Net spend

C C

Cityfan1977

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
976
Its net spend time once again on Twitter



The way I see it , I just cant see what different it makes where the money comes from.
Yes I understand that when you have to sell players to be able to buy you can not use that player.
But you are starting a new season with new squat I just can not understand how you can just say its ok to spend 500 million on a team and you have spend less then somebody who has spend 500 million on a team though he has not sold as many players......

The only parameter which is fair is how much did the team you are using that season cost and you have to minus the injured ones and how much is your team paying in salary.
 
Cityfan1977 said:
Its net spend time once again on Twitter



The way I see it , I just cant see what different it makes where the money comes from.
Yes I understand that when you have to sell players to be able to buy you can not use that player.
But you are starting a new season with new squat I just can not understand how you can just say its ok to spend 500 million on a team and you have spend less then somebody who has spend 500 million on a team though he has not sold as many players......

The only parameter which is fair is how much did the team you are using that season cost and you have to minus the injured ones and how much is your team paying in salary.
Click to expand...

Net spend is a red herring and is irrelevant in reference to FFP as that assesses club spending based on overall income from all revenues and overall expenditure.
 
It makes sense to anybody who wants it to enough to wear blinkers.
I only ever see the argument used by the 'top' clubs looking as us with envy and crying "it's not fair". When I hear one of them complain that their club spend more than, say, Wolves or Watford, I might take the time to listen. Until then they are just looking for whatever angle leaves them as morally superior, no matter what they have to do to twist the truth to suit.
I don't know why anybody wastes time on twitter. Or any other social media.
 
Net spend is just a farcical concept of judging a clubs finances (and then performances on the pitch) based only on transfer fees, not even the total fee just the full initial value of players sold and bought.

These fans who bleat on about it probably don't even realise that clubs amortised the fee of a player they purchase. It also doesn't take into consideration wages paid or revenue earned etc...
_____________________

One to fire back on them (if they're going to be that lazy):

They have spent £1,074,700,000 (£1.074bn) on players since the premier league began and they still haven't won it.

(Save for after Sunday).
 
Last edited:
MCFC1993 said:
Net spend is just a farcical concept of judging a clubs finances (and then performances on the pitch) based only on transfer fees, not even the total fee just the full initial value of players sold and bought.

These fans who bleat on about it probably don't even realise that clubs amortised the fee of a player they purchase. It also doesn't take into consideration wages paid or revenue earned etc...
_____________________

One to fire back on them (if they're going to be that lazy):

They have spent £1,074,700,000 (£1.074bn) on players since the premier league began and they still haven't won it.
Click to expand...

Maybe save that one until Sunday night ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.