Net spend: it's not just about transfers. The real net spend is total income and expenditure. So by the logic of LFC fans City haven't spent any money on players over the last 5 years as we made a profit each of those years (57 million in total)! Mainly down to TV money (especially Champions League). Here's a review of last year's budget:https://t.co/05pK7cLqda
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City's net spend last 5 years
- Thread starter bluebarry
- Start date
abu13
Well-Known Member
You can't use those calculations though as it isnt like for like, such as the hugely inflated sponsership deals,the thousands of empty seats that our owner buy each week, the secret payments we make to all the players and staff. you know all the things the media now have people believing.
We should have just been up front and honest like when the dippers spent £50 million thinking about a new stadium.
We should have just been up front and honest like when the dippers spent £50 million thinking about a new stadium.
flook
Well-Known Member
We should have just been up front and honest like when the dippers spent £50 million thinking about a new stadium.
Thinking time is often under-valued and never job costed, instead of calling out the poor souls, perhaps we should be complimenting them on their progressive thinking.........though perhaps £50million is pushing it a bit
Cellarite
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 26,010
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I think net spend is a load of shite that means fuck all.
We spent about £6.45 million on Pablo Zabaleta and kept him for 9 years. He became a City legend. Then he left on a free and we signed Walker for £50 million.
We could’ve sold him 5 years earlier for a big price to help our net spend but we didn’t want to and he didn’t want to leave.
The same with Agüero, Yaya, Kompany, Silva and now KDB and Sterling. We could’ve sold Agüero for £70 million for example and replaced him with Aubameyang for half that. Our net spend then looks better but we wanted to keep Agüero.
Liverpool didn’t sell Coutinho to improve their net spend. They sold him because he wanted to leave.
We spent about £6.45 million on Pablo Zabaleta and kept him for 9 years. He became a City legend. Then he left on a free and we signed Walker for £50 million.
We could’ve sold him 5 years earlier for a big price to help our net spend but we didn’t want to and he didn’t want to leave.
The same with Agüero, Yaya, Kompany, Silva and now KDB and Sterling. We could’ve sold Agüero for £70 million for example and replaced him with Aubameyang for half that. Our net spend then looks better but we wanted to keep Agüero.
Liverpool didn’t sell Coutinho to improve their net spend. They sold him because he wanted to leave.
Millwallawayveteran1988
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2010
- Messages
- 38,733
What are the gross spend figures like?
eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Klipperty 405M in 5 years (+1m on new hair and teeth), Pep 507M in 4 years.What are the gross spend figures like?
What are the gross spend figures like?
Graphic from Swiss Ramble - see 2nd of the two graphics for transfer purchases. The first one gives current amortisation costs which reflects historic transfer spending cost.
Fiftyyearsandcounting
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,099
I think net spend is a load of shite that means fuck all.
We spent about £6.45 million on Pablo Zabaleta and kept him for 9 years. He became a City legend. Then he left on a free and we signed Walker for £50 million.
We could’ve sold him 5 years earlier for a big price to help our net spend but we didn’t want to and he didn’t want to leave.
The same with Agüero, Yaya, Kompany, Silva and now KDB and Sterling. We could’ve sold Agüero for £70 million for example and replaced him with Aubameyang for half that. Our net spend then looks better but we wanted to keep Agüero.
Liverpool didn’t sell Coutinho to improve their net spend. They sold him because he wanted to leave.
Absolutely - Net spend is a flawed argument
Milner, Zaba and others leaving hardly affected the balance sheet. In Coutinho, Liverpool lost a £100k asset.
If I buy a new BMW for £50K, it's immaterial whether I used my own cash, part exchanged or borrowed the money. The car cost £50K. The only difference is in bank balance and assets.
Also, it's flawed to use specific time periods, allowing for inflation, what Liverpool spent in the 90's and Chelsea in the early 20's is more than our spend.
Discussions include either the PL era or since the ADUG, or the last 5 years etc. You pick the time period that suits your argument.
1979 Trevor Francis £1M -today roughly equals £5M. Where can you buy a top striker for £5M today?
agree with all but above.1979 Trevor Francis £1M -today roughly equals £5M. Where can you buy a top striker for £5M today?
If you’ve based the 1m -> 5m on inflation then that’s wrong. The ‘inflation’ needs to be based around the overall progression in football revenue -which since 1979 is going to be quite a lot more than 500%.
Liverpool supporter Tomkins has a reasonable algorithm for PL transfer values at current rates (not sure what season he goes to)
https://tomkinstimes.com/transfer-price-index-top-100-premier-league-buys-after-inflation/