Liverpool FC Forum

by **Reg** » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:15 am

It may just be that MON doesnt understand the numbers his Chairman is trying to explain. In the current financial situation no club outside of Ure, Chav and Citech have money to spend.

by **fivecups** » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:49 am

Owzat wrote:
fivecups wrote:Their net spend has been greater than ours over the last few years. Don't want to get into a net/gross spend debate but there it is.

So they haven't SPENT more than us, 'net spend' is a meaningless statistic It is the usual defence of someone who doesn't understand the concept of spending. If I go to Tesco and spend £50 on food, I then find a £20 note on the floor, that doesn't mean I only spent £30 on food It means I'm only down by £30 instead of £50, but I still spent £50

That's just semantics Owzat. People have used net and gross spend to discuss football transfers for years. If you prefer you could call it net and gross outlay on player sales.

I actually suspect Villa may have 'spent' more money of us since the summer of 2008 as well.

It would be good if you had a database with all the transfers and other figures of the big clubs so you could gives us some stats on these sorts of things.

by **Redman in wales** » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:11 pm

blackpool have just signed four players

Aston Villa are now the ONLY premier league team not to have signed anyone this summer.

by **lakes10** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:34 am

the word in the media right now is that MON felt trick by the club and was told lies to stop him going for the Liverpool job, he was told players were not to be sold and good funds to buy players was to be given. MON turned down talks with Liverpool due to this.

by **dawson99** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:25 am

lakes10 wrote:the word in the media right now is that MON felt trick by the club and was told lies to stop him going for the Liverpool job, he was told players were not to be sold and good funds to buy players was to be given. MON turned down talks with Liverpool due to this.

I think it's because he's a tw@t :nod

by **Owzat** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:19 pm

fivecups wrote:That's just semantics Owzat. People have used net and gross spend to discuss football transfers for years. If you prefer you could call it net and gross outlay on player sales.

I actually suspect Villa may have 'spent' more money of us since the summer of 2008 as well.

It would be good if you had a database with all the transfers and other figures of the big clubs so you could gives us some stats on these sorts of things.

There is one website but it looks different to the one I had shortcut on my home PC, although it is no more reliable than most of the quoted stats on here other than myself of course (validated stats man!)

http://premiersoccerstats.com/epl.html#

The biggest problem is always fees, reported fees etc. If I say Johnson cost £17.5m some will agree, others will take out the debt on Crouch's transfer, others will throw in instalments and the whole thing becomes a debated point. So why do we then accept some of these reported "net spends" as gospel?!? Why do we bother is my view, they mean nothing. What has us making a £20m profit on Alonso got to do with the players we bought and currently have?!? That may well be where the money came from, but I think I shall refer to anyone using "net spend" as armchair accountants.

Of course one massive hole in the old "net spend" argument is noone considers where the player sold to make up "net spend" came from ie initial assets. Rafa inherited a shedload of players, so chances are we're going to make a lot of wonga selling off assets. If MON had no assets of great worth then of course he's going to spend more than he gets from sales.

And of course a low "net spend" might merely be poor transfer acumen, not getting the best value for sales and paying over the odds. The playing fields aren't level, are we going to start saying the mancs spend less than us because they sold Ronaldo for £80m and that took a huge lump out of their "net spend" - around £70m profit.

So my point is of course that signings are what walk out on the field, let's let the accountants balance the books and talk profit and loss (which is what "net spend" effectively is)

by **Fauxy** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:56 pm

Maradona is interested in the Villa job apparently!!

Haha imagine that

by **bunglemark2** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:23 pm

Fauxy wrote:Maradona is interested in the Villa job apparently!!

Haha imagine that

Jaysus, has he been drinking again ?

by **matt_liverpool** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:43 am

bunglemark2 wrote:
Fauxy wrote:Maradona is interested in the Villa job apparently!!

Haha imagine that

Jaysus, has he been drinking again ?

His agent says he (Maradona) likes English lifestyle and how English people respect privacy.

by **bunglemark2** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:49 am

matt_liverpool wrote:
bunglemark2 wrote:
Fauxy wrote:Maradona is interested in the Villa job apparently!!

Haha imagine that

Jaysus, has he been drinking again ?

His agent says he (Maradona) likes English lifestyle and how English people respect privacy.

THAT, is one of the funniest posts I've read

by **andy_g** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:42 pm

tell him to buy a house near mascherano's

by **dawson99** » Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:51 pm

Mark Hughes 3/1 with hills next villa manager.. i got on at 50s this morning, even though will probably never happen

by **Dundalk** » Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:32 pm

Moyes being linked now

Cant see that happening

by **Ciggy** » Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:13 pm

Houllier or Sven *taps nose*

by **ethanr** » Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:21 pm

Hey maradona said he was interested as well. :;):

Liverpool FC Forum

Martin o'neill - Resigns

Who is online