Nothing has changed.

[Badge1878]

Net spend isn't the arbitrary issue, what matters is success on the pitch and trophies.

Clubs try to achieve this differently based on their individual circumstances. Chelsea have a model of collecting young players players and moving them on, Spurs are building a new ground, the London factor is a huge draw for three of the alleged top six.

City are backed by a sovereign state financial vehicle, United are floated on the NYSE and monster every off field commercial activity, Liverpool are, well let's say Liverpool.

To say net spend in splendid isolation is the definitive defining factor in achieving success - as defined by trophies as opposed to a huge bank balance - and is too narrow as a barometer.

It's certainly a contributory factor, but focussing on it as the sole instrument to deliver success on the field? Not for me.

 

[EFCccc]

Nothing has changed yet we have just signed the Ajax captain. We have just signed one of the most talented goal keepers in the england for £30m. And we have just beaten of the likes of Juventus for Sandro!!. Who gives a crap about net spend after 2 windows.

 

[davek]

Net spend isn't the arbitrary issue, what matters is success on the pitch and trophies.

Clubs try to achieve this differently based on their individual circumstances. Chelsea have a model of collecting young players players and moving them on, Spurs are building a new ground, the London factor is a huge draw for three of the alleged top six.

City are backed by a sovereign state financial vehicle, United are floated on the NYSE and monster every off field commercial activity, Liverpool are, well let's say Liverpool.

To say net spend in splendid isolation is the definitive defining factor in achieving success - as defined by trophies as opposed to a huge bank balance - and is too narrow as a barometer.

It's certainly a contributory factor, but focussing on it as the sole instrument to deliver success on the field? Not for me.

Our 'model' is to have low net spends and we haven't won an egg cup for 22 years.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Our 'model' is to have low net spends and we haven't won an egg cup for 22 years.

Indeed, however, it's got to be done right changing the model. Wonder how many Leeds or Blackburn fans wish for our position?

 

[The binman chronicles]

Our 'model' is to have low net spends and we haven't won an egg cup for 22 years.

We've only just been taken over Dave, you can't say what the model is yet and comparing it to when we didn't have a pot to pee in doesn't help. We obviously have more than we used to, (but you will counter that is due to the increase in TV money) just be happy that we have been able to make some waves in the transfer market. If that is funded by sales so be it as long as we get better as a team.

We would have to pay way more to gain the services of players that are a small percent better than what we have now. If people like Sanchez want getting on for 300k a week at Arsenal what do you think they'll want to come to Everton? Answer is doesn't matter as they won't come. You can't get to the top of the stairs without first stepping on some of the other steps first.

 

[davek]

We've only just been taken over Dave, you can't say what the model is yet and comparing it to when we didn't have a pot to pee in doesn't help. We obviously have more than we used to, (but you will counter that is due to the increase in TV money) just be happy that we have been able to make some waves in the transfer market. If that is funded by sales so be it as long as we get better as a team.

We would have to pay way more to gain the services of players that are a small percent better than what we have now. If people like Sanchez want getting on for 300k a week at Arsenal what do you think they'll want to come to Everton? Answer is doesn't matter as they won't come. You can't get to the top of the stairs without first stepping on some of the other steps first.

John Stones for almost £50M
Lukaku for probably closer to £90M

That is the major source of investment into this squad.

Tell yourself things have changed if you like.

 

[willo30]

Lukaku hasn't gone yet and we have spent almost £90m since January.

 

[The binman chronicles]

John Stones for almost £50M
Lukaku for probably closer to £90M

That is the major source of investment into this squad.

Tell yourself things have changed if you like.

You are missing the point. Yes the sales could be the thing funding our dealings (not saying we don't have cash to spend though) but if we make the squad better and therefore get improved results then happy days. We could spend the Lukaku money plus 100 million more and there would be little difference to the team, we would just have 4 more McCarthy type players. It might mean the bench is a bit stronger but we would lose out on trying to grow younger players to get profits that will really push us on. If we were in the CL and spent 100 million more then we would see a markedly improved side from that investment.

All I want to see is a turnover of players where year on year we are upgrading the weakest areas. I don't care if that costs 10M, 50M, 20p or we have made millions off the back of it.

 

[terraloon]

Lukaku hasn't gone yet and we have spent almost £90m since January.

Or it hasn't been announced that he has gone more to the point is going. its possible that the same applies to RB

The rumours have been that Rom is off to Chelsea and Ross to Spurs.

As I pointed out on another thread it is the norm nowadays for signings to be announced with a classic picture of the player adorning his new clubs shirt.

Both Chelsea and Spurs new shirt deals will kick in on 1 July, the very same day as you can officially sign a player as opposed to saying you are signing them.

Another poster said there is no way that a club would delay a signing to appease a sponsor yet to me there is every possibility they would do just that.

Agreements could easily be in place to sell the two players and on that basis it's not just possible but highly likely that the proceeds are being spent . It's possible that there really is a big pot of gold to spend but I am far from sure for as they say action is louder than words and the signings over the last two windows have been financed from sells & increased TV money.

 

[willo30]

Or it hasn't been announced that he has gone more to the point is going. its possible that the same applies to RB

The rumours have been that Rom is off to Chelsea and Ross to Spurs.

As I pointed out on another thread it is the norm nowadays for signings to be announced with a classic picture of the player adorning his new clubs shirt.

Both Chelsea and Spurs new shirt deals will kick in on 1 July, the very same day as you can officially sign a player as opposed to saying you are signing them.

Another poster said there is no way that a club would delay a signing to appease a sponsor yet to me there is every possibility they would do just that.

Agreements could easily be in place to sell the two players and on that basis it's not just possible but highly likely that the proceeds are being spent . It's possible that there really is a big pot of gold to spend but I am far from sure for as they say action is louder than words and the signings over the last two windows have been financed from sells & increased TV money.

Yes I know he is going but it is not us selling him to raise funds it is the player wanting to go, same with Ross. What are the club meant to do in these circumstances? Make sure we spend all the money plus more just to please the net spend brigade? It just seems to me that some peoples definition of success as a club is by what we spend and not what we do on the pitch. All this nothing has changed group are so wrong as in we now have a top manager with a better scouting network which if you think about it should enable us to become better for less.

 

[DualityNSNO]

Reckon we should get Sandro but instead of paying 5m as per his contract release clause we should pay 75m just so we have a bigger net spend.

 

[hallamblue]

If Moshiri hadn't taken a stake do you really think the council would have done that deal over Bramley Moore?

 

[The binman chronicles]

If Moshiri hadn't taken a stake do you really think the council would have done that deal over Bramley Moore?

I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall if Bill had gone to the council to suggest doing that. There is something contagious about uncontrollable laughter.

 

[davek]

You are missing the point. Yes the sales could be the thing funding our dealings (not saying we don't have cash to spend though) but if we make the squad better and therefore get improved results then happy days. We could spend the Lukaku money plus 100 million more and there would be little difference to the team, we would just have 4 more McCarthy type players. It might mean the bench is a bit stronger but we would lose out on trying to grow younger players to get profits that will really push us on. If we were in the CL and spent 100 million more then we would see a markedly improved side from that investment.

All I want to see is a turnover of players where year on year we are upgrading the weakest areas. I don't care if that costs 10M, 50M, 20p or we have made millions off the back of it.

Im not missing the point mate, you are.

Generally speaking spending big brings you success. Recycling cash generally doesn't.

That's about the top and bottom of it. History tells us that.

 

[fandjango]

Im not missing the point mate, you are.

Generally speaking spending big brings you success. Recycling cash generally doesn't.

That's about the top and bottom of it. History tells us that.

Ask Leeds United the value of spending big