The Difference Between Expenditure and Net Spend...

[DeadLinesman]

3 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

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 It's a bit out of date but a chart is below 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

Christ, I can’t, even. Nope, I’m out.

[Smiley Culture]

You mean net spend has nothing to do with buying goal nets?

[Stan]

5 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

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 It's a bit out of date but a chart is below 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

He knows what net spend is  

He was making the point that that wasn't the original discussion being had.

[Guest]

T

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

He knows what net spend is  

He was making the point that that wasn't the original discussion being had.

It was in this thread mate. I don't know about previous threads. This thread is about gross and net spend. As it is liverpool's gross spend is much less anyway so it doesn't matter 

[Scouse_Mouse]

5 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

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

You keep saying this, the original statement I believe was me saying that Klopp hadn't spent obscene amounts to win the league, clearly I was talking about net spend which is less than 18M a year over the last five years. Maybe 18M a year is obscene? It just seems very reasonable taking all things into consideration.

..........then cue 10 pages of "yeah but yeah but yeah his gross was 500M".

 

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

You keep saying this, the original statement I believe was me saying that Klopp hadn't spent obscene amounts to win the league, clearly I was talking about net spend

Clearly??? 

 

[DeadLinesman]

But you clearly never mentioned net spend. Only when it was pointed out that the same amount had been spent did you mention it. It’s not my fault you’re changing the goal posts.

[Scouse_Mouse]

Just now, Cicero said:

Clearly??? 

 

When did I deny our gross spending wasn't 472M? Even if Danny didn't understand it was made clear in my very next post that I was talking about net spend.

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

When did I deny our gross spending wasn't 472M? Even if Danny didn't understand it was made clear in my very next post that I was talking about net spend.

Right but it still contradicts your initial post. You've managed to reel half the forum with it. 

[Scouse_Mouse]

3 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

But you clearly never mentioned net spend. Only when it was pointed out that the same amount had been spent did you mention it. It’s not my fault you’re changing the goal posts.

What goalposts ffs

See my response above, I never contested the gross spending figure, I said right away that they were misleading. 

 

[Scouse_Mouse]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

Right but it still contradicts your initial post. You've managed to reel half the forum with it. 

It didn't contradict anything ffs, I hadn't mentioned gross or net, all I did was clarify my statement.

I should have realized that that wouldn't have explained things...........too many daft points to be scored.

[Guest]

2 hours 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.

 

Unless you are talking about a different thread this is his original post where he clearly mentions net spend 

[Cicero]

5 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

It didn't contradict anything ffs, I hadn't mentioned gross or net, all I did was clarify my statement.

I should have realized that that wouldn't have explained things...........too many daft points to be scored.

Well then it went straight over our heads. Just better clarification is all. 

Perhaps its the anti-Liverpool, black people hating and Ryan Giggs loving tinted glasses we are wearing. 

[Scouse_Mouse]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Unless you are talking about a different thread this is his original post where he clearly mentions net spend 

No mate it started on another thread, I had said that we had won the league without spending obscene amounts.

Gross or net wasn't mentioned until Danny brought it up.

[RandoEFC+]

Everyone who is allowed access to a keyboard or device that allows them on here understands the basic concept that the more you get from selling players, the more freedom you're likely to have in spending money on buying players. 

Working out exact net spends and arguing over whether you should count a fee of £20m with £10m potential add-ons as £20m, £30m, £25m or £2.5m because actually, our club's well smart and we're paying it in instalments is completely tedious.

The majority of people who bring up net spend do so when their club has lost a game or finished behind a team with more money. They're not interested in the financial intricacies, with some extremely rare exceptions, they're just making excuses for their team (or sometimes trying to big up their team even more following a success). Yes, what they're saying might be correct but the motivation isn't complex.

Saw it for years at Everton under Moyes. The club trained the supporters to be happy with the net spend cup or the wage budget vs league position championship. We were always top of those measurements back then and have often been bottom of them in the last decade, and guess how much difference it actually made to our league positions and trophy cabinets? None, just like every other team. You don't get extra points or a head start in a game because you have a lower net spend.

The meat of football happens on the pitch. It can be interesting to debate the finer points of the finance and analyse which clubs are doing a good or bad job in that regard, I'm not saying we should never do that, but just know that if you're engaging in a conversation about the net spend of another team that you're talking to fans who are trying to improve the perception of their club (read: making excuses) using a measure that means literally nothing between the first and final whistles of any actual football match, and that if you're engaging in a conversation about your own club's net spend, then it's you who is doing that. Try to rationalise it all you want, most of us have been there and if you stand back and look at it objectively, this is what you're left with. You might as well embrace it .

[Guest]

Just now, Scouse_Mouse said:

No mate it started on another thread, I had said that we had won the league without spending obscene amounts.

Gross or net wasn't mentioned until Danny brought it up.

Well you can understand my confusion then to be fair

[Scouse_Mouse]

2 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Well then it went straight over our heads. Just better clarification is all. 

 

It was clarified in my very first reply to Danny, and many many times since.

 

[Guest]

@DeadLinesman just to clarify mate I didn't know this had started on a different thread so you can understand my confusion 

[Scouse_Mouse]

3 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Everyone who is allowed access to a keyboard or device that allows them on here understands the basic concept that the more you get from selling players, the more freedom you're likely to have in spending money on buying players. 

Working out exact net spends and arguing over whether you should count a fee of £20m with £10m potential add-ons as £20m, £30m, £25m or £2.5m because actually, our club's well smart and we're paying it in instalments is completely tedious.

The majority of people who bring up net spend do so when their club has lost a game or finished behind a team with more money. They're not interested in the financial intricacies, with some extremely rare exceptions, they're just making excuses for their team (or sometimes trying to big up their team even more following a success). Yes, what they're saying might be correct but the motivation isn't complex.

Saw it for years at Everton under Moyes. The club trained the supporters to be happy with the net spend cup or the wage budget vs league position championship. We were always top of those measurements back then and have often been bottom of them in the last decade, and guess how much difference it actually made to our league positions and trophy cabinets? None, just like every other team. You don't get extra points or a head start in a game because you have a lower net spend.

The meat of football happens on the pitch. It can be interesting to debate the finer points of the finance and analyse which clubs are doing a good or bad job in that regard, I'm not saying we should never do that, but just know that if you're engaging in a conversation about the net spend of another team that you're talking to fans who are trying to improve the perception of their club (read: making excuses) using a measure that means literally nothing between the first and final whistles of any actual football match, and that if you're engaging in a conversation about your own club's net spend, then it's you who is doing that. Try to rationalise it all you want, most of us have been there and if you stand back and look at it objectively, this is what you're left with. You might as well embrace it .

I agree that most sites aren't 100% accurate when it comes to spending. They also don't take into consideration players bought on a free but paid silly money in wages.

The site I was quoting seemed pretty accurate.

I don't think any of us are happy with FSG's restrictions and limitations, we'd all like to throw money around like City but that's not going to happen.

To be honest I can't be arsed arguing any more, my original claim that our spending wasn't obscene is a valid one imho. 

[Cicero]

12 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

It was clarified in my very first reply to Danny, and many many times since.

 

Did Jurgen Klopp/Liverpool spend an obscure amount of money for Liverpool to be where they are now? 

This genuinely is a yes or no answer. 

 

 

 

[Scouse_Mouse]

Just now, Cicero said:

Did Jurgen Klopp/Liverpool spend an obscure amount of money for Liverpool to be where they are now? 

This genuinely is a yes or no answer. 

 

 

 

Obscure? If you mean obscene my answer would be no, and net spending figures would seem to validate my assertion.

[LFCMadLad]

17 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Did Jurgen Klopp/Liverpool spend an obscure amount of money for Liverpool to be where they are now? 

This genuinely is a yes or no answer. 

 

 

 

Klopp/Liverpool should be nowhere near winning the league, coming second with a record points total and getting to 2 CL finals, winning 1 if you compare what has been spent compared to other clubs.

It's a downright failure that Pep hasn't took City even close. Its gross negligence that United and Chelsea are where they are with the financial advantage they have (along with City) compared to other clubs.

Anyone who disregards net spend compared to endless oil money is fucking bent.

[Scouse_Mouse]

2 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Anyone who disregards net spend compared to endless oil money is fucking bent.

But some on here would try to have us believe that us spending money generated from sales is the same as being bailed out year after year by some oil Sheik or dodgy shirt sponsorship deals.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

@Danny’s played some of you like a fiddle