Martinez: The Reality

[Allezfan]

That's complete bollocks mate.

Last 2 years lambert spent £28m, martinez has spent £63m

Like how we've gone from net to gross all of a sudden.

 

[evertony]

That is what running a business is about, would you have liked him and the board to pocket the money. You are forgetting the millions from the FA which are going to be a lot less for next season with this league position. The fact is RM had a big chunk of money to spend it does not matter where it came from but upto the manager to spend it wisely.

For heavens sake....I'm just pointing out that the "massive" funds he had were generated from sales. The money for finishing 5th last year would only have covered a couple of players wages. Where on earth did I suggest anything else....pocketing money my arse.

 

[roydo]

Oh great. A Net Spend debate.

 

[Allezfan]

But that is how business is run, buying and selling! you dispose of some assets to finance the purchase of new ones. Add to the sale of players the TV money for spending. The sale of those players did not fund in full the cost of new players.

So a "whopping transfer budget" is less than half the league and funded by selling three first team players?

Come on man, you're just inventing things to make martinez look bad at this point. He did not have unusually good financial backing compared to other managers in this league.

 

[Toffeelover]

He has. Which in that time period puts us behind Villa, Arsenal, Chelsea, Palace, Hull, Leicester, Liverpool, City, United, west brom and west ham.

Martinez is the 12th biggest spender on transfers out of a 20 team league. He's not recieved more money than our rivals and competitors have.

Six players get sold for a total of 40 mill, the board says to the manager here is the 40 mill plus 20 mill from TV so your total to spend is 60 mill ( a net of 20 mill) but the manager has still been given a load of money to spend 60 mill.

 

[Toffeelover]

Oh great. A Net Spend debate.

View attachment 7096

Sorry Roydo, no more posts from me after the last one on this.

 

[nsno-chris]

Like how we've gone from net to gross all of a sudden.

I'm not a kopite mate, I always talk gross but because that's the money you spend, it's been sanctioned to spend by the owner.

Villa have spent £40m less then us

If we sell barkley and stones for £63m but spend £60m on new players, yet villa buy one player for £5m are you saying that there chairman is better off because he's given more net spend???

Behave, he's spent £63m, he got shut of players that he didn't want and we're surplus to requirements, we haven't sold a player to keep a float, he's sold and spent to improve his squad

 

[roydo]

If we sell barkley and stones for £63m but spend £60m on new players, yet villa buy one player for £5m are you saying that there chairman is better off because he's given more net spend???

*sigh*

 

[Allezfan]

I'm not a kopite mate, I always talk gross but because that's the money you spend, it's been sanctioned to spend by the owner.

Villa have spent £40m less then us

If we sell barkley and stones for £63m but spend £60m on new players, yet villa buy one player for £5m are you saying that there chairman is better off because he's given more net spend???

Behave, he's spent £63m, he got shut of players that he didn't want and we're surplus to requirements, we haven't sold a player to keep a float, he's sold and spent to improve his squad

Ok, he's spent 63 million gross.

Spurs have spent 130 gross, Saints 105, Utd & City 200, Rs 160, Hull 65, Chelsea 230, Arsenal 135.

Then Sunderland, newcastle, palace, west, ham and swansea are spending 40-50 million gross.

It's simply not a lot of money for this league. All premier league teams spend that.

 

[nsno-chris]

Ok, he's spent 63 million gross.

Spurs have spent 130 gross, Saints 105, Utd & City 200, Rs 160, Hull 65, Chelsea 230, Arsenal 135.

Then Sunderland, newcastle, palace, west, ham and swansea are spending 40-50 million gross.

It's simply not a lot of money for this league. All premier league teams spend that.

Dont care what the others have spent. You said villa.

We've invested more into the squad than villa. That's just a fact

 

[nsno-chris]

*sigh*

So it's right then.

People use gross spend to hit over the kopites over the head with but won't use it with us.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

Ok, he's spent 63 million gross.

Spurs have spent 130 gross, Saints 105, Utd & City 200, Rs 160, Hull 65, Chelsea 230, Arsenal 135.

Then Sunderland, newcastle, palace, west, ham and swansea are spending 40-50 million gross.

It's simply not a lot of money for this league. All premier league teams spend that.

And, frankly...it was needed. It wasn't like that was spent to top off the squad to actually be able to handle this schedule...it was basically the bare minimum to inject some hope.

 

[Allezfan]

Dont care what the others have spent. You said villa.

We've invested more into the squad than villa. That's just a fact

No we haven't. Their squad cost 93 million in transfer fees, ours cost 70 million.

Fact.

 

[roydo]

So it's right then.

People use gross spend to hit over the kopites over the head with but won't use it with us.

Not arsed whether it is right or wrong mate. Just find it tedious.

 

[nsno-chris]

No we haven't. Their squad cost 93 million in transfer fees, ours cost 70 million.

Fact.

But that's not what you said. You're changing your argument for the sake of it.

You said lambert spent more than martinez in the last 2 years.

He hasn't. That's a fact