That elite development squad paying off
Transfer Tweets - Summer 2015 | Stop Spamming - Discussion Should Relate to Tweets
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to celebrate rare back-to-back victories for Manchester United! They analyse the late win in the Europa League vs. Rangers and then try and find things to analyse in a pretty dour game vs. Fulham. They also chat about the latest Marcus Rashford news, and look at the latest transfer news.
- Status
That elite development squad paying off
Would definitely take that!
Mostly to get rid of Evans.
According to Telegraph, Manchester United have had no contact from Real Madrid since rejecting an offer for De Gea earlier in the summer.
Shows that perhaps they don't rate DDG as much as he hoped they would. If they cared that much, they'd pay up. Makes you wonder if he'll reconsider wanting to play for them after all this, I mean he probably still will, but that we value him more than Madrid has got to count for something.
Thing is he values Edurne's goal mouth more than ours or Madrid's.
or that they can just sign him for peanuts next season as they have plenty of GK's.
I am getting a bit bored of seeing the phrase "net spend".
why ?
I've never understood the whole "net spend" hate on here. It's a valid term with a significant meaning.
It's when people try and use it as some sort of trophy or something to be really proud of. I don't get it.
I think it's completely logical. If a club spends 50 million and earned 60 million, they've not actually loosened their purse strings at all.
It IS something to be proud of... Our team has been improved significantly with spending how much, 10 million net? It also means we (would) have a lot to spend if needed.
No its not.
Our 'net spend' is low because we sold a player we bought last season at a loss. It's completely meaningless.
But it's not, things like that have to be taken into consideration when talking about money spent.
Erm no it's not.
There's clearly a difference between "money spent" and "money received - money spent"
When discussing transfer policy and budgets in-depth the term is needed.
net spend isn't something to boast about of course, any team holding as some sort of trophy is a joke.
But as previously said being able to upgrade the team without actually losing that much money is always a bonus.
But as previously said being able to upgrade the team without actually losing that much money is always a bonus.
You have a TV which you bought for 20 pounds. You sell it for 15 because you don't like it and buy another TV and and coffee machine for 30. The new TV is nothing special but you like it more and you definitely like your coffee machine. Now, have you spent 50 all together or 15?
Saying it is meaningless is rather strange. Cutting your loss and investing in more/better players is a smart move. The difference we lost on Di Maria is literally just money paid for a loan resulting in a few goals and assists. Net spend is a valid term used to show what amount of money circulates in the club without the need for an injection from non-player related business.
But you may need to sell the first TV to make sure you can afford the second TV
The lack of United rumors have people arguing about net spend. Bloody hell.
Please make that a part payment for Berahino.
I thought this was the Transfer Tweets thread, not a discussion about Bully's Prize Board.
It's just too simplistic.
Over a ten year period then it means more, perhaps, but over the course of the year it doesn't tell you a lot. All it tells us this season, for example, is that we sold Di Maria. A deal that absolutely no one should be congratulating the club over.
It means nothing though except used as an excuse if a team doesn't do well.
Case in point Liverpool where every year they try to make out that they don't spend much because they sell a ton of average shite every year. Like in Rodgers first season where they sold something like 70mil of dead wood and spent 120mil on new players. The dippers were like "we can't expect much different than last year because we have only spent £50mil net spend", er no, you have brought 120mil of NEW players in, getting rid of a load of deadwood doesn't change that.
just because liverpool fans boast about net spend doesn't mean net spend is a useless term.
Come on now.
Well what good is net spend then?, what is it good for?. The only people who should be worried about net spend is the club accountants and Woodward/Glazers.
I think that having a club financially sound is good, it means that the club that I support can be where is for a long time and can even go a little bit crazy if needed.
This is really going to be interesting, isn't he in contract till like 2018 or something.
He has to get his head on and play.
And ever then they won't care about it because they don't view things as simplistically.
Our biggest expense every season is on wages, player deals are amortised over the length of their contracts and the accounting department isn't going to draw arbitrary lines in the sand like fans do so that they can argue over the internet about whether their club has/hasn't spent a great deal of money.
Got to admire a club with the finances of Everton not rolling over for Chelsea and a player who thinks he can sign a contract and then ask to leave. Everton have been through the mill when it comes to how little money their is for the club to spend over the last decade. You have to applaud them for not letting anyone bully them into giving up their players.
I think a large part of this is the way Mourinho and Chelsea have gone about publicly courting the player. It's clearly rubbed Everton up the wrong way.
They've certainly stuck to their guns on this one. I'd be very surprised if it happened now this window.
Must be very close now.
- Status