They have a net spend of around 330m. And that's accounting for the 130-odd they received for Coutinho.
Not this again, irrelevant!
Have City ever sold anybody for a big fee? its all the dodgy dealings like Angus Gunn for £15m that make up that figure..
It does if the money comes from weakening your squad though which is exactly what happens when you sell players...
But then there's Suarez (£80m), Torres (£60m) and many more, in fact the net spend is probably around £0, an obviously now with the best GK, CB and CM in the world they wont need to be spending much more.
It's an interesting one. You look back at the money City spent on players like Aguero (€40m according to transfermarkt) & you think damn, what a bargain... But in 2011? That was a decent chunk of change for any team to be spending, never mind on multiple positions.
Net spend should be taken into account when looking at total investment? You want to take into account profit when calculating revenue next?
I think you're confusing pounds with euros.
You had 3 apples. You gave away two apples and someone gave you 3 apples. How many apples do you have?
It kind of does if the money has come from selling your best player or in effect weakening your squad, no? Even if I assume that incoming transfers are 100% success and you get a player as good as your outgoing player, the squad is not really improving if you keep on just replacing your best players. At best, you are just maintaining the quality.
and a comparisons like that show why net spend is not the best indicator of how much a club invests in their squad
To be more accurate - Net spend should be taken into account when looking at effectiveness or ROI of spend.
Good point. Agree completely.
Not when you sell your best players to fund the big spending. If someone has a budget of 0, sells a world class player for 200m and then spends that 200m to replace him... they didnt spend 200m to improve the squad. They spent it to be back where they were basically.
It's incredible that this needs explaining every time, really. Some of the reactions are Trumpian in level.
I think the massive increase in income streams have far outweighed inflation in the period - But consolidating the two and accounting for that would tell a much more interesting story.
Exactly. This net spend is a lazy excuse to protect their manager. The fact remains klopp has spent more than Jose. Net spend is one for the finance team to look upon.
Should be looking at "player costs" as a standard really, the cost of fees+wages-sales, rather than just transfer fees when assessing investments in the squad. It's weird that we're not there yet by now.
The fact that we aren't lining up with Coutinho this season should tell you it does matter.
You say that because City look very good now, but that doesn't hold up in terms of trophies. Chelsea's net spend is half of that of City, even Man Utd have been nearly as successful as them with considerably less outlay.
I look at balance sheets mostly from the perspective of - Are we spending as much as we could be doing to compete without compromising our financial health? Despite the outlays this summer, signs still point to no. FSG may not be malevolent owners like G&H, but they still haven't pulled out all the stops for us.
It would definitely be an interesting metric to look at it.
Erm...
I suppose then, though, you'd somehow have to factor in retiring players etc i.e. Carrick retires and therefore our squad is weakened - so do we still count Fred as 50m transfer?
Net spend argument is flawed while judging a transfer ibecause not every player has a resale value. We lost Vidic, Rio, Rooney, evra,carrick,rvp,fletcher,giggs, Scholes and had to replace our core. For us replacing a 26 year old rio was as difficult to replace a 36 year old.rio. But because we got pennies for selling rio at 36, we had to spent big chunk to get a defender. Same with giggs and Scholes and Rooney.What's also funny is that from 2009-13 we only used the Ronaldo's money from 09 to build.pur squad which meant our investment was poor and hence we had to revamp our squad after that , which even till now is not completely revamped as players are more expensive to buy. I dont think any other club lost their main core like us in the past 5 to 6 years.
Yeah. Having said that obsessing over spend in general is daft there’s a particular sort of lunacy around getting hung up on net spend.
Selling your best players is a consideration for performance of the team but 1 billion spent is 1 billion 'worth' of talent or investment brought into the squad I.e. a £1bn squad is just that, regardless of how much has been raised through sales.
Net spend alone does not tell the whole story.
Very good point. We also lost Scholes, Rooney, Giggs, Evra all over this period for virtually nothing.
