Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
Bloody hell you must have very generous owners.
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence much disputed. It’s as good a gauge as any for roughly accounting teams expenditure over a period of time. Wages obviously aren’t reflected.
comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Alright Dave" RIP Roger Lloyd-Pack
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence much disputed. It’s as good a gauge as any for roughly accounting teams expenditure over a period of time. Wages obviously aren’t reflected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages are a good gauge. Net spend factors in so little (Bale and Perisic playing for us count as a 'free' for example)
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence much disputed. It’s as good a gauge as any for roughly accounting teams expenditure over a period of time. Wages obviously aren’t reflected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really though, because if you include the other factors, a teams position can change in the "spending league table".
Fans use this as a badge of honour (I get it, I used to do the same thing when arsenal moved to the Emirates), but it means nothing really. To get a rough gauge of how your team is doing financially you have to compare overall spend (wages, transfers and agents fees) with success/improvement on the pitch.
Admin, do the right thing.
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence much disputed. It’s as good a gauge as any for roughly accounting teams expenditure over a period of time. Wages obviously aren’t reflected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really though, because if you include the other factors, a teams position can change in the "spending league table".
Fans use this as a badge of honour (I get it, I used to do the same thing when arsenal moved to the Emirates), but it means nothing really. To get a rough gauge of how your team is doing financially you have to compare overall spend (wages, transfers and agents fees) with success/improvement on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s no badge of honour to be honest. Half a billion quid isn’t to be sniffed at.
Wages obvious also reflect a clubs expenditure. But again isn’t the full picture. Take the kid United signed. What was 80m or something yet he is only on 80k pw.
I do get what you’re saying but I just wanted to simply show the in against the outs over the last decade
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Admin, do the right thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Touchy one you are.
tbf Yoda this isnt a bad article for highlighting how much we have spunked on crap
Gross spending is a more useful tool.
Net spending is useless, because it incorporates selling fees, which more often than not are from selling dud players.
Lauding net spend because fees you've paid have been mitigated by selling the odd star player (thus weakening the team) but mainly selling bad buys at a loss isn't something to be proud of.
Everyone should ignore net spend really. Money from selling poor purchases is just another source of income for the club, much like ticket sales and merchandising.
comment by Gilbert Napthine (U15867)
posted 5 minutes ago
Gross spending is a more useful tool.
Net spending is useless, because it incorporates selling fees, which more often than not are from selling dud players.
Lauding net spend because fees you've paid have been mitigated by selling the odd star player (thus weakening the team) but mainly selling bad buys at a loss isn't something to be proud of.
Everyone should ignore net spend really. Money from selling poor purchases is just another source of income for the club, much like ticket sales and merchandising.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s shows assets bought and sold. Whether at a loss or an academy player is here nor there, especially over a ten year period.
Lots of United fans dead against this thread
It shows a portion of an asset bought vs assets sold (not including circumstances)
It’d be like evaluating how much your house costs you if you only considered your mortgage (not considering insurances, bills, tax etc) vs how much you rent it out for (not considering maintenance, taxes, etc)
Net spend is one means of looking at the spending of a club and a good one at that.
Gross spending alone doesn't really indicate the true degree of investment or expansion of the squad if it is taken without the context of money made from sales.
Brighton could spend £200m this year and people could marvel at how ambitious they are...but if they sold their best players for £200m that it shows that they are not so ambitious, not truly investing, simply replacing lost players, and probably with inferior ones.
Net spend gives an indication of a clubs ability to spend, so it speaks more to the financial health of the club than ambition. If a team is able to net spend £150m every season without making losses then all is well.
The fact that Spurs net spend has climbed steeply since the stadium opened has shown there is a very direct correlation between the financial health of the club and the ability to spend, so it is not irrelevant.
But it is only one measure, its doesnt paint a full picture and transfers in and out are accounted for differently for FFP and accounting purposes so, where a transfer is amortised, this gives a very different understanding of transfer spending.
Basically if Devon is agreeing with you ^ then you know it’s wrong
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 43 seconds ago
Net spend is one means of looking at the spending of a club and a good one at that.
Gross spending alone doesn't really indicate the true degree of investment or expansion of the squad if it is taken without the context of money made from sales.
Brighton could spend £200m this year and people could marvel at how ambitious they are...but if they sold their best players for £200m that it shows that they are not so ambitious, not truly investing, simply replacing lost players, and probably with inferior ones.
Net spend gives an indication of a clubs ability to spend, so it speaks more to the financial health of the club than ambition. If a team is able to net spend £150m every season without making losses then all is well.
The fact that Spurs net spend has climbed steeply since the stadium opened has shown there is a very direct correlation between the financial health of the club and the ability to spend, so it is not irrelevant.
But it is only one measure, its doesnt paint a full picture and transfers in and out are accounted for differently for FFP and accounting purposes so, where a transfer is amortised, this gives a very different understanding of transfer spending.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree on all counts.
It’s good as a basic gauge. I also had Brighton in mind. They are such a well ran club. How long they can constantly go through cycles like they have is a different argument. And of course, for accounting purposes amortising transfers is important. But like I said just wanting to paint a very basic picture since 2014.
comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 46 minutes ago
It shows a portion of an asset bought vs assets sold (not including circumstances)
It’d be like evaluating how much your house costs you if you only considered your mortgage (not considering insurances, bills, tax etc) vs how much you rent it out for (not considering maintenance, taxes, etc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no measure gives a clear picture in isolation. Wages can be just as misleading.
Chelsea could sell Lukaku and replace him with a net spend of £50m but save money on wages. Net spend looks ambitious, wages look like a down grade.
Net spend is just part of having the best understanding, so not irrelevant but also not gospel when viewed in isolation. Doesnt preclude someone from reaching a qualified conclusion based on net spend alone.
So Spurs spent 700 million pounds in the last 5 years on buying players?
Who would you say are your 3 top players you spent the money to obtain?
comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
Basically if Devon is agreeing with you ^ then you know it’s wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
The much disputed net spend
Page 1 of 1
posted on 14/8/23
Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
posted on 14/8/23
Bloody hell you must have very generous owners.
posted on 14/8/23
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
posted on 14/8/23
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence much disputed. It’s as good a gauge as any for roughly accounting teams expenditure over a period of time. Wages obviously aren’t reflected.
posted on 14/8/23
comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/8/23
comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
TRIGGER WARNING ALERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Alright Dave" RIP Roger Lloyd-Pack
posted on 14/8/23
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence much disputed. It’s as good a gauge as any for roughly accounting teams expenditure over a period of time. Wages obviously aren’t reflected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages are a good gauge. Net spend factors in so little (Bale and Perisic playing for us count as a 'free' for example)
posted on 14/8/23
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence much disputed. It’s as good a gauge as any for roughly accounting teams expenditure over a period of time. Wages obviously aren’t reflected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really though, because if you include the other factors, a teams position can change in the "spending league table".
Fans use this as a badge of honour (I get it, I used to do the same thing when arsenal moved to the Emirates), but it means nothing really. To get a rough gauge of how your team is doing financially you have to compare overall spend (wages, transfers and agents fees) with success/improvement on the pitch.
posted on 14/8/23
Admin, do the right thing.
posted on 14/8/23
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 6 minutes ago
Net spend is ballacks.
Take into account wages and agent fees too, not just transfer fees.
Transfer fees aren't even recorded properly due to amortization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence much disputed. It’s as good a gauge as any for roughly accounting teams expenditure over a period of time. Wages obviously aren’t reflected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really though, because if you include the other factors, a teams position can change in the "spending league table".
Fans use this as a badge of honour (I get it, I used to do the same thing when arsenal moved to the Emirates), but it means nothing really. To get a rough gauge of how your team is doing financially you have to compare overall spend (wages, transfers and agents fees) with success/improvement on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s no badge of honour to be honest. Half a billion quid isn’t to be sniffed at.
Wages obvious also reflect a clubs expenditure. But again isn’t the full picture. Take the kid United signed. What was 80m or something yet he is only on 80k pw.
I do get what you’re saying but I just wanted to simply show the in against the outs over the last decade
posted on 14/8/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Admin, do the right thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Touchy one you are.
posted on 14/8/23
tbf Yoda this isnt a bad article for highlighting how much we have spunked on crap
posted on 14/8/23
Levy out.
posted on 14/8/23
Gross spending is a more useful tool.
Net spending is useless, because it incorporates selling fees, which more often than not are from selling dud players.
Lauding net spend because fees you've paid have been mitigated by selling the odd star player (thus weakening the team) but mainly selling bad buys at a loss isn't something to be proud of.
Everyone should ignore net spend really. Money from selling poor purchases is just another source of income for the club, much like ticket sales and merchandising.
posted on 14/8/23
comment by Gilbert Napthine (U15867)
posted 5 minutes ago
Gross spending is a more useful tool.
Net spending is useless, because it incorporates selling fees, which more often than not are from selling dud players.
Lauding net spend because fees you've paid have been mitigated by selling the odd star player (thus weakening the team) but mainly selling bad buys at a loss isn't something to be proud of.
Everyone should ignore net spend really. Money from selling poor purchases is just another source of income for the club, much like ticket sales and merchandising.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s shows assets bought and sold. Whether at a loss or an academy player is here nor there, especially over a ten year period.
Lots of United fans dead against this thread
posted on 14/8/23
It shows a portion of an asset bought vs assets sold (not including circumstances)
It’d be like evaluating how much your house costs you if you only considered your mortgage (not considering insurances, bills, tax etc) vs how much you rent it out for (not considering maintenance, taxes, etc)
posted on 14/8/23
Net spend is one means of looking at the spending of a club and a good one at that.
Gross spending alone doesn't really indicate the true degree of investment or expansion of the squad if it is taken without the context of money made from sales.
Brighton could spend £200m this year and people could marvel at how ambitious they are...but if they sold their best players for £200m that it shows that they are not so ambitious, not truly investing, simply replacing lost players, and probably with inferior ones.
Net spend gives an indication of a clubs ability to spend, so it speaks more to the financial health of the club than ambition. If a team is able to net spend £150m every season without making losses then all is well.
The fact that Spurs net spend has climbed steeply since the stadium opened has shown there is a very direct correlation between the financial health of the club and the ability to spend, so it is not irrelevant.
But it is only one measure, its doesnt paint a full picture and transfers in and out are accounted for differently for FFP and accounting purposes so, where a transfer is amortised, this gives a very different understanding of transfer spending.
posted on 14/8/23
Basically if Devon is agreeing with you ^ then you know it’s wrong
posted on 14/8/23
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 43 seconds ago
Net spend is one means of looking at the spending of a club and a good one at that.
Gross spending alone doesn't really indicate the true degree of investment or expansion of the squad if it is taken without the context of money made from sales.
Brighton could spend £200m this year and people could marvel at how ambitious they are...but if they sold their best players for £200m that it shows that they are not so ambitious, not truly investing, simply replacing lost players, and probably with inferior ones.
Net spend gives an indication of a clubs ability to spend, so it speaks more to the financial health of the club than ambition. If a team is able to net spend £150m every season without making losses then all is well.
The fact that Spurs net spend has climbed steeply since the stadium opened has shown there is a very direct correlation between the financial health of the club and the ability to spend, so it is not irrelevant.
But it is only one measure, its doesnt paint a full picture and transfers in and out are accounted for differently for FFP and accounting purposes so, where a transfer is amortised, this gives a very different understanding of transfer spending.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree on all counts.
It’s good as a basic gauge. I also had Brighton in mind. They are such a well ran club. How long they can constantly go through cycles like they have is a different argument. And of course, for accounting purposes amortising transfers is important. But like I said just wanting to paint a very basic picture since 2014.
posted on 14/8/23
comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 46 minutes ago
It shows a portion of an asset bought vs assets sold (not including circumstances)
It’d be like evaluating how much your house costs you if you only considered your mortgage (not considering insurances, bills, tax etc) vs how much you rent it out for (not considering maintenance, taxes, etc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no measure gives a clear picture in isolation. Wages can be just as misleading.
Chelsea could sell Lukaku and replace him with a net spend of £50m but save money on wages. Net spend looks ambitious, wages look like a down grade.
Net spend is just part of having the best understanding, so not irrelevant but also not gospel when viewed in isolation. Doesnt preclude someone from reaching a qualified conclusion based on net spend alone.
posted on 14/8/23
So Spurs spent 700 million pounds in the last 5 years on buying players?
Who would you say are your 3 top players you spent the money to obtain?
posted on 14/8/23
comment by Richarlison | God Mode | GOAT Season (U1109)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
Basically if Devon is agreeing with you ^ then you know it’s wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 1