Financial situation, doom & gloom reports etc

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

But until this summer we never seemed to have the clout to even contemplate a serious bid for a player like Torres - we hung around in the £10-15m max range rather than the £15m +. I never said the Yanks did it all on their own, but their money undoubtedly facilitated the outlay of all that cash on one player.

Rafa could convince Kaka to come and join us, but David Moores was never in a position to 'sign a check' as you put it for any more than about £14m, so give the Yanks some credit

Forget Torres.

Would David Moores have ever signed off on us signing a 19 year old kid for £11m?

I have my doubts.

[blacky]

Oh please...where did the money come from to buy the players that have made the difference?! Some people are so blinkered its unbelievable

The money came from the improved tv deals and the cl run. Add to that the improved profile of the club with Rafa at the helm making us an attractive for option for worldclass players. You are blinkered if you think the arrival of butch cassidy and the sundance kid is the reason behind this seasons improvement!!

[blacky]

Forget Torres.

Would David Moores have ever signed off on us signing a 19 year old kid for £11m?

I have my doubts.

Who knows there is far more cash available with the new tv deals. Add to that the amount Rafa brought back in through player sales and the net spend is no different than under moores!

[MindGuerrillas]

Oh please...where did the money come from to buy the players that have made the difference?! Some people are so blinkered its unbelievable

Answer here

Sorry but they haven't delivered us anything. The spending this summer is no bigger than we could have expected without the takeover.

This summer we were always going to have more money to spend than in previous summers. They have put in no new capital and have therefore not spent a penny of their own money. This year's transfer budget was going to be bigger than before because of:

1. Tens of millions of pounds from yet another Champions league final
2. Massive new TV deal. This new deal has meant that nearly every club in the league has spent more this summer than ever before.
3. For the first time in years we got in some decent money for our unwanted players. Previously we've almost had to give them away for free.

All of this income for the club would have been there whether we had a takeover or not. The spending this summer was not massive in any way and was all easily covered by the above income sources.

If you look at Rafa's net spend since he's been here it's about £60m, or about £20m per year. This summers spend was in line with this average.

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

Who knows there is far more cash available with the new tv deals. Add to that the amount Rafa brought back in through player sales and the net spend is no different than under moores!

Why do people keep harping on about net spend?

What difference does it make?

Rafa had the money there to improve the side, and he used it well.

It's not about how much you spend - though it does help to have it - it's how you spend it that counts.

Look at Manchester City, they've spent quite a bit recently, similar to us, but who has bought better?

And if you will continue to use the net spend to argue your point, what about the £7m set aside for the Heinze transfer? Or would that hurt your arguement? So just ignore that one.

[Fiddy]

Forget Torres.

Would David Moores have ever signed off on us signing a 19 year old kid for £11m?

I have my doubts.

Nope, only Diouf, Heskey and Kuyt

[blacky]

Why do people keep harping on about net spend?

What difference does it make?

Rafa had the money there to improve the side, and he used it well.

It's not about how much you spend - though it does help to have it - it's how you spend it that counts.

Look at Manchester City, they've spent quite a bit recently, similar to us, but who has bought better?

And if you will continue to use the net spend to argue your point, what about the £7m set aside for the Heinze transfer? Or would that hurt your arguement? So just ignore that one.

I wasn't using the net spend to prove anything. We don't know how much Moores would have given Rafa this year. The new TV deal meant more money anyway.

[Fiddy]

Okay so let me get this straight...there are people here who think we'd still have bought the likes of Torres and Babel AND started building a new stadium without investment from the Yanks?

[blacky]

Okay so let me get this straight...there are people here who think we'd still have bought the likes of Torres and Babel AND started building a new stadium without investment from the Yanks?

No one said that. It's obvious the club needed investment. We needed to build a stadium and invest in the squad which Moores could not commit to. However the jury is still out on whether selling to the americans was the best option!!

[Fiddy]

I wasn't using the net spend to prove anything. We don't know how much Moores would have given Rafa this year. The new TV deal meant more money anyway.

...which would have gone on the stadium without investment

[JohnDoe]

Okay so let me get this straight...there are people here who think we'd still have bought the likes of Torres and Babel AND started building a new stadium without investment from the Yanks?

Our net spending last summer was not impressive and was quite similar to previous summers.

New stadium? What stadium, I've seen nothing yet.

[blacky]

...which would have gone on the stadium without investment

we will never know

[Fiddy]

No one said that. It's obvious the club needed investment. We needed to build a stadium and invest in the squad which Moores could not commit to. However the jury is still out on whether selling to the americans was the best option!!

Of course it is, but isn't that a completely different issue?! My point is that the Americans got the job whether anyone likes it or not, and without THEIR money we wouldn't be where we are now, and that's the only solid evidence we've got so far to judge them on, not heresay about how the stadium is screwed and they're about to sack Rafa. Giving them a load of stick now (which reeks of xenophobia by the way) is unfair and misguided

[blacky]

Of course it is, but isn't that a completely different issue?! My point is that the Americans got the job whether anyone likes it or not, and without THEIR money we wouldn't be where we are now, and that's the only solid evidence we've got so far to judge them on, not heresay about how the stadium is screwed and they're about to sack Rafa. Giving them a load of stick now (which reeks of xenophobia by the way) is unfair and misguided

TBH I aint given them much stick but will question everything they do with the club. I feel that's our right as fans. They are the custodians of the finest club in the world and we need to police every move they make to ensure they protect the great traditions of the club. This is a discussion forum and we are only airing any grievances we might have.

[The Preacher]

Why do people keep harping on about net spend?
What difference does it make?

Rafa had the money there to improve the side, and he used it well.

It's not about how much you spend - though it does help to have it - it's how you spend it that counts.

Look at Manchester City, they've spent quite a bit recently, similar to us, but who has bought better?

And if you will continue to use the net spend to argue your point, what about the £7m set aside for the Heinze transfer? Or would that hurt your arguement? So just ignore that one.

Why do people keep harping on about net spend ?

Are you really serious ?

If it wasnt important why would rafa mention it several times that we spent £40m on transfers but recouped £26m - so we only really spent £14m.

Our real spend (NET SPEND) was £14m - that's why we keep on harping on about it ?

We only spent £14m and expect to compete with man u, arsenal and chelsea. I'll let you work that one out...