Disclaimer: This is a Manchester United forum and I am a Manchester United fan, but this thread is still relevant for all clubs. I will however mainly use our club as an example, as I know more about us than other clubs.
__________________________________________________________________________
"How can you do so poorly? You spent X amount of money! This other club only spent half of that and they are higher on the table! There are no excuses for this!"
Time and time again you'll hear or read similar comments. Whether it's in a pub or on Reddit, the topic keeps coming up. Money should apparently always equal success. And how could it not? Looking at the clubs dominating in Europe, there's a strong correlation between money and success. But is it always that simple?
We are in a very special situation. Despite our status we've been very unsuccessful relative to our standards for a fairly long time(7.5 years). In terms of transfers and wages, only City has outspent us. In the same period several clubs have spent less and been significantly more successful. Based on the idea that money must equal success, this would suggest that either the transfers have been bad or all 4 managers have not been up for the task(or both). I'm not gonna say what's true, because I don't know. I will however argue that comparing how much money you've spent compared to your rivals is borderline useless as a metric, unless we're talking extreme amounts.
There are many variables involved with transfers and the infamous "net spend". Here are the most important in my opinion:
Your team's base level
If you are miles behind where you want to be, then you naturally have to spend a whole lot more than the teams in front of you in order to catch up. And you can't make that many mistakes with the transfers either. Every mistake is potentially a compounding one(more on that later). The concept is simple enough to grasp, though: if Team A is a 9/10 team and Team B is an 8/10, then the latter can't expect to do as well as the former just because they spend roughly the same amount. They have more problems to fix, after all.
The art of selling players
It's been discussed in here before, but selling players is almost as important as buying. If your club is good at selling its players before they "expire", then not only will it positively affect the money spent on wages but your net spend will also go down. Articles have been posted about the myth of net spend and how big clubs aren't necessarily too bothered by it, but fans will constantly bring it up nonetheless. One club can outspend another but be better at selling, thus making the club win the "net spend argument" among fans.
Mistakes happen
Mistakes happen, but they are exponentially more costly for clubs that already are struggling. The Champions can afford to blow 100 million on one or two flops and still be comfortably ahead of its rivals. It's obviously not ideal for these clubs either, but it's nothing compared to a club that's trying to build a top team to begin with. Not only do these transfers steal playtime from other developing players, but they also make the club drop other targets that could have worked out. Once you've come to terms with your mistake, it may be too late. Then it's back to the drawing board, only this time your wage structure is more fecked and the players you signed may be hard to sell. And in order to keep something resembling of a bench, you may have needed to keep some subpar players who now are on wages so high that no one will take them. It's a nightmare that is impossible to fix quickly. The ramifications can last for years.
The cost of a player is rarely fixed
With the exception of buyout clauses where no other rivals is willing to pay, a player's cost isn't fixed. There will inevitably be extra "taxes" for desperate clubs with money to blow. What costs you 500 million over a 5 year period could cost your rivals 300 million. When Champions/serious title contenders come knocking, the selling club knows that they can't be too greedy.
The player's wishes
Salary matters, and there's nothing wrong with that. But that also means that if you are not the player's first choice, then you need to offer higher wages to convince him. This is not the biggest problem, though. At least in this scenario you get your target. The worst is when none of the players you want wants to join you to begin with. This can force you to pick from the second highest shelf or even sign players that you don't really need. You could argue that this the wrong decision, but it's understandable that clubs make the gamble in order to at least have a chance of progression. The principle remains the same, though: signing 1 player you need for 100 million is much better than signing 2 players you don't really need for the same price.
___________________________________________________
Overall it seems clear to me that 'money spent' is a poor metric in and of itself and that it should never be used as the "winning argument" in any discussion. Not unless the club being discussed is run by competent people and has decent starting point. This is also probably why so many want a DOF for their club if no such role is filled. All clubs, big and small, need the following basis:
1. A general idea of how much money that probably needs to be spent in order to reach your goals. This estimate must take base level into account. And even if your transfers generally are smart, there's a good chance that nearly 50% will fail. This should also be taken into consideration.
2. Staff that are competent at closing deals, both when it comes to selling and signing players.
3. Staff that know when to splurge and when to be smart. If a top player wants to join you but costs a fortune, then it may still be smart to go for it, as the next similar chance could be many years down the line.
Once you have the above, then you have a good basis for whoever does the coaching. If you fail at one or more of the above, then you need a once in a generation talent to reach your goals. Unless you already have the best team and can autopilot the season, that is.
__________________________________________________________________________
"How can you do so poorly? You spent X amount of money! This other club only spent half of that and they are higher on the table! There are no excuses for this!"
Time and time again you'll hear or read similar comments. Whether it's in a pub or on Reddit, the topic keeps coming up. Money should apparently always equal success. And how could it not? Looking at the clubs dominating in Europe, there's a strong correlation between money and success. But is it always that simple?
We are in a very special situation. Despite our status we've been very unsuccessful relative to our standards for a fairly long time(7.5 years). In terms of transfers and wages, only City has outspent us. In the same period several clubs have spent less and been significantly more successful. Based on the idea that money must equal success, this would suggest that either the transfers have been bad or all 4 managers have not been up for the task(or both). I'm not gonna say what's true, because I don't know. I will however argue that comparing how much money you've spent compared to your rivals is borderline useless as a metric, unless we're talking extreme amounts.
There are many variables involved with transfers and the infamous "net spend". Here are the most important in my opinion:
Your team's base level
If you are miles behind where you want to be, then you naturally have to spend a whole lot more than the teams in front of you in order to catch up. And you can't make that many mistakes with the transfers either. Every mistake is potentially a compounding one(more on that later). The concept is simple enough to grasp, though: if Team A is a 9/10 team and Team B is an 8/10, then the latter can't expect to do as well as the former just because they spend roughly the same amount. They have more problems to fix, after all.
The art of selling players
It's been discussed in here before, but selling players is almost as important as buying. If your club is good at selling its players before they "expire", then not only will it positively affect the money spent on wages but your net spend will also go down. Articles have been posted about the myth of net spend and how big clubs aren't necessarily too bothered by it, but fans will constantly bring it up nonetheless. One club can outspend another but be better at selling, thus making the club win the "net spend argument" among fans.
Mistakes happen
Mistakes happen, but they are exponentially more costly for clubs that already are struggling. The Champions can afford to blow 100 million on one or two flops and still be comfortably ahead of its rivals. It's obviously not ideal for these clubs either, but it's nothing compared to a club that's trying to build a top team to begin with. Not only do these transfers steal playtime from other developing players, but they also make the club drop other targets that could have worked out. Once you've come to terms with your mistake, it may be too late. Then it's back to the drawing board, only this time your wage structure is more fecked and the players you signed may be hard to sell. And in order to keep something resembling of a bench, you may have needed to keep some subpar players who now are on wages so high that no one will take them. It's a nightmare that is impossible to fix quickly. The ramifications can last for years.
The cost of a player is rarely fixed
With the exception of buyout clauses where no other rivals is willing to pay, a player's cost isn't fixed. There will inevitably be extra "taxes" for desperate clubs with money to blow. What costs you 500 million over a 5 year period could cost your rivals 300 million. When Champions/serious title contenders come knocking, the selling club knows that they can't be too greedy.
The player's wishes
Salary matters, and there's nothing wrong with that. But that also means that if you are not the player's first choice, then you need to offer higher wages to convince him. This is not the biggest problem, though. At least in this scenario you get your target. The worst is when none of the players you want wants to join you to begin with. This can force you to pick from the second highest shelf or even sign players that you don't really need. You could argue that this the wrong decision, but it's understandable that clubs make the gamble in order to at least have a chance of progression. The principle remains the same, though: signing 1 player you need for 100 million is much better than signing 2 players you don't really need for the same price.
___________________________________________________
Overall it seems clear to me that 'money spent' is a poor metric in and of itself and that it should never be used as the "winning argument" in any discussion. Not unless the club being discussed is run by competent people and has decent starting point. This is also probably why so many want a DOF for their club if no such role is filled. All clubs, big and small, need the following basis:
1. A general idea of how much money that probably needs to be spent in order to reach your goals. This estimate must take base level into account. And even if your transfers generally are smart, there's a good chance that nearly 50% will fail. This should also be taken into consideration.
2. Staff that are competent at closing deals, both when it comes to selling and signing players.
3. Staff that know when to splurge and when to be smart. If a top player wants to join you but costs a fortune, then it may still be smart to go for it, as the next similar chance could be many years down the line.
Once you have the above, then you have a good basis for whoever does the coaching. If you fail at one or more of the above, then you need a once in a generation talent to reach your goals. Unless you already have the best team and can autopilot the season, that is.
