The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned

Will Spurs finish in top 4 in the upcoming season?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
GlastonSpur said:
As I've explained, negative net-spend monies don't disappear just because player costs are amortised over the period of their contracts. They remain a key factor.
Click to expand...

The point remains that clubs do not track 'net spend' and so it is not a key factor. If it were a key factor do you not think they would track it ?

You really need to stop picking arguments as you're not very good at it. Maybe try reading more and posting less. Persistence appears to be your biggest attribute.

You can now have the last word as I won't be responding again.
 
acnumber9 said:
There's one from a few days. You don't even know why they would be considered to finish above Spurs.
Click to expand...
He would either ignore this post, or twist the quote bizarrely in order to prove that you're wrong. Might call you out on your reading comprehension skills too or accuse you of nit-picking.
 
GlastonSpur said:
So net spend is a very key item. Of course clubs have large income from other sources besides player sales. And if that other income is very large, then a large net spend on players can be sustained for a long time, but not indefinitely, year after year without end.
Click to expand...
Real Madrid have the largest net-spend for the past 15 years or so in the running & they are in no mood to divert from this policy anytime soon. With their annual revenue increasing each year (like Manchester United & Barca), how long before you see them go bust, crash & burn? You persistently predict the same for United, so there should be a threshold for Real Madrid too.
 
jungledrums said:
Of course the fee is important, but you don't look at it in regard to net spend, as the article highlighted.
Also, you said that if a club is continuously selling for less than they are buying, then it is "unsustainable". I have to disagree. You said it yourself, there are many ways clubs generate income. Selling players is not a primary form of income for a club like United. If total club revenue is higher than expenditure, it is sustainable.
Click to expand...

I was talking about large annual net spends. If they continue year after year without end then eventually the point is reached where the gap between (a) money coming in each year from instalment-payments for players sold and (b) the money amortised each year on the costs of players in the squad ... will become so large that it exceeds the annual income from all sources.

At that point, unless a club borrows money to cover the shortfall (which is only a short-term solution), the process becomes unsustainable.

The only exception is if a club's total income endlessly grows without limit (and at a rapid clip, to offset football-price inflation in terms of player fees and wages), which in practice is impossible.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I was talking about large annual net spends. If they continue year after year without end then eventually the point is reached where the gap between (a) money coming in each year from instalment-payments for players sold and (b) the money amortised each year on the costs of players in the squad ... will become so large that it exceeds the annual income from all sources.

At that point, unless a club borrows money to cover the shortfall (which is only a short-term solution), the process becomes unsustainable.

The only exception is if a club's total income endlessly grows without limit (and at a rapid clip, to offset football-price inflation in terms of player fees and wages), which in practice is impossible.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe you understand this all better than those who sanction the deals?
 
acnumber9 said:
There's one from a few days. You don't even know why they would be considered to finish above Spurs.
Click to expand...

Yes, and so? We've finished above Liverpool for most of the past recent seasons because we've had the better and/or more settled squad and/or lately because we have Pochettino ... not because we finished above them the season before - that's an effect not a cause. IMO that will remain the case this season, but of course like any prediction it can be wrong.

And by the same token, United won't finish above Liverpool just because you have in most of the recent seasons. Now Liverpool have a better manager than before, who'll be in charge for the whole season not just part of it, and will have the benefit of being with his squad for a pre-season (again unlike before), whilst United continue to chop and change. However, United too have a better manager than before and you are also adding to your squad.

So IMO it's 50/50 between you as to who will finish the higher, tho' I may revise my view by the time the windows closes.
 
acnumber9 said:
Do you really believe you understand this all better than those who sanction the deals?
Click to expand...
His theory has so many loopholes. For example according to his logic, a player's price+wages should be distributed across the duration of his contract. He is conveniently ignoring the fact:

a) When the player is let go halfway through the contract, those wages are not a financial burden anymore. Also, the money recovered from his sales, does not matter how less it is.
b) The rate of growth in annual revenue of the top 4-5 clubs every year, when compared to purchase+wages leaves a better picture every passing year due to money coming in football.
 
acnumber9 said:
Do you really believe you understand this all better than those who sanction the deals?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that United are about to go bust. I am saying that very large net spends are not indefinitely sustainable, year after year without end. I'm sure those who sanction the deals understand this too.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm not saying that United are about to go bust. I am saying that very large net spends are not indefinitely sustainable, year after year without end. I'm sure those who sanction the deals understand this too.
Click to expand...

But United always make a profit, they don't have to break even through selling players.

They have the financial power to operate at a loss in terms of transfer payments for the foreseeable future, and always have done for as long as I can remember.

Maybe I've missed a bit of this conversation, but what you just said makes no sense at all. We're not buying Pogba using a loan we took out with HSBC, or on finance, like us mere mortals might do if we wanted a new car.

As long as we don't start spending more than we make we'll be fine.
 
Polite Poster said:
The point remains that clubs do not track 'net spend' and so it is not a key factor. If it were a key factor do you not think they would track it ?

You really need to stop picking arguments as you're not very good at it. Maybe try reading more and posting less. Persistence appears to be your biggest attribute.

You can now have the last word as I won't be responding again.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken. Clubs do track net spend. They just don't track it under that headline label. But all spending and all income is eventually accounted for according to the conventions and laws governing such accounts. It's pure illusion to imagine otherwise. The monies don't involved just disappear.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Yes, and so? We've finished above Liverpool for most of the past recent seasons because we've had the better and/or more settled squad and/or lately because we have Pochettino ... not because we finished above them the season before - that's an effect not a cause. IMO that will remain the case this season, but of course like any prediction it can be wrong.

And by the same token, United won't finish above Liverpool just because you have in most of the recent seasons. Now Liverpool have a better manager than before, who'll be in charge for the whole season not just part of it, and will have the benefit of being with his squad for a pre-season (again unlike before), whilst United continue to chop and change. However, United too have a better manager than before and you are also adding to your squad.

So IMO it's 50/50 between you as to who will finish the higher, tho' I may revise my view by the time the windows closes.
Click to expand...
Surely the cause also applies to Utd then?

It's not really 50/50 though. You're just weighting it that way. Utd have a better squad than Liverpool too. We also have a manager with a proven track record in the league. Liverpool don't. There's as much chance of Liverpool finishing above Spurs as there is of them finishing above Utd. An objective way to look at it would be to consider bookies odds.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm not saying that United are about to go bust. I am saying that very large net spends are not indefinitely sustainable, year after year without end. I'm sure those who sanction the deals understand this too.
Click to expand...
What is it you're trying to say then? Utd don't need to operate the way Spurs do and don't aim to. The comparison is literally pointless.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Yes, and so? We've finished above Liverpool for most of the past recent seasons because we've had the better and/or more settled squad and/or lately because we have Pochettino ... not because we finished above them the season before - that's an effect not a cause. IMO that will remain the case this season, but of course like any prediction it can be wrong.

And by the same token, United won't finish above Liverpool just because you have in most of the recent seasons. Now Liverpool have a better manager than before, who'll be in charge for the whole season not just part of it, and will have the benefit of being with his squad for a pre-season (again unlike before), whilst United continue to chop and change. However, United too have a better manager than before and you are also adding to your squad.

So IMO it's 50/50 between you as to who will finish the higher, tho' I may revise my view by the time the windows closes.
Click to expand...

United have added 3 players to the squad (Ibra, Mkhi, Bailly) with a 4th likely on the way (Pogba). They have loaned out Varela, let Powell and Valdes leave and will look to move on from players who have failed to deliver for the squad or loan out younger players unlikely to warrant consistent minutes such as Januzaj, Pereira and maybe Fosuh-Mensah. So far besides the managerial change which was necessary given LVG's somewhat scatterbrained approach to the transfer market and squad selection and is likely to be an upgrade given Mourinho's overall successful stints as a manager everywhere he's been.

Either way there isn't exactly a whole lot of chopping and changing of the squad that's happened or seems likely to and certainly not of players that were positive contributors to United over the last 2 seasons.

Liverpool have probably had more overall turnover in the squad this summer than United as a matter of fact so this notion that United are churning the squad completely or even drastically is nonsense especially given the focus on areas of need for a team that struggled to score at all and defend when matches opened at RW (Mkhi), ST (Ibra), dynamic CM (Pogba likely) and CB competition (Bailly).
 
Crimson King said:
But United always make a profit, they don't have to break even through selling players.

They have the financial power to operate at a loss in terms of transfer payments for the foreseeable future, and always have done for as long as I can remember.

Maybe I've missed a bit of this conversation, but what you just said makes no sense at all. We're not buying Pogba using a loan we took out with HSBC, or on finance, like us mere mortals might do if we wanted a new car.

As long as we don't start spending more than we make we'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly so. But I've not been talking with reference to just Pogba, and nor have I been talking about short periods of making a loss in terms of transfer payments, or even long periods where that loss is fairly small.

Instead, I've been talking about a situation in which large net spends continue year after year, and saying that eventually this would become unsustainable. United's net spend has rocketed since Fergie retired. Such a process can continue for a while, but not forever, regardless of your large income.
 
acnumber9 said:
What is it you're trying to say then? Utd don't need to operate the way Spurs do and don't aim to. The comparison is literally pointless.
Click to expand...

I'm simply saying that very large net spends are not indefinitely sustainable, year after year without end, not for any club. And I'm saying this because I was told earlier in this thread that net spend is irrelevant or unimportant, and I disagree with this notion.

This has nothing to do with the way that Spurs operate or don't operate. It applies to all clubs.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Yes, exactly so. But I've not been talking with reference to just Pogba, and nor have I been talking about short periods of making a loss in terms of transfer payments, or even long periods where that loss is fairly small.

Instead, I've been talking about a situation in which large net spends continue year after year, and saying that eventually this would become unsustainable. United's net spend has rocketed since Fergie retired. Such a process can continue for a while, but not forever, regardless of your large income.
Click to expand...
Well... no, not if the income is larger than the large net spend. Or are you saying the opposite?
 
baanke laal said:
His theory has so many loopholes. For example according to his logic, a player's price+wages should be distributed across the duration of his contract. He is conveniently ignoring the fact:

a) When the player is let go halfway through the contract, those wages are not a financial burden anymore. Also, the money recovered from his sales, does not matter how less it is.
b) The rate of growth in annual revenue of the top 4-5 clubs every year, when compared to purchase+wages leaves a better picture every passing year due to money coming in football.
Click to expand...

It's not 'my logic'. It's what actually happens in accounting terms, as explained in the article cited originally.

(a) The 1st sentence is true. However, in a situation of large net spend, which usually means large fees for incoming players, it's more than likely that overall the incoming payers will get higher wages than the outgoing players were on. So the likely outcome will usually be a net increase in costs.

The 2nd sentence is absurd ... you don't think it matter how much player is sold for? Does money grow on trees then?

(b) A club's income doesn't necessarily increase every year (United's fell in the last published annual accounts). But in in any case, I've already shown that endless large net spends, year after year, will inevitably lead at some point to unsustainability.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Well... no, not if the income is larger than the large net spend. Or are you saying the opposite?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that even if income can currently cope with large net spends, it's not possible for income to cope with endless, annual large net spends. At some point it eventually becomes unsustainable. See post #816 as to why.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm simply saying that very large net spends are not indefinitely sustainable, year after year without end, not for any club. And I'm saying this because I was told earlier in this thread that net spend is irrelevant or unimportant, and I disagree with this notion.

This has nothing to do with the way that Spurs operate or don't operate. It applies to all clubs.
Click to expand...
But you're relating it solely to transfers. It doesn't matter if Utd don't sell players for a single penny if the money comes from elsewhere. Which is something our club is good at.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm saying that even if income can currently cope with large net spends, it's not possible for income to cope with endless, annual large net spends. At some point it eventually becomes unsustainable. See post #816 as to why.
Click to expand...

What is that point though?

It's all hypothetical, but on revenues of £500m per annum, United could support £100m of spending every year without blinking.

It's not going to happen for a variety of other reasons, chiefly that we shouldn't need to and there are a very limited number of players actually worth spending big on, but the club's income would not be a factor.

The great irony is that in terms of financials, Spurs are in a far more precarious situation than United currently. Any financial analyst would support that view.
 
Alli is overrated
He looked awful at the Euro's
I don't see anything special about him game and don't get the Gerrard comparisons at all...he is nowhere near him talent wise
 
GlastonSpur said:
Yes, exactly so. But I've not been talking with reference to just Pogba, and nor have I been talking about short periods of making a loss in terms of transfer payments, or even long periods where that loss is fairly small.

Instead, I've been talking about a situation in which large net spends continue year after year, and saying that eventually this would become unsustainable. United's net spend has rocketed since Fergie retired. Such a process can continue for a while, but not forever, regardless of your large income.
Click to expand...

But I'm fairly sure the income from the growth in the commercial side of things has rocketed too. I don't follow these things as much as some people do, but signing commercial deals for everything from noodles to showercaps seems to have boosted the coffers significantly.

Plus the Glazer debt spectre everyone used to bash us with doesn't seem to be an issue any more.

There was even an info graphic going about showing how the Pogba deal will supposedly be a smaller percentage of overall revenue than the Ferdinand deal was, despite potentially costing us nearly four times as much.

If this revenue started to drop off dramatically then yes you'd be right, something would have to give. However, until then our large net spending can continue because the club isn't yet running at a loss. Money made from transfers isn't a big part of the financial outlook for the richest clubs.

I doubt it'll always be this way anyway. We're playing catch-up after years of under investment towards the end of Sir Alex's reign.

Also, what is going on in this thread? The season hasn't even started and there's like 20 odd pages of people trying to predict where certain clubs will be decades into the future. It's supposed to be the thread for THIS coming season.
 
acnumber9 said:
But you're relating it solely to transfers. It doesn't matter if Utd don't sell players for a single penny if the money comes from elsewhere. Which is something our club is good at.
Click to expand...

Well yes, that's what the term net spend is usually taken as referring to.

Of course you have a large income which can currently cover the recent and continuing large net spend. But if a large net spend were to continue each year without pause, then eventually your income would not be able to cover this.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Well yes, that's what the term net spend is usually taken as referring to.

Of course you have a large income which can currently cover the recent and continuing large net spend. But if a large net spend were to continue each year without pause, then eventually your income would not be able to cover this.
Click to expand...
Makes no sense at all, except if our income was to decrease drastically.

Do you think our income will drop?
 
sammyvine said:
Alli is overrated
He looked awful at the Euro's
I don't see anything special about him game and don't get the Gerrard comparisons at all...he is nowhere near him talent wise
Click to expand...



I could say exactly the same thing about Pogba, Ibrahimovic, Lewandowski, Muller, Alaba and more. Better, more established players than Alli failed to deliver, some of which played in much better sides. It's incredibly unfair to judge a player on the basis of his England performances, the National Team is a mess from top to bottom.

As for not seeing anything special about him, I'm going to guess you really haven't seen much then. Unless you consider 10 goals and 9 assists in the league at the age of 19, without taking set pieces, not very special. If you can't see anything special in Alli, I have to wonder what players you do see something special in? Because he conjures up some sublime moments, most notably his Palace goal which was absolutely world-class.

As for him being overrated, well that's your opinion and fair enough. He probably is a little overhyped, due to being English. As for the Gerrard comparison, that's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Of course he's not nowhere near him talent wise, even Gerrard himself said that Alli is ahead of where he was at 19.
 
Last edited:
GlastonSpur said:
Well yes, that's what the term net spend is usually taken as referring to.

Of course you have a large income which can currently cover the recent and continuing large net spend. But if a large net spend were to continue each year without pause, then eventually your income would not be able to cover this.
Click to expand...
But as has been pointed out it doesn't matter a jot. The only thing that matters to a business is incomings and outgoings.

A large net spend each year is only going to be a problem if it exceeds your outgoings which you aren't addressing. Obviously spending more than you earn will lead to financial problems. That's not what Utd are doing though.
 
We'veGotDeleAlli said:
I could say exactly the same thing about Pogba, Ibrahimovic, Lewandowski, Muller, Alaba and more. Better, more established players than Alli failed to deliver at all. It's incredibly unfair to judge a player on the basis of his England performances, the National Team is a mess from top to bottom.

As for not seeing anything special about him, I'm going to guess you really haven't seen much then. Unless you consider 10 goals and 9 assists in the league at the age of 19, without taking set pieces, not very special. If you can't see anything special in Alli, I have to wonder what players you do see something special in? Because he conjures up some sublime moments, most notably his Palace goal which was absolutely world-class.

As for him being overrated, well that's your opinion and fair enough. He probably is a little overhyped, due to being English. As for the Gerrard comparison, that's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Of course he's not nowhere near him talent wise, even Gerrard himself said that Alli is ahead of where he was at 19.
Click to expand...
I've watched him many times. His stats are good but so are many other PL players like Ramsey for example.

He's not an amazing passer, not quick, not great defensively why is he so rated?
Pogba is a player who hasn't proven as much as his hype suggests but you can see the talent. Fantastic passer, dribbler and has a decent shot on him. Also has that unpredictability that special players have.

I guess I may be wrong though because you obviously watch him more than me
 
sammyvine said:
I've watched him many times. His stats are good but so are many other PL players like Ramsey for example.

He's not an amazing passer, not quick, not great defensively why is he so rated?
Pogba is a player who hasn't proven as much as his hype suggests but you can see the talent. Fantastic passer, dribbler and has a decent shot on him. Also has that unpredictability that special players have.

I guess I may be wrong though because you obviously watch him more than me
Click to expand...

Ramsey last season had 5 goals and 4 assists. Anyway, he's a very decent player too, not to mention a lot older.

He's not a brilliant short passer and gives away possession too easily, but that can be attributed to his age and rawness. His killer passes though, are absolutely brilliant. Not great defensively? He's a lot better defensively than other players in his position. In fact, he makes more interceptions and clearances per game than Pogba and the same amount of tackles, despite playing further forward for most of the season.

He's also one of the best in the league at picking the ball up and driving at the defence. He can beat men for fun with his dribbling and strength, and as for his pace...he's far from slow. Then there's the simple fact he scores some brilliant goals, whether it's the jaw dropping moment against Palace or the delicate little chip against Stoke. He's such an accomplished finisher for somebody of his age.

That's why he's so rated. His stats are exceptional for a 19 year old, how many players at his age come in to the Premier League at 19 and produce similar numbers?

I'm not somebody who thinks Alli is perfect. In fact, he's still got a lot to work on. As I mentioned earlier, he gives the ball away too often and sometimes drifts in games a bit too much. He's also not some of kind of messiah who is guaranteed to be a world class player, like any talent of his age he could struggle to build on a brilliant first season.

The talent though, is clearly there. I'm surprised you haven't seen it, even with the limited amount of games you have seen him in. He consistently produces moments of brilliance.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Yes, exactly so. But I've not been talking with reference to just Pogba, and nor have I been talking about short periods of making a loss in terms of transfer payments, or even long periods where that loss is fairly small.

Instead, I've been talking about a situation in which large net spends continue year after year, and saying that eventually this would become unsustainable. United's net spend has rocketed since Fergie retired. Such a process can continue for a while, but not forever, regardless of your large income.
Click to expand...
The subject of a "large net spend" is very subjective. For United, that figure could be 250 mil while for Spurs it could be 60 mil. So you cannot just look at an amount and say it is an unsustainable net spend without considering which club is spending it.
 
theyneverlearn said:
Makes no sense at all, except if our income was to decrease drastically.

Do you think our income will drop?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think your income will drop, at least not in the foreseeable future. But in terms of endless large net spend it'd be a question of accumulating cost aggregates, year-on-year, so your income would not need to drop to make it all unaffordable quite quickly.

Anyhow, I think I'll leave it here and let the subject slide back to Spurs.
 
baanke laal said:
For example according to his logic, a player's price+wages should be distributed across the duration of
Click to expand...

I don't want to address the overall argument but the bolded part is exactly how club's accounting works. They distribute the transfer fee + wages over the course of his contract. If he gets sold before the contract is up, the wages go off the books but the transfer fee is still spread out as that is how the accounting works. There was an article linked here last week that explained this exact issue. Or just spend time reading Swiss Ramble.
 
GlastonSpur said:
No, I don't think your income will drop, at least not in the foreseeable future. But in terms of endless large net spend it'd be a question of accumulating cost aggregates, year-on-year, so your income would not need to drop to make it all unaffordable quite quickly.

Anyhow, I think I'll leave it here and let the subject slide back to Spurs.
Click to expand...
That's fine, cheers for the reasoned response.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I don't want to address the overall argument but the bolded part is exactly how club's accounting works. They distribute the transfer fee + wages over the course of his contract. If he gets sold before the contract is up, the wages go off the books but the transfer fee is still spread out as that is how the accounting works. There was an article linked here last week that explained this exact issue. Or just spend time reading Swiss Ramble.
Click to expand...
Isn't that just for FFP though?
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm not saying that United are about to go bust. I am saying that very large net spends are not indefinitely sustainable, year after year without end.
Click to expand...

You have to quantify this "very large" since what is very large is relative. And like pointed out net transfer spend is irrelevant to how clubs do business.

If United is making a "very large" sums on the commercial side that grow every year,they can afford very large net spends on transfers. I'm not even sure what there is to argue.
 
cyberman said:
At the same time Barca are due to pay Liverpool their last installment for Suarez. He's only heading into his third season at the club.
Click to expand...
Different thing. They could pay last installment and still spread out the accounting over the whole contract on their internal books.
 
sammyvine said:
Alli is overrated
He looked awful at the Euro's
I don't see anything special about him game and don't get the Gerrard comparisons at all...he is nowhere near him talent wise
Click to expand...

You judging him based on 4/5 matches in the Euros in which most English players were rubbish or over a full premiership season where he was generally regarded as one of the best young talents in the league?
 
Looks like the Boufal links are back up and running. I do hope for Spurs sake they get him. I think they will definitely need a few more additions.
 
Any Spurs fans on here watching the Inter game? I don't usually pay much attention to pre-season, but since this one is so close to the start of the season, thought I'd give it a watch.

Not a penalty, but we should have had one when Kane was bundled over. Vorm should have saved the equaliser and Lamela's goal was just :drool: could be set for a brilliant season for him. He started to look like the player we paid 30m for last season, could this season be the one where he really hits his stride?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.