Hicks and Gillet

[Exiled_red]

When he was sold, alonso was probably a 17m player. Real went crazy paying 30m. Having sold him for 30, we should have been able to improve our first team on last season. We possibly have but won't know until Aquilani is fit. Whether we should have signed an injured player is another matter.

For me a player is worth as much or as little as someone is prepared to pay for them and the length of time on their contract. We did well with that deal certainly, but the other problem was Arbeloa was a better player than the fee we got for him and we have to balance that out

[Red_Polo]

I agree completely, but I think this net spend argument is almost always bent to support Rafa, but his blind faith club always bend the figures to support their case. £26m profit is still £40m spent purchasing 2 players whichever way you look at it. Saying Rafa has spent less than he's spent out is factually correct, but it doesn't mean that the profit he's spent is a figure that should be ignored. Nobody is saying we have the resources of Chelsea or Manu, but to claim we spend **** all is just plain daft.

Well using your figures the net spend is £6m, not £26m, surely?!

I can't agree that gross spend is more relevant. If you sell your house for 400k and buy another one in a similar location for 350k, people don't visit the new house and go, "**** me, you've spent 350k to live in a slightly smaller place, you've been had! You've frittered your money away!".

[Red_Polo]

Am I to understand you think gross expenditure is the best way to judge a managers record?

I have always argued this. Net spend is something the accounts can worry about.

If you have spent £200m... its £200m. Sales dont come into it.

I'm having a ****ing epiphany here. I've got a plan. It's a great plan, it's ****ing genius. It's a Swiss ****ing watch. Let's sell the whole squad off for say £150m and spend about £90m this coming summer. We'll have spent £90m! 90! (Rafa will have no excuses with that kind of gross budget and the accountants can worry about the net spend.)

[Charly]

I'm having a ****ing epiphany here. I've got a plan. It's a great plan, it's ****ing genius. It's a Swiss ****ing watch. Let's sell the whole squad off for say £150m and spend about £90m this coming summer. We'll have spent £90m! 90! (Rafa will have no excuses with that kind of gross budget and the accountants can worry about the net spend.)

Sarcasm aside, yes you have spent 90, otherwise you have spent minus £60. That implies you have only sold, when you havent.

Doesnt matter where its come from. You have spent £90m on the players you wanted.

Otherwise, how do you judge Wenger. He must have a net spend of 0. So how do you judge how well thats been spent. Bu judging it net, you would expect a crap team wouldnt you. Its not telling the true story there.

Im not saying completely ignore net spend, but that gross spend is more comparable, and easier to assess the sucess of the manages spending.

[Red_Polo]

Sarcasm aside, yes you have spent 90, otherwise you have spent minus £60. That implies you have only sold, when you havent.

Doesnt matter where its come from. You have spent £90m on the players you wanted.

Otherwise, how do you judge Wenger. He must have a net spend of 0. So how do you judge how well thats been spent. Bu judging it net, you would expect a crap team wouldnt you. Its not telling the true story there.

Im not saying completely ignore net spend, but that gross spend is more comparable, and easier to assess the sucess of the manages spending.

Clearly it's not though, the money you bring in needs to be taken into account because it means you have lost assets. You know the bit where in the genius plan we sell Torres, Gerrard, Reina, Carragher, Masscherano et al before we spend our whopping £90m? You don't think that matters? It shouldn't enter into our judgement when we consider how the new team compares? You think it's mainly for the accountants to look at? If you really believe that, I am gobsmacked, honestly.

If Wenger has a net spend of zero then your judgment ought to be he's done ****ing well in the transfer market. Which is what most people would say, no? Don't see your point there at all.

[Charly]

If Wenger has a net spend of zero then your judgment ought to be he's done ****ing well in the transfer market. Which is what most people would say, no? Don't see your point there at all.

WEll, you wouldnt know, because Wenger may have spent nothing at all. my point is, you cant judge it based upon his net spend. HE has spent a couple of hundred million, like it or not, even though he is probably in a positive net figure.

[Pablo]

Am I to understand you think gross expenditure is the best way to judge a managers record?

I have always argued this. Net spend is something the accounts can worry about.

If you have spent £200m... its £200m. Sales dont come into it.

Total and utter BOLLOCKS.

[The Birdman]

I think it's pretty obvious a couple of posters don't understand the whole net spend thing and a couple more don't think it's relevant.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Net spend is important because we don't have a blank cheque book so we need to sell to raise funds to add to an existing budget of money to fund new players.

So if we have a £15m budget and want to buy 3 players worth a combined value of £25m then we need to sell a player or a number of players to raise the difference of £10m therefore we haven't 'spent' £25m we have spent £15m because the rest was raised in player sales.

Gross spend is the way to measure Chelsea and Man U (until this summer) because they aren't required to sell to strengthen the squad

[Guest]

I think it's pretty obvious a couple of posters don't understand the whole net spend thing and a couple more don't think it's relevant.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Net spend is important because we don't have a blank cheque book so we need to sell to raise funds to add to an existing budget of money to fund new players.

So if we have a £15m budget and want to buy 3 players worth a combined value of £25m then we need to sell a player or a number of players to raise the difference of £10m therefore we haven't 'spent' £25m we have spent £15m because the rest was raised in player sales.

Gross spend is the way to measure Chelsea and Man U (until this summer) because they aren't required to sell to strengthen the squad

I thought that was pretty simple even for someone with a very low IQ to understand but it's even harder to believe that people who can type actually have difficulty in understanding this basic concept. Poor sods.

[Exiled_red]

I think it's pretty obvious a couple of posters don't understand the whole net spend thing and a couple more don't think it's relevant.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Net spend is important because we don't have a blank cheque book so we need to sell to raise funds to add to an existing budget of money to fund new players.

So if we have a £15m budget and want to buy 3 players worth a combined value of £25m then we need to sell a player or a number of players to raise the difference of £10m therefore we haven't 'spent' £25m we have spent £15m because the rest was raised in player sales.

Gross spend is the way to measure Chelsea and Man U (until this summer) because they aren't required to sell to strengthen the squad

[Nath]

Well using your figures the net spend is £6m, not £26m, surely?!

I can't agree that gross spend is more relevant. If you sell your house for 400k and buy another one in a similar location for 350k, people don't visit the new house and go, "**** me, you've spent 350k to live in a slightly smaller place, you've been had! You've frittered your money away!".

LFC's net profit on Alonso and Arbeloa was 20m, the gross was 34m. He has therefore spent 20m net replacing those same two players, or 40m gross.

Yes, in net spend terms its just £6m, but he's still used £20m of the clubs net profit from the sale of two of its assets. To say he's just spent 6m is totally wrong and masks the real cost.

If for arguments sake, Gerrard Houllier had brought in Ronaldo on a free transfer in the summer before Rafa arrived. LFC sold him for 100m which went straight into the clubs accounts. Rafa then went and brought in 4 players of £25m each. We then failed to qualify for the CL, would everyone be saying, "well, he's not spent a penny yet, lets reserve judgement until he gets proper money".

[dww]

I honestly think being as none of us know the full figures these debates are entirely pointless.

[Vermilion]

I honestly think being as none of us know the full figures these debates are entirely pointless.

Agree, the only FACT we all can agree on is that we are worse off than our rivals, by how much, net or not net, gross or not gross, the reality is it's harder to win the title with LFC at present than it is at utd or Chelsea.

Even at Arsenal, it's why Wenger, a manger who knows how to win the Prem hasn't come close since Chelseas new owner arrived, it will get that bit harder again now Citeh have their sugar daddy.

This is the real world.

[Exiled_red]

Agree, the only FACT we all can agree on is that we are worse off than our rivals, by how much, net or not net, gross or not gross, the reality is it's harder to win the title with LFC at present than it is at utd or Chelsea.

Even at Arsenal, it's why Wenger, a manger who knows how to win the Prem hasn't come close since Chelseas new owner arrived, it will get that bit harder again now Citeh have their sugar daddy.

This is the real world.

[BG1973]

I'm just fed up with people making out that Rafa has had nothing to spend. As per my post above, he's had £26m to spend this season, his net spend on the 4 players was £26m, not zero as people seem to believe.

oh dear.

have you heard the expression 'a football club standing still is moving backwards'?

Top clubs don't sell their best players to fund transfers.

End of story