Hicks and Gillet

[Nath]

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

oh dear indeed, you've completely missed the point.

[Kenneth]

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

Personally, no, I haven't heard that expression.

[Reece]

If someone gives me the task of improving my car, but in trying to do so I can only use the money I receive from selling my current one, how am I supposed to improve it?

That might be a terrible analogy but it makes sense to me

[Bender]

If someone gives me the task of improving my car, but in trying to do so I can only use the money I receive from selling my current one, how am I supposed to improve it?

That might be a terrible analogy but it makes sense to me

just upgrade from really crap to just crap

[Reece]

just upgrade from really crap to just crap

Oi!

[Nath]

If someone gives me the task of improving my car, but in trying to do so I can only use the money I receive from selling my current one, how am I supposed to improve it?

That might be a terrible analogy but it makes sense to me

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, has he spent no money?

On your point about the car, if it was worth £1500 and someone offered you £10,000, then yes, you could.

[Bender]

Oi!

ok ok reasonably priced car to super car

[Reece]

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, has he spent no money?

Yes he has, but it is money accrued through sales, and the case would be that we had to sell our best player (I'm assuming he would be if we got £100m for him). Now compare that with say Man City, their manager would be given £100m to spend and not have to sell anyone in the process.

I don't know how you can't see the difference between being able to spend only what you make in sales (which has basically been the case the last two summers), and being given a **** load of money to add to what you already have in terms of the team/squad.

Basically, if we want to buy a £20-£30m player, we have to sell £20-£30m worth of current player(s) to be able to do so.

So you either lose some squad depth by spending what you have earnt through sales on one or two top players (Johnson and the (albeit unproved) Aquilani), or use the money to re patch the squad. Either way you'd get people disagreeing with the course of action. Of course Rafa has made mistakes in the process, but he's had to wheel and deal far too much IMO for a manager for a top four club.

[Red_Polo]

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, has he spent no money?

On your point about the car, if it was worth £1500 and someone offered you £10,000, then yes, you could.

No he has not 'spent no money', but we should acknowledge that he has only spent what he has brought in through selling valuable assets that contribute to the quality of the team. Now obviously you can talk about whether a player was worth the actual fee paid, that's totally subjective, but nobody is saying net spend is the precise arbiter of how much a team should have improved, just that it is a far far better one than gross spend which completely fails to acknowledge that it actually matters when you sell a player.

By your rationale there is no difference between us selling a player for £100m and spending all of it on 4 new ones, and us KEEPING the player worth £100m and still spending £100m on 4 new recruits. That is nothing short of absurd as there is an enormous difference in the level of investment in the squad in those two scenarios, and as a result an enormous difference in the level of improvement you should expect to see.

[Nath]

Yes he has, but it is money accrued through sales, and the case would be that we had to sell our best player (I'm assuming he would be if we got £100m for him). Now compare that with say Man City, their manager would be given £100m to spend and not have to sell anyone in the process.

I don't know how you can't see the difference between being able to spend only what you make in sales (which has basically been the case the last two summers), and being given a **** load of money to add to what you already have in terms of the team/squad.

Basically, if we want to buy a £20-£30m player, we have to sell £20-£30m worth of current player(s) to be able to do so.

So you either lose some squad depth by spending what you have earnt through sales on one or two top players (Johnson and the (albeit unproved) Aquilani), or use the money to re patch the squad. Either way you'd get people disagreeing with the course of action. Of course Rafa has made mistakes in the process, but he's had to wheel and deal far too much IMO for a manager for a top four club.

I know what the difference is I just can't believe that people stick to this net spend argument religiously, black and white and no inbetween. Some people on here will have you believe that in the scenario I gave above, Rafa wouldn't have spent anything as his net spend would've been zero.

The other side of the discussion as to whether this is an ideal way for a top club to do is business is something else completely, and no, its not ideal at all.

[Nath]

No he has not 'spent no money', but we should acknowledge that he has only spent what he has brought in through selling valuable assets that contribute to the quality of the team. Now obviously you can talk about whether a player was worth the actual fee paid, that's totally subjective, but nobody is saying net spend is the precise arbiter of how much a team should have improved, just that it is a far far better one than gross spend which completely fails to acknowledge that it actually matters when you sell a player.

By your rationale there is no difference between us selling a player for £100m and spending all of it on 4 new ones, and us KEEPING the player worth £100m and still spending £100m on 4 new recruits. That is nothing short of absurd as there is an enormous difference in the level of investment in the squad in those two scenarios, and as a result an enormous difference in the level of improvement you should expect to see.

?

No, thats not what my rationale indicates at all. I only state that profit spent is profit spent directly from the clubs accounts, its not "free" money as many seem to believe.

[Red_Polo]

?

No, thats not what my rationale indicates at all. I only state that profit spent is profit spent directly from the clubs accounts, its not "free" money as many seem to believe.

The gross spend is £100m in both scenarios, though. I don't think you are giving people enough credit, they know Rafa has had money to spend but are using net spend as it is by far the most sensible way of deducing the investment in the squad.

[BG1973]

My friend and I are having a competition to see who can put together the best home cinema system. We have both been given £1,000 to sepnd in order to do so. The problem is my friend already has a fantastic surround sound amplifier and speaker package so he can spend all £1,000 on the TV alone. My old hi fi is knackered so i need to replace eveything. This means my system turns out to be inferior to my friends.

After 1 year the cheap tv i bought blows up so i have to replace it. Luckily i have saved £300 so off to the shops I head. The new TV slightly improves my system but unfortunately it is still not as good as my friends. Even less so as he has just gone out and spent £300 on a new subwoofer.

My friend and I have both spent £1,300 since we started competing but his is still miles better than mine.


sound familiar?

[Pablo]

My friend and I are having a competition to see who can put together the best home cinema system. We have both been given £1,000 to sepnd in order to do so. The problem is my friend already has a fantastic surround sound amplifier and speaker package so he can spend all £1,000 on the TV alone. My old hi fi is knackered so i need to replace eveything. This means my system turns out to be inferior to my friends.

After 1 year the cheap tv i bought blows up so i have to replace it. Luckily i have saved £300 so off to the shops I head. The new TV slightly improves my system but unfortunately it is still not as good as my friends. Even less so as he has just gone out and spent £300 on a new subwoofer.

My friend and I have both spent £1,300 since we started competing but his is still miles better than mine.


sound familiar?

This would probably be best moved the the Technology section.

[BG1973]

oh dear indeed, you've completely missed the point.

Not too sure i Have. You think Gross spend is what counts and that as the above poster says is complete bollocks when comparing team building / performance.