Paul Lambert

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

So if gross spends are what actually gives you an idea of what is going on what happens to the players you sell? 

 

Do they just disappear?!

 

 

The gross spend gives you an idea of the likely wages of the players involved, it gives an indication of the starting value available to the selling club, and it gives an indication of the value of the players now owned by the club. The nett spend is just c minus b.

[Brumstopdogs]

 

 

So if gross spends are what actually gives you an idea of what is going on what happens to the players you sell? 

 

Do they just disappear?!

 

 

The gross spend gives you an idea of the likely wages of the players involved, it gives an indication of the starting value available to the selling club, and it gives an indication of the value of the players now owned by the club. The nett spend is just c minus b.

 

I'm well aware of what the gross spend is thanks.

 

Please can you answer my questions.

[Richard]

 

 

Yes it is true and in fact it is actually 11 teams:

 

Lambert has spent a net £46m since he graced us with his presence.  Let's see the net spends

I'll stop you there. This has been explained to you before: Nett spends are meaningless. Gross spends are what actually gives you an actual idea of what's actually going on, which may be why you aren't interested in those figures.

 

 

Incorrect.

 

So if gross spends are what actually gives you an idea of what is going on what happens to the players you sell? 

 

Do they just disappear?!

 

Cant answer for Crackpot,  but the players you sell generally do disappear yes they go to another club,  because you have sold them.  Not sure what your point is

Edited November 27, 2014 by Richard

[CrackpotForeigner]

I actually agree that net-spends can be misleasing but if we do gross spend then Lambert has had ~£60m available so far (if we include the Cleverley money). So there really is no excuse.

 

Why include the Cleverley money? We haven't bought him.

 

I assume you're also including the Benteke money (out for about a season all up); the Kozak money (played about 5 games); the Okore money (played about 5 games); the Vlaar money (played about half the games) and the Helenius money (played about 2 games).

 

So proportioning it out you have to deduct, conservatively, 16 million from the remaining 52 million, leaving 36 million.

 

Divide that by three seasons, and you've got 12 million a season spent on a squad that had finished 16th and whose two most expensive existing players got injured half way along and haven't really recovered.

 

(Edited to include both Zog and Bent)

Edited November 27, 2014 by CrackpotForeigner

[Richard]

I actually agree that net-spends can be misleasing but if we do gross spend then Lambert has had ~£60m available so far (if we include the Cleverley money). So there really is no excuse.

You cant include the cleverley money ,  it's not been spent yet and may not be.

 

Even so that amount over three years is hardly enough to stand still in this league let alone reshape an entire squad and be expected to progress

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

Cant answer for Crackpot,  but the players you sell generally do disappear yes they go to another club,  because you have sold them.  Not sure what your point is

 

 

Sterling effort there Richard, you're exactly right. Yes, they go to other clubs. But luckily you use that money to buy players of a similar value, which means that your nett spending can be very little, even if you've traded, say, Ronaldo for Messi.

[Richard]

 

 

Cant answer for Crackpot,  but the players you sell generally do disappear yes they go to another club,  because you have sold them.  Not sure what your point is

 

 

Sterling effort there Richard, you're exactly right. Yes, they go to other clubs. But luckily you use that money to buy players of a similar value, which means that your nett spending can be very little, even if you've traded, say, Ronaldo for Messi.

 

Ahhh ok.

 

Yes or you get a parsimonious owner and he doesnt give you the entire amount to spend or uses it to pay off previous signing fees or if you are looking at a period in isolation you may have received large fees before that period

 

All of that can make your net spend appear lower.

[Risso]

 

I actually agree that net-spends can be misleasing but if we do gross spend then Lambert has had ~£60m available so far (if we include the Cleverley money). So there really is no excuse.

You cant include the cleverley money ,  it's not been spent yet and may not be.

 

Even so that amount over three years is hardly enough to stand still in this league let alone reshape an entire squad and be expected to progress

 

 

We've still got a player in Cleverley who is playing for us with a market value of at least £5m.  The fact that he hasn't got a value as such doesn't detract from the standard of player Lambert has signed.   

 

And nobody has expected him to be challenging for 6th place, but the standard of football has regressed, and is comfortably the worst in the Premier League.  Nobody wants us to watch us, and to fans of other teams we've gone from being the sort of team that most fans quite like, to a dismal, turgid non-entity of a team who most people couldn't wait to see the back of.  Not many people defending Lambert were moaning about the money he had to spend at the start of the season.

[Richard]

Actually Risso quite a few were.  Quite a few were saying he had not received sufficient monetary backing and were looking forward to a takeover hopefully releasing more team investment

[Brumstopdogs]

So under the following made up example:

 

Liverpool sell Suarez for £100m

Liverpool buy 1 player for £10m

 

Villa sell no players

Villa buy 1 player for £8m

 

Using your logic Liverpool have a gross spend of £10m and Villa have a gross spend of £8m (agreed) and this apparently give us the best idea of what is going on. Following that logic through Liverpool have spent more therefore a good excuse for Lambert.

 

Ah but Suarez, a world class player, has now been sold. Surely they'll miss him? No, don't worry we'll just ignore that as they've spent £10m!

 

Hence why you need to look at the total picture and the total net spend.

[Isa]

Why include the Cleverley money? We haven't bought him.

Because that was £8m that was available to Lambert. The fact it ended up being a loan due to Cleverley stalling doesn't change that. Lambert has been afforded roughly £60m to spend on players so far during his reign.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Isa

[Mantis]

You can't include it if it hasn't been spent.

[Isa]

You can't include it if it hasn't been spent.

I'm including it in money that has been available to him.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Isa

[Mantis]

We can't say with authority what has and hasn't been available therefore it only makes sense to go on what has actually been spent.

[Isa]

We can't say with authority what has and hasn't been available therefore it only makes sense to go on what has actually been spent.

We can because he had a bid accepted for Cleverley. Therefore that was £8m that the board sanctioned him to spend. I'm not sure why this is being disputed.

[Richard]

The Dempsey money was also available to him.  Should we include that?

[Isa]

The Dempsey money was also available to him.  Should we include that?

Which was then spent on Benteke.

[Mantis]

 

We can't say with authority what has and hasn't been available therefore it only makes sense to go on what has actually been spent.

We can because he had a bid accepted for Cleverley. Therefore that was £8m that the board sanctioned him to spend. I'm not sure why this is being disputed.

 

No we can't because there are probably other instances that we don't know about.

 

At the end of the day I don't see why how much has been made available is such a big deal. The end result of what has been spent is all that matters.

[Richard]

So under the following made up example:

 

Liverpool sell Suarez for £100m

Liverpool buy 1 player for £10m

 

Villa sell no players

Villa buy 1 player for £8m

 

Using your logic Liverpool have a gross spend of £10m and Villa have a gross spend of £8m (agreed) and this apparently give us the best idea of what is going on. Following that logic through Liverpool have spent more therefore a good excuse for Lambert.

 

Ah but Suarez, a world class player, has now been sold. Surely they'll miss him? No, don't worry we'll just ignore that as they've spent £10m!

 

Hence why you need to look at the total picture and the total net spend.

It may be me but to be brutally honest I have no clue what you are trying to say in that example.

 

Liverpool spent 10M,  we would have spent 8M so gross spend is more.

 

The player they sold to fund that or the loss of his skill is irrelevant really as the manager would have spent the 10M that was available to him.  Thats because we are comparing spend

[CrackpotForeigner]

So under the following made up example:

 

Liverpool sell Suarez for £100m

Liverpool buy 1 player for £10m

 

Villa sell no players

Villa buy 1 player for £8m

 

Using your logic Liverpool have a gross spend of £10m and Villa have a gross spend of £8m (agreed) and this apparently give us the best idea of what is going on. Following that logic through Liverpool have spent more therefore a good excuse for Lambert.

 

Ah but Suarez, a world class player, has now been sold. Surely they'll miss him? No, don't worry we'll just ignore that as they've spent £10m!

 

Hence why you need to look at the total picture and the total net spend.

 

If Liverpool were skint enough to have to sell a player for 100 mill and only buy a 10 mill player to replace him, making their gross spend 10 million to Aston Villa's 8 million, then that does, in fact, give you a good idea of what to expect of the two teams. Please disagree with this, I double dareya.

 

If, instead, Liverpool spent 92 million, making both teams' nett spend 8 million, the nett spend fails to highlight the fact that Liverpool now have a 92 million pound player and Aston Villa have an 8 million pound player.

 

This debate reminds me of the time I was strolling along Blackpool pier and grabbed a stick of rock that a baby was holding.