trophies or the actual football but if done properly it can improve your chances.
I will accept that. My point is in isolation it means nothing. Especially in football terms. It wheeled out by sides that have flopped more often than not. For example using it as a dig v united. If i could be arsed digging it up uniteds net, gross and cost per trophy figures **** all over every club in every top division on earth. So its not as if this doesnt suit my agenda. It bloody does. It still doesnt mean anything. No champagne is popped in celebration (exclude rafa of course) and it doesnt make any one club better or worse. In fact low net spend in most cases is a negative thing. Usually points towards a lack of investment and progression. Did when united were net spend champions year after year under malcom and co. Funny how things change so quickly...
There was definitely some panic involved in the 300k per week Falcao deal, there were far more pressing concerns for you splurge those wages on
I was listening to TalkSport on Friday and they were talking about the Manchester derby. One of them asked the following question: Other than Di Maria, would any of the Man Utd players get into the Man City side. Now, I thought this was a silly question and very harsh on Man Utd so subsequently laughed a little. For the record, I think De Gea and a on form Falcao (alongside Aguero) would get in Man City's side. However, I laughed much more when I heard the other guys response: Not many, maybe just Wayne Rooney
The claim is net spend means nothing. Ive not changed that at all. Net spend is being used in isolation here. Ignoring everything else. I just added a word. My point is exactly the same. As part of a clubs accounts it has a place. Im sure its of grear interest to club accountants and a major topic of discussion for them at parties. Net spend lads, under 20 million bitches..... I can imagine it. Buzz killington and chums....
