Net Spend vs. Player Quality

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