The Difference Between Expenditure and Net Spend...

[Danny]

....jokes jokes 

[DeadLinesman]

[Stan]

@Scouse_Mouse can you explain please? 

[Scouse_Mouse]

26 minutes ago, Stan said:

@Scouse_Mouse can you explain please? 

Happy to help Stan.

Net spend and gross spending.

Net spending is a excellent way of comparing financially well run clubs with clubs that are run on a basis of having no financial accountability.

Gross spending is very misleading but is an excellent way of trying to score points by just droning on ad naseum without taking any other factors into consideration.

Any time I can help please don't hesitate to ask.

 

[Stan]

5 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Happy to help Stan.

Net spend and gross spending.

Net spending is a excellent way of comparing financially well run clubs with clubs that are run on a basis of having no financial accountability.

Gross spending is very misleading but is an excellent way of trying to score points by just droning on ad naseum without taking any other factors into consideration.

Any time I can help please don't hesitate to ask.

 

It appears you have an agenda against someone?

[Scouse_Mouse]

14 minutes ago, Stan said:

It appears you have an agenda against someone?

My mission is to educate and enlighten Stan.

[LFCMadLad]

Stan on the wind up yet again!!

Not what you would expect from THE senior admin on this forum tut tut tut

[Guest]

@Scouse_Mouse it's like when people try to compare klopp and Peps spending. Although klopp spent a lot he sold a lot of players to generate the money. Pep didn't have to do that. Peps net spend dwarfs klopps I think 

[DeadLinesman]

10 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Scouse_Mouse it's like when people try to compare klopp and Peps spending. Although klopp spent a lot he sold a lot of players to generate the money. Pep didn't have to do that. Peps net spend dwarfs klopps I think 

Yes. Because Pep and Klopp run the finances ffs. If they both spend £500million, they both spend £500million. Literally nobody ever spoke about this net spend bollocks ever till Liverpool sold Coutinho for £130million. 

[Cicero]

12 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Stan on the wind up yet again!!

Not what you would expect from THE senior admin on this forum tut tut tut

Awwwww

[Stan]

15 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Stan on the wind up yet again!!

Not what you would expect from THE senior admin on this forum tut tut tut

Yeah maybe I should leave you children to it, instead ?

After all, this is a playground as you allude to so many times...

[LFCMike]

2 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

Yes. Because Pep and Klopp run the finances ffs. If they both spend £500million, they both spend £500million. Literally nobody ever spoke about this net spend bollocks ever till Liverpool sold Coutinho for £130million. 

I was arguing net spend with people on the old forum about 12 years ago when Rafa was at LFC  I try to avoid it these days. 

[Guest]

@DeadLinesman people have been talking about net spend for ages I've seen it mentioned loads of times. If one manager has to sell players to generate finances and the other doesn't he has an advantage. 

[DeadLinesman]

3 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

I was arguing net spend with people on the old forum about 12 years ago when Rafa was at LFC  I try to avoid it these days. 

I’ve slept since then mate . Genuinely though, I only remember it being a massive bone of contention in the last few years.

[DeadLinesman]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@DeadLinesman people have been talking about net spend for ages I've seen it mentioned loads of times. If one manager has to sell players to generate finances and the other doesn't he has an advantage. 

Which isn’t the point. If we both spend a fiver, we both spend a fiver. Again, the conversation of topic wasn’t even net spend, yet came round to it as a defence machanism, just like @Cicero said.

[Storts+]

I don’t condone this sort of trolling, sanctions for all involved 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

Which isn’t the point. If we both spend a fiver, we both spend a fiver. 

Of course its important. If one manager has a £300 million squad and he doesn't have to sell players to generate money and he spends £400 million he has a £700 million squad. If one manager has a £300 million squad but has to sell players for £200million to generate money and then spends £400000 he has a £500000 squad. Literally every tv pundit talks about net spend.

[Scouse_Mouse]

Just now, DeadLinesman said:

I’ve slept since then mate . Genuinely though, I only remember it being a massive bone of contention in the last few years.

No its nothing new, you can go back over a decade ago, people going on about all the money we'd spent on Suarez and Carrol.

But they ignored the fact that we got more in that season after selling Torres and Mascherano.

Nothing's changed, just the names of those "trying" to score points.

[DeadLinesman]

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Of course its important. If one manager has a £300 million squad and he doesn't have to sell players to generate money and he spends £400 million he has a £700 million squad. If one manager has a £300 million squad but has to sell players for £200million to generate money and then spends £400000 he has a £500000 squad. Literally every tv pundit talks about net spend.

Again, wasn’t the point of the original conversation. It was about spending ‘a fortune’ and if 2 managers spend equal amounts, they’ve spent equal amounts. That’s absolute concrete fact.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, DeadLinesman said:

Again, wasn’t the point of the original conversation. It was about spending ‘a fortune’ and if 2 managers spend equal amounts, they’ve spent equal amounts. That’s absolute concrete fact.

Yeah but klopps job was harder. It was easier for pep he didn't have to generate the money by selling players. That's the point people are making 

[DeadLinesman]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Yeah but klopps job was harder. It was easier for pep he didn't have to generate the money by selling players. That's the point people are making 

No, that wasn’t the point of the original argument or conversation. It came round to net spend. The point was they both spent the same. That was literally the conversation.

[Mel81x+]

I cant wait to see this thread hit 18 pages too. 

[Scouse_Mouse]

Just now, DeadLinesman said:

Again, wasn’t the point of the original conversation. It was about spending ‘a fortune’ and if 2 managers spend equal amounts, they’ve spent equal amounts. That’s absolute concrete fact.

pe-dan-tic . adjective . of or like a pedant.

Honestly you see no difference in a club spending 100M to replace players they have lost and another club spending 100M to pack another body or two on the bench?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

No, that wasn’t the point of the original argument or conversation. It came round to net spend. The point was they both spent the same. That was literally the conversation.

Net spend is what you spend against what you sell. If you look at charts liverpool net spend is much less. It's a bit out of date but a chart is below 

https://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons

 

In fact even without the net spend city had spent much more up to then which I think is last season

[DeadLinesman]

Just now, Scouse_Mouse said:

pe-dan-tic . adjective . of or like a pedant.

Honestly you see no difference in a club spending 100M to replace players they have lost and another club spending 100M to pack another body or two on the bench?

Once again, you’re simply deflecting from the original question. But cheers for the random dictionary quote.