D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
Net spend means nowt.
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
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Correct. What should be assessed is the overall cost of ownership, which is amortisation plus player wages.Net spend means nowt.
If you have 2 players, each on £150k a week, who both leave on a free transfer at the end of their contracts, you've saved £15m a year. If you then buy a player for £50m & pay him £100k a week, he'll cost you £15m a year.
The net spend wankers would say your net spend is £50m but it's actually zero.
CharliesRightPeg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 589
I've argued this across many platformsCorrect. What should be assessed is the overall cost of ownership, which is amortisation plus player wages.
If you have 2 players, each on £150k a week, who both leave on a free transfer at the end of their contracts, you've saved £15m a year. If you then buy a player for £50m & pay him £100k a week, he'll cost you £15m a year.
The net spend wankers would say your net spend is £50m but it's actually zero.
Rags and dippers hate it because it massively increases the amounts they spent over the years.
Scholes and Gerrard as points in case.
Both amongst the highest paid players in the league in their times. But would sign any contract put in front of them... Yep for 90k nearly 20 years ago, would now be what 3-400k a week?
Semper aggressus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2019
- Messages
- 6,469
- Team supported
- Manchester City
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.
No wonder we're having a tough season, about time we got back top of that fucking list! Need some quality signings this summer, especially centre back!
OK. You say the amorisation costs plus wages detail the annual costs to the football business, but if you have two clubs who have the same amortisation costs but one club's buys are poor and it ends up releasing its players on free transfers, and another funds futures acquisitions by selling players at a profit, the amortisation costs would only reflect the costs and not capture the revenue.Correct. What should be assessed is the overall cost of ownership, which is amortisation plus player wages.
If you have 2 players, each on £150k a week, who both leave on a free transfer at the end of their contracts, you've saved £15m a year. If you then buy a player for £50m & pay him £100k a week, he'll cost you £15m a year.
,
The net spend wankers would say your net spend is £50m but it's actually zero.
The Liverpool fans would argue that City's owner funds the amortisation costs, or did, whereas player trading, and commercial opeartions funded their business.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Good point. Maybe player receipts should be added into the equation in some way, either as gross receipts or profit /loss on transfer.OK. You say the amorisation costs plus wages detail the annual costs to the football business, but if you have two clubs who have the same amortisation costs but one club's buys are poor and it ends up releasing its players on free transfers, and another funds futures acquisitions by selling players at a profit, the amortisation costs would only reflect the costs and not capture the revenue.
The Liverpool fans would argue that City's owner funds the amortisation costs, or did, whereas player trading, and commercial opeartions funded their business.
shevtheblue
Well-Known Member
We don't believe in net spend 'cos we're rich :D We also bought the league and funneled the Sheikh's money through businesses so we could spend it. HURRAH for us.
NZBlue
Well-Known Member
The only players that count are strikers and keepers. One scores most goals and the other keeps most out. Goal difference wins matches so the rest dont count.
Total bollocks I know. The simple fact is you need a team. The team play to a strategy. The strategy includes matchday strategy, FFP strategy, profit robbing strategy (rags) or whatever. Each team has their own priorities which dictate strategies. The priorities and strategies will change according to where a club is in its cycle. The simple fact is you can't use one single measure for all, it simply doesn't work
Total bollocks I know. The simple fact is you need a team. The team play to a strategy. The strategy includes matchday strategy, FFP strategy, profit robbing strategy (rags) or whatever. Each team has their own priorities which dictate strategies. The priorities and strategies will change according to where a club is in its cycle. The simple fact is you can't use one single measure for all, it simply doesn't work
jimmygrimblesboots
Well-Known Member
The Dippers got lucky and rinsed Barca for £150m for ****inho , and that is the reason their net spend figures are healthy , Barca are trying to offload him for £50m and there are no takers. Its the equivalent of us recieving £150m for Mangala.