United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Manchester United > Football
Closed Thread
 
Unread 17-01-2018, 11:22 PM
atticusgrinch
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S/Side.Red
The other forms of income are not being ignored. They are the very reason we have a financial advantage.

Complaining about City’s spending was bad enough. Now we are saying Everton are a financial rival
So net spend is a completely pointless metric? Quite apart from the cost of players being amortised over the length of their contracts, what is the difference between a club selling a player for £100m and a club getting £100m from a sponsorship deal?

Why is one used to justify spending money on players and the other isn't?

I'm not sure anyone is saying Everton are a financial rival - merely that they have spent a large amount of money on players. Surely the source of the money is irrelevant to the outlay?
 
Unread 17-01-2018, 11:38 PM
S/Side.Red
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusgrinch
So net spend is a completely pointless metric? Quite apart from the cost of players being amortised over the length of their contracts, what is the difference between a club selling a player for £100m and a club getting £100m from a sponsorship deal?

Why is one used to justify spending money on players and the other isn't?

I'm not sure anyone is saying Everton are a financial rival - merely that they have spent a large amount of money on players. Surely the source of the money is irrelevant to the outlay?
No it’s not irrelevant. They were forced to sell their best players, for whom they got huge fees, and have reinvested that money. That’s entirely different from having a £100m annual budget to add to players already at your disposal.

I can’t believe this is really being argued tbh. It’s like suggesting someone who sells half their belongings and their car to buy a new car, is enjoying the same lifestyle as someone who can afford to just add that car to their collection without batting an eyelid. They both bought the car, so money is money.

Southampton will probably drop £75m on players this summer. We can complain if it doesn’t get compared to us etc
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 12:03 AM
atticusgrinch
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S/Side.Red
No it’s not irrelevant. They were forced to sell their best players, for whom they got huge fees, and have reinvested that money. That’s entirely different from having a £100m annual budget to add to players already at your disposal.

I can’t believe this is really being argued tbh. It’s like suggesting someone who sells half their belongings and their car to buy a new car, is enjoying the same lifestyle as someone who can afford to just add that car to their collection without batting an eyelid. They both bought the car, so money is money.

Southampton will probably drop £75m on players this summer. We can complain if it doesn’t get compared to us etc
Exactly!

They both spent the same on a car. How they funded the purchase is completely irrelevant to them buying the car when the issue raised is how much they spent buying a car.

When you're talking about how they funded the purchase of the car you're talking about something else.
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 12:06 AM
S/Side.Red
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusgrinch
Exactly!

They both spent the same on a car. How they funded the purchase is completely irrelevant to them buying the car when the issue raised is how much they spent buying a car.

When you're talking about how they funded the purchase of the car you're talking about something else.
Yes, and what you’re talking about is the answer to the query about why they aren’t viewed the same.
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 12:11 AM
sa7
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusgrinch
Exactly!

They both spent the same on a car. How they funded the purchase is completely irrelevant to them buying the car when the issue raised is how much they spent buying a car.

When you're talking about how they funded the purchase of the car you're talking about something else.
What sort of car are we talking?
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 01:09 AM
Part 36 Offer
 
Default

Good signing. Have met Walcott - really nice lad.
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 08:39 AM
Gypsum Fantastic
 
Default

£#%&!in ell. Isn't Grinch supposed to be some kind of solicitor? Imagining a kind of Lionel Hutz character
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 09:04 AM
My Name is Keith
 
Default

Not sure how you can’t be with siders on this one

Everton have sold their best players to buy new players. We generally don’t need to do that so we don’t need to weaken the team to strengthen it again. What sparky is implying by saying that it’s still money spent on the team is utterly ludicrous
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 09:22 AM
atticusgrinch
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S/Side.Red
Yes, and what you’re talking about is the answer to the query about why they aren’t viewed the same.
But what i'm saying is it is a completely pointless arbitrary metric if you want to go beyond what transfer fee was paid.

What period does net spend encompass? A year? Financial year? A transfer window?

Does it include wages? Bonuses? Signing on fees? Image rights? Tax breaks? Conditional payments based on performance? Payments staggered over the length of a contract? Aren't they just as - if not more relevant?

It's absolute %@#$&!s made up by some lunatic on RAWK to justify why they haven't won the league for 30 years.
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 09:28 AM
shenwen
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusgrinch
But what i'm saying is it is a completely pointless arbitrary metric if you want to go beyond what transfer fee was paid.

What period does net spend encompass? A year? Financial year? A transfer window?

Does it include wages? Bonuses? Signing on fees? Image rights? Tax breaks? Conditional payments based on performance? Payments staggered over the length of a contract? Aren't they just as - if not more relevant?

It's absolute %@#$&!s made up by some lunatic on RAWK to justify why they haven't won the league for 30 years.
I have no idea the ins and outs of the net spend argument but that last sentence sounds about right
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 09:30 AM
Lazlo Panaflex
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by My Name is Keith
Not sure how you can’t be with siders on this one

Everton have sold their best players to buy new players. We generally don’t need to do that so we don’t need to weaken the team to strengthen it again. What sparky is implying by saying that it’s still money spent on the team is utterly ludicrous
exactly.

it's bizarre.
 
Unread 18-01-2018, 10:35 AM
Clarkie
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsum Fantastic
f***in ell. Isn't Grinch supposed to be some kind of solicitor? Imagining a kind of Lionel Hutz character


Speaking of which...


Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: If Theo Walcott signs for Everton
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Everton negotiating Walcott transfer 20 times Football 21 12-01-2018 08:02 PM
Theo Walcott, cheeky bid? saffers Football 65 18-01-2013 11:42 PM
Theo walcott for £10million £#%&! KFC Football 132 12-12-2012 10:33 PM
Walcott's autobiography taff Football 26 17-08-2011 01:26 PM
Evra and Walcott wee man Football 16 26-04-2009 07:19 AM
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:50 PM.
Copyright ©2006 - 2024 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.