Anyone Care to Value this lot for me?

[THFC6061]

there you go with your net spend stat again, but the fact is youve spent over £450m trying to build a team to win the league and never come close

I don't think you've quite grabbed the concept of what spending is.

If you have a car worth £15,000 and you part-exchange it for a new car worth £25,000 you've only spent £10,000 on your new car.

Likewise, if you've spent £456m on new players, but received £368m for players you've sold-on, you've only actually spent £88m on players.

i suppose you got the £15k car for free?

i suppose when you spent that £456m on the likes of rebrov, postiga and mido it never really counted because you knew when you bought them they weren't good enough and would be 'traded in'

it all makes sense now, levy was obviously only to happy to splash out £20m on darren bent and £15m for pavylchenko thinking 'it's ok, this isn't the concept of what spending is'

Spurs sold Darren Bent for exactly what we bought him for but we did take a loss on Pavlyuchenko.

However, this is the exception, rather than the rule as generally speaking, Spurs have either made a decent profit on players sold-on (and those who cost us nothing from our Academy) or broken even.

In fact, during the Premier League Era, Spurs have made an overall profit of some £8.8 million from transfer deals...

Tottenham Hotspur Player Transfer History 1908-2013
http://www.myfootballfacts.com/TottenhamHotspurPlayerTransferHistory1908-2009.html

 

[City Raider]

I don't think you've quite grabbed the concept of what spending is.

If you have a car worth £15,000 and you part-exchange it for a new car worth £25,000 you've only spent £10,000 on your new car.

Likewise, if you've spent £456m on new players, but received £368m for players you've sold-on, you've only actually spent £88m on players.

i suppose you got the £15k car for free?

i suppose when you spent that £456m on the likes of rebrov, postiga and mido it never really counted because you knew when you bought them they weren't good enough and would be 'traded in'

it all makes sense now, levy was obviously only to happy to splash out £20m on darren bent and £15m for pavylchenko thinking 'it's ok, this isn't the concept of what spending is'

Spurs sold Darren Bent for exactly what we bought him for but we did take a loss on Pavlyuchenko.

However, this is the exception, rather than the rule as generally speaking, Spurs have either made a decent profit on players sold-on (and those who cost us nothing from our Academy) or broken even.

In fact, during the Premier League Era, Spurs have made an overall profit of some £8.8 million from transfer deals...

Tottenham Hotspur Player Transfer History 1908-2013
http://www.myfootballfacts.com/TottenhamHotspurPlayerTransferHistory1908-2009.html

you spend to win trophies, when you spend you are not thinking that the transfer might fail! therefore spurs have spent nearly £500m in an attempt to win the league and never got close

who cares about resale value? that's an admittance of the failure of the transfer

 

[Newman Noggs]

This "net spend" argument is very dodgy since it assumes a valuable squad to start off with. Firstly, we started from a zero position in 2008 with players of negligible worth. In 3 years we went from that position to Champions of England. Unless you are comparing other clubs who have done that, and there is only Chelsea in their early building phase , then the comparison is meaningless.

Circumstances such as the imminent CL exclusion rules forced us to overpay to achieve CL football before FFPR came in. We didn't have the luxury of time to build before the existing CL clubs could slam the drawbridge shut.

A much more realistic "net spend" comparison, which is bogus anyway because it's just a way of pretending you're not paying large transfer fees for top players, would be between our current squad and the squad we have in, say, two or three years.

 

[1_barry_conlon]

Try doing a list that is correct and doesn't repeat players names and then somebody may be in a position to assist your request.

 

[laserblue]

only veron counts, the rest are from stretford

 

[charliebigspuds]

that's pretty impressive but you'd think a nett spend of just over £4m per season would guarantee the title

Which clubs have won the Premier League Title with a nett spend of just over £4m per season?

I think you may have missed some attempt at humour in that post.

only an attempt? I thought it was quite good, certainly stirred him

 

[ROCKET80]

So it's a 3 way fight between Liverpool, Arsenal and now Spurs for the prestigious Net Spend Shield.

Net spend means your club is in the premiership to either survive (Wigan), clear debts (Everton) or pay out shareholders (Arsenal) the club has no interest in actually winning anything.

Going back to the United Spend though as a link provided points out about the inflation in football.

30million for CamelBond compares to 62million today......There is not a defender in the world worth that and CamelBond was not worth it at the time but these are often overlooked so people can have a dig at CIty and Chelsea.

 

[MSP]

Neverending football fans obsession with money their teams have spent.

Why for ex. I would give a flying one what is Tottenham's net spend since 1992. I have more interest in annual cucumber production in Thailand.

 

[The Pink Panther]

So it's a 3 way fight between Liverpool, Arsenal and now Spurs for the prestigious Net Spend Shield.

Net spend means your club is in the premiership to either survive (Wigan), clear debts (Everton) or pay out shareholders (Arsenal) the club has no interest in actually winning anything.

Going back to the United Spend though as a link provided points out about the inflation in football.

30million for CamelBond compares to 62million today......There is not a defender in the world worth that and CamelBond was not worth it at the time but these are often overlooked so people can have a dig at CIty and Chelsea.

Ahem, Kompany ;-)

Some players are worth the money. Unfortunately camel gob and shrek have been worth it to the rags, because of the amount of years they will have got out of them
Remember Marwood's interview about Milner. Marwood said people will say that £24M for James Milner is silly, but if he plays at City for ten years then it'll be viewed as a prudent

Going back to Tottenham, perhaps this is where they're going wrong. They're constantly trading players

 

[THFC6061]

Neverending football fans obsession with money their teams have spent.

Why for ex. I would give a flying one what is Tottenham's net spend since 1992. I have more interest in annual cucumber production in Thailand.

Thailand has 12,000 hectares devoted to cucumber production which produce 143,000 tonnes.

http://www.vegetableipmasia.org/Crops/Cucumber.html