Hahahaha.... True.
The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter baanke laal
- Start date
- Status
Yeah so funny isn't it.
He would've cost at least £30m to sell in the first place even if we weren't selling to January. Could've easily gotten that from a Premier League club or Inter Milan.
Brazil International, only 25 years old, January midseason buy & the typical rich club inflation. More than a fair deal.
He's wank.
If the point was to talk about fair value then there should be a lot more "*".
Mason, Chadli, Townsend, Caulker, Paulinho etc all went for fee's that most European clubs would think are ridiculous. The same is the case for any other club. Why not put *United's net spend includes the underselling of Nani, Hernandez etc.
Fair value is contextual to the position the buying and selling club are in. If we get £50m for Rooney in the Summer then fair play to the board; likewise fair play to Chelsea's for Oscar, Luis, Ramirez, Schurrle etc
Well congrats top of net spend table and bottom of the trophy table well done.
Net spend through transfers is completely irrelevant. Some clubs don't need it because they generate the money to spend elsewhere or have it given to them. Having a good net spend on transfers is not a good thing as it generally requires a high turnover of players or selling your best assets.
lol ... you may as well say that money is irrelevant. In which case United can spend £1 billion net this coming summer and it will affect their finances not one jot.
If they made the money elsewhere it wouldn't. I think those at Manchester United understand how to balance their books a lot better than you. You see football clubs can make money in ways other than through transfers. It's only one column in an account breakdown.
The point is, transfers are just one part of a huge financial pie for a club.
United's true net spend would be zero or negative i.e. the money going out of the club is more than balanced by the money coming in.
That's all the club will care about. And trophies obviously.
Do United fans always act this condescending to all other teams or just Spurs?
It's just Spurs. Our fans don't like a new kid on the block.
Nah, just blame Glaston, we've been sick of him acting all high and mighty like Spurs are a great club despite doing feck all in actually doing anything of note.
The point is you claimed earlier that "Net spend through transfers is completely irrelevant", when obviously it isn't. Now you've back-tracked and acknowledged that it's one column in an account breakdown .... which is progress I suppose.
The rest of your post is a condescending waste of space, as if every football fan going doesn't know that "football clubs can make money in ways other than through transfers".
I acknowledged it in the second sentence of the post you originally quoted. You ignored it.
It's because of Glaston's nonsense. I much prefer Spurs as a club to the rest of the top 6.
In which case the post concerned was a contradictory mess, since net transfer spend can't be both irrelevant and relevant.
Did you even read it? It's irrelevant in the context of the conversation. Spurs net spend is what it is because that's how they need it to be. Utd's isn't important because they have other means.
It seems my "nonsense" this time around consists of pointing out the amazingly low net spend of Spurs compared to the other top 6 clubs. But of course any facts not to the liking of some are labelled "nonsense", and in coming wading the same small band of United posters - we all know who they are - determined to play silly buggers.
I could point outside to the rain and say "it's raining" ... and the same small band of blockheads would try and find something take issue with.
I wish you were right but 'a nothing or pointless club, why do they even exist?' type comments about lower end Premiership clubs and lower league clubs seem common place.
It's obvious he's deliberately being obtuse.
Only an idiot wouldn't realise that net spend is an important stat for a club that has to be fiscally conservative as that's the only way they can improve year on year.
On the flip side it's equally obvious that it's a totally irrelevant yardstick to the biggest clubs in the world. Their fans would see a low net spend as a slap in the face as it'd usually mean the owners are creaming off the top.
That's also a pet hate of mine. Don't get me wrong, there are clubs that I have irrational/rational hatred for but they're hardly pointless clubs.
Its different with Spurs tho. Anything positive about you guys by Spurs posters tends to get argued for no real reason. Glaston doesn't help matters with his posting... Style?
Come on now, some of these clubs are toys where the owners fund them with their own money or are listed companies.
Ah, I see. Having said "Net spend through transfers is completely irrelevant", it now becomes irrelevant in in the context of "the conversation". However, a sum of £400m (United, last 5 years) is not "irrelevant" in any conversation about football finances.
Nor is Spurs' net spend low just because we need it that way. It's also because we've have been remarkably successful in the our scouting, transfer dealings and youth development.
I'm just talking about your usual nonsense which is almost exclusively to point out how magnificent Spurs are and how awful United are. Net spend is the refuge of unsuccessful football clubs. It's what Arsenal fans used to witter on about when they weren't winning things too.
Spurs have been well run but ultimately Utd fans don't care about net spend. They could've had an excellent net spend over the years but that would've involved selling our best players. Fortunately we decided to keep most of them and win things. You're the one who got aggressive because we don't care about transfer net spend.
Only an idiot would try and pretend that £400m is irrelevant to United or other any club. I know it's an effort on your part to try and bang (yet again) the "big club" drum, but frankly it comes over as pathetic.
Well yeah because you're bleating about transfers. Utd don't need a small net spend on transfers because we generate the finances elsewhere. That's been in black and white from the start. Utd have spent too much money on shite. That's not in dispute. That money spent has generated further money however and we still retain some of those as assets. If you want to talk football finance then do it. Don't just spout numbers.
Spurs have the net spend they do because of the huge turnover they have. That is not a good thing. The target should for any club be to sign players and keep them and win things. For Spurs to continue having such a positive net spend you will have to sell players. You're inning out of players that can be sold for big profit without weakening your team. If it's not because they need it that way then why didn't they spend more to strengthen their squad to handle the Champions League?
Not even a years revenue for us
You're massively wrong in your posts on this page, you've essentially said that Utd fans don't care about finances.
Do they care that we have a negative net spend on transfers? I haven't essentially said what you claim. I would say most would rather they spend the money generated on trying to improve the team.
I'm not referring to those clubs. I'm referring to clubs who have a gross profit of €100m+ per season. If that profit isn't ploughed back into the club the fans would be upset and rightly so.
United spending £400m over 5 seasons is no different to Spurs spending nothing on transfers and spending all of their cash flow on their stadium. Both is money spent on the club being successful. The difference is United spent the money on the stadium decades ago, which in turn allowed them to spend money on the squad, which in turn won us trophies, which in turn increased revenue. It's the exact model Spurs hope to replicate, albeit decades later.
Spurs are 30 years behind United and if they manage their club well will likewise be spending the equivalent of £400m on players once they have invested in the bare essentials. That is unless the owner then decides to pocket the money, which would make the fans furious and rightly so.
Last edited:
Another classic about net spend from you: it's "the refuge of unsuccessful football clubs" ... as if having a good scouting, transfer and youth development systems are bad things and blowing lots of cash on overhyped 'galaticos' is something to be proud of.
By the time Spurs get round to having that cash available, £400m will be the price of a squad player
So what. If I buy a car every 5 years that costs 80% of my annual income I don't regard the expenditure as irrelevant. I regard it as a significant outlay.
Yeah I'm not saying that. I'm saying boasting about net spend is the refuge of fans of clubs who haven't won shit. No fans attend open top bus parades to celebrate the balance sheets. I haven't said having good scouting and youth development systems is a bad thing. Utd have had that for many years too. I haven't said blowing cash is something to be proud of either. In short you are talking shite. How you continue to get away with it on the forum is mind blowing.
I have said having a huge turnover of players and not winning things is bad. I've yet to see how you can counter that. And I never will.
You said:
"If they made the money elsewhere it wouldn't. I think those at Manchester United understand how to balance their books a lot better than you. You see football clubs can make money in ways other than through transfers. It's only one column in an account breakdown".
Which along with other posts that you've made implies as long as the club is spending money on players that fans don't care about finances at their football club, you are wrong and Utd fans rightly do care.
And you wouldn't only consider the money made by selling your old car when deciding what to spend.
We don't spend 400m a year though.
It doesn't matter that Spurs haven't won anything in donkeys years because they're winning on net spend.
I've said they don't care about net spend on transfers. Some may do but most won't. Rather than coming up with what you think I imply why not look at what I've actually written? In black and white. When I've specifically said transfer net spend.
Are you suggesting United don't have good systems in place with regards to those?
- Status