The much disputed net spend

Levy out.

Gross spending is a more useful tool.

Net spending is useless, because it incorporates selling fees, which more often than not are from selling dud players.

Lauding net spend because fees you've paid have been mitigated by selling the odd star player (thus weakening the team) but mainly selling bad buys at a loss isn't something to be proud of.

Everyone should ignore net spend really. Money from selling poor purchases is just another source of income for the club, much like ticket sales and merchandising.

comment by Gilbert Napthine (U15867)
posted 5 minutes ago
Gross spending is a more useful tool.

Net spending is useless, because it incorporates selling fees, which more often than not are from selling dud players.

Lauding net spend because fees you've paid have been mitigated by selling the odd star player (thus weakening the team) but mainly selling bad buys at a loss isn't something to be proud of.

Everyone should ignore net spend really. Money from selling poor purchases is just another source of income for the club, much like ticket sales and merchandising.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s shows assets bought and sold. Whether at a loss or an academy player is here nor there, especially over a ten year period.

Lots of United fans dead against this thread

It shows a portion of an asset bought vs assets sold (not including circumstances)

It’d be like evaluating how much your house costs you if you only considered your mortgage (not considering insurances, bills, tax etc) vs how much you rent it out for (not considering maintenance, taxes, etc)

Net spend is one means of looking at the spending of a club and a good one at that.

Gross spending alone doesn't really indicate the true degree of investment or expansion of the squad if it is taken without the context of money made from sales.

Brighton could spend £200m this year and people could marvel at how ambitious they are...but if they sold their best players for £200m that it shows that they are not so ambitious, not truly investing, simply replacing lost players, and probably with inferior ones.

Net spend gives an indication of a clubs ability to spend, so it speaks more to the financial health of the club than ambition. If a team is able to net spend £150m every season without making losses then all is well.

The fact that Spurs net spend has climbed steeply since the stadium opened has shown there is a very direct correlation between the financial health of the club and the ability to spend, so it is not irrelevant.

But it is only one measure, its doesnt paint a full picture and transfers in and out are accounted for differently for FFP and accounting purposes so, where a transfer is amortised, this gives a very different understanding of transfer spending.

Basically if Devon is agreeing with you ^ then you know it’s wrong

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 43 seconds ago
Net spend is one means of looking at the spending of a club and a good one at that.

Gross spending alone doesn't really indicate the true degree of investment or expansion of the squad if it is taken without the context of money made from sales.

Brighton could spend £200m this year and people could marvel at how ambitious they are...but if they sold their best players for £200m that it shows that they are not so ambitious, not truly investing, simply replacing lost players, and probably with inferior ones.

Net spend gives an indication of a clubs ability to spend, so it speaks more to the financial health of the club than ambition. If a team is able to net spend £150m every season without making losses then all is well.

The fact that Spurs net spend has climbed steeply since the stadium opened has shown there is a very direct correlation between the financial health of the club and the ability to spend, so it is not irrelevant.

But it is only one measure, its doesnt paint a full picture and transfers in and out are accounted for differently for FFP and accounting purposes so, where a transfer is amortised, this gives a very different understanding of transfer spending.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree on all counts.

It’s good as a basic gauge. I also had Brighton in mind. They are such a well ran club. How long they can constantly go through cycles like they have is a different argument. And of course, for accounting purposes amortising transfers is important. But like I said just wanting to paint a very basic picture since 2014.

comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 46 minutes ago
It shows a portion of an asset bought vs assets sold (not including circumstances)

It’d be like evaluating how much your house costs you if you only considered your mortgage (not considering insurances, bills, tax etc) vs how much you rent it out for (not considering maintenance, taxes, etc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

no measure gives a clear picture in isolation. Wages can be just as misleading.

Chelsea could sell Lukaku and replace him with a net spend of £50m but save money on wages. Net spend looks ambitious, wages look like a down grade.

Net spend is just part of having the best understanding, so not irrelevant but also not gospel when viewed in isolation. Doesnt preclude someone from reaching a qualified conclusion based on net spend alone.

So Spurs spent 700 million pounds in the last 5 years on buying players?

Who would you say are your 3 top players you spent the money to obtain?

comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
Basically if Devon is agreeing with you ^ then you know it’s wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------