ArteSuave Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) Sunderland spent their Borini money elsewhere I don't think this is true. They had an offer of £14m accepted and Poyet was still hopeful of completion even after they signed Rodwell for £10m. Edit - And Leicester not having an offer accepted is essentially the same as us not having a contract offer accepted. Edited September 2, 2014 by ArteSuave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Who cares how much we spent? We improved the squad no end. Chelsea spend a relatively low net amount and Man U spent a stupidly high amount. Chelsea signed players on a par with Man U, at a minimum. In summary, Net spend <> success You are absolutely correct it is spend on wages that = success on the pitch. Spend on transfer fees can be a little misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 This Pie chart is meant to be net spends for the different clubs this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 This Pie chart is meant to be net spends for the different clubs this season. *Gross spends 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 2, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 2, 2014 This Pie chart is meant to be net spends for the different clubs this season. I can't see that Liverpool's net spend is that high 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I'd like to see something similar for net spend - more meaningful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I'd like to see something similar for net spend - more meaningful. Why? A team buying one player for 20m and selling five for 20m suggests the team has done poorly, the figures the opposite way suggest they have done well. It isn't always the case. Gross expenditure shows how much has been used for transfers and gives a much better view on how ambitious a team might have been, have they over/under spent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I'd like to see something similar for net spend - more meaningful. A pie chart wouldn't work for the net figures, some clubs made a profit. You can't have a slice of pie with negative mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 And its funny how the Lerner defenders wanted gross spend when we sold Young etc. What has changed? #wespendfuckall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) To be fair, Lerner could buy us Lionel Messi and some posters would still dream up a way to criticise him for it (or conveniently give someone else the credit instead). I think we've had a pretty decent transfer window from what I've seen so far, with the Cleverly deal being a nice dusting of icing on the cake. Our team looks totally different now and we didn't sell Vlaar. Edited September 2, 2014 by Panto_Villan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I found a source for that pie chart thing I posted it's from 'The Metro' "Stoke splashed just £3.4m in the window – the lowest of any side". I guess the figures are just based on reported fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 To be fair, Lerner could buy us Lionel Messi and some posters would still dream up a way to criticise him for it (or conveniently give someone else the credit instead). I seriously doubt this. I just want to make sure that any struggle we may encounter this season isn't entirely blamed on hurr durr Lamberk as usual. I think we've had a pretty decent transfer window from what I've seen so far, with the Cleverly deal being a nice dusting of icing on the cake. Our team looks totally different now and we didn't sell Vlaar. I agree, we've done well in spite of lack of funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 2, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 2, 2014 I'd like to see something similar for net spend - more meaningful. A pie chart wouldn't work for the net figures, some clubs made a profit. You can't have a slice of pie with negative mass. mmm negative mass pie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Fans need to get real we work in a world of three year losses now and ours is huge. If we want to spend more and we all do we have to earn more it's that simple. I hope fox manages this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted September 3, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 3, 2014 Fans need to get real we work in a world of three year losses now and ours is huge. If we want to spend more and we all do we have to earn more it's that simple. I hope fox manages this Winning football fixes this. Unfortunately, this is a "chicken and egg" thing: Can't make money without winning, can't win without first spending money. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Exactly which leads you back to the rules we can't spend more than x to get a winning team so we need to do it without spending what we would like right now. No point moaning about it but if we want to progress we should stop the moaning as it can't change right now and that will help having a united supporter base. I'm all up for selling naming rights to make some cash but i fear even for that we need to be more successful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 So after 4 awful years he decides to sell the club and we follow that up by hiring a good assistant manager, a good CEO, changing the transfer business to allow more experience to be signed and start signing key players to new deals. Has the fact it seems no one is interested in buying the club shocked Lerner into running us properly again? Hopefully if this continues we should more attractive next summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted September 11, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 11, 2014 So after 4 awful years he decides to sell the club and we follow that up by hiring a good assistant manager, a good CEO, changing the transfer business to allow more experience to be signed and start signing key players to new deals. Has the fact it seems no one is interested in buying the club shocked Lerner into running us properly again? Hopefully if this continues we should more attractive next summer. I'd love to credit Randy with all that - but I don't think it was his good decision making: - Lambert would have hired Keane - Our former CEO left, so this decision was forced. And let's face it - any half decent CEO could hardly make the club worse. - Transfer targets are surely left to Lambert. He has ditched the "young and hungry" but the budget hasn't really changed. - We signed key players to deals before (see Benteke) and we still have some coming off contract this year (Vlaar, Delph, and possibly Grealish) so not much has changed there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam3773 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 And remember Fox approached Villa about the job. Not the other way around. I suspect RL couldn't believe his luck, but is continuing to try and sell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted September 11, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 11, 2014 I hear Spuds are up for sale for 1.77 billion. I can't decide whether that makes us look better or worse to a potential owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts