Yeah it's relevant, and regards to LVG, he has spent loads, net spend or not.

Well it depends entirely on wether you can afford it. That's how money tends to work

If you are talking from a business point of view then yes it is important.
If you are judging the quality of a squad, not really. A negative net spend doesn't stop a squad being full of expensive players.
It does, perhaps, show a good eye for talent though.

comment by Wonder Man (U11164)
posted 2 seconds ago
Well it depends entirely on wether you can afford it. That's how money tends to work
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm talking about in the context of debating

It has a relevance but really it's about overall squad cost at any given time.

doesn't bother me, once clubs started spending obscene amounts on players everything just became 0's and decimal points, the crazy world of football finances is frankly incalculable

Who really cares, we go to football to watch good teams and players robb. Was tottenhams net spend good when they sold bale? at first people thought not, but now...?
Lamela etc kicking on.

Utd can spend a fortune and I dont see why the fans would care tbh because they can lol

I think if you are looking at it in a simplistic way the main issue when you spend is how succesful that makes you.

The fans will look upon this as trophies or at least entertaining football. The money men will look at it from a financial point of view (CL qualification etc). The thing is though the first should lead to the next.

You could have a negative net spend of 200m after selling ten players and signing ten on a free to replace them but that is not likely to bear much fruit so I think the most important issue to consider is value for money.

comment by manutd1982 (U6633)

posted 4 minutes ago

Yeah it's relevant, and regards to LVG, he has spent loads, net spend or not.

.................

Anyone know what his net spend is?

£132,000,000

Yes it is relevant.

If you sign a player for peanuts and sell him on a massive profit (Bale), it's unfair to compare a clubs spend on players with clubs who've spunked loads of money without recouping any.

2-1= 1

comment by Edbo (U17933)
posted 16 seconds ago
Yes it is relevant.

If you sign a player for peanuts and sell him on a massive profit (Bale), it's unfair to compare a clubs spend on players with clubs who've spunked loads of money without recouping any.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what if a club doesn't spend massively on transfer fee's but pays huge wages?

comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Edbo (U17933)
posted 16 seconds ago
Yes it is relevant.

If you sign a player for peanuts and sell him on a massive profit (Bale), it's unfair to compare a clubs spend on players with clubs who've spunked loads of money without recouping any.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what if a club doesn't spend massively on transfer fee's but pays huge wages?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That should be taken into consideration too.

Di Maria fudges this issue. Yes, Van Gaal got a lot of money for him - but he signed him only a year earlier for even more money and, for whatever reason, didn't get the best out of him.

The fact is, Van Gaal has spent a lot of money and we're still at least two players short of a top-three team. Worse, a few of his signings have been underwhelming thus far.

With Spurs for instance, the overall spend was high when we sold Bale but we still had a net spend. So yes we had the finances that year but thats only because we develop Bale into what he is so deserve the profit.

Clubs will be more focused on youth and developing players if net spend was important to them. Clubs like Real Madrid don't really care if much youth come through because they're always willing to spend on proven talent.

The confusion is whether fans should care about all that. Should the fans be happy that they're club are well run and making a profit and if so why?

Why should Real Madrid fans care for example what their debts are like because at the end of the day, its not their personal debt and theyre spending money to see the worlds best every week. Madrid won't go into administration so makes no difference.

I personally prefer the way Spurs are run. I enjoy the development and achieving something by working at it and progressing each year. Plus it doesnt stop me watching Madrid/ Barcelona and their expensive teams.

the fee is irrelevant once paid but we will all like to pay as low as possible to mitigate against the player flopping.

a signings can only be judged after he has spent time at the club. The simple question I ask is will I still sign given player for said fee knowing what I know now.
since fergie left
Fellani:no
mata:no
shaw: undecided probably yes
herrera: yes (mismanaged player)
rojo: no
blind :yes
falcao:no
adm : yes in quality, (i blame the manager)
depay : undecided
bastian: probably no
morgan: yes (mismanaged player)
martial: hell yes

for me the only signing that has been a resounding failure is rojo. Bu on the other hand i still feel the reason the other players have been less of a success is also LVG.

In fairness to LVG his spend is over about 12 players.

Compare that to City spending about £120 on 3 players and that explains a lot.

We need a top player or two, whoever is in charge.

Also i think you'll find when it comes to debating expenditure, Liverpool fans will always lop 5 or 6 million off the price of any player they've signed and stick it on the price of the last player they sold, if you don't believe me go and do some research.

Yes just done that Bobby.

Turns out it's bollox.

it's not bollox it's true

Net expenditure is relevant if there is a simplistic argument based on total spending. E.g. "You'd expect a lot more improvement after spending £300m" is misleading if the club in question has also recouped a large chunk of that in sales of star players. But net spending in itself gives an incomplete picture. Wages, as others have pointed out, are an equally important element of investment.

comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)

posted 39 seconds ago

Di Maria fudges this issue. Yes, Van Gaal got a lot of money for him - but he signed him only a year earlier for even more money and, for whatever reason, didn't get the best out of him.

...............

It went downhill for ADM after the Leicester game, IMO, as it did for the manager. He read too much into it and should have, as SAF would have done, let rip at the shocking performance from the ref instead of going over the top with possession.

Attacking players of ADM's nature are always going to lose the ball. It is what they do with it when they don't that counts.

......................

The fact is, Van Gaal has spent a lot of money and we're still at least two players short of a top-three team. Worse, a few of his signings have been underwhelming thus far.

.................

I agree withy this, but am not going to lose sleep on it this season. If those players are underwhelming again next season then so be it. Even SAF, who was generally very good in the transfer market, bought some duffers.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 2 minutes ago
it's not bollox it's true
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No it's bollox but feel free to show me your research.