I find it amusing that the only reason you were not in the unt of the year was because you are so often hilariously wrong.

Carry on ducky.

You have won exactly the same number of trophies in the last 6/7 as Spurs I think.


1.

Deluded

Good god do you wake up in the morning and think about net spend, net spend!

When the last time Liverpool won a trophy?
=====================

2012 RC. You're not very good at this are you.

comment by sandy`s dad (U20025)
posted 36 minutes ago
Thudd!!


We can both agree Robbing that both LIverpool and Spurs have wasted money




In Spurs case money given by other clubs to help in the funding of buying players. Without the Bale money, Spurs would not have spent the £100 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without the spend, we definitely will not be where we are today.
But when listing our net spend, you should also include the output from that expenditure as well.
That is when you are likely to have a balanced debate.

^^
my reply above was inteded for Sandy.

Funny Man utd been in top 2 for 8 years in a row till last season mess up finishing 7th. Man utd and Arsenal shown for years you don't need to spend big to finish in top 4.

BTW we also got rud of a lot of players out on loan so we could still recoup another £50m if we are lucky in this market.

So the op says we have over the last 5 years spent £138m net which most of it was this summer to make a point. We actually used a lot of kids this season.

comment by sandy`s dad (U20025)
Spurs spent nothing last season net. This is what the article is about you clown, in fact like most seasons they are in profit. ie not just buying their position in the premiership.
........................
If you sell a player you received money but if you use that money to buy players you still spent that money. Now your wage bill gone up to hence Levy so desperate for CL money he will sack managers for fun, even Harry when you got 4th again but Chelsea basically made Levy sack him. I like to look at net spend but also look at if you improve or keep a decent level after big changes. LVG is more of the reason we are now in 3rd as we had most of our new signings barely play anyway.

Just reading a few of the comments on this thread and can’t fathom why some are so infatuated by net spending?

All club’s operate under various business models/budget’s so the net spend of a club is not necessarily the best metric to ‘gauge’ achievement.

IMO a club’s turnover is a far more tangible measure to assess success/or not rather than any exploits in the transfer market.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/football-transfers/southampton-transfers.html

Southampton buys work out, Tottenham waste the money. I mean you swapped Gylfi Sigurddson plus £8m I believe for Ben davies, what a shocking transfer that is.

comment by Hafi's Man Utd Red Devils 14/15 PL Champions&Treble +The Posh PUFC 14/15 Promotion. Not Arrogant Just Better! (U6578)
posted 2 minutes ago
<A href="http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html</A>
<A href="http://www.transferleague.co.uk/football-transfers/southampton-transfers.html" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.transferleague.co.uk/football-transfers/southampton-transfers.html</A>

Southampton buys work out, Tottenham waste the money. I mean you swapped Gylfi Sigurddson plus £8m I believe for Ben davies, what a shocking transfer that is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No we swapped Siggy for Davies and Vorm. No extra money was inlcuded in the deal as far as I can remember.

When a club sells a player the selling club will not typically receive the money in a lump sum.

Selling clubs will often get circa 30-40-50% of a transfer fee initially, and rest usually paid over 2/3yr annual instalments.

Sometimes clubs will arrange third party financing and so it can receive the full transfer value in year one, however this can take some time and is not always reflected in the latest club accounts.

Therefore the black and white net-spend year on year figures many on here have been quoting do not always reflect an accurate portrayal of how much has ‘actually’ been spent and accumulated.

I have read a few comments here and I can't help but laugh! Pool and spurs fans claiming they haven't spent badly judt because they have a low net spent is clearly overlooking the fact that selling ONE player each for world record fees totally skews the figures. You both had 100m to spend and spent it on dross and your struggles clearly reflect that. Don't try to take solace on that useless net-spend stat.

I guess us Spurs and Liverpool fans should just face up to facts and a take a leaf out of this Arsenal fan's book given the money they have also wasted.

You don't see me posting how amazing we have done do you?

Net Spend = Spurs fans new excuse for Failure

clearly overlooking the fact that selling ONE player each for world record fees totally skews the figures. You both had 100m to spend and spent it on dross and your struggles clearly reflect that. Don't try to take solace on that useless net-spend stat.
**

What he said - called it close the discussion down.........

comment by ☺ Wumpatröl - OK OK I admit it, he's too good for us. (U5046)
posted 12 minutes ago
I have read a few comments here and I can't help but laugh! Pool and spurs fans claiming they haven't spent badly judt because they have a low net spent is clearly overlooking the fact that selling ONE player each for world record fees totally skews the figures. You both had 100m to spend and spent it on dross and your struggles clearly reflect that. Don't try to take solace on that useless net-spend stat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not a single LFC fan has said that on this thread. People not being able to read should make me laugh but it doesn't. It makes me sad.

I can read

Weren't you the one proclaiming a few pages back as to how brilliant Rodgers is that has put up a title challenge with only 100m net spend? As I said, I can read

You also have autistic levels of perception and a poor application of context as it was clearly tounge in cheek!

Yeah yeah

Hilariously since spurs wasted this 100 million to win nothing, chelsea over the same period spent twice as much to win sweet feeck all.

You are clearly wound up to be throwing insults now.

I found your erroneous statement offensive.