Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [8th - 12th September 2017]

[sigma]

When It's utd spending big it's based on gross yet it's the net value when City spend big nobody seems to bat an eyelid at the amount Abramavich threw into Chelski and bought trophies.

My point was that the headline figures this year seem to be glossed over. Not just on here either, the anti-united agenda is strongly felt everywhere! It's good to finally shut these people up but I do find it funny how they don't mention City. I guess City haven't dominated like Utd did. I mean didn't city have 9 minutes of ET earlier this season? And they scored in the 99th? Fergie time y0.

Anyway I wasn't expecting such an uproar.

 

[sigma]

Why do people even care about this? Winning whilst spending from revenue generated is better?

The Spanish are up in arms @ City & PSG aren't they, it's a very topical subject.

 

[BaZ87]

When It's utd spending big it's based on gross yet it's the net value when City spend big nobody seems to bat an eyelid at the amount Abramavich threw into Chelski and bought trophies.

My point was that the headline figures this year seem to be glossed over. Not just on here either, the anti-united agenda is strongly felt everywhere! It's good to finally shut these people up but I do find it funny how they don't mention City. I guess City haven't dominated like Utd did. I mean didn't city have 9 minutes of ET earlier this season? And they scored in the 99th? Fergie time y0.

Anyway I wasn't expecting such an uproar.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence (net spend has always been the key measure when looking at how much a club spent) but nobody batted an eyelid at Abrahmovic's spending at Chelsea? There was probably more hysteria around Chelsea's spending around 2004-2008 than there has been around City or even PSG's spending now.

I really don't understand your point re City either. This forum aside, simply because we have no City supporters, there's been more talk around City's spending this summer than any other PL side. Heck, even on this forum we had 101 posts commenting on City spending £130m odd on fullbacks.

The Spanish are up in arms @ City & PSG aren't they, it's a very topical subject.

They're up in arms at the fact that Barca and Real's dominance is under threat. This is the very reason why FFP was introduced - UEFA initially spoke about financial measures to prevent debt but the historical 'big clubs' weren't bothered about that, they wanted protection from your Chelsea's, City's and PSG's and that was when FFP was designed to stop these clubs.

 

[sigma]

It must be my MUFC bias

 

[Shamikebab]

One method of making money has no bearing on the strength of your squad, the other clearly does. City lost 8 senior players from their squad last season - that's not including players that were out on loan that were subsequently sold, even though that's only a delayed effect (from a transfer spend pov) on their squad rather than no effect.

I'll ask again, are you expecting Brighton to challenge for the title seeing as their spend to turnover ratio is probably around the same as Utd's?

So City made over £10m selling Unal, a player who has never played for them. How did that weaken their squad exactly? City and Chelsea hoarding players, sending them out on endless loans then selling them on is no different to United signing trade deals. it's just a form of making money.

You're just being silly, obviously I'm comparing the top clubs, pointless bringing Brighton into it.

 

[sigma]

**Sings Glory, Glory Man United**

 

[BaZ87]

So City made over £10m selling Unal, a player who has never played for them. How did that weaken their squad exactly? City and Chelsea hoarding players, sending them out on endless loans then selling them on is no different to United signing trade deals. it's just a form of making money.

You're just being silly, obviously I'm comparing the top clubs, pointless bringing Brighton into it.

City sign Unal, there squad improves. City decide to loan out Unal, their squad is weakened. Unal is subsequently sold, they receive the money for weakening their squad a season before. Whether a player plays a game or not, the cost of signing them is factored into the cost of assembling or improving their squad. You're picking out 1 player that City made money on without playing but what about the ones that played and they lost money on? That's part and parcel of transfer dealings. And as I said, City lost 8 senior players from their squad last season - before they can improve they needed to replace them.

The cost (net outlay) on assembling and improving your squad is the only way you can measure expectations on what a club should be capable of.

I'm not being silly, I'm using an example to prove a point. Your spend to revenue ratio is only important when looking at affordability. It has zero bearing on expectations. If Utd, City or whoever else sign a £100m shirt deal tomorrow their expectations on performance is suddenly going to go down because they're making more money? Your point makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Shamikebab]

Right, City lost 8 first team players. Four of them for no money. So if everything is about net transfer spending, why is their loss not important? if everything is about the money then their loss had no impact right?

By your logic the guy that has never played for them has infinitely more value than the four guys they lost for no money that were actually part of the squad.

 

[BaZ87]

Right, City lost 8 first team players. Four of them for no money. So if everything is about net transfer spending, why is their loss not important? if everything is about the money then their loss had no impact right?

By your logic the guy that has never played for them has infinitely more value than the four guys they lost for no money that were actually part of the squad.

You chose to ignore the part of my post below? Buying and selling players for profits or losses is part and parcel of transfer dealings - you'll make money on some and you'll lose money on some. The end result of all that buying and selling is the only figure that matters - that's the amount you've been given to build or improve your squad.

but what about the ones that played and they lost money on? That's part and parcel of transfer dealings.

 

[Shamikebab]

So if Unal had left on a loan again this season instead of going permanently then City's expectations would be higher as their net spend would be higher? Is that what you're saying? United are missing two players for half the season with injury, has that changed our expectations?

 

[BaZ87]

So if Unal had left on a loan again this season instead of going permanently then City's expectations would be higher as their net spend would be higher? Is that what you're saying? United are missing two players for half the season with injury, has that changed our expectations?

The net outlay of building a squad is the way you measure the expectations on a club - that's what I'm saying. If a side decides to loan out a player rather than keep them then that's their decision - they've chose to weaken their squad in the hope of gaining in another way. So yes, if City had a squad available to them that had cost £410m as opposed to £400m (for example) then you'd expect ever so slightly more from them.

As for Utd's injuries - that's obviously something you'd access at the end of the season. If you've been incredibly unlucky with injuries over the course of the season then that would be something used to mitigate any under performance. If you can tell me now that Utd will have more, less or the same number & severity of injuries to any other club then good luck to you.

 

[Shamikebab]

Do you realise how little that makes sense You've literally just said that the expectations on City would be higher (because their net spend would be higher) if City had loaned out rather than selling him. A player that has never played for them and either way he wouldn't be playing for them this season.

Think there might be a slight flaw in your net spend = expectation argument Baz...

 

[BaZ87]

Do you realise how little that makes sense You've literally just said that the expectations on City would be higher (because their net spend would be higher) if City had loaned out rather than selling him. A player that has never played for them and either way he wouldn't be playing for them this season.

Think there might be a slight flaw in your net spend = expectation argument Baz...

No, you've misunderstood the point. If a club has £400m worth of players available to them and choose to loan £100m worth of them out then that should not change the expectations on them - the club/manager has chosen to weaken his squad (in order to gain something else or make gains later) rather than not been able to afford those players.

It's the same principle as Klopp & Sakho last season. Liverpool chose to weaken themselves by loaning him out - Klopp obviously had his reasons for doing so but it was ultimately his choice and he was accountable for that decision. Wilfully loaning a player out which you could have used is not the same as selling a player.

edit: Another example, which you touched on earlier, would be Chelsea having 10001 players out on loan while Conte's reportedly unhappy about the squad he has available to him. If Chelsea have chose to focus a proportion of their money on their loan army at the expense of their first team, that shouldn't be lessen the expectations on them - they've still had those resources available to them, they've just made the decision to focus them elsewhere for other reasons.

 

[Shamikebab]

Oh I see, so if they choose to loan them out it doesn't lower their expectation. But if they choose to sell them it does lower their expectation. For some reason. And of course this all counts even if the player had never played for the club and wasn't going to.

So Monaco have a lot of expectation on them this season then!

 

[BaZ87]

Oh I see, so if they choose to loan them out it doesn't lower their expectation. But if they choose to sell them it does lower their expectation. For some reason. And of course this all counts even if the player had never played for the club and wasn't going to.

So Monaco have a lot of expectation on them this season then!

Shami come on, you're not stupid.

If I give you £400m to spend on a squad and a wage budget of £250m per year and you choose to spend £100m & £20m of your wage budget on players that you loan out then that is your decision - why should I expect any less from you because you spent it on youth players that you've loaned out, hoping to gain in the future? You've still had that £400m + £250m pa available to you.

Clubs will spend the funds available to them differently. Some clubs will try to buy every promising youngster around in the hope that 1 or 2 will make it and a few they can sell on, others will focus it purely on their first team. They've taken that decision themselves though and are accountable for their decisions - ultimately they had x available to them and could have spent it differently.

Your spend to revenue point is total nonsense and the fact that you've not been able to answer every question I've asked regarding it shows that it's nonsense. You can only judge the expectations of a club or manager by how much money that has been made available to them - how they spend it is their decision but if they've had it available to them then they're expectations are based on that.

Anyway, we've gone massively off topic here and I've got a thumping head ache so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Shamikebab]

Ah the old agree with my side or you're stupid. Of course, I'm entirely convinced now Baz.

 

[BaZ87]

Ah the old agree with my side or you're stupid. Of course, I'm entirely convinced now Baz.

LOL, you know that's not what I meant and I didn't ask you to agree but you were clearly intentionally (because I know you're not stupid) ignoring parts of my post in an attempt to make a point.

 

[Shamikebab]

I wasn't intentionally ignoring them, merely pointing out that your strict net spend = expectations system has a lot of flaws and doesn't hold up to real world examination.

 

[BaZ87]

I wasn't intentionally ignoring them, merely pointing out that your strict net spend = expectations system has a lot of flaws and doesn't hold up to real world examination.

Obviously there will be other, smaller variables (you mention the possibility of huge injury problems for example) but as a general rule, the actual money a club spends on their playing squad is the clearest indicator to how a side should perform.

Really this time, I'm going to bed. If you want we can call it a draw.....but I'm going through on away goals.

 

[Gustov]

Obviously there will be other, smaller variables (you mention the possibility of huge injury problems for example) but as a general rule, the actual money a club spends on their playing squad is the clearest indicator to how a side should perform.

Really this time, I'm going to bed. If you want we can call it a draw.....but I'm going through on away goals.

In your dreams.

lololololololololololololololololololololol