Net Spend

[KingsX]

1 hour 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?

 

1 hour ago, Ian Nacho said:

Probably because they do. Let’s be honest. 

 

LCFC: 7th among PL clubs in global Twitter followers, with nearly 7 million.  Leeds: 17th, with a little under 700,000.

 

That's an order of magnitude difference, a hell of a lot of ground to make up.

 

I don't think a club can gain a huge following in Asia or Africa (certainly outside Commonwealth countries) unless it is consistently producing in the here and now.  Leeds (like LCFC) would have to become something more than a consistent mid-table club.

[jayfox26]

I'm not sure why people would be surprised by this. The reason our net spend is lower than most teams in the league is because the likes of Palace dont sell players for £80m. Our recruitment has  been fantastic hence why we buy gems for cheap and sell players for mega money. However, if we want to continue fighting at the top end of the table, there will come a time where we need to spend a bit more. We all know we will potentially need to spend big on a striker and unless we get any massive offers for our players in the summer, I dont see us selling anyone. If we make champs league I dont think we will sell anyone this summer but its going to be a big ask for us to make champs league in my opinion. 

[honeybradger]

Big money players tend to be underwhelming and come with fat contracts that are hard to offload if the player doesnt work out. Would much rather sign players like justin, soyuncu, ricardo etc that are undervalued like we are doing now.

[Analysethis]

Net spend means little when you have the squad we have. Its not like we are going without!! This is the best squad Leicester City have ever had imo.

 

Yes we need a striker but that has been the way for a while now. I think BR thinks we have enough with Kelechi, Ayoze and Vards. I have no doubt we will be making moves in the summer for Vards replacement but a lot will depend on where we end up.

 

There is no point in adding to the current group if it will not be significantly improves so lets crack on as we have been and look forward to the summer,

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

4 hours ago, Analysethis said:

Net spend means little when you have the squad we have. Its not like we are going without!! This is the best squad Leicester City have ever had imo.

 

Yes we need a striker but that has been the way for a while now. I think BR thinks we have enough with Kelechi, Ayoze and Vards. I have no doubt we will be making moves in the summer for Vards replacement but a lot will depend on where we end up.

 

There is no point in adding to the current group if it will not be significantly improves so lets crack on as we have been and look forward to the summer,

A year ago today we lined up with kasper, Ricardo, chilwell, Evans, cags, youri, madders, Barnes, perez and vardy.....tomorrow night we could line up with 9 of those players if we wanted to despite 5 injuries. The squad is better than last year definitely, it's just the amount of games and the fact we're going to have to de-priorotise the fa Cup or the europa.

[Guest SO1]

20 hours 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?

Only thing I know about Leeds.

[RonnieTodger]

The whole Net Spend argument is nonsense. 

 

It's like people don't want their clubs to be self sufficient.

[coolhandfox]

27 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

The whole Net Spend argument is nonsense. 

 

It's like people don't want their clubs to be self sufficient.

I think people would like to have a owner like Abramovich willing to pump in his own money, I'm not saying this is the right idea.

 

Just that people see we have a billionaire and expect us to spend a little more.

 

Its going to be incredibly difficult to compete continually with a lower net spend the half of the league. 

 

Edited 2 February 2021 by coolhandfox

[Guest Basildon Fox]

On 01/02/2021 at 08:10, ALC Fox said:

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.

Not sure this is true now though.  15 years ago yes but if you look at social media follows etc we are way ahead of them.  I think the problem is that most journalists and pundits while allowing for Man City to come in, still see the Prem as if it were the 1995-2005 as that was a lot of their era.  They do not seem to like change which is why for the next few years we will still be ignored. They are desperate for Leeds to be back where they were once more so the equalibrium for them can return.

 

The problem with that is that buy banging the same big 6 drum and other clubs from the past they are signalling the death knell of football.  When the "big 6" leave for a Euro super league because of the pedestal they have put them on inflates their egos to new levels it will be the end of a lot of people supporting football.  I know a number of fans of other teams who say the same including Man Utd, Arsenal and Spurs fans.  Again I am not too sure the owners of these clubs care so much about the fans these days.  The followers of these clubs are far more important to them as they are the ones who would delight in the new league and the World TV deals would initially be huge.

Edited 2 February 2021 by Zaphod Beeblebrox

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

I think people would like to have a owner like Abramovich willing to pump in his own money, I'm not saying this is the right idea.

 

Just that people see we have a billionaire and expect us to spend a little more.

 

Then people are missing the true majesty of what we achieved, what we have become.
 

As against the backdrop of what is essentially a financial doped opposition towards the top end of the table, we stand out as an outlier. Now I have stated this elsewhere, but will reiterate that the sweetness of our victories is beyond the palate of the traditional big 6 fans, they support clubs in possession of riches we may aspire to, but will never achieve in the short term. 
 

This has meant the results of our craft and endeavour has brought about a high those clubs fans cannot conceive of, let alone hope to sample.

[Saxondale]

Blowing loads of cash on players rarely works. When you look at the big, big spenders, most of them have had more misses than hits. 

 

 

Edited 2 February 2021 by Saxondale
Correction

[UHDrive]

Net spend is all well and good but it should maybe be brought up when we have a squad injury catastrophe or have a player like Fofana come up at the last minute and hes a player that too good to pass up and one the manager is adamant we need.

 

The only other net spend problems are progressive squad development transfers.

 

Nb. I've been known myself to harp on about spending money and sometimes it's a personal opinion I'll stand by and if it isnt that it's because I've still yet to learn the detailed workings!!

[turlo]

Would be interesting to see what our baseline transfer budget will be before player sales and additional income from European football are factored in. 

[Heymister2015]

I think going forward Edouard and under! And then raid the free market for Thauvin and Otavio. No need to be reckless with transfer fees. But I expect we’ll not go for under. Which is a shame when you need 3 quality wingers which the amount of games we have. 

[UHDrive]

4 minutes ago, Heymister2015 said:

I think going forward Edouard and under! And then raid the free market for Thauvin and Otavio. No need to be reckless with transfer fees. But I expect we’ll not go for under. Which is a shame when you need 3 quality wingers which the amount of games we have. 

Unders injuries haven't done him any favours at a time when he should've been training with the first team and integrating into our style. I think he has was it takes but I'm not sure the club will sanction it now given the loan fee we've already paid.

[Babylon]

3 hours ago, RonnieTodger said:

The whole Net Spend argument is nonsense. 

 

It's like people don't want their clubs to be self sufficient.

It's equally nonsensical when we've just opened a £100m training complex and are one of the biggest spenders outside the "big" clubs. We purposely choose to invest in wages and infrastructure and not just playing squad in terms of fees. 

[norwichfox]

Just how many nets do we need to see us through the season...including training and cup games? Surely our net spend will go up with the advent of so many training pitches now...

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

It's equally nonsensical when we've just opened a £100m training complex and are one of the biggest spenders outside the "big" clubs. We purposely choose to invest in wages and infrastructure and not just playing squad in terms of fees. 

We aren’t on nett spend (whatever you think about the number it’s relevant but we have spent on infrastructure instead)

 

wages we are 9th I think below Everton and west ham

 

i expect villa will be spending more within a couple seasons as their squad’s contracts become renewed

 

[Jobyfox]

I think one of the key measures of our ability to compete with others financially is our percentage of player wages in comparison to our turnover. Ours was one of the highest in the league at something like 85% (from memory).

 

The turnover of the rich six is in a different league to the other teams in the PL. That’s why they can blow the others out of the water with transfer fees and the wages, whilst still having a lower percentage of wages v turnover. 
 

It’s a vicious spiral really. We can only increase turnover if we regularly finish top six. We can only finish top six if we invest in players and pay big wages. We can only pay big wages if we increase turnover.

 

That’s why we keep selling players to redress the balance, but whether we can continue to do that long term will require continued shrewdness in the transfer market.

 

(The team who fall foul the most in terms of wage spending beyond their means are Everton. I can’t see how they can sustain their spending without CL qualification very soon) 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

We aren’t on nett spend (whatever you think about the number it’s relevant but we have spent on infrastructure instead)

 

wages we are 9th I think below Everton and west ham

 

i expect villa will be spending more within a couple seasons as their squad’s contracts become renewed

 

I meant in terms of wages, sorry it wasn't clear. 

 

Those clubs can all pay more as they get substantially more in the stadium, that's a fact of life. The get about £15m p/a more than us in match day income. 

[davieG]

On 02/02/2021 at 13:22, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

Not sure this is true now though.  15 years ago yes but if you look at social media follows etc we are way ahead of them.  I think the problem is that most journalists and pundits while allowing for Man City to come in, still see the Prem as if it were the 1995-2005 as that was a lot of their era.  They do not seem to like change which is why for the next few years we will still be ignored. They are desperate for Leeds to be back where they were once more so the equalibrium for them can return.

 

The problem with that is that buy banging the same big 6 drum and other clubs from the past they are signalling the death knell of football.  When the "big 6" leave for a Euro super league because of the pedestal they have put them on inflates their egos to new levels it will be the end of a lot of people supporting football.  I know a number of fans of other teams who say the same including Man Utd, Arsenal and Spurs fans.  Again I am not too sure the owners of these clubs care so much about the fans these days.  The followers of these clubs are far more important to them as they are the ones who would delight in the new league and the World TV deals would initially be huge.

They're not planning on leaving the PL they want to be in both and probably intend to end up with the equivalent of 2 1st team squads. Once they get their wish of 4+2 in CL they'll then go after bigger squads when they've got that then they'll push harder for the Re-vamped CL to become their closed shop Euro Super League with their foot in both.

[sacreblueits442]

On 01/02/2021 at 09:56, Fox92 said:

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. 

....I am sure I have read recently on this Forum that Rodgers has a three man team which looks at incoming targets!!!

Once the team which includes Rodgers has identified and approved the list, it is then down to Rudkin to negotiate the deal.

[Sly]

Using gross or nett spend as a measuring stick to judge popularity, success or ability is just crazy. 
 

You can spend £100,000,000 on a player, it doesn’t mean he’s better than one you’ve spent £5,000,000 on. 
 

Albrighton, a free transfer has achieved far more than Pepe at Arsenal, who cost £82,000,000. 
 

All spend tells you, is that we’re running a more sustainable model. 

[Guest Basildon Fox]

4 hours ago, davieG said:

They're not planning on leaving the PL they want to be in both and probably intend to end up with the equivalent of 2 1st team squads. Once they get their wish of 4+2 in CL they'll then go after bigger squads when they've got that then they'll push harder for the Re-vamped CL to become their closed shop Euro Super League with their foot in both.

They would be voted out of the league if they joined a break away. What they want is not what they would get. 

 

An ultimatum would be given I am sure. 

[baldeagle]

All this net spend figure proves to me is how much we are doing things right. We won the championship and the premier league with cast offs, frees and taking a gamble on lower league cheap players . We’ve improved year on year out why try to fix something that isn’t broke .