No. Net spend doesn't exist. FFP is about spending within your means.
Top 20 biggest spending clubs in the last 8 years - CIES
- Thread starter Sassy Colin
- Start date
Wage bill has been shown to have a close correlation with results actually
No. It isn’t to reflect where the money comes from. It’s to acknowledge lost talent.
If I spend £100m on a player to replace another player I sold for £100m, that means talent on the team is, roughly, the same. It’s false to not consider the net spend.
Your squad wasn't worth £ 500 M when you started was it? It only gets that value after the sales which you then count again when saying that's the money we haven't spent. But when I count the value of your squad now, it looks like the same as us, this being what you've paid for it & not what you want it to be worth when some future figures are applied back to it.
Because the cost of your squad is still the cost of your squad. Consider the net spend all you like but it doesn't alter how much your squad cost to assemble at a specific point in time - when you add up what it cost to assemble.
''I'll calculate how much our squad cost, but I'll just take off what we sold Coutinho for'' - why does that change the cost of your squad when it obviously doesn't.
I spent £ 30 at the supermarket but I sold some other food before that which I got for nothing for £ 10. How much did I spend at the supermarket? (£ 30) Did I ever have £ 40 worth of food? Probably not that I can see.
Am I £10 better off. Yes I am, but it hasn't altered how much money I've spent.
Oh, you spent £ 30 at the supermarket as well. And we seem to have the same amount of food too. You've accumulated £ 10 for next time, though. Which is when I'd count it, I wouldn't move it backwards through the process & count it earlier would I?
What is net spend though? If it comes from selling players, on a fluke one might add, that equals to net spend? If, on the other hand, you have solid incomes from merchandise, trophies, sponsors, ticket revenues etc, then that does not count as net spend? If you buy players you buy players.
Jeez, Liverpool are really getting to you lot.
Can't wait for UEFA to announce FFP 2.0.
which says you can spend 100m per season NET SPEND! It's fair, you can spend 400m of course but you have to sell for 300m also. And then everyone will realize how important net spend is. Although, in the way, we have that already.
which says you can spend 100m per season NET SPEND! It's fair, you can spend 400m of course but you have to sell for 300m also. And then everyone will realize how important net spend is. Although, in the way, we have that already.
It only recognizes part of it though. If you buy up and coming players and sell them at their prime, you will have a low net spend. If you spend 1b on your youth set-up, your net spend will be a lot higher, if you do not sell them on. Net-spend is only a fraction of the tale. If a club is well run and makes a huge profit, they obviously have more to spend, but at the same time does not need to sell their players on, and might potentially get less for their players due to high wages. In addition, one might consider that some of the clubs have players who retire to a higher degree than others, or keep them for a ripe old age.
Net spend might just as well just be an indication that the club is a selling club because they have to be.
If a club is well run and makes a huge profit, then they can afford those players more than clubs with a low net-spend, in many cases.
I don't really get how they manage to turn buying players for not a lot but selling them for loads into being such a massive disadvantage.
I wish they'd stop & feck off into total obscurity.
I wish they'd stop & feck off into total obscurity.
Yep it's a massive advantage to sell your best players for large fees, it's why the most successful clubs are well known for doing so. Man utd, Juventus, Bayern and Real don't seem to do it, I wonder why if it puts you at such an advantage?
You'd have to calculate cost of current squad for that to be a valid metric, which is not what gross spend does.
Would like to see it though.
Yeah, selling Suarez was great. Too bad you weren't able to sell De Gea for massive profit this summer. What a win that could have been for you.
Exactly.
In theory. We spent good monies throughout our successful years and sometimes we didn't. However, the past 5 years we've been banging out 150m a season with no success. We're a joke, though.
So 3 of top 4 are sugar daddy clubs that have just emptied cash, yet theyd tell you they aren't responsible for inflating market 
No surprises whos top.
No surprises whos top.
Why should commercially successful clubs, like Real or United, be limited in their spending? How's that fair?
I wasn't being serious - just a sly dig at Liverpool in 7th position
‘Net spend’ in completely relevant in order to provide context. The issue is these different tables, where certain fans go on about to justify their argument about spending power. It’s not so useful as a table over 10 years, and the two are not mutually exclusive.
An example would be Bale, when Spurs sold him, they spent the entire transfer fee on a load of players - they wouldn’t have been able to do this without receiving the £85m from Bale.
Let’s pretend that Madrid didn’t sell anyone that summer (no idea what the did/ didn’t do) - they spent £85m on Bale. If you therefore looked at just transfer spend, Spurs and Real would be the same - but in fact, Madrid have gained an £85m player, having not lost anyone and Spurs have lost that player, and replaced him with assets worth the same amount.
In terms of assets, Madrid are plus £85m and Spurs are +-£0.
Of course it needs to be considered, it provides context.
Last edited:
Guys like Sassy Colin are basically trumpians.
"I heard the Other Side likes net spend, so I will borrow this one-liner I was able to remember from twitter against net spend and mindlessly regurgitate it. Since I've no real understanding of the topic, I will not respond to any detailed argument. Which is just as well, as I have no interest in acquiring any understanding either. I will however make my voice heard."
Real sell players with huge profits all the time. They did so with Özil, Di Maria or Ronaldo. They are just incredibly smart about it and keep their players for as long as it makes sense to them.
Every club sells players. Real rarely sell their best players when they don't want to. Bayern rarely do so. Juventus rarely do so. Man Utd rarely do so.
To suggest that it is somehow a normal tactic is just so strange for me. As if Barcelona would turn around this summer and say, actually let's sell Messi and Busquets. Or Man utd will decide to sell Pogba, Lukaku and De Gea to ensure a good net spend this summer. It just doesn't happen.
It is a tactic for Real. Or wasn’t Ronaldo their best player? They don’t have to sell those guys. That’s obvious. But they do from time to time. Often even though those players still have some good years ahead of them. Real are one of the best selling clubs there is.
Morata, Danilo, Di Maria, Özil, Higuain and Ronaldo all were sold with profit. They don’t do it all the time and not with players they think are too valuable at the time, but they do it. Bale and Benzema could very well become the next ones. It’s just smart business. They try to move on from players, when they still possess some value and other teams are dumb enough to pay. Selling players with profit is part of their strategy.
Also, Real don’t buy players above the age of 25. The last non-keeper to be older who actually played a role for them above the age of 25 must be Modric.
And I see no point in talking about Juve, Bayern or Barca here. I never once mentioned them.
They sold Ronaldo (for a profit) after 10 years with him, when he is 33, not looking quite as effective as he always did and having seemingly fallen out beyond repair with the owner. Of course they have to sell players. When they buy their new toys, they have to get rid of someone else to keep squad numbers reasonable at the very least.
And I don't see how what you're saying is different from what I am saying? I never said clubs don't sell players, every club sells players. I said it is not a massive advantage to sell your best players regularly. Real won't follow up the sale of Ronaldo with the sales of Modric, Ramos, Casemeiro etc.
What do you mean you see no point in talking about those other 3 clubs? I mentioned other clubs in my initial post, I wasn't just talking about Real.
Can't judge clubs or managers based on numbers alone, you have to take into account other factors, as well.
Say that Manager A and Manager B both have midfielders worth 100M. In Manager A's case, the midfielder is nearing the end of his contract and has decided to leave on a free transfer. In Manager B's case, the midfielder has a longer contract and wants to leave so he is sold for 100M. Both managers replace their midfielders, with Manager A getting a young midfielder for 30M while Manager B gets a proven star for 100M. Let's say they end up having roughly the same level of success, with Manager A at -30M and Manager B at an even zero. Does this make Manager B more successful? If anything, Manager A could be considered more successful (in relative terms) as he achieved the same success while replacing his star midfielder with a younger, cheaper player whom he developed into a proper world class mid. This requires more work and has more risk involved than simply buying a proven player who can almost guarantee success.
Of course, there are countless variations and you can't judge just by looking at numbers. Players retire, they fall out with their clubs and/or are unprofessional, the market is very dynamic and it influences clubs heavily etc.
This is why I don't think Guardiola or Klopp or anyone should be judged in relation to how much money their clubs spent. Klopp signed VVD, but he didn't decide that the price should be 70M or whatever. He simply picked his player, one that would suit the system and has enough quality to play for Liverpool, and then the clubs, the market, the agents etc. did the rest and decided the fee. We paid so much for Dembele because we were desperate to replace Neymar and we got robbed by Dortmund because they knew we had a lot of money and a hole in the line-up. Should Valverde be blamed for not utilizing a 150M player better, or should we understand Valverde's position - that he has a young, inexperienced player who has a hefty price tag on his shoulders? Had Dembele cost 30M instead of this ridiculous fee, he would still be the same player, but he would have had a much easier time settling in without all the pressure.
I don't mean to suggest that big clubs have a more difficult time winning due to expensive signings because a lot of the drawbacks are offset by sheer player quality, just that it's not black and white and whatever fee you pay for your player, you still have to do the work, make him settle in, find the right role for him, manage the other egos, deploy the right tactics etc. The fees or wages paid depend on many factors.
Say that Manager A and Manager B both have midfielders worth 100M. In Manager A's case, the midfielder is nearing the end of his contract and has decided to leave on a free transfer. In Manager B's case, the midfielder has a longer contract and wants to leave so he is sold for 100M. Both managers replace their midfielders, with Manager A getting a young midfielder for 30M while Manager B gets a proven star for 100M. Let's say they end up having roughly the same level of success, with Manager A at -30M and Manager B at an even zero. Does this make Manager B more successful? If anything, Manager A could be considered more successful (in relative terms) as he achieved the same success while replacing his star midfielder with a younger, cheaper player whom he developed into a proper world class mid. This requires more work and has more risk involved than simply buying a proven player who can almost guarantee success.
Of course, there are countless variations and you can't judge just by looking at numbers. Players retire, they fall out with their clubs and/or are unprofessional, the market is very dynamic and it influences clubs heavily etc.
This is why I don't think Guardiola or Klopp or anyone should be judged in relation to how much money their clubs spent. Klopp signed VVD, but he didn't decide that the price should be 70M or whatever. He simply picked his player, one that would suit the system and has enough quality to play for Liverpool, and then the clubs, the market, the agents etc. did the rest and decided the fee. We paid so much for Dembele because we were desperate to replace Neymar and we got robbed by Dortmund because they knew we had a lot of money and a hole in the line-up. Should Valverde be blamed for not utilizing a 150M player better, or should we understand Valverde's position - that he has a young, inexperienced player who has a hefty price tag on his shoulders? Had Dembele cost 30M instead of this ridiculous fee, he would still be the same player, but he would have had a much easier time settling in without all the pressure.
I don't mean to suggest that big clubs have a more difficult time winning due to expensive signings because a lot of the drawbacks are offset by sheer player quality, just that it's not black and white and whatever fee you pay for your player, you still have to do the work, make him settle in, find the right role for him, manage the other egos, deploy the right tactics etc. The fees or wages paid depend on many factors.
I don't really care that much about the gross spend vs net spend etc. I simply don't understand the logic behind any of the sides, really.
Net spend: If a player is in the last year of his contract (like when we signed RVP), that makes his value drop dramatically. Arsenal could put 25 mill or whatever in the "sell" column, but the actual value they lost was more, no? To replace him they'd have to spend way more than 25 mill. Also players retiring or playing out their contract, how do you calculate them? You lose their value entirely, and have to spend accordingly to adjust. Sure, when you sell players like Neymar or Coutinho, you can add a huge number to the "sell" column, but their value is hugely inflated because of stuff like marketability and stuff, I would imagine. In my mind (I might be wrong ofc) you can replace their talents and actually improve your squad without even spending it all (especially in Neymars case). Their value is way above their actual worth on the pitch, imho, thus you could replace them with the world beaters of tomorrow. Also, if you have the shady connections of Chelsea, City and Barcelona, to just move players around for ridiculous fees, how is that a "positive" thing? I mean, Oscar went to China for some 50 mill. Paulinho is sold way above market value every summer, then bought back for a fraction. Then sold again. Or City, who'll just move players around internally to make agents and UEFA happy. If net spend is the stat to look at, these clubs are just cheating.
Gross spend: Ofc. it makes your spending look better if you sell for big numbers than if you just buy players for world record fees every single transfer window. But then again, who cares? If you have the money, spend it. I mean, I would take it as an insult to myself as a fan if Manchester United, the most valuable and profitable club in the world, wasn't high on this list. I imagine I would be even more mad if I had to endure sheikh owners who literally keep people as slaves to keep their business floating, didn't splash the cash. There's no need for clubs like PSG or City to care anything at all about net spend (which is why they don't).
Criticize the players bought and the trophies to show for it. If your only argument is "Net spend!" or "We have the money!", you're wrong either way. Buy the right players for the right system, and if you have the money, buy the best and most expensive players for your system. If it leaves you empty handed, you've bought the wrong players.
Net spend: If a player is in the last year of his contract (like when we signed RVP), that makes his value drop dramatically. Arsenal could put 25 mill or whatever in the "sell" column, but the actual value they lost was more, no? To replace him they'd have to spend way more than 25 mill. Also players retiring or playing out their contract, how do you calculate them? You lose their value entirely, and have to spend accordingly to adjust. Sure, when you sell players like Neymar or Coutinho, you can add a huge number to the "sell" column, but their value is hugely inflated because of stuff like marketability and stuff, I would imagine. In my mind (I might be wrong ofc) you can replace their talents and actually improve your squad without even spending it all (especially in Neymars case). Their value is way above their actual worth on the pitch, imho, thus you could replace them with the world beaters of tomorrow. Also, if you have the shady connections of Chelsea, City and Barcelona, to just move players around for ridiculous fees, how is that a "positive" thing? I mean, Oscar went to China for some 50 mill. Paulinho is sold way above market value every summer, then bought back for a fraction. Then sold again. Or City, who'll just move players around internally to make agents and UEFA happy. If net spend is the stat to look at, these clubs are just cheating.
Gross spend: Ofc. it makes your spending look better if you sell for big numbers than if you just buy players for world record fees every single transfer window. But then again, who cares? If you have the money, spend it. I mean, I would take it as an insult to myself as a fan if Manchester United, the most valuable and profitable club in the world, wasn't high on this list. I imagine I would be even more mad if I had to endure sheikh owners who literally keep people as slaves to keep their business floating, didn't splash the cash. There's no need for clubs like PSG or City to care anything at all about net spend (which is why they don't).
Criticize the players bought and the trophies to show for it. If your only argument is "Net spend!" or "We have the money!", you're wrong either way. Buy the right players for the right system, and if you have the money, buy the best and most expensive players for your system. If it leaves you empty handed, you've bought the wrong players.
But I’m only talking about Real. And for Real turning players into a profit is a big part of their strategy. They are obviously not forced to do so, because usually nobody wants to leave, but they still do it. Because it makes sense. That’s all I’m trying to say. The biggest club in the whole world, at the very top of the food chain, regularly sells players for huge profits, sometimes even important ones. Even their best player and one of the biggest club legend ever.
Real always look at the value in case a player needs to be sold. Hence the huge focus on players 25 or younger. They don’t just buy ready made superstars. They are very careful in their approach and always plan for a player failing.
I’m just trying to add some nuance to your point. It can be very advantageous to even sell your best player.
Cost of current squad is the only relevant metric. Everyone buys and sells, what you should look at is what you are left with, how much did that cost, and how much did you get out of those players.
I'd be interested to see United's current squad cost versus Liverpool's.
I'd be interested to see United's current squad cost versus Liverpool's.
The flip side is club's like Liverpool, who make nowhere near the richest sports brand in the world United, have essentially spent the same money.
That's the bigger talking point, not net spend.
That's the bigger talking point, not net spend.
Yeah, that should be very interesting.
All of what you wrote is irrelevant.
1. I never said net spend alone was by itself the all defining metric.
2. Your whole argument is totally irrelevant (sorry) because the cost of assembling your squad is NOT the metric being discussed here. It is net spend vs gross spend. Gross spend does not equal what your current squad cost. That’s a different metric altogether.
If I spent £500m in 3 years, my squad might be worth £700m or £200m depending on who was in it or who was sold.
3. Despite your point not really refuting what I was saying, I agree with you that current squad cost is a better metric than either net spend or gross spend. Still has flaws - in 10 years time Pogba might be an aging part timer but would still come up with a big cost.
As someone said earlier, some kind of cost, value, and wage bill based metric would probably be the most accurate.
What’s ironic is that net spend probably gets you closer to current cost of squad than gross spend, funnily enough.
Last edited:
Nobody saying net spend is a good metric. It’s not. But, in comparison of shit metrics, I would marginally argue that it better than gross spend. It’s slightly less shit.
But as with all statistics, they are usually not great unless used in a correct context and in conjunction with other facts.
Essentially what you’re saying is that any statistic needs to be used in conjunction with other facts and in context. Which should really be common sense and logical.
My problem with net-spend is that it's used as a stick to beat teams that have high incomes and high spending. As I said, if the club is well run and makes a ton of money, buying a player for 50m pounds is nothing. However, if the club loses money and sells a player for 100m pounds, then spending 50 of those on another player may be very bad business. Liverpool supporters use it as another of their alternative leagues. They have still spent about as much as United these last ten years. I'm sure they've spent much more if you compare with income and expenditure on buying players. I'm not sure why people fall for this.
If Bill Gates buys a Bugatti Chiron, then he has spent a helluva lot on a car. If I buy a Dacia Sandero, and sold my old Golf, my net spend is far less than Gates. However, the percentage of my money spent on that piece of sh*t car compared to my income or wealth is still far higher than Gates', who I doubt would have to talk to the bank for funding the car - I might have had to. Therefore, net spend is just a fraction of the picture.
Yep that's the impression I get from reading this thread. If United were able to move on some fringe players like Rojo, Young, Darmian and even Jones or Smalling for significant sums in tandem with the heavy outlays they've made on Pogba and Lukaku, this wouldn't be an argument.
No, it isn't. The talking point here is that clubs all operate within different financial brackets, facing different variables that cause them to act and react in the market. It's not a balanced comparison.
You can analyse clubs individually to see how they've done over the years with their finances and spending, but comparing them to everyone else seems pointless to me.
Manutd net spend was less Stoke at one point but no one used that as an excuse. We used that against owners, not as an excuse.
Did a rough check
ManUtd - 603 million pounds
Liverpool 568 million pounds + around 20MP players out on loan
Chelsea - 572 million + 120 million worth of players out on loan
City - 768 million pounds.
Seems like these figures would be more relevant at the end of the season. A lot of our spending was done in the last window, so some of those signings have only played a few games.
Believe me I tried to understand but I have no idea what point you're trying to make lol
Cost or value? How much is Rashford worth? How about Salah?
The end of the season is a long time in football - those values will be extremely subjective/ variable in any case. As the season goes on values of players change dramatically.
The value of the quad doesn’t really matter, the only thing that does matter is where clubs are in the league at the end of the season or what silverwhere they took home.
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/11490165/top-pl-deals-in-todays-moneySo 3 of top 4 are sugar daddy clubs that have just emptied cash, yet theyd tell you they aren't responsible for inflating market
No surprises whos top.
Doing the rounds this morning, thought it might make an interesting read. Just 5 of the top 10 and 8 of the top 20 for United.