Net Spend

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

Our cumulative net spend since Rodgers has been here is now around 20m assuming we've not about to spend a load today, which is highly unlikely. That puts us in the bottom half for spend behind Everton, Leeds, Villa and even Palace.

 

In that time we've sold 2 first teamers and managed to get rid of players on big contracts who aren't contributing to the first team such as Silva, Slimani, Ghezzal, Gray, Diabete and King. In the summer we'll likely see the end of Fuchs and Morgan.

 

Considering the trajectory we're on that's nothing short of remarkable and you can take into account the building of the training ground and a new contract for Rodgers.

 

Going forward if we want to keep progressing and challenge further the short falls of the squad are obvious - we need a striker, but I also think there isn't obvious cover if we were to lose someone as we have had in the past like Maguire or Chilwell.

 

I'm intrigued to see the approach going forward, a lot will depend on whether we make the champions league but I do think there is a danger that club like villa and West ham could catch us up. Our wage bill is no bigger than Palace's really and if we are going to be sustainable we may need to try a different approach. The pandemic changes most things however hopefully the forward outlook is more optimistic.

 

Interested to get people's views on this. 

[ALC Fox]

There was an article in The Athletic  last week comparing us to Leeds, with their owner holding us up as an example to follow as they try to sustainably grow and eventually challenge towards the top end of the table.

 

In that article, there was an acknowledgement that Leeds still have a bigger global reach than us, and that global reach is something that Leicester are working on. Increasing global revenue will be absolutely key to us being able to offer increased wages and attract a different echelon of player. Until then, we'll have to continue on our current path of incredible scouting and developing players who could break into that top bracket of players while at the club. If this continues and we keep challenging and replacing one of the Big Six in the top six of the league, we're going to keep becoming a bigger and bigger draw for players and increase our potential to increasd global revenue. Champions League football, especially making it beyond the group stage, would certainly help.

 

It's a long, long process, and the Big Six have a headstart that they don't want to see eaten up (hence the talk of the European Super League). The financial power of the Premier League has given us a platform to build on, and having great ownership is slowly seeing us become a regularly competitive Premier League side.

 

At the moment, net spend will always have to be relatively low as our model demands it. We need to sell at inflated prices to snap up the next batch of thoroughly scouted players who have the potential to become superstars and worth £80-100m and above.

 

It's working for us and it's allowing us to build. Patience is the key as Top, Susan Whelen, etc. aim to expand our reach globally.

[Le Renard]

Yes the net spend has been poor compared to others, but we've sold players to help finance the new training ground and reinvest in new signings.   I think the owners got their fingers burnt with the Sven era and maybe Silva/Slimani & Musa so I can't blame them for not wanting to chuck money at players a la Everton!  There have been too many shipwrecks with splashing the cash like Leeds, Newcastle, Villa, Sunderland et al.

 

 

Edited 1 February 2021 by Le Renard

[goose2010]

2 minutes ago, Le Renard said:

Yes the net spend has been poor, but we've sold players to help finance the new training ground and reinvest in new signings.   I think the owners got their fingers burnt with the Sven era and maybe Silva/Slimani & Musa so I can't blame them for not wanting to chuck money at players a la Everton!  There have been too many shipwrecks with splashing the cash like Leeds, Newcastle, Villa, Sunderland et al.

 

 

Not sure what you mean by poor? Having a net spend of 20m is incredible seeing where we are in the league / still in the FA Cup / Still in Europa. 

 

Could actually see us being in positive next season as we will more than likely sell someone for massive profit as that seems to be our business model. 

[Vacamion]

1 minute ago, Le Renard said:

Yes the net spend has been poor

 

I don't think low net spend in itself is "poor", it's just a different business model.

 

If you go around spraying money everywhere, eventually you become Everton.

 

I think most of us would prefer the current model to that.

 

 

[Le Renard]

3 minutes ago, goose2010 said:

Not sure what you mean by poor? Having a net spend of 20m is incredible seeing where we are in the league / still in the FA Cup / Still in Europa. 

 

Could actually see us being in positive next season as we will more than likely sell someone for massive profit as that seems to be our business model. 

I meant poor compared to others, it wasn't meant in a negative way.....it is not my money and I think clubs should spend wisely!  If you continued to read afterwards I was supportive of our approach and I don't want us to go down the splash the cash route, it never works...unless you have petro dollars!

[fuchsntf]

I would also, Stop Mentioning the manager/coach..

They are no longer responsible for recruitment....

Recruitment is " The club's responsibility...

A manager might suggest & request positions.!!!

Not forcing the purchase...

[Le Renard]

8 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

I don't think low net spend in itself is "poor", it's just a different business model.

 

If you go around spraying money everywhere, eventually you become Everton.

 

I think most of us would prefer the current model to that.

 

 

If you continued to read my post, instead of reading the headline, then I said I don't think it was wise to go down the Everton approach or Leeds, Sunderland, Villa & Newcastle of years gone by!

[kiwiturk]

I think, we need an establish a global marketing team for more international exposure.

Merchandise sales and football academies are way to go In today's world, the children's are the most valuable consumers . We are as a parents,  dictated by them when it comes to shopping or purchases 

For example, I live in Australia and so far I saw many football jerseys( believe or not including West Brom😂) in malls or recreational centres but didn't came across a single kids or adults wearing Foxes t-shirt yet. Thats a worry.

We do need to stop being a shire football team and sail into the world to embrace globalisation.

 

 

Edited 1 February 2021 by kiwiturk

[5waller5]

6 minutes ago, Le Renard said:

If you continued to read my post, instead of reading the headline, then I said I don't think it was wise to go down the Everton approach or Leeds, Sunderland, Villa & Newcastle of years gone by!

Maybe he’s confused by the word “poor” as it’s not clear what you mean?

[Raw Dykes]

10 minutes ago, Le Renard said:

I meant poor compared to others, it wasn't meant in a negative way.....it is not my money and I think clubs should spend wisely!  If you continued to read afterwards I was supportive of our approach and I don't want us to go down the splash the cash route, it never works...unless you have petro dollars!

The word 'poor' does have negative connotations, though, wouldn't you say?

[goose2010]

20 minutes ago, Le Renard said:

I meant poor compared to others, it wasn't meant in a negative way.....it is not my money and I think clubs should spend wisely!  If you continued to read afterwards I was supportive of our approach and I don't want us to go down the splash the cash route, it never works...unless you have petro dollars!

just seemed an odd way to start the post really but yeah i see what you are saying. 

 

upsetting the apple cart and showing other clubs you dont need a massive net spend to compete with the top teams is fantastic and it will be a business model all clubs that need to should follow. 

[Le Renard]

9 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

The word 'poor' does have negative connotations, though, wouldn't you say?

Although I did use the word BUT which usually signifies that there is a counter argument and a reason to why we haven't splashed the cash. 

Edited 1 February 2021 by Le Renard

[jeffschlupp]

1 hour ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Our wage bill is no bigger than Palace's really

Per the GSSS our first-team wage bill is 16% higher than Palace's. That doesn't include the fact they will have shipped out Meyer, Benteke and Sakho (three of their highest earners) by the summer, plus Townsend and others.

 

The club did not get free money from KPI for the training ground. £91m in a six-year facility that started in the summer of 2019 - they will be way on their way to paying that back at an average rate of £15m+ a season. Never mind the fact it went over budget and was completed 6 months late.

 

In fact, KPI don't invest directly at all and haven't done since they wiped the club's debts, except with sponsorship deals. There is a different argument to be had about the value of KPI's sponsorships, I agree.

 

But let's be real, in 2018-19 we made £28m in commercial revenue. The 'big six' in financial terms make at least £100m a season, but also all of them except Arsenal have finished in the top four at least a couple of times in the last few years - we took £90m+ for making the quarter-finals, so you can see the value. Even when they don't finish in the top four, it's rare that one of them isn't in Europe full stop, where they can still make £20-30m in prize money. When one of them does (Arsenal) you see the financial impact it has had there - a loan from the Bank of England sums it up. Look at Everton who make huge losses every year which are financed by Moshiri, and they are still no better off than we are.

 

LCFC are an extremely well run club off the pitch now, and that is led from the top with Whelan. They tried short-term investment in playing staff under Sven and it didn't work - I recall there are quotes from Vichai where he says that was a useful lesson for Top in business. What they've done now is look to the long-term: sign young, hungry players on big contracts, a manager with a track record of getting the best out of them (and another before him), and investment in facilities to boot. There is no other viable option.

[Raw Dykes]

1 hour ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Our cumulative net spend since Rodgers has been here is now around 20m assuming we've not about to spend a load today, which is highly unlikely. That puts us in the bottom half for spend behind Everton, Leeds, Villa and even Palace.

 

In that time we've sold 2 first teamers and managed to get rid of players on big contracts who aren't contributing to the first team such as Silva, Slimani, Ghezzal, Gray, Diabete and King. In the summer we'll likely see the end of Fuchs and Morgan.

 

Considering the trajectory we're on that's nothing short of remarkable and you can take into account the building of the training ground and a new contract for Rodgers.

 

Going forward if we want to keep progressing and challenge further the short falls of the squad are obvious - we need a striker, but I also think there isn't obvious cover if we were to lose someone as we have had in the past like Maguire or Chilwell.

 

I'm intrigued to see the approach going forward, a lot will depend on whether we make the champions league but I do think there is a danger that club like villa and West ham could catch us up. Our wage bill is no bigger than Palace's really and if we are going to be sustainable we may need to try a different approach. The pandemic changes most things however hopefully the forward outlook is more optimistic.

 

Interested to get people's views on this. 

Just an FYI - Ghezzal is still our player. We are finally getting on top of the deadwood problem, though, I agree. I think it's only RG and Matty James left.

 

I can't work out what you mean by, "I also think there isn't obvious cover if we were to lose someone as we have had in the past like Maguire or Chilwell." Could you clarify this, please?

 

Really, it is incredible to see how we're doing. We're mixing it up with the big boys, and we've done it with a modest budget. We've done it without unlimited funds like Chelsea and Man City used to get to the top. Huge credit should go to the club. It's an unprecedented achievement, at least in the modern era.

 

Re: getting caught up by a club like Villa or West Ham. Could happen, but I'm not too worried. If it does, it may only be temporarily. I think we have some very clever people working behind the scenes who give us the edge over the competition. We're progressing all the time. We're cutting the wage bill considerably, without affecting the playing squad whatsoever. We've now got a state-of-the-art training ground which should help attract senior and junior players, and backroom staff, who were once beyond our reach. We're planning to expand the stadium, which will bring in some extra income, and also increase our perceived standing in the football world, which should allow us to cast our net even further. Has there ever been a better time to be a fan of the club?

 

The pandemic might slow us down for a bit, but it affects every club to some degree.

[Fox92]

58 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

I would also, Stop Mentioning the manager/coach..

They are no longer responsible for recruitment....

Recruitment is " The club's responsibility...

A manager might suggest & request positions.!!!

Not forcing the purchase...

It depends. 

 

I've been reading this month's 442 magazine, with Nigel Pearson in it, and he said that Steve Walsh used to come to him with names of players but after that Pearson would watch the player and decide if it was worth buying/bidding. 

 

Some clubs will still be set up where managers have the overall say.

 

Then also, of course, the manager is the manager so at the end of the day he takes the blame or the plaudits. 

Edited 1 February 2021 by Fox92

[Raw Dykes]

21 minutes ago, Le Renard said:

Although I did use the word BUT which usually signifies that there is a counter argument and a reason to why we haven't splashed the cash. 

I know you weren't having a dig at the club. I think we agree that spending more isn't necessarily better than spending less. You can blow 100s of millions on rubbish, or you can pick up all the best Bosmans for nowt. I'm just saying I think the word 'poor' is what caused the confusion.

[Raw Dykes]

Just now, Fox92 said:

It depends. 

 

I've just been reading this month's 442 magazine, with Nigel Pearson in it, and he said that Steve Walsh used to come to him with names of players but after that Pearson would watch the player and decide if he was worth buying. 

Agreed. There was an article the other day about our current strategy. IIRC, Rodgers, Congerton and Rudkin have a meeting about what the squad needs, then Congerton goes to the scouts to write up a shortlist of the top 3 targets for any identified position. Then Rudkin tries to get one in, starting with the no.1 target, of course. I'd link it if I could find it.

 

I think there are some clubs whose manager isn't involved in transfers, and others who are heavily involved. There's probably clubs who trust their manager with transfers more or less than previous managers they've had, as well, based on their previous record.

 

I think the manager's involvement in transfers varies a lot from club to club.

[fuchsntf]

6 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

Agreed. There was an article the other day about our current strategy. IIRC, Rodgers, Congerton and Rudkin have a meeting about what the squad needs, then Congerton goes to the scouts to write up a shortlist of the top 3 targets for any identified position. Then Rudkin tries to get one in, starting with the no.1 target, of course. I'd link it if I could find it.

 

I think there are some clubs whose manager isn't involved in transfers, and others who are heavily involved. There's probably clubs who trust their manager with transfers more or less than previous managers they've had, as well, based on their previous record.

 

I think the manager's involvement in transfers varies a lot from club to club.

No matter where responsibility lie....Für Club aus to agree with the price, then the Hardest Part is reeling them in...

[Ian Nacho]

 

[jim5000]

What is the assumption that Leeds have a bigger global audience than us? Is it because they were a big club 25 years ago?

[Ian Nacho]

1 minute ago, jim5000 said:

What is the assumption that Leeds have a bigger global audience than us? Is it because they were a big club 25 years ago?

Probably because they do. Let’s be honest. 

[jim5000]

Just now, Ian Nacho said:

Probably because they do. Let’s be honest. 

Based on what though? They might be seen as the bigger club in the UK as football fans here know their history more, but globally? We have been a far bigger story over the past 5 years. Leeds have been outside the top division for almost two decades, who outside the UK has been following them?

 

 

Edited 1 February 2021 by jim5000

[Bert]

We’re doing just fine without spunking loads of cash. 

[jim5000]

6 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

Agreed. There was an article the other day about our current strategy. IIRC, Rodgers, Congerton and Rudkin have a meeting about what the squad needs, then Congerton goes to the scouts to write up a shortlist of the top 3 targets for any identified position. Then Rudkin tries to get one in, starting with the no.1 target, of course. I'd link it if I could find it.

 

I think there are some clubs whose manager isn't involved in transfers, and others who are heavily involved. There's probably clubs who trust their manager with transfers more or less than previous managers they've had, as well, based on their previous record.

 

I think the manager's involvement in transfers varies a lot from club to club.

Rodgers was clearly involved in the signing of Perez, it’s the only explanation for his continual involvement