Net Spend

[davieG]

1 hour ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

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. 

I doubt they would because a lot of the income the other clubs get, whether we like it or not comes in because of those clubs.

[Guest Basildon Fox]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

I doubt they would because a lot of the income the other clubs get, whether we like it or not comes in because of those clubs.

But there would be no real income as all big money would go to the new league. Tottenham Reserves, Liverpool Reserves doesn't have the same pulling power as their first team and that is who we would be playing. It would be a bigger insult to let them keep playing in the league. 

[Jordan]

Net spend isn’t the best way to show whether a club’s owners are or aren’t trying to improve the playing squad.

 

It’s not even the best way to show how a club is operating, period. Transfer fees paid are amortized based on the length of the new signing’s contract, and transfer fees received are often received in installments.

 

Also, transfer values have some relation to a player’s current contract. If you have two very similar players at similar clubs (or even the same club), but Player X is under contract for 4 more years whereas Player Y’s contract runs out at the end of his current season, and may not resign with his club, Player X’s real valuation is going to be much higher although than Player Y’s, even though they both may look like, say, £20m players to the average fan.

 

Wages, however, will tell you a much better story.

 

Football clubs’ wage bills are almost always significantly higher than their transfer spends.

 

The “Big Six” clubs have the biggest 6 wage bills in England, even if they don’t always have the highest negative net transfer spends.

 

Man City and Liverpool have different transfer market philosophies, but both have had very similar success because they can both afford to pay the best players in the world (not to mention managers) some of the best wages in the world.

 

Leicester City have done good business in the transfer market recently, but just because they’re selling more than they put in, it doesn’t mean the club isn’t investing in the first team. Quite the contrary, actually!

 

The club’s first team and management is, by any standard, better than it was two years ago. All that costs money.
 

According to The Swiss Ramble, Leicester City’s total wage bill (including management) rose from £119m to £150m from 2018 to 2019. That number will surely rise in 2020. 

 

In addition to new signings, Maddison, Barnes, Ndidi have all signed new deals, with Tielemans due to get a new contract offer imminently.

 

The club’s wages-to-turnover ratio was 92% in 2019—that’s high. But Leicester City are now at a point where they’re paying wages at a level that’s competitive to anyone else outside the “Big Six.” Regardless of whether or not City’s owners “pump in” money, the club remains a much more attractive destination for players now than ever before. The club’s improving infrastructure also makes it better positioned to attract new revenue, and produce young players that can become valuable players at lower cost.

 

Considering how hard King Power/tourism/duty free was hit by the COVID crisis, and considering how football’s finances were hit hard, too, we should get used to the club continuing on this track.

 

I agree with the other posters here that are pleased with the club making great progress and trying to be more self-sufficient. I’d not have liked to see the club spunk a transfer fee on a striker in January, when the market only had mediocre strikers at premium prices. Net spend would have made it look like City were really going for it, but it was highly unlikely a new striker signing was actually going to improve the squad.

Edited 7 February 2021 by Jordan
Typos

[KingsX]

This article just came out, with a table showing the net spend of each club in the big 5 European leagues (over the last ten windows).  https://football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2020/wp324/en/

 

Many would correctly have guessed that the Manchester clubs are #1 and #2 in the PL; but who are next? Everton and Villa (and Everton have the wage bill to go with it).  Brighton aren't far behind; they've spent plenty without building salable value into their squad.  I'm not sure how these clubs continue to evade FFP sanctions, as they lose a lot of money.

 

 

Click the link for the all-Europe table (only the biggest clubs on the continent can spend like established PL clubs), or to order the tables by total spent or total earned.

Edited 10 February 2021 by KingsX

[Yes]

On 01/02/2021 at 17:46, KingsX said:

 

 

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.

It’s a valid point, it’s a bit like the big club debate or arguing which club has a bigger fan base, saying Leeds have more of a global reach than us is based on nothing, no evidence actually suggests they do.
 

Fact is in 2016 we did something that was talked about a lot all over the world, even in places that you wouldn’t expect with little to no interest in the sport let alone us, so I’m not having that Leeds have more of a reach because of the media’s weird obsession with them in this country.

[King of Gipsy Lane]

We spent 100m on a training ground , challenged for a champions league place and are 3rd in the league this season 

 

we are possibly the best run club in the history of the premier league ! 

[FOXSE]

32 minutes ago, KingsX said:

This article just came out, with a table showing the ten-year net spend of each club in the big 5 European leagues.  https://football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2020/wp324/en/

 

Many would correctly have guessed that the Manchester clubs are #1 and #2 in the PL; but who are next? Everton and Villa (and Everton have the wage bill to go with it).  Brighton aren't far behind; they've spent plenty without building salable value into their squad.  I'm not sure how these clubs continue to evade FFP sanctions, as they lose a lot of money.

 

 

Click the link for the all-Europe table (only the biggest clubs on the continent can spend like established PL clubs), or to order the tables by total spent or total earned.

10 transfer windows... only the last 5 years! 

[tylesta]

On 01/02/2021 at 16:36, jim5000 said:

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

Maybe he was 3rd choice s

Of the 3 players jim

On 01/02/2021 at 10:08, 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.

 

[KingsX]

1 hour ago, FOXSE said:

10 transfer windows... only the last 5 years! 

 

excellent point ... I'll correct it.

[Hack]

On 02/02/2021 at 05:25, honeybradger said:

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.

Can't say that is so really. Look at Zlatan and Ronaldo and Messi and even now Cavani. I am not saying get a mid 30 big name but they are big names and big earners for a good reason. 

[Sly]

It’s always been about adding value to the club. We made the mistake in 16/17, with the signings of Slimani, Silva, Musa, Hernandez, Kaputska. 
 

Only N’didi and Mendy have been a success from that seasons transfer. We adopted an approach that wasn’t akin to our perceived strategy. We got burnt and you’d like to think learnt our lesson.

[coolhandfox]

Simply shows we are over achieving due to the excellence of the clubs recuitment, the manager and the coaching staff.

 

Big shout out to the academy, who have made us small fortune since our return to the PL Chilwell (50M), Schlupp (12m) whilst producing members of the first team Barnes, Thomas, Choudhury and KDH (Next season).

[coolhandfox]

21 minutes ago, Sly said:

It’s always been about adding value to the club. We made the mistake in 16/17, with the signings of Slimani, Silva, Musa, Hernandez, Kaputska. 
 

Only N’didi and Mendy have been a success from that seasons transfer. We adopted an approach that wasn’t akin to our perceived strategy. We got burnt and you’d like to think learnt our lesson.

To be fair to the club, winning the league sort of throw that summer recuitment strategy in the bin and lead to a round of panic buying. 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

On 07/02/2021 at 03:01, Jordan said:

Net spend isn’t the best way to show whether a club’s owners are or aren’t trying to improve the playing squad.

 

It’s not even the best way to show how a club is operating, period. Transfer fees paid are amortized based on the length of the new signing’s contract, and transfer fees received are often received in installments.

 

Also, transfer values have some relation to a player’s current contract. If you have two very similar players at similar clubs (or even the same club), but Player X is under contract for 4 more years whereas Player Y’s contract runs out at the end of his current season, and may not resign with his club, Player X’s real valuation is going to be much higher although than Player Y’s, even though they both may look like, say, £20m players to the average fan.

 

Wages, however, will tell you a much better story.

 

Football clubs’ wage bills are almost always significantly higher than their transfer spends.

 

The “Big Six” clubs have the biggest 6 wage bills in England, even if they don’t always have the highest negative net transfer spends.

 

Man City and Liverpool have different transfer market philosophies, but both have had very similar success because they can both afford to pay the best players in the world (not to mention managers) some of the best wages in the world.

 

Leicester City have done good business in the transfer market recently, but just because they’re selling more than they put in, it doesn’t mean the club isn’t investing in the first team. Quite the contrary, actually!

 

The club’s first team and management is, by any standard, better than it was two years ago. All that costs money.
 

According to The Swiss Ramble, Leicester City’s total wage bill (including management) rose from £119m to £150m from 2018 to 2019. That number will surely rise in 2020. 

 

In addition to new signings, Maddison, Barnes, Ndidi have all signed new deals, with Tielemans due to get a new contract offer imminently.

 

The club’s wages-to-turnover ratio was 92% in 2019—that’s high. But Leicester City are now at a point where they’re paying wages at a level that’s competitive to anyone else outside the “Big Six.” Regardless of whether or not City’s owners “pump in” money, the club remains a much more attractive destination for players now than ever before. The club’s improving infrastructure also makes it better positioned to attract new revenue, and produce young players that can become valuable players at lower cost.

 

Considering how hard King Power/tourism/duty free was hit by the COVID crisis, and considering how football’s finances were hit hard, too, we should get used to the club continuing on this track.

 

I agree with the other posters here that are pleased with the club making great progress and trying to be more self-sufficient. I’d not have liked to see the club spunk a transfer fee on a striker in January, when the market only had mediocre strikers at premium prices. Net spend would have made it look like City were really going for it, but it was highly unlikely a new striker signing was actually going to improve the squad.

 

This is spot on - great post. We're now at a level where most of our first team will be demanding 80k + a week (and players on the sidelines too) and we need to try and hold onto them, along with a man who is on 10m a year. Hopefully getting rid of some big earners this year will sure up the long term sustainability of the club as will mean we can tie players like Tielenans to long term deals.

 

Spurs 5 years or so ago were actually following a similar model to us, selling players and investing in infrastructure. And actually whilst they were spending that much money they progressed nicely. Its when they spent money it was a challenge, again this year they haven't really spent that well aside from hojberg and rodon.

 

I don't even think we'll need to spend that much this summer. If we get players like otavio and thauvin on frees, it's only really a striker and perhaps a young defender to replace wes / fuchs. Thauvin and Otavio won't be on more than gray or slimani were I'd imagine. And there's a lot of players with expiring contracts around.

 

Also think it'll be an interesting summer as to whether we sell a big name. I wonder if this will change this year - partly because I don't think they'll be silly money offered for one of our players and I don't think we'll sell unless it's ridiculous. That said, its a matter of time before psg or Madrid realise what players ndidi, fofana and youri are.

 

 

[Koke]

What are Everton's revenues compared to ours?