Net Spend vs. Player Quality

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