giorno
boob novice
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
- Messages
- 26,735
- Supports
- Real Madrid
No. Net spend doesn't exist. FFP is about spending within your means.FFP is about net spend isn't it?
No. Net spend doesn't exist. FFP is about spending within your means.FFP is about net spend isn't it?
Wage bill has been shown to have a close correlation with results actuallyThe net spend debate is not for boasting or moaning. I believe it's mostly a reaction to other fans trying to use gross spend as a stick to poke Liverpool fans with.
You see the other "look at Liverpool, they've spent X and <insert random comparison or expectation claim>" and it just triggers.
Neither net nor gross spend are an accurate metrics of how successful or capable a team is.
Squad cost is closer to what you can measure and compare, but squad cost does not directly correlate with performance, the ratio varies greatly and is definitely not linear. One can sell 100m worth of players, buy 50m worth of players and end up with a better team for many reasons (e.g. the new players fit the system better). Not to mention ~30m can get you either Mane or Benteke... Some managers are better than the others at squeezing performance out of players. It's complicated, and managing expectations based purely on net/gross spend is not so wise.
The algorithms betting companies use are probably the closest you can get to compare clubs and their relative success, but good luck finding those.
No. It isn’t to reflect where the money comes from. It’s to acknowledge lost talent.Not this again, irrelevant!
If you have spent £1B improving your squad (Liverpool), you've spent £1B improving your squad. It doesn't matter where the money comes from.
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.Or you have 2 squads worth 500m. One sells 200m worth of players, the other dowsnt sell anyone. Both spend 200m. One is then worth 700m, the other 500m. So obviously you have to take into account player sales too.
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.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.
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.I think net-spends should be taken into account. And arranged in increasing order, in the 2010-2018 period:
1. City: -1032m
2. PSG: -874m
3. United: -772m
4. Barca: -598m
5. Chelsea: -538m
6. Juve: -409m
7. Liverpool: -327m
8. Milan: -296m
9. Arsenal: -286m
10: Madrid: -260m
Madrid are easily the club who've gotten most bang for buck. Barca, Juve and to an extent, City, have also seen good returns for their money.
On the other end, Milan ought to be embarrassed. Neither us or Arsenal have made good transfers, either.
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.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.
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?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.
You'd have to calculate cost of current squad for that to be a valid metric, which is not what gross spend does.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.
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.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.
Exactly.Meaningless. Inflation is probably the BIGGEST factor. They have not take this into account.
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.Spending=Winning.
Top 6 teams have all won their respective leagues in the last 8 years
Why should commercially successful clubs, like Real or United, be limited in their spending? How's that fair?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.
I wasn't being serious - just a sly dig at Liverpool in 7th positionExactly.
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.
Not this again, irrelevant!
If you have spent £1B improving your squad (Liverpool), you've spent £1B improving your squad. It doesn't matter where the money comes from.
‘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.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.
Guys like Sassy Colin are basically trumpians.‘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 need some to be considered, it provides context.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Yeah, that should be very interesting.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.
All of what you wrote is irrelevant.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?
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.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.
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.‘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.
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.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.
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.Obviously because a net spend table makes United look bad. Spent almost as much as PSG but PSG can boast Neymar, Cavani, Mbappe, Verratti etc.
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.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.
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.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.
Did a rough checkCost 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.
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.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.
Believe me I tried to understand but I have no idea what point you're trying to make lolThe 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.
Cost or value? How much is Rashford worth? How about Salah?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.
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.