Net Spend vs. Player Quality

Seems to be a huge debate as to whether net spend is a justifiable factor in determining the success of a transfer window. Where do you stand?

I've said in the past I don't care how much is spent as long as the players in and out seem to be helpful to the squad with regards to the manager's style of play/setup.

Came across this article

LFC Transfers Summer 2013

Confirmed LFC transfers summer 2013:

Players IN

Kolo Toure – Free Transfer – Man City
Iago Aspas – £7m – Celta Vigo
Luis Alberto – £6.8m – Sevilla
Simon Mignolet – £9m – Sunderland

Spent: £22.8m

Players OUT

Jonjo Shelvey – £5m – Swansea City
Andy Carroll – £15.5m – West Ham
Danny Wilson – Free Transfer – Hearts
Peter Gulacsi – Free Transfer – Red Bull Salzburg

Received: £20.5m

Loaned

Suso – Almeria (La Liga; Spain)
Michael Ngoo – Yeovil (Championship; England)

Retired

Jamie Carragher

Released

Jamie Stephens (Newport County)
Yusuf Mersin (Millwall)
Tyrell Belford
Niall Heaton (Bradford)
Nathan Quirk (University of Akron, USA)
Sam Gainford (University of Akron, USA)

Note: Fees herein are initial fees, not potential fees if additional clauses are met. For instance, Shelvey was sold for an initial £5m, but could rise to £6m. We list the initial £5m.
http://www.thisisanfield.com/lfc-transfers-summer-2013/

One would think that a 1.3m net spend means very little to no good business done, but it seems like the consensus so far is that most folks are pretty happy with what we've done so far.

The point has been made and I think it's reasonable that finding good quality for good value (Coutinho) is great, but that eventually no one can reproduce those "hits" over and over and that you need to see an influx of money.

I can't say that I'd be happy if this was all of our business during this window, but if we kept Suarez and maybe added one more first team potential player, I would probably be pretty happy. But I get the feeling that for some that wouldn't be the case?

One would think that a 1.3m net spend means very little to no good business done, but it seems like the consensus so far is that most folks are pretty happy with what we've done so far.

The point has been made and I think it's reasonable that finding good quality for good value (Coutinho) is great, but that eventually no one can reproduce those "hits" over and over and that you need to see an influx of money.

I can't say that I'd be happy if this was all of our business during this window, but if we kept Suarez and maybe added one more first team potential player, I would probably be pretty happy. But I get the feeling that for some that wouldn't be the case?

We've pretty much went sidewards with our transfer business and saved tons on wages. So far it is only good business if the money we've saved is added to our transfer budget and the tv money, then reinvested in some top players who can challenge for first 11 spots. Otherwise it's an accounting excercise IMO

Problem with the coutinho example as we are proving with Luis is that when u find a gem you get about 2 seasons before they see the club isn't progressing and not challenging so we sell the current gem hoping to find new prospects. Is a vicious circle that leads us at a stalemate.

Said it 2 years ago when fsg took over and il say it again. Only significant investment will rise lfc like a Phoenix from the flames. Until then were on the 'work in progress' merry go round

for me the best way to sum it up is this is a brilliant start. to spend nothing and bring in four players who should add to the team not just make up numbers. but that's all this should be - the start. and it will be, we will probably see half a dozen men go out and it should be starting soon..

Net Spend.

Window  ...

TV ?

Net Spend is £2.8M so far.

http://www.lfcreds.com/reds/index.php/topic,44819.0.html

Net Spend vs. Player Quality?!

How is that a debate, to suggest that one does not directly interact the other would simply being trying to pull the wool over the eyes of naive people. Well I don't think you'll find too many naive people on these boards and net spend should directly relate to the quality of player you're buying.

Simplest example would be if Brendan is willing to spend £7m on Iago Aspas then given more funds would he not be able to find a better quality player, if you believe he couldn't then what makes you believe his investment in Aspas is so sound? If you believe he could the argument is already null and void because you've already convinced yourself that greater investment = better quality of player.

How long can they ride on the wave of the Couthinho deal in all honesty .The owners are taking a claw hammer to a wall and trying to knock it , instead of going down to the local tool hire and hiring out a kango hammer to rattle the sh*t out of it . Net spend needs to be 40 mil this window because of the extra revenue from sky . And they needn't think we're not keeping an eye on the Finances either , there are plenty of Reds who have their sums done .

And they needn't think we're not keeping an eye on the Finances either , there are plenty of Reds who have their sums done .

Well said that man there.

By the way, this is not meant to be a thread about the owners, this is more of a general thread about how the money at the club is spent. Whether the owners have a financial clue or not is for another thread and another debate most likely. My point is can anyone provide examples of where just throwing money at the problem of talent ultimately paid off and was that payoff short term success or long term sustainability.

Net Spend vs. Player Quality?!

How is that a debate, to suggest that one does not directly interact the other would simply being trying to pull the wool over the eyes of naive people. Well I don't think you'll find too many naive people on these boards and net spend should directly relate to the quality of player you're buying.

Simplest example would be if Brendan is willing to spend £7m on Iago Aspas then given more funds would he not be able to find a better quality player, if you believe he couldn't then what makes you believe his investment in Aspas is so sound? If you believe he could the argument is already null and void because you've already convinced yourself that greater investment = better quality of player.

In your example I would assume that Brendan has brought in Aspas because he thinks he can play a role in his team regardless of what the cost was. Without knowing his reasoning it would be impossible to know if he'd have brought in someone different had he as you have assumed had a higher budget. Maybe budget wasn't that important in the decision? How do we know one way or the other. 

Instead of buying Coutinho and Sturridge, we could have spent the net spend for those two on one "great" player, but would that have been the smartest way to spend the money?

In your example I would assume that Brendan has brought in Aspas because he thinks he can play a role in his team regardless of what the cost was

Do you think Rodgers would have paid lets say 20mil for Aspas ?

In your example I would assume that Brendan has brought in Aspas because he thinks he can play a role in his team regardless of what the cost was. Without knowing his reasoning it would be impossible to know if he'd have brought in someone different had he as you have assumed had a higher budget. Maybe budget wasn't that important in the decision? How do we know one way or the other. 

Instead of buying Coutinho and Sturridge, we could have spent the net spend for those two on one "great" player, but would that have been the smartest way to spend the money?

Well given in all your examples the one constant is Brendan Rodgers surely you can grasp that given more funds he would have more available options.

The same as how when given a choice at a car dealership you choose what fits your budget do you not? So while you try to convince me that Brendan would have spent £100m on Aspas, I will choose to believe that is nothing more than spin intended to deflect from the truth that is given more resources Brendan would most definitely have chosen someone other than Aspas, taking the example to the extreme he could have chosen Messi or Ronaldo.

"smartest" way to spend money is a completely different argument that has restrictions of budget and Aspas could well be the smartest way to spend the £7m we had because he wasn't able to spend more, that I agree with.

Well given in all your examples the one constant is Brendan Rodgers surely you can grasp that given more funds he would have more available options.

The same as how when given a choice at a car dealership you choose what fits your budget do you not? So while you try to convince me that Brendan would have spent £100m on Aspas, I will choose to believe that is nothing more than spin intended to deflect from the truth that is given more resources Brendan would most definitely have chosen someone other than Aspas, taking the example to the extreme he could have chosen Messi or Ronaldo.

"smartest" way to spend money is a completely different argument that has restrictions of budget and Aspas could well be the smartest way to spend the £7m we had because he wasn't able to spend more, that I agree with.

I don't think I said anywhere in my post that I think given 100m Brendan would have spent it on Aspas. My point was that given 100m, Brendan may still have bought Aspas, but he may have used the rest on other players. From listening to him, in fact he seems like he's more keen to have 2-3 good players at every position as opposed to one great player at a given position.

So I guess my point is that given 100m I don't know that Brendan would automatically blow it all on 1 or 2 world class players, hence my admission that I'm not sure the net spend is as important as the player quality (versatility or fit?)

Do you think Rodgers would have paid lets say 20mil for Aspas ?

Not sure about that, maybe 12-13 though? Hard to say.

Didn't some folks think we overpaid for Sturridge?

I don't think I said anywhere in my post that I think given 100m Brendan would have spent it on Aspas. My point was that given 100m, Brendan may still have bought Aspas, but he may have used the rest on other players. From listening to him, in fact he seems like he's more keen to have 2-3 good players at every position as opposed to one great player at a given position.

So I guess my point is that given 100m I don't know that Brendan would automatically blow it all on 1 or 2 world class players, hence my admission that I'm not sure the net spend is as important as the player quality (versatility or fit?)

It's just an over-exaggeration to simplify the point FL.

If you think any amount more wouldn't get a better player then net spend wouldn't have an influence on player quality.

Therefore by saying that £100m is too much because we could get a better player(s) for that you answer your own question.

Aspas could well be a £100m player in time but at the moment and given current market conditions he is valued at £7m or thereabouts and we are the ones willing to take the gamble that he will improve. The motives behind that gamble boil down to circumstance, or the fact that we can't afford anyone better. If you think we're choosing not to buy anyone more expensive/better then I think you'll lose me at that point completely.

We work to a budget and that budget is a huge bone of contention with our owners, for me it isn't good enough to truly make a push for improved overall performance. We are slowly piecing together a team but by the time we get a chance to complete that jigsaw one of the more important pieces will want to move and we'll be off gambling on another low budget, low wages 'gambles' or 'investment' as I'm sure FSG would prefer to term them in their private little chats. Surely this method could work, yes it could work but as much as it could, it's much more likely to fail otherwise there would have been many more success stories to speak of. The margin of error we're working towards doesn't give me much hope for success.

The true argument here I feel is if we can actually buy 'smarter' than our rivals and progress on a shoestring budget compared to theirs, so far I think we're doing well this window and have bought pretty smart with our money

Looking at the sums.

An extra £1.5M from ticket price increases on last year.  An extra £30M (at least) from increased TV money.  Lack of Europa League - lets take that £1.5M back off.

We should be looking at least that £30M + lets say a usual £20M summer budget + some of the wages saved reinvested.

I make that £50M net spend expected before we even consider money from Luis Suarez.

To have spent £2M at this stage makes me wonder where this money is going.

Would I be correct in saying that net spend has to include other factors other than just the transfer fee?
For example if you look at what would be the like for like swaps I assume Toure and Mignolet are costing more in wages than Wilson and Gulacsi?
I also assume there are other players on the books with whom we will soon be entering into contract negotiations?

Not going towards improving the team is it.

I feel thats us just about done for this window....a whopping 2m.

If Skrtel leaves we may get a new CB for equal or less money than he goes for.

Similarly if suarez goes we will see some of that spent on another forward.

We will end up recouping more than we spend at this rate .... and thats not including the tv money!!

Seems to be a huge debate as to whether net spend is a justifiable factor in determining the success of a transfer window. Where do you stand?

Whilst it may "seem" to be the case - it's not and never has been a measure of "success of a transfer window."

My experiences, on here, has shown that it's only been a measure of how much money the owners [or, more accurately the club] have actually spent - it was with Hicks & Gillett - I can't see why it shouldn't be with John & Tom.

As such, I believe, it's pretty fair. 

It's a very emotive question - and spending money is not always the answer

Thing is, FSG have used the 'moneyball' theory in baseball - and wond- and also blown a load of money on wages last season and were sh**, so it is of no suprise - given they want to rebuild Anfield to the tune of £150m, that they will be tighter than we would like on the purse strings

A few questions need to be answered when looking at this though :-

1 - Is the squad (& 1st team) stronger than at the end of the window than at the start of the window ?

2- Is the squad (& 1st team) stronger or weaker than its nearest rivals (in our case - Arsenal, Spurs, Everton) ,relatively speaking, compared to the start of the window ?

3 - Is the squad now capable of starting to bridge the gap to the 'top 3' and to be in better position to secure 4th

Those questions can't be fully answered until the transfer window is shut. Are we stronger squad wise ? Probably yes - assuming no more in's or out's.
stronger than rivals for 4th ? - depends on what business they do
closer to the top3 ? - I think they will be dragged closer to the others with the new managers they have and the instability that comes with such changes.

 

2 - i

Instead of buying Coutinho and Sturridge, we could have spent the net spend for those two on one "great" player, but would that have been the smartest way to spend the money?

One way of looking at it but we saved 3m by buying sturridge in Jan instead of the summer. Perhaps that extra 3m could have got us CL if he was here 6 months earlier in place of carroll so i see that 3m saved cost us 20m in the long run..

Looking at the sums.

An extra £1.5M from ticket price increases on last year.  An extra £30M (at least) from increased TV money.  Lack of Europa League - lets take that £1.5M back off.

We should be looking at least that £30M + lets say a usual £20M summer budget + some of the wages saved reinvested.

I make that £50M net spend expected before we even consider money from Luis Suarez.

To have spent £2M at this stage makes me wonder where this money is going.

My sums exactly. Read a great article that if there was no value the money just wont be spent. I think they are only willing to spend in ideal conditions which just dont exist very often like the sturridge/coutinho window. Meanwhile we lose ground watching the money too carefully and other teams take the risk and progress.

Then our star players are pissed off were not progressing. Imagine if we sell luis then cant find value this market.. what then?? Just do like last year letting carroll off with no replacement. Every year there will be challenges and weve got to do something.

My advice to FSG: spend the money as wisely as possible, back brendan, invest in the team but doing nothing is the project merry go round we need to get off.

Lets just hope we have one more BIG name signing lined up as our value in recruiting new players is slowly dimishing and i think Suarez could be the last of the world class names that we attract until we are back amongst the top 4.

LS will go and we will get 40+mil for him but i think that FSG will only spend 25-30 of that as they need to raise cash for this ground development so we are borrowing less. i would take Alonso + 35mil for Suarez and get another LB then thats it and assess in Dec

To have spent £2M at this stage makes me wonder where this money is going.

Stadium funds?    

Net spend = league position...or so I am told.As to quality player if we lose Luis does anyone actually think we will spend all that money on a player of equal ability?.

I assume Toure and Mignolet are costing more in wages than Wilson and Gulacsi?

And Carragher? And Shelvey? And the percentage of Carroll's wages?

It's a very emotive question - and spending money is not always the answer

Thing is, FSG have used the 'moneyball' theory in baseball - and wond- and also blown a load of money on wages last season and were sh**, so it is of no suprise - given they want to rebuild Anfield to the tune of £150m, that they will be tighter than we would like on the purse strings

A few questions need to be answered when looking at this though :-

1 - Is the squad (& 1st team) stronger than at the end of the window than at the start of the window ?

2- Is the squad (& 1st team) stronger or weaker than its nearest rivals (in our case - Arsenal, Spurs, Everton) ,relatively speaking, compared to the start of the window ?

3 - Is the squad now capable of starting to bridge the gap to the 'top 3' and to be in better position to secure 4th

Those questions can't be fully answered until the transfer window is shut. Are we stronger squad wise ? Probably yes - assuming no more in's or out's.
stronger than rivals for 4th ? - depends on what business they do
closer to the top3 ? - I think they will be dragged closer to the others with the new managers they have and the instability that comes with such changes.

 

2 - i

Fully agree with this. To FSG, LFC is a business which needs to be managed very carefully in order to be sustainable. In the interim a few quick wins can be had (coutinho), however they are in essence trying to ensure that we remove the dead wood, reduce costs and trade smartly in the transfer window in order to get closer to our immediate rivals in 4-6th position.

After investing in players without success, they are now looking at investing elsewhere to ensure a stronger revenue stream in order to prolong our sustainability. Why splash a $100m and risk the chance of finishing 5th or 6th, then carrying a massive cost structure with little avenues for revenue increase?

Its business at the moment, so Net spend will be watched very carefully... which is also the reason for their choice of BR i believe.
It may just take 2 or 3 Moneyball signings to "click" and deliver on a top 4 spot, which could open the door for the glory days of old to return... (im being optimistic)

My point is can anyone provide examples of where just throwing money at the problem of talent ultimately paid off and was that payoff short term success or long term sustainability.

Off the top of my head - Man Utd, Chelsea, Real/Barca and Bayern Munich.

Google is your friend FL - just search for the richest teams, country by country, (you'll usually find that riches and success go hand in hand) then... biggest spenders in the transfer market over say 10-15 years then see if those tally with 'most successful' in each country.

I can't be arsed to do it for you because I don't need to - like most every football fan - I already know. 

that we remove the dead wood, reduce costs

In fairness i think weve dont that twice over at this stage?? costs are lower than ever, revenue is as high as over, investment is at an all time low

Why splash a $100m and risk the chance of finishing 5th or 6th, then carrying a massive cost structure with little avenues for revenue increase?

Or spend 100m wisely, challenge for the title, increase revenue and win things.

Why risk going forward in a foootball match?? Just sit back and take the draw every time. LFC exists to win things. Moneyball approach and ffp are invalid because other teams want to win and are willing to do what we wont. I dont hear manure talking about everyone having a price and not investing to win. They paid 24m for an injury prone 29 year old and it won them the league.

Off the top of my head - Man Utd, Chelsea, Real/Barca and Bayern Munich.

Google is your friend FL - just search for the richest teams, country by country, (you'll usually find that riches and success go hand in hand) then... biggest spenders in the transfer market over say 10-15 years then see if those tally with 'most successful' in each country.

I can't be arsed to do it for you because I don't need to - like most every football fan - I already know. 

As of last year, the top ten by net spend:

1. PSG
2. Zenit
3. Chelsea
4. Bayern Munich
5. ManU
6. ManCity
7. Southampton
8. Juventus
9. Barcelona
10. Liverpool

Now that doesn't tally prior years and I'd have to do even more digging to find that out but just on the surface it seems to both confirm and contradict both of us

It's obviously not an issue of just throwing money at the problem or we'd have been in the top 5 in the EPL (right behind mighty Southampton)

But I willfully concede that it doesn't hurt to throw money at a problem, although I still contend that blindly doing so (as some of those teams did...PSG for instance) didn't bring ultimate success and it could be argued that long term sustainability will not be feasible.

If your net spend every transfer window is high then more often than not your squad should have more depth and quality in it.

It is no coincidence that the clubs that compete for, and win, major honours spend more money in players than they get back in sales. While I don't think it is impossible to compete by smarter spending and finding good players for less money the simple fact remains the best players sell for bigger money and to have more of them in our squad we would need to see a much bigger net spend than we do under FSG.

I, like a few others on here, am still a bit perplexed as to where all our money goes to and why after three years of FSG ownership we still don't seem to see any benefit from all our apparent increased commercial activity as I would expect any football club who increases revenue to be able to spend more money on players.

It's obviously not an issue of just throwing money at the problem or we'd have been in the top 5 in the EPL (right behind mighty Southampton)

A pretty silly and naive point if you ask me.

A teams net spend is also very relevant to the quality of player already in their squad and Southampton may well have had a very high net spend but then they would need to just to try and compete with the other already stronger squads in the league.

The same could  be said about ourselves in that our net spend may well have been higher than a lot of clubs but we had to be to bring the quality of our squad closer to those around us.

A pretty silly and naive point if you ask me.

A teams net spend is also very relevant to the quality of player already in their squad and Southampton may well have had a very high net spend but then they would need to just to try and compete with the other already stronger squads in the league.

The same could  be said about ourselves in that our net spend may well have been higher than a lot of clubs but we had to be to bring the quality of our squad closer to those around us.

You don't understand sarcasm much do you?

Because I was really serious that Southampton should have finished higher because of their high spend Wow.

You don't understand sarcasm much do you?

Because I was really serious that Southampton should have finished higher because of their high spend Wow.

Ah you weren't being serious!

No problem but my point is still valid.

And sarcasm can be difficult to detect sometimes on a forum.

Ah you weren't being serious!

No problem but my point is still valid.

And sarcasm can be difficult to detect sometimes on a forum.

True, I should have used the old tongue in cheek smiley.

Either way I understand what you are saying and I'm not sure how the other "legit" teams on that list rack up year after year but I'd guess most of them are consistently in the top spenders list and while arguments can be made for the short term success of a few of those teams, I just don't know that I'm convinced that it's as simple as spend more = win more.

True, I should have used the old tongue in cheek smiley.

Indeed

Either way I understand what you are saying and I'm not sure how the other "legit" teams on that list rack up year after year but I'd guess most of them are consistently in the top spenders list and while arguments can be made for the short term success of a few of those teams, I just don't know that I'm convinced that it's as simple as spend more = win more.

I actually agree that it isn't just a case of spend more and get success as you obviously have to spend the money on the right players for your squad but it is also very difficult to argue that if you spend more money on quality players whilst also holding onto the best players already in your squad, therefore having a high net spend, you have a much greater chance of success and competing with the teams around and above you.

Indeed

I actually agree that it isn't just a case of spend more and get success as you obviously have to spend the money on the right players for your squad but it is also very difficult to argue that if you spend more money on quality players whilst also holding onto the bets players already in your squad, therefore having a high net spend, you have a much greater chance of success and competing with the teams around and above you.

Maybe the problem I have isn't with folks suggesting we spend more, because honestly, I am all for spending as much as possible....but I do seem to detect an faction that think that spending more will unequivocally mean success and I'm not so sure I agree with that. Not to mention, if you spend tons of money each year and you DON'T get it right then you put the club in serious financial risk.

 This is a stupid thread IMO

 Given a choice, we would rather get great players for free than spend a fortune on a bum

 The only reason for this thread is to excuse the owner for not spending money

The only reason for this thread is to excuse the owner for not spending money

Possibly but only FL Red can answer that question.

This is a stupid thread IMO

 Given a choice, we would rather get great players for free than spend a fortune on a bum

 The only reason for this thread is to excuse the owner for not spending money

With comments like this it is a stupid thread, you are right. Also, thanks for commenting in a thread you think is stupid. I tend to avoid threads I think are stupid so I'm not sure what that shows about you, commenting in a stupid thread would seem to prove you even worse than stupid, or the need for you to make yourself feel superior. Not arsed either way.

As for the owners, not defending them at all. They aren't the ones spending money right now, Brendan is. Until I hear him say that we missed out on targets because we didn't have any money to spend, I'm not going to worry about the owners.

Until I hear him say that we missed out on targets because we didn't have any money to spend, I'm not going to worry about the owners.

It happened last summer and you didn't say too much

It happened last summer and you didn't say too much

I chastised the owners for Dempsey, look it up.

I chastised the owners for Dempsey, look it up.

Just got over it quickly then. Yea?

With comments like this it is a stupid thread, you are right. Also, thanks for commenting in a thread you think is stupid. I tend to avoid threads I think are stupid so I'm not sure what that shows about you, commenting in a stupid thread would seem to prove you even worse than stupid, or the need for you to make yourself feel superior. Not arsed either way.

As for the owners, not defending them at all. They aren't the ones spending money right now, Brendan is. Until I hear him say that we missed out on targets because we didn't have any money to spend, I'm not going to worry about the owners.

Do you need to ask if we would rather have a big net spend with crap players or no net spend with good players ?

 It is stupid, it is the same as asking if we would rather win or lose

Just got over it quickly then. Yea?

I have no idea what you are getting at.

Do you need to ask if we would rather have a big net spend with crap players or no net spend with good players ?

 It is stupid, it is the same as asking if we would rather win or lose

Why post then? Surely you could find something better to do with your time like finding a rope and pissing up it?

Why post then? Surely you could find something better to do with your time like finding a rope and pissing up it?

If you have taken offense ? I apologize

 

I have no idea what you are getting at.

Just messing mate.

Point of this thread was that I really wanted to get some thoughtful folks to be able to help me understand and maybe even convince me of the position of big net spend. I'm not against it, but I'm not quite sold on just throwing money at the problem either which is why I was hoping to have some reasonable responses that would maybe move me in that way.

On that note, I appreciate the serious responses and I apologize to those that were inconvenienced by  me starting this thread.

Listening to what Rodgers said today leads me to think that the signings we have made were to build up the squad which needed doing urgently. Now he can concentrate on improving the starting 11. This to me sounds like we will make 1 maybe even 2 big signings. I have a feeling that we will all be very surprised come the end of the window, in a good way.

Listening to what Rodgers said today leads me to think that the signings we have made were to build up the squad which needed doing urgently. Now he can concentrate on improving the starting 11. This to me sounds like we will make 1 maybe even 2 big signings. I have a feeling that we will all be very surprised come the end of the window, in a good way.

Obviously it goes without saying that I hope you are right.

We'll soon see.

Looking at the sums.

An extra £1.5M from ticket price increases on last year.  An extra £30M (at least) from increased TV money.  Lack of Europa League - lets take that £1.5M back off.

We should be looking at least that £30M + lets say a usual £20M summer budget + some of the wages saved reinvested.

I make that £50M net spend expected before we even consider money from Luis Suarez.

To have spent £2M at this stage makes me wonder where this money is going.

It is slightly worrying where the rest of that money is. It's not a case like under H&G where any money that was coming in was going to try and clear debts so why are we not going out and spending that £50m on players?!

Potentially to increase the clubs value for when it comes to FSG selling up?

Not sure about that, maybe 12-13 though? Hard to say.

Didn't some folks think we overpaid for Sturridge?

Not too sure about that , I know we hesitated in buying him summer transfer for the sake of a mil or so .

Looking at the sums.

An extra £1.5M from ticket price increases on last year.  An extra £30M (at least) from increased TV money.  Lack of Europa League - lets take that £1.5M back off.

We should be looking at least that £30M + lets say a usual £20M summer budget + some of the wages saved reinvested.

I make that £50M net spend expected before we even consider money from Luis Suarez.

To have spent £2M at this stage makes me wonder where this money is going.

Now we're talking numbers and if we're to get to any kind of CL spot let alone PL title that 50 mil is a minimum i'd expect invested in this transfer alone . With 20 mil set aside for the winter transfer also, should Rodgers need to turn up the heat .

You don't need to spend your whole budget every window.
I expect we will spend around £35-40m over this and the January window.
You should try and improve your lot every window, but not every transfer will succeed.
I do not want sugar daddy owners at the club.

Nothing wrong with getting value for money, nothing wrong with paying the going rate, nothing wrong with paying over the odds occasionally, just don't make it the de rigueur unless you want to be known as mugs.

Looking at the sums.

An extra £1.5M from ticket price increases on last year.  An extra £30M (at least) from increased TV money.  Lack of Europa League - lets take that £1.5M back off.

We should be looking at least that £30M + lets say a usual £20M summer budget + some of the wages saved reinvested.

I make that £50M net spend expected before we even consider money from Luis Suarez.

To have spent £2M at this stage makes me wonder where this money is going.

I don't know how our other revenues/expenditures have varied over the past year or so but, given the increased TV money and the savings on wages, it seems not unreasonable to expect a corresponding increase in our transfer budget. Perhaps that money is going toward the cost of redeveloping Anfield or to offset increases in costs elsewhere -- or perhaps FSG have taken their share of it. I don't know, but as supporters we have a right to expect that if our revenues increase and our costs remain comparatively level, and there's nothing else to justify witholding that money, the manager should have the benefit of it for the purposes of improving the team.

Perhaps the money is available but the club is choosing to exercising greater prudence than before. You can understand not wanting to spend for spending's sake, pushing the boat out as we've done in the past with Carroll and co. and getting stung in the process -- but equally this is a crucial window for us, and the profligate spending of the past shouldn't constrain us if the money's there and the players that are available would in the manager's judgment constitute both value for money and a sufficient improvement to the team. If FSG are in it for the long run they too would also see that backing the manager in the transfer market when it's most needed, when it's prudent business, is a sensible investment because ultimately the club needs to be back in the CL and winning the biggest trophies in order to increase in value.

Regarding the question of "net spend", I've always thought it a somewhat dubious way of assessing whether a manager's had a fair crack at improving the team, especially when figures for more than one window are aggregated and inflation becomes a factor. I think the most you can say is that if our net spend per transfer window is negligible we should expect the team to be generally no worse off than before. But you've also got to look at the context -- the cost of wages, the kinds of players we can attract, the players who've left and the reasons behind them leaving, the changing nature of the transfer market etc. -- in order to be able to fairly judge the manager's opportunity at improving the team. For example, if our "net spend" is even after the transfer window, but we can't attract the kind of players who we're selling (Suarez for example) because our position now is less desirable than before (and not of the manager's own making) in terms being able to offer CL football, at being able to offer wages to compete for the big players who are increasingly being snapped up by a group of super-rich clubs, then you would understand if the business we do results in a squad that isn't as good as before. Those same factors apply whatever our "net spend" turns out be and need to be taken into account once all is said and done before people decide to get all "Federer" on the manager.

One thing I'd like to mention about spending and I'm not sure how many agree but despite some doubts I had/have about the manager one thing I do have confidence in is his eye for a player and one that fits into what he wants from a footballer.

Add this to the fact FSG hired him as the number one candidate for the job I'd like to see of they will back this up by letting him spend big on quality when necessary.

I happen to think this summer is that time as with the way we finished the season added to the changes going on at clubs around us mean this could be the perfect time to spend any extra revenue coming in on players and trusting the man in hs judgement.

Seems to be a huge debate as to whether net spend is a justifiable factor in determining the success of a transfer window. Where do you stand?

No it isn't.

A successful transfer window comes down solely to the quality coming in compared to the quality going out. If you bring in more quality then you let go then it's a successful window - if you can do that with a decent net spend then even better. (not that I give a rat's arse about net spend mind you) If, alternatively, you let more quality leave than you bring in then it's a bad transfer window regardless of net spend.

So far, I'd say it's been successful but mainly due to the "quality" leaving than what's come in as I don't know two of the players who we've signed and one of the others I don't rate. However, even though I don't rate Toure, he is an improvement on Wilson. Mignolet is an improvement on Gulacsi. Alberto has to be an improvement on a distinctly average Shelvey. The only one I'd query is Aspas for Carroll. I always liked Carroll and don't know enough of Aspas to determine whether he's a good replacement.

But in terms of a good window, yeah thus far it has been. With another seven weeks, give or take a day or two, left in this window it's impossible to say for certain right now if it'll end finish as a good or bad transfer window.

No it isn't.

A successful transfer window comes down solely to the quality coming in compared to the quality going out. If you bring in more quality then you let go then it's a successful window - if you can do that with a decent net spend then even better.

Sorry to just pick this out but this is a very interesting statement to me. I don't want to put words in your mouth but would you also be saying then that just because we didn't spend X million pounds doesn't mean we can't look at the windows as successful?

For instance take where we are now, you said it's a been a successful window, but would that still be the case if we only added say one more impact player? In other words are you of the opinion that if we don't have to spend a certain amount then you'd be disappointed?

 It's perfectly straight forward to understand. Every now and then you find a Coutinho for 8 million quid, or a Suarez even for 20 million quid. By and large though, the best players are wanted by the biggest clubs (usually because they are quite good and everyone knows it) and they cost more. If you can't/won't compete for the best players, eventually you won't have the best team.

 Also, a significant factor is wages. It's one thing buying Joe Allen for 15 million and Fabio Borini for 11 million and saying "that's the same as the 26 million Man U paid for Van Persie". Give or take a sheckle or two you'd be right, but Van Persie is on approx. 220K per week whereas Allen and Borini will be lucky if they're on 40K each. Ultimately, most of the time you get what you pay for.

Sorry to just pick this out but this is a very interesting statement to me. I don't want to put words in your mouth but would you also be saying then that just because we didn't spend X million pounds doesn't mean we can't look at the windows as successful?

Yes I would. I don't judge a transfer window based on how much we spent or received. I base it on quality. If other people wanna judge it otherwise that's up to them and if they want to look at a transfer window as a success or failure based on how much is spent then I won't say that they can't. I'd say I wouldn't judge it that way.

For example if people want us to spend 50 million and we blow that on Cavani on one transfer they might see it as a success based solely on the amount we've spent. I would judge it on is Cavani's individual quality worth more than those that we've let go. Alternatively if we instead spent on 5 million on Kone then some might see it as a poor transfer window based on what is spent, I however would still view it as whether or not the individual quality of Kone is worth more to the team than that of what's left in the same window.

For instance take where we are now, you said it's a been a successful window, but would that still be the case if we only added say one more impact player? In other words are you of the opinion that if we don't have to spend a certain amount then you'd be disappointed?

If we don't sell another player and bring only one more in then yes I'd say it's successful in terms of improving the squad. For me that is the aim of every transfer window to improve on what you've got. I don't care for the number of players we buy or the amount we spend if the quality we bring in is greater than what's left.

If we sell ten sh*t players for 20 million but bring in three quality players for 15 million - I'm happy.
If we sell three quality players for 15 million but bring in ten sh*t players for 20 million - I'm unhappy.

Think I tend to think in line with what you are saying. Believe maybe you make the point better than I could. My worry is spending just for the sake of spending but not really getting anything for it.

If you can't/won't compete for the best players, eventually you won't have the best team.

Sorry Mick but that's F***ing bollocks mate.

Player for player United don't have the best team in the League, as a collective team they do.

The best team will win the League. That doesn't necessarily represent the club that has the best players though as if often proven. And the same goes at the other end of the table because in terms of individual quality QPR should of stayed up comfortably yet poor old Southampton should of been relegated by Crimbo. There's more to it than just competing and buying the best players around.

Think I tend to think in line with what you are saying. Believe maybe you make the point better than I could. My worry is spending just for the sake of spending but not really getting anything for it.

The easy answer to it all is either Robbie Keane or Andy Carroll.

People moaned and moaned and moaned and moaned a little more about other clubs having big money transfers to come off the bench. We had that in Keane and Carroll and then people moaned about the money being wasted. That's why I would rather view it as quality rather than transfer fee.

If we sell ten sh*t players for 20 million but bring in three quality players for 15 million - I'm happy.
If we sell three quality players for 15 million but bring in ten sh*t players for 20 million - I'm unhappy.

Well. We've got our "squad" players in.
Three to five weeks our "team" players. (They should have come in first )

Could be a bit of both there DLS.

(They should have come in first )

Wouldn't they need to have been 'available' first?  Maybe talks are talking longer with this set of players?  Or maybe we should just piss and moan for the sake of it.

As of last year, the top ten by net spend:
1. PSG
2. Zenit
3. Chelsea
4. Bayern Munich
5. ManU
6. ManCity
7. Southampton
8. Juventus
9. Barcelona
10. Liverpool

Now that doesn't tally prior years and I'd have to do even more digging to find that out but just on the surface it seems to both confirm and contradict both of us

Laughing my ass off at the contradicts "both of us" bull-sh*te, you sarcastic git.

Apart from the fact that, one year is a pretty pish poor sample to be going on, Southampton's spending (from a very lowly starting position) wasn't done to win trophies/titles but to cement a place amongst the 'elite' and our spend was to try and bridge a gap (which got bigger)... let's look at the rest of your wee list:

#1 P.S.G. = League Champions - Champions League football
#2 Zenit = Runners up - Champions League football
#3 Chelsea = Europa League Winners, Third in league - Champions League football
#4 Bayern Munich = League Champions, European Champions, F.A. Cup winners - Champions League football
#5  ManU = League Champions - Champions League football
#6 ManCity = Runners up - Champions League football
#7 Juventus = League Champions, F.A Cup runners up - Champions League football
#8 Barcelona = League Champions - Champions League football

Contradicts both of us my hole. Offering opinion is one thing; denying the evidence... another. 

I've every hope that we will close the gap slowly and eventually but we must remember that we have started from quite some ways back. The truth is; we will only rise to the top and stay there when we can "compete, with anyone, in the transfer market."  and I mean actually compete not just some Tom Werner lies and bull-sh*t, soundbite. 

If you can't/won't compete for the best players, eventually you won't have the best team.

Without a doubt 'mick - it's very simple really.

 "Eventually" being the operative word - how long that 'demise' will take obviously depends on how quick funding dries up. Would the scum stay at the top without being able to buy top players to sustain an already top team? I doubt it and hopefully we will see soon enough. 

In your example I would assume that Brendan has brought in Aspas because he thinks he can play a role in his team regardless of what the cost was. Without knowing his reasoning it would be impossible to know if he'd have brought in someone different had he as you have assumed had a higher budget. Maybe budget wasn't that important in the decision

Hmm... do you think 'we' would have bought him [Aspas] if he was £27m million? - would we F**k. Same goes for Coutinho: would Liverpool have bought him at £28.5m? - would 'we' F**k... I doubt 'we' would have even looked at either of them and if we had 'we' would have sh*t the bags at the price (regardless if they "can play a role in his team" or not) .

"Maybe budget wasn't that important in the decision"... brilliant... you're on sarcastic fire in this thread FL. 

Hmm... do you think 'we' would have bought him [Aspas] if he was £27m million? - would we f**k. Same goes for Coutinho: would Liverpool have bought him at £28.5m? - would 'we' f**k... I doubt 'we' would have even looked at either of them and if we had 'we' would have sh*t the bags at the price (regardless if they "can play a role in his team" or not) .

"Maybe budget wasn't that important in the decision"... brilliant... you're on sarcastic fire in this thread FL. 

My point that you so deftly managed to circumvent was that had possibly Brendan liked what Aspas brought to the team and would have still bought him even if our budget was twice what it is (whatever that is). Some make the point that we shouldn't be looking at players like Aspas because it shows we don't have enough ambition...because we aren't buying enough 20m players.

I'm not being sarcastic in this thread, so if you think I am I apologize. Geninuely trying to get some insight from folks that know way more about football than I do.

Laughing my ass off at the contradicts "both of us" bull-sh*te, you sarcastic git.

Apart from the fact that, one year is a pretty pish poor sample to be going on, Southampton's spending (from a very lowly starting position) wasn't done to win trophies/titles but to cement a place amongst the 'elite' and our spend was to try and bridge a gap (which got bigger)... let's look at the rest of your wee list:

#1 P.S.G. = League Champions - Champions League football
#2 Zenit = Runners up - Champions League football
#3 Chelsea = Europa League Winners, Third in league - Champions League football
#4 Bayern Munich = League Champions, European Champions, F.A. Cup winners - Champions League football
#5  ManU = League Champions - Champions League football
#6 ManCity = Runners up - Champions League football
#7 Juventus = League Champions, F.A Cup runners up - Champions League football
#8 Barcelona = League Champions - Champions League football

Contradicts both of us my hole. Offering opinion is one thing; denying the evidence... another. 

I don't deem qualifying for Champion's League the ultimate justification, if you are going to spend the kind of money these clubs spend, you should be winning it, not just qualifying.

I'm not being sarcastic in this thread, so if you think I am I apologize.

Ah, so you did think Southampton should have finished higher given their high net spend

Ah, so you did think Southampton should have finished higher given their high net spend

Indeed...nice catch 

I'm not being sarcastic in this thread, so if you think I am I apologize.

Oops my bad but in my defence...

You don't understand sarcasm much do you?

Because I was really serious that Southampton should have finished higher because of their high spend Wow

Bazinga.   

My point that you so deftly managed to circumvent

I circumvented nothing FL.

You wrote "Maybe budget wasn't that important in the decision". I was responding to only that, if you read my post again you'll probably realise this but I'll apologise if it wasn't clear.

So... do you think 'we' would have bought him [Aspas] if he was £27m million or not? Was budget "important in the decision" or not?

I don't deem qualifying for Champion's League the ultimate justification, if you are going to spend the kind of money these clubs spend, you should be winning it, not just qualifying.

Ah... I see... fair enough.

Maybe, then, you should only have googled Champions League winners then checked to see if they sign top players at a premium. 

I guess, tho', it's fair to say you can't win it if you're not in it  and if you don't spend top dollar, for top players, (at some point, at least), you are most definitely NOT going to win it.

The evidence bears witness to this - something that shouldn't be "circumvented" by the way. 

Geninuely trying to get some insight from folks that know way more about football than I do.

Thanks, I'm glad I have helped.

This thread has run it's course as far as I'm concerned. Catch y'all later. 

I don't deem qualifying for Champion's League the ultimate justification, if you are going to spend the kind of money these clubs spend, you should be winning it, not just qualifying.

Well they can't all win it , just the one you know . And if you're not in you can't win so speculate to accumulate and all that . it's what all big business do .

There's Keisuke Honda on the market for less than 2m euro (worth 20m upon transfermarkt), the best option, I guess

There's Keisuke Honda on the market for less than 2m euro (worth 20m upon transfermarkt), the best option, I guess

Also available on a free, if uou don't mind waiting until January.

Well they can't all win it , just the one you know . And if you're not in you can't win so speculate to accumulate and all that . it's what all big business do .

And sometimes when you speculate, you lose your shirt and I'm sure the F.A. won't let us play as skins versus shirts.

Also available on a free, if uou don't mind waiting until January.

I think it's better to secure him for little cash as there could be tough competition for free player in Jan ))

Looking at the sums.

An extra £1.5M from ticket price increases on last year.  An extra £30M (at least) from increased TV money.  Lack of Europa League - lets take that £1.5M back off.

We should be looking at least that £30M + lets say a usual £20M summer budget + some of the wages saved reinvested.

I make that £50M net spend expected before we even consider money from Luis Suarez.

To have spent £2M at this stage makes me wonder where this money is going.

Just re-read JD's opener.

.....and if they are only "squad players " bought in so far.

.....and if we are off on our travels already without the new our shiny new  "team players "

.....and if we believe that Tom Werner talks bullshit to make us happy whilst sacking Kenny.


etc etc etc.

Makes you think.  ....   but I suppose they didnt think we could do  that......  think.





Ooops . Where dat picture come from ?

Hush ma mouth .