Doovde
Your using the figures for 4 years for the League Cup .
Red_man
You're*
So I give you an answer to your question, and then you start putting spins on my question. You can't win with these Historypool fans
Red_man, as Dev so accurately posted:
I thought LFC fans were all about the NET SPEND. It was the way they justified Rafa's massive spending and declining form.
He spent £20m on Aquilani, £18m on Johnson , and you dropped from 2nd to 7th....oh how people used to laugh at that great business!! only to be pulled up by 'pool fans banging on about net spend.
Now, when suddenly Spurs Net spend is zero or better and their results are better than LFC who are all spend spend spend, suddenly Net Spend is irrelevant....typical!
LFC fans love to spin it this way and every way, whatever suits.
One said earlier that if you account for 1 years wages saved and a loan fee + £15m transfer, the deal for carroll is excellent
fact is, Spurs lost 3 of their top performers and had to replace them. If we had not spent the plentiful money we received our squad would have been about 17 men strong. 3 direct replacements , Siggy replacing Kranjcar, a new keeper & holtby is the Jan window.
I`m proud of Spurs two carling cups in 20 years, that is still more than 85 other clubs have won over the same period. It`s part of our history, same as Liverpool used to be good 20 years back, it`s past of their history, same as when Spurs were winning the double and a european trophy, Liverpool were playing second division football, but still part of both clubs history.
Doovde
Oh no it's the grammar police. It was autocorrect.
Why use 4 years?
NET spend is a good way to see if the books are being balanced, and not to justify league position. The players you buy, this season, are the ones that affect where you finish in the league, not the ones you sell.
£61m to drop a place in the league .
NET spend is a good way to see if the books are being balanced, and not to justify league position. The players you buy, this season, are the ones that affect where you finish in the league, not the ones you sell.
---------------------------------------------------
The players you sell will also affect where you finish in the league.
Hence NET spend.
Indeed Doovde....
They spent:
£49m in 12/13
£56m in 11/12
£80m in 10/11
A grand total of £185m in THREE season....and seeing as the Gross Spend is Red_Mans preferred method of assessment, they spent on average £62m a season to achieve 6th 8th and 7th and the Carling cup.
Siggy
"The players you sell will also affect where you finish in the league."
How? They're no longer at the club. Did Modric or VDV help you get 5th this season? No Siggi, Dempsey etc did.
red_man.....if you lose class like Modric or Suarez or Bale then you will be weaker and this will affect your league position....;does that really need explaining.
Dev
No, but the players you sign are the ones that determine your league position the following year.
Thread Pattern below:
1. Create article to salvage something
2. Have article blow up in your face
3. Claim it's a wum
It's a cycle seen all too often on here
This isn't a WUM. How have I salvaged anything, we're still 5th
Come on, Metro, I thought you was smarter than that...
Doovde
So when you typed this, and you were apparently being serious;
"17. Liverpool - £668,852-spent-per-point
What reaction did you expect?
I <applaud> the top teams, and at the bottom teams
If you're offended by this, you shouldn't be a fan of football
Doovde
Ah right obviously my mistake. It explains why you didn't get narky when we pointed out Spurs spend per trophy, or use gross spend and league points/position .
Indeed redman, but if LFC sold Suarez you would unlikely be able to replace with the same class. You might get 2 players for the same money.
Your gross Spend could be £60m, your wage bill might go up (2 players wages) but you may be weaker.
Therefore looking at gross spend alone fails to reflect circumstances that may demand that spending....ie the sale of your best and most valuable asset who needs replacing.
That is why gross spend assessment is of limited use....and LFC are the perfect example....
Rafa spent £40m and went from 2nd to 8th. Is that a fair reflection of the facts. Is that all down to Rafa ability? NO, because you lost Alonso, a very influential player and overall that season your net spend was about -£8m
As the loss of Alonso shows, players you sell DO have an impact on the results that season and the overall quality of the squad was reduced, and especially where you lose class (like Modric & VDV and King) and do not replace with the same quality (like Aquilani).
Doovde blew up in Metro's face
Spurs spend per trophy, or use gross spend
----------
Because on the 59th article of the day, Liverpool are FOREVER changing the topic of the article to try and suit Liverpool. It happens every single day or the majority of articles.
Always comes down to the same thing when Liverpool fans start getting involved. It's so boring and tedious.
Doovde
See there you go again getting narky. I wasn't Wumming with my comments about gross spend, or spend per trophy.
Dev
In pure terms its the players you have on your books that determine your league place. Yes Spurs lost Modric & VDV. But that's all irrelevant for this season. Especially if you're going to put it in a 'spend per point' format. The outgoing players didn't earn any of them points.
I get what your saying, I just don't agree with it entirely .
red_man, ALL I was doing was posting the findings from here:
http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/130521/how-pl-table-would-look-based-money-spent-point-198063
Now, if the original content had been about GROSS or POINTS PER TROPHY, the text in my clipboard would have been different. But, as it was about points/money spent, this is how the article was posted.
I think people make too much of the results that season being down to Alonso leaving
the cowboys had gutted the side of depth in general to pay their personal debts and when we had a mountain injuries it showed in dramatic fashion
Doovde
Right, and what's your point?
Does the TalkSport article have surrounding our name & spend, or did you colour them in yourself?
I was only, by contrast, reporting an alternative way of looking at the table. You're the one ing and whining about Liverpool fans.
As you said yourself 'if you're offended by this, you shouldn't be a fan of football' .
Red_man
what is Spurs keep Bale and spend nothing else and get 5th place on 70 points. No spend. 70 points.
or we could sell him for £60m. Spend £50m replacing him and get 5th place on 70 points.. = £720k per point.
Different circumstances, same outcome, totally different £/point.
Kaiser...you had a squad that came 2nd.
You sold (of note) Alonso, Arbeloa, Dossena and Hypia retired.
I can appreciate that losing Hypia was important and not replaced (not H&Gs fault) but for all intents and purposes the squad was the same minus Alonso + Johnson
Sign in if you want to comment
Alternative view of the PL table (£s/Pts)
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 22/5/13
Doovde
Your using the figures for 4 years for the League Cup .
posted on 22/5/13
Red_man
You're*
So I give you an answer to your question, and then you start putting spins on my question. You can't win with these Historypool fans
posted on 22/5/13
Red_man, as Dev so accurately posted:
I thought LFC fans were all about the NET SPEND. It was the way they justified Rafa's massive spending and declining form.
He spent £20m on Aquilani, £18m on Johnson , and you dropped from 2nd to 7th....oh how people used to laugh at that great business!! only to be pulled up by 'pool fans banging on about net spend.
Now, when suddenly Spurs Net spend is zero or better and their results are better than LFC who are all spend spend spend, suddenly Net Spend is irrelevant....typical!
LFC fans love to spin it this way and every way, whatever suits.
One said earlier that if you account for 1 years wages saved and a loan fee + £15m transfer, the deal for carroll is excellent
fact is, Spurs lost 3 of their top performers and had to replace them. If we had not spent the plentiful money we received our squad would have been about 17 men strong. 3 direct replacements , Siggy replacing Kranjcar, a new keeper & holtby is the Jan window.
posted on 22/5/13
I`m proud of Spurs two carling cups in 20 years, that is still more than 85 other clubs have won over the same period. It`s part of our history, same as Liverpool used to be good 20 years back, it`s past of their history, same as when Spurs were winning the double and a european trophy, Liverpool were playing second division football, but still part of both clubs history.
posted on 22/5/13
Doovde
Oh no it's the grammar police. It was autocorrect.
Why use 4 years?
NET spend is a good way to see if the books are being balanced, and not to justify league position. The players you buy, this season, are the ones that affect where you finish in the league, not the ones you sell.
£61m to drop a place in the league .
posted on 22/5/13
NET spend is a good way to see if the books are being balanced, and not to justify league position. The players you buy, this season, are the ones that affect where you finish in the league, not the ones you sell.
---------------------------------------------------
The players you sell will also affect where you finish in the league.
Hence NET spend.
posted on 22/5/13
Indeed Doovde....
They spent:
£49m in 12/13
£56m in 11/12
£80m in 10/11
A grand total of £185m in THREE season....and seeing as the Gross Spend is Red_Mans preferred method of assessment, they spent on average £62m a season to achieve 6th 8th and 7th and the Carling cup.
posted on 22/5/13
Siggy
"The players you sell will also affect where you finish in the league."
How? They're no longer at the club. Did Modric or VDV help you get 5th this season? No Siggi, Dempsey etc did.
posted on 22/5/13
red_man.....if you lose class like Modric or Suarez or Bale then you will be weaker and this will affect your league position....;does that really need explaining.
posted on 22/5/13
Dev
No, but the players you sign are the ones that determine your league position the following year.
posted on 22/5/13
Thread Pattern below:
1. Create article to salvage something
2. Have article blow up in your face
3. Claim it's a wum
It's a cycle seen all too often on here
posted on 22/5/13
This isn't a WUM. How have I salvaged anything, we're still 5th
Come on, Metro, I thought you was smarter than that...
posted on 22/5/13
Doovde
So when you typed this, and you were apparently being serious;
"17. Liverpool - £668,852-spent-per-point
What reaction did you expect?
posted on 22/5/13
I <applaud> the top teams, and at the bottom teams
If you're offended by this, you shouldn't be a fan of football
posted on 22/5/13
Doovde
Ah right obviously my mistake. It explains why you didn't get narky when we pointed out Spurs spend per trophy, or use gross spend and league points/position .
posted on 22/5/13
Indeed redman, but if LFC sold Suarez you would unlikely be able to replace with the same class. You might get 2 players for the same money.
Your gross Spend could be £60m, your wage bill might go up (2 players wages) but you may be weaker.
Therefore looking at gross spend alone fails to reflect circumstances that may demand that spending....ie the sale of your best and most valuable asset who needs replacing.
That is why gross spend assessment is of limited use....and LFC are the perfect example....
Rafa spent £40m and went from 2nd to 8th. Is that a fair reflection of the facts. Is that all down to Rafa ability? NO, because you lost Alonso, a very influential player and overall that season your net spend was about -£8m
As the loss of Alonso shows, players you sell DO have an impact on the results that season and the overall quality of the squad was reduced, and especially where you lose class (like Modric & VDV and King) and do not replace with the same quality (like Aquilani).
posted on 22/5/13
Doovde blew up in Metro's face
posted on 22/5/13
Spurs spend per trophy, or use gross spend
----------
Because on the 59th article of the day, Liverpool are FOREVER changing the topic of the article to try and suit Liverpool. It happens every single day or the majority of articles.
Always comes down to the same thing when Liverpool fans start getting involved. It's so boring and tedious.
posted on 22/5/13
Doovde
See there you go again getting narky. I wasn't Wumming with my comments about gross spend, or spend per trophy.
posted on 22/5/13
Dev
In pure terms its the players you have on your books that determine your league place. Yes Spurs lost Modric & VDV. But that's all irrelevant for this season. Especially if you're going to put it in a 'spend per point' format. The outgoing players didn't earn any of them points.
I get what your saying, I just don't agree with it entirely .
posted on 22/5/13
red_man, ALL I was doing was posting the findings from here:
http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/130521/how-pl-table-would-look-based-money-spent-point-198063
Now, if the original content had been about GROSS or POINTS PER TROPHY, the text in my clipboard would have been different. But, as it was about points/money spent, this is how the article was posted.
posted on 22/5/13
I think people make too much of the results that season being down to Alonso leaving
the cowboys had gutted the side of depth in general to pay their personal debts and when we had a mountain injuries it showed in dramatic fashion
posted on 22/5/13
Doovde
Right, and what's your point?
Does the TalkSport article have surrounding our name & spend, or did you colour them in yourself?
I was only, by contrast, reporting an alternative way of looking at the table. You're the one ing and whining about Liverpool fans.
As you said yourself 'if you're offended by this, you shouldn't be a fan of football' .
posted on 22/5/13
Red_man
what is Spurs keep Bale and spend nothing else and get 5th place on 70 points. No spend. 70 points.
or we could sell him for £60m. Spend £50m replacing him and get 5th place on 70 points.. = £720k per point.
Different circumstances, same outcome, totally different £/point.
posted on 22/5/13
Kaiser...you had a squad that came 2nd.
You sold (of note) Alonso, Arbeloa, Dossena and Hypia retired.
I can appreciate that losing Hypia was important and not replaced (not H&Gs fault) but for all intents and purposes the squad was the same minus Alonso + Johnson
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7