Liverpool have spent roughly £70m net more than Utd in 24 years. Something I would say is comfortably smashed by Utd wages.
As said, it's about context.
'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.'
Very true Melton.
comment by Rauben_Hoody - gesticulation doesn't bother me (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
Liverpool have spent roughly £70m net more than Utd in 24 years. Something I would say is comfortably smashed by Utd wages.
As said, it's about context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All that money spent and nothing to show for it
No wonder you guys are so bitter
Well apart from all the trophies you have a point.
I feel it's useful when talking about how good a signing has been. But you have to take each signing in isolation and usually after a player has left the club.
For example Torres. Signed for ~£20m got the three best seasons of his career and then sold him for £50m. Scored a load of goals and made £30m profit.
Andy Carroll on the other hand. Signed for £35m. Sold for £15(?)m and done essentially nothing for us. Lost £20m and he didn't even play well. Resounding success... Clearly.
Of course that's where things like older players and retiring players get less clear cut as you weigh their worth through their contribution. Players like Gerrard & Carra probably ended up costing the club £ms in wages etc etc (even though I'd imagine a decent amount was recouped from merchandise etc) but what they done for the club is probably worth a ridiculous amount relatively speaking.
Then there's selling older players for less than they're bought for. Ala Daniel Agger (other clubs have better examples) we made a sizeable net loss on Agger but I'd personally say he contributed plenty to justify it. So while we made a loss on him it was still a successful signing. Also the fact he was past his best, moved out of the country, to a non competitor and id say we got the most amount of money we could from selling him. Definitely a success.
It's all relative.
comment by Rauben_Hoody - gesticulation doesn't bother me (U6374)
posted 5 minutes ago
Well apart from all the trophies you have a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The trophies Stevie Me felt were not enough to not make his career a failure?
Sigh.
MUDD you're such a tw@t lad.
Yes those trophies. As a fan I was really happy with them. Great nights and great entertainment.
Sully it all you like but it's looks to me like you have nothing to add. Shouldn't you be embarrassing yourself arguing the toss with Robb or sommat?
No, Hoody, having fun with you at the moment.
Robbie and I played earlier
Oh you're having fun?
From here it seems as though you lashed out about Liverpool after being made a fool of.
£30m net for LVG was priceless ironically. Keep up the good work.
Made to look a fool? Really? Now you are the one lasing out.
A liverpool fan made a silly comment and I responded to his silly comment. That had you chomping at the bit since
You keep telling yourself that. Anyway it certainly seems you have a busy day so don't let me stop you.
comment by Rauben_Hoody - gesticulation doesn't bother me (U6374)
posted 32 minutes ago
You keep telling yourself that. Anyway it certainly seems you have a busy day so don't let me stop you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually responded to the comment. Did you not read it properly?
No one is denying I responded. Are you a bit mental MUDD?
It's just that you seem to be losing it a bit. Continually bringing up hair brained analogies about Jose, dogmatically arguing everyday about LVG, digressing in an attempt to reinforce already weak points and I could literally go on.
Are you okay?
Ah this has got to the you responded you bit part of the argument.
Ding ding round 12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Rauben_Hoody - gesticulation doesn't bother me (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
No one is denying I responded. Are you a bit mental MUDD?
========================
Mental, nope. You are the one that was crying when I was responding to a comment that had nothing to do with you.
It's just that you seem to be losing it a bit.
=================
Really? I'm fine thanks, me losing it? Nah. I'm in excellent health my good man.
Continually bringing up hair brained analogies about Jose, dogmatically arguing everyday about LVG, digressing in an attempt to reinforce already weak points and I could literally go on.
=============================
I'm not here everyday, nor do I discuss LvG and Jose everyday. I like to poke fun at Utd posters about their inconsistencies with both managers. However, your concern again is noted.
Are you okay?
==============
I am excellent my good fellow, just amused at the way you jumped in to comment on a phacktual post and not presented any phackts to dispute the phacktual post.
Cheers
Well theoretically, if you were to sell your entire squad for say 200m and then buy a similar number of players for 150m would you still say that we spent "150m this season alone and should be doing much better" ?
comment by Utopian (U18745)
posted 11 minutes ago
Well theoretically, if you were to sell your entire squad for say 200m and then buy a similar number of players for 150m would you still say that we spent "150m this season alone and should be doing much better" ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about if you have five players leave on a free contract, all of which you replace with slightly worse players but still cumulatively cost 50 million?
That's why it's ultimately irrelevant unless used in very specific contexts. Squad value is more appropriate for what you are talking about.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 hours, 31 minutes ago
Clockwork, how about Shaw?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaw is good. I mentioned him somewhere, on this thread or another. But we were only just starting to see that, really, when he got injured. Still too early to say he's been successful signing, though that's nobody's fault and I am sure he will be.
Net spend is very important and at the same time not relevant.
For example, if you want to defend Rafa's spending at Liverpool net spend is the key.
If you want to bash LVG, then net spend is irrelevant.
All down to your own agenda.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 20 minutes ago
Net spend is very important and at the same time not relevant.
---
How can something be very important but not relevant?
comment by Memphis_bleek #teamLvGiggs (U20611)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 20 minutes ago
Net spend is very important and at the same time not relevant.
---
How can something be very important but not relevant?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's explained that. The key word was "agenda".
comment by Memphis_bleek #teamLvGiggs (U20611)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 20 minutes ago
Net spend is very important and at the same time not relevant.
---
How can something be very important but not relevant?
................
Read the bit that followed bud.
Net spend is about as meaningful to our lives as Ghandi's favourite snack....
In terms of assessing a clubs spending though the only sensible method is using net spend, its silly to just use incomings, or silly just to use outgoings.
Amortisation does work out as net spend (eventually) as long as you include the outgoings as well. Amortisation is just the way of accounting of the expense.
Sign in if you want to comment
How important is 'net spend'?
Page 3 of 4
posted on 20/4/16
Liverpool have spent roughly £70m net more than Utd in 24 years. Something I would say is comfortably smashed by Utd wages.
As said, it's about context.
posted on 20/4/16
'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.'
Very true Melton.
posted on 20/4/16
comment by Rauben_Hoody - gesticulation doesn't bother me (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
Liverpool have spent roughly £70m net more than Utd in 24 years. Something I would say is comfortably smashed by Utd wages.
As said, it's about context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All that money spent and nothing to show for it
No wonder you guys are so bitter
posted on 20/4/16
Well apart from all the trophies you have a point.
posted on 20/4/16
I feel it's useful when talking about how good a signing has been. But you have to take each signing in isolation and usually after a player has left the club.
For example Torres. Signed for ~£20m got the three best seasons of his career and then sold him for £50m. Scored a load of goals and made £30m profit.
Andy Carroll on the other hand. Signed for £35m. Sold for £15(?)m and done essentially nothing for us. Lost £20m and he didn't even play well. Resounding success... Clearly.
Of course that's where things like older players and retiring players get less clear cut as you weigh their worth through their contribution. Players like Gerrard & Carra probably ended up costing the club £ms in wages etc etc (even though I'd imagine a decent amount was recouped from merchandise etc) but what they done for the club is probably worth a ridiculous amount relatively speaking.
Then there's selling older players for less than they're bought for. Ala Daniel Agger (other clubs have better examples) we made a sizeable net loss on Agger but I'd personally say he contributed plenty to justify it. So while we made a loss on him it was still a successful signing. Also the fact he was past his best, moved out of the country, to a non competitor and id say we got the most amount of money we could from selling him. Definitely a success.
It's all relative.
posted on 20/4/16
comment by Rauben_Hoody - gesticulation doesn't bother me (U6374)
posted 5 minutes ago
Well apart from all the trophies you have a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The trophies Stevie Me felt were not enough to not make his career a failure?
posted on 20/4/16
Sigh.
MUDD you're such a tw@t lad.
Yes those trophies. As a fan I was really happy with them. Great nights and great entertainment.
Sully it all you like but it's looks to me like you have nothing to add. Shouldn't you be embarrassing yourself arguing the toss with Robb or sommat?
posted on 20/4/16
No, Hoody, having fun with you at the moment.
Robbie and I played earlier
posted on 20/4/16
Oh you're having fun?
From here it seems as though you lashed out about Liverpool after being made a fool of.
£30m net for LVG was priceless ironically. Keep up the good work.
posted on 20/4/16
Made to look a fool? Really? Now you are the one lasing out.
A liverpool fan made a silly comment and I responded to his silly comment. That had you chomping at the bit since
posted on 20/4/16
You keep telling yourself that. Anyway it certainly seems you have a busy day so don't let me stop you.
posted on 20/4/16
comment by Rauben_Hoody - gesticulation doesn't bother me (U6374)
posted 32 minutes ago
You keep telling yourself that. Anyway it certainly seems you have a busy day so don't let me stop you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually responded to the comment. Did you not read it properly?
posted on 20/4/16
No one is denying I responded. Are you a bit mental MUDD?
It's just that you seem to be losing it a bit. Continually bringing up hair brained analogies about Jose, dogmatically arguing everyday about LVG, digressing in an attempt to reinforce already weak points and I could literally go on.
Are you okay?
posted on 20/4/16
Ah this has got to the you responded you bit part of the argument.
Ding ding round 12
posted on 20/4/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/4/16
comment by Rauben_Hoody - gesticulation doesn't bother me (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
No one is denying I responded. Are you a bit mental MUDD?
========================
Mental, nope. You are the one that was crying when I was responding to a comment that had nothing to do with you.
It's just that you seem to be losing it a bit.
=================
Really? I'm fine thanks, me losing it? Nah. I'm in excellent health my good man.
Continually bringing up hair brained analogies about Jose, dogmatically arguing everyday about LVG, digressing in an attempt to reinforce already weak points and I could literally go on.
=============================
I'm not here everyday, nor do I discuss LvG and Jose everyday. I like to poke fun at Utd posters about their inconsistencies with both managers. However, your concern again is noted.
Are you okay?
==============
I am excellent my good fellow, just amused at the way you jumped in to comment on a phacktual post and not presented any phackts to dispute the phacktual post.
Cheers
posted on 20/4/16
Wow.
posted on 20/4/16
Well theoretically, if you were to sell your entire squad for say 200m and then buy a similar number of players for 150m would you still say that we spent "150m this season alone and should be doing much better" ?
posted on 20/4/16
comment by Utopian (U18745)
posted 11 minutes ago
Well theoretically, if you were to sell your entire squad for say 200m and then buy a similar number of players for 150m would you still say that we spent "150m this season alone and should be doing much better" ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about if you have five players leave on a free contract, all of which you replace with slightly worse players but still cumulatively cost 50 million?
That's why it's ultimately irrelevant unless used in very specific contexts. Squad value is more appropriate for what you are talking about.
posted on 20/4/16
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 hours, 31 minutes ago
Clockwork, how about Shaw?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaw is good. I mentioned him somewhere, on this thread or another. But we were only just starting to see that, really, when he got injured. Still too early to say he's been successful signing, though that's nobody's fault and I am sure he will be.
posted on 20/4/16
Net spend is very important and at the same time not relevant.
For example, if you want to defend Rafa's spending at Liverpool net spend is the key.
If you want to bash LVG, then net spend is irrelevant.
All down to your own agenda.
posted on 20/4/16
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 20 minutes ago
Net spend is very important and at the same time not relevant.
---
How can something be very important but not relevant?
posted on 20/4/16
comment by Memphis_bleek #teamLvGiggs (U20611)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 20 minutes ago
Net spend is very important and at the same time not relevant.
---
How can something be very important but not relevant?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's explained that. The key word was "agenda".
posted on 20/4/16
comment by Memphis_bleek #teamLvGiggs (U20611)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 20 minutes ago
Net spend is very important and at the same time not relevant.
---
How can something be very important but not relevant?
................
Read the bit that followed bud.
posted on 21/4/16
Net spend is about as meaningful to our lives as Ghandi's favourite snack....
In terms of assessing a clubs spending though the only sensible method is using net spend, its silly to just use incomings, or silly just to use outgoings.
Amortisation does work out as net spend (eventually) as long as you include the outgoings as well. Amortisation is just the way of accounting of the expense.
Page 3 of 4