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?