Nothing has changed.

[roydo]

Player might be looking to stay desperately but needs the club to not take the piss over wages.

That's another scenario.

Yep, it is. The contract may be unacceptable to him.

We dont know, we may never know, or he might have signed and we dont know.

 

[bluestevon]

A better indicator is the total spent, rather than the Net spend.

a better indication yet is wages spent, but Dave ignored that last time i showed him how it was an actual reflection rather than his weird net spend obsession

 

[Goat]

a better indication yet is wages spent, but Dave ignored that last time i showed him how it was an actual reflection rather than his weird net spend obsession

Excellent point.

Wages and total spent > Net spend

 

[willo30]

a better indication yet is wages spent, but Dave ignored that last time i showed him how it was an actual reflection rather than his weird net spend obsession

An even better indication would be to see how we end up next May, not September when the window shuts.

 

[willo30]

Excellent point.

Wages and total spent > Net spend

Someone mentioned the other day you would have to take into account the amortization value of the players sold as well to get anywhere near a true in vs out net spend. In fact it's an actual minefield when agents fees and wages come into it as well.

 

[Titus Bramble]

Last five seasons net spend:
Liverpool £122M £24.4M
Arsenal £206M £41.2M
Chelsea £206M £41.2M
United £369M £73.8M
City £403M £80.6M

...Spurs £1M...but over last decade £107M

Keep arguing for break even spending. It's called 'preparing to fail'.

Just wanted to bring this up. In bold is the average net spend per year based on the 5 year figure given.

As posted earlier in the thread, net spend for 16/17 was reportedly around £23 million, which would include the sale of Stones.

If these bolder figures are what we should be aiming for, then we're not far off. The Spurs figure btw would be £10.7M. Peanuts in today's money. I'd also question whether Arsenal fans are happy with their spends/return of the last few years

 

[terraloon]

I think that net figure contains the Barnsley money. But whatever if we get less money coming in from a sale then our net spend increases not decreases.[/QUOTE

Whilst these lists are interesting they really only tell part of the story. For instance in Man City's spend for Stones the sum of £47.5 million is shown. In Everton's received that same figure is shown. No where in Barnsleys summary is anything other than the initial transfer fee shown . It s clear that all is ever shown is the original fee.

 

[davek]

A better indicator is the total spent, rather than the Net spend.

That tells nothing of the quality we let go

Net spend cuts to the chase. That's why it's highlighted.

 

[davek]

a better indication yet is wages spent, but Dave ignored that last time i showed him how it was an actual reflection rather than his weird net spend obsession

I didn't ignore it. I stated that top wages and top fees tend to go hand in hand, so what is the point.

 

[Goat]

That tells nothing of the quality we let go

Net spend cuts to the chase. That's why it's highlighted.

Highlighted by morons, theres a reason I have stopped focusing on it the last few years.

In a world which Sky pay clubs 150m a year and clubs are owned by Sovereign States and Billionaires, its an after thought.

As a club we have probably spent more money on Agents in the last 2 years than we have NET in the last 15 years.

 

[davek]

Just wanted to bring this up. In bold is the average net spend per year based on the 5 year figure given.

As posted earlier in the thread, net spend for 16/17 was reportedly around £23 million, which would include the sale of Stones.

If these bolder figures are what we should be aiming for, then we're not far off. The Spurs figure btw would be £10.7M. Peanuts in today's money. I'd also question whether Arsenal fans are happy with their spends/return of the last few years

"Not far off"?!

They all dwarf our net spend from last season and only because LFC were frugal for once did they not well outspend us.

Spurs needed fine tuning after their 2nd spot to Leicester, and the bigger issue was keeping predators from their star players which they achieved, so I'm not surprised they spent only £10M.

 

[Goat]

"Not far off"?!

They all dwarf our net spend from last season and only because LFC were frugal for once did they not well outspend us.

Spurs needed fine tuning after their 2nd spot to Leicester, and the bigger issue was keeping predators from their star players which they achieved, so I'm not surprised they spent only £10M.

 

[SteveSC]

I didn't ignore it. I stated that top wages and top fees tend to go hand in hand, so what is the point.

So are you going to debate, argue and defend your net spend philosophy every week then?

Wouldn't you rather bring it up once and then again when the season starts and the window closes.

It would also have been easier to direct people who missed the previous weeks comments to whichever page they were on.

 

[davek]

Highlighted by morons, theres a reason I have stopped focusing on it the last few years.

In a world which Sky pay clubs 150m a year and clubs are owned by Sovereign States and Billionaires, its an after thought.

As a club we have probably spent more money on Agents in the last 2 years than we have NET in the last 15 years.

Lets's put it this way: if in the last 5 years Arsenal, Spurs, City, Utd and Chelsea had broke even in their spending there would have been a few surprise additions to the top four places those seasons and different names on cups.

 

[EFCccc]

Lets's put it this way: if in the last 5 years Arsenal, Spurs, City, Utd and Chelsea had broke even in their spending there would have been a few surprise additions to the top four places those seasons and different names on cups.

Stop talking rubbish. Nothing your saying is even making sense.