look i don't want to get bogged down in this whole Liverpool fan/Transfer fee hornets nest, i'm just stating what I've noticed on this site over the years

During your research of course.

Certainly sounds legit.

The office of national statistics called. They said not to apply.

It depends what you are judging. The vast majority of the time it is used on debates on here, it's irrelevant.

it can be used for judging balance sheets, but only if you take into account all assets and incoming revenue, so even in that it is flawed.

Judging managers by it is ridiculous without context though.

I generally think LVG's signings have been OK and pretty much what you'd expect to pay in the market.

He hasn't however managed to get the best out of them and that ultimately is the problem for me.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 40 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed. But of ALL Van Gaal's signings, I think only Blind and Martial have done really well. Shaw is a special case and you can't blame the manager for that. Herrera I like, but he's not been great this year. Schweinsteiger has been decent, nothing more, but was always a short-term thing. Darmian, Rojo, Memphis, Schneiderlin, Di Maria and Falcao (loan, I know) have all disappointed - so far. That's a poor return. I'd have more faith in them improving next season if we had lots of other outfield players in form this season. We don't. Only Smalling, Blind, Martial and Rashford can really be pleased with their showing. For whatever reason, Van Gaal's system isn't working.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

http://www.ja606.co.uk/comments/viewAllComments/330285/2

Just look at the Suarez comments on this thread

One comment from...... Got better.

Go have a nap lad.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I thought he was talking about GB's Suarez comment!

Clockwork

See Diafol's post above.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

I have a load of work to do this morning, so can't go into detail as to why I think the players are not doing what LVG wants them to do.

Maybe this afternoon if I get time. But LVG is most definitely not getting the best out of most of our players.

Of all the signings I'd go along with Blind and Martial having been the best. I'm still hopeful Schneiderlin will come good and think he's gradually improved as the season has progressed. Damian has been a disappointment, as has Rojo even allowing for injuries. Herrera is far too careless in possession for my liking and something I don't think would change under another manager tbh

Of course Net-Spend is important.

It has to be otherwise Spurs would have one less trophy to crow about for the last 3 or so years (since they sold Bale at least).

comment by merrysupersteve (U1132)
posted 3 minutes ago
Of all the signings I'd go along with Blind and Martial having been the best. I'm still hopeful Schneiderlin will come good and think he's gradually improved as the season has progressed. Damian has been a disappointment, as has Rojo even allowing for injuries. Herrera is far too careless in possession for my liking and something I don't think would change under another manager tbh
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have high hopes for Darmian and Schneiderlin and didn't mean to give the opposite impression. But they've been underwhelming so far. Schneiderlin goes missing too often and is some way from being the new Darren Fletcher, let alone anything else. Still think he can come good in the right set-up. Whatever that is!

Net spend in the context of debates is largely just a stick to team other teams with or in some way belittle a clubs achievements.

I want my club to have a decent net spend, means the income is being invested on the pitch. Whether it's invested wisely in terms of player equality is the part I care about.

Equally I'd expect Utd to have the highest net spend. They've earned that right by having the highest income.

Net spend is particularly important at Anfield as without that spend some of their supporters behind the goal at the Kop End could be knocked over.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 40 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eloquently put

net spend means nothing to manyoo,they will spend on any old sh8te just to get to the top again

Clockwork, how about Shaw?

comment by wir sind liverpool kloppites (U13373)
posted 2 minutes ago
net spend means nothing to manyoo,they will spend on any old sh8te just to get to the top again
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your club has a lot of experience in this field. We only just surpassed your spend in the PL era this season. Whilst we can look back at our successes, you spent so much more than us and failed woefully.

70m alone on Carroll and Benteke

comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by wir sind liverpool kloppites (U13373)
posted 2 minutes ago
net spend means nothing to manyoo,they will spend on any old sh8te just to get to the top again
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your club has a lot of experience in this field. We only just surpassed your spend in the PL era this season. Whilst we can look back at our successes, you spent so much more than us and failed woefully.

70m alone on Carroll and Benteke
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Says eloquently put and then writes that drivel.

Spend, yes, but Utd always had a higher value squad at any given time and still do (well money paid not current value now obviously).

So, for example, Rafa spend a lot but his net spend was £60m over six seasons and didn't include the sales of Macherano and Torres (£80m) after he left.

"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."

All the recouping shows is that you have valuable assets at that time though. You could lose players that leave on a free contract, or replace those that are old and have low resale value.

A high spend coupled with high sales, all that really shows is that a manager should then be working with resources that he has chosen himself rather than a previous managers who might not suit the style, so there should really be some improvement seen.

What drivel?

You outspent us comfortably in the PL era - Phackt

You did not win the PL title, but we did spending a whole lot less than you - Phackt

You signed Carrol and Benteke for 70m - Phackt

Where is the drivel?

Of course United spend more than Pool. We have a much bigger stadium have had much more success over the past quarter of a century, sponsors paying more.
Pool missed the boat by not spending on Anfield when you were top dog.
We want the board to spend to keep the success going. Reading your board many of your fans feel the same.

The part about net spend.

Yes we have spent a lot but given that the article is about net spend then, yes, it's drivel.

You thought LVG had a net spend of £30m ffs!