The Difference Between Expenditure and Net Spend...

[Danny]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

@Danny’s played some of you like a fiddle 

Love it, forgot I even posted this 

[Scouse_Mouse]

6 minutes ago, Danny said:

Love it, forgot I even posted this 

A word of warning though, the mods on here can be quite critical of WUMs.

Oh sorry, I forgot that doesn't apply to those who have been WUMing on here for years.

[Harry]

3 hours 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 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".

 

The biggest issue with net spend is the person bringing it up is always the one to choose the time period over which they are looking at the balance of the transfers, and usually they pick the starting point that best suits they're agenda.

If you start it based on the year Klopp came to Liverpool that might be the best time period to judge Liverpool, but it will be less appropriate for every other club, some of whom have multiple managers in that time period.

If you exclude pre-klopp from your Liverpool analysis why not do the same for other clubs?

For example if you simply want to compare United and Liverpool on net spend perhaps you should do it from the day ole started rather than the day Klopp started (omitting the huge Mourinho investment). 

The story may still be the same of Liverpool having a lower net spend in this period, but the dollar amounts will change and in some other examples the result might turn on its head.

 

[Panna King]

 

[Scouse_Mouse]

22 minutes ago, Harry said:

The biggest issue with net spend is the person bringing it up is always the one to choose the time period over which they are looking at the balance of the transfers, and usually they pick the starting point that best suits they're agenda.

If you start it based on the year Klopp came to Liverpool that might be the best time period to judge Liverpool, but it will be less appropriate for every other club, some of whom have multiple managers in that time period.

If you exclude pre-klopp from your Liverpool analysis why not do the same for other clubs?

For example if you simply want to compare United and Liverpool on net spend perhaps you should do it from the day ole started rather than the day Klopp started (omitting the huge Mourinho investment). 

The story may still be the same of Liverpool having a lower net spend in this period, but the dollar amounts will change and in some other examples the result might turn on its head.

 

Danny brought up "since Klopp took charge" so I just went along with that.

I see what you mean about choosing a time line though, I think any comparison would need to be fairly recent, go back over 10 years and you don't get an accurate picture, eg a 20M signing 10 years ago was much bigger than 20M today.

At the end of the day though I don't think any of it matters, even City for instance, no-one will remember the Sheiks bail outs or the dodgy Emirates sponsorship "deals" all that will be remembered are who won what and when.

[Scouse_Mouse]

15 hours ago, Harry said:

The biggest issue with net spend is the person bringing it up is always the one to choose the time period over which they are looking at the balance of the transfers,

This in todays Liverpool Echo.........

since Liverpool lifted the Champions League trophy in 2019 the net spending for the "big six"............

 Man U 189.63M

Man City 181.56M

Spurs 163.08M

Arsenal 154.5M

Chelsea 69.89M (due to 2019 summer transfer ban)

Liverpool 1.39M profit.

 

Liverpool's figure doesn't include still to be decided fee for Harvey Elliot.

*any grumbles about net rather than gross figures to be directed to the Echo.

 

[Cicero]

ob·scene

/əbˈsēn/

 

adjective

- offensive or outrageous to accepted standards of decency or modesty. 

 

ex·pend·i·ture

/ikˈspendəCHər/

 

noun

- the action of spending funds.

 

Use in a sentence:

Spending an obscene amount of money - One that makes expenditures in an amount that is not standard. 

 

Virgil Van Dijk - 75 million ( World record signing for a CB)

Allison - 66 million (World record signing for a GK) 

Fabinho - 50 million

Keita - 50 million

 

By breaking two transfers records simultaneously and spending nearly 500 million within 3 years of Klopp's regime, Liverpool made expenditures that were an obscene amount. 

 

*any grumbles about the vocabulary and meaning behind obscene + expenditures can be directed to the vocabulary above. 

[Dave]

I can see this is going to end in some sort of battle amongst people to belittle each other by the font being used so i'm going to end this discussion by saying Roy Hodgson deserves a new contract for how well he's managed our net spend since 2017.