glasgowspur
Andy Thompson
My thoughts too. At least one of our players enjoys mucking around and having a laugh with those kids.
Being single he's probably quite envious and is getting his fix when the chance arises.
My thoughts too. At least one of our players enjoys mucking around and having a laugh with those kids.
I have never been entirely convinced that "net spend" is a great metric to judge a manager on. It is only an indicator of how well you balance your incoming transfer money against out going. So Jurgen Klopp looks like he hasa performed miracles on the net spend but actually he had one great sale and then spent over £200 million on replacements.
I have never been entirely convinced that "net spend" is a great metric to judge a manager on. It is only an indicator of how well you balance your incoming transfer money against out going. So Jurgen Klopp looks like he hasa performed miracles on the net spend but actually he had one great sale and then spent over £200 million on replacements.
Gross Transfer spend and wages paid are better indicators of the squad quality at a manager's disposal. I am sure Poch compares favourably on those metrics too.
The article cited claims that when Sheikh Mansour bought the club (in August 2008) 'City had far more ground to make up than the likes of Liverpool and Tottenham to become a leading contender in the Premier League.'Agree on net spend being flimflam, wages are generally a better gauge of gap.
However a much better view of net spend isn't in one year, take a look at this article https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...ews/truth-man-city-liverpool-net-16267269.amp (basically author looks at net spend of club from time of longest serving player still at club), in that model
- Pool net spend is over 300M
- Chelsea over 340M
- United almost 600M
- City 1.08B
- Scum 266M
- Everton 216M
- Spurs 125M
City, United, Chelsea, Pool show how rigged the game is
I have never been entirely convinced that "net spend" is a great metric to judge a manager on. It is only an indicator of how well you balance your incoming transfer money against out going. So Jurgen Klopp looks like he hasa performed miracles on the net spend but actually he had one great sale and then spent over £200 million on replacements.
Gross Transfer spend and wages paid are better indicators of the squad quality at a manager's disposal. I am sure Poch compares favourably on those metrics too.
Liverpool paying more than City is bonkers.
I can see Ham Salad being on big money, and VVD given they paid £75m for him (not that he's worth it IMO), but that sort of number suggests the whole squad is on silly wages
Pool isn't that well modelled financially, people forget they had massive amounts of debt pre this current owner (last owner got fudged in forced takeover), their wages and spending are extremely high, they have just managed to keep above water due to a few once a decade sales (Suarez, Coutinho) bailing them out. That said United spends more on wages than both Pool and City ..
Judging by the number of babies/young children accompanying the players on their lap of honour on Sunday, I'd say you might be onto something.
It does seem that we've had something of a baby boom within the team over the past couple of years. No wonder they all look knackered.
Net spend over one season can be pretty meaningless, though somewhat informative.Agree on net spend being flimflam, wages are generally a better gauge of gap.
However a much better view of net spend isn't in one year, take a look at this article https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...ews/truth-man-city-liverpool-net-16267269.amp (basically author looks at net spend of club from time of longest serving player still at club), in that model
- Pool net spend is over 300M
- Chelsea over 340M
- United almost 600M
- City 1.08B
- Scum 266M
- Everton 216M
- Spurs 125M
City, United, Chelsea, Pool show how rigged the game is
Isn't balancing incoming and outgoing transfers and getting a better team overall the job of a manager in the transfer market?I have never been entirely convinced that "net spend" is a great metric to judge a manager on. It is only an indicator of how well you balance your incoming transfer money against out going. So Jurgen Klopp looks like he hasa performed miracles on the net spend but actually he had one great sale and then spent over £200 million on replacements.
Gross Transfer spend and wages paid are better indicators of the squad quality at a manager's disposal. I am sure Poch compares favourably on those metrics too.
It does depend who you sell to pocket that big fee. It looks (with a touch of hindsight) that Liverpool rinsed Barca for Coutinho, although an effective player for them, could nicely be covered with existing options. If we sold Kane..that's a big hole. Just talking about how a big sale can fast track an overhaul without net transfer debt building up.Wenger was similar. Selling off players to Man C at ridiculous prices, and the money made on Anelka mask a pretty patchy record.
I think net spend is interesting when put in context. For example, if memory serves, Liverpool are now looking at spending money out of their pocket - having already splurged all the Coutinho money (and then some) - so should we expect them to spend big or not?
Perhaps they will/wont, but the whole net spend thing will be part of what informs that argument.
So Liverpool, big sale, big spending - isnt the same as big gross spending (like City and Utd) - what should we expect?
Look at the flat line from 2013-18...For the 4 years of wage bill figures available since Pochettino became our manager, the cumulative total is...
ManU: £965m
Chelsea: £902m
Emirates Marketing Project: £896m
Pool: £846m
ARSEnal: £809m
Spurs: £476m
Once again emphasising what wonders Pochettino is working to keep us consistently in Top 4, when our rivals have each spent around half a £billion more than him on their squads just up to the start of last season!
View attachment 6654
It does depend who you sell to pocket that big fee. It looks (with a touch of hindsight) that Liverpool rinsed Barca for Coutinho, although an effective player for them, could nicely be covered with existing options. If we sold Kane..that's a big hole. Just talking about how a big sale can fast track an overhaul without net transfer debt building up.
Don't expect Liverpool to spend much...probably expecting more development from Fabinho and Keita ..and the have a few they could sell. ie Henderson, Sturridge to W.Ham. They're probably at the stage that if the right pricey player becomes available they'd go for it. Plus still looking for youngsters.
But Barca haven’t paid the full fee and will recoup most of the cost when they sell him this summerThey covered for Coutinho by going even more direct, I wouldnt say they replaced him really.
But yes, Barca got robbed on that one.
But Barca haven’t paid the full fee and will recoup most of the cost when they sell him this summer