P3te Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 the question of "how much have we spent on players" regarding any period is NEVER correctly answered with the net figure. Ever. Stop doing it everyone. Stop it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's. A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion. example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion. ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks. Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons! He didn't at Porto No, he just inherited the best squad in the league. I'm not disagreeing with his man management and tactical nous but he really is a bit of a cheque book manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's. A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion. example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion. ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks. Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons! He didn't at PortoHaving more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's. A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion. example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion. ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks. Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons! Is that what we have spent on players in the last 3 years? How does that stand up to the other prem teams who have been ever present these past 3 years. Brumstopdogs, can you do up a table for that? Id say we are bottom. that is net spend....but some managers who have had more gross spend have generated it themselves. Probably not much difference as we havent had many big sell on's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's. A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion. example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion. ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks. Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons! He didn't at Porto No, he just inherited the best squad in the league. I'm not disagreeing with his man management and tactical nous but he really is a bit of a cheque book manager. because he can...why do it the hard way when you can do it the easy way. I seem to remember him bringing in a number of players at Porto on modest sums....I just think this money thing in isolation is a bit of a kop out. Don't get me wrong money is a big part of it....but there are many other important factors to get right too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 But you still keep repeating the same again and again. 'It is injuries', it us just bizarre how injuries makes us very defensive, unavlble to use the ball and yet we can play football - like against Burnley, with injuries. No, I keep saying that it's injuries AND inadequate spending on the squad and their salaries. do you genuinely not entertain the idea that perhaps the manager isn't using the players at his disposal in a way that gets the best out of them on the pitch? Do you genuinely think it's that simple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's. A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion. example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion. ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks. Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons! He didn't at Porto No, he just inherited the best squad in the league. I'm not disagreeing with his man management and tactical nous but he really is a bit of a cheque book manager. because he can...why do it the hard way when you can do it the easy way. I seem to remember him bringing in a number of players at Porto on modest sums....I just think this money thing in isolation is a bit of a kop out. Don't get me wrong money is a big part of it....but there are many other important factors to get right too. Yeah his net spend at Porto was around break even point. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the lack of funds on its own is an excuse though are they? Unless i've missed it which I may have. For what its worth I agree. Not having money to spend shouldn't be a kop out on its own. I do however think that in an ultra competitive league, barely spending, and still managing to stay in the league is quite impressive. Albeit done by playing bang average football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 done by playing bang average football. Since when has average been used to mean bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 done by playing bang average football. Since when has average been used to mean bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Debating the players' value wasn't really what I was getting at. Let's say Man City went mental and offered us £50m for Benteke. Or someone saw a lot of potential in Grealish and paid £10m for him as well as us selling Benteke, It doesn't really matter. The point is if we suddenly sold one or two players for a large amount of money, by your reasoning results could stay exactly the same, but suddenly Lambert has done really well because he's spent nothing. I'm not saying net spend is redundant, of course it isn't. But it can be misleading if you don't put any context around figures. Firstly is it likely results would stay the same if we sold Benteke? I would suggest the most likely scenario is that our results would worsen. However if Lambert gets us to say 12th place (given your scenario with a net spend of zero) then yes based on the lack of finances he would have spent compared to other teams he would have done well to get above them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 that is net spend....but some managers who have had more gross spend have generated it themselves. BINGO. Someone who gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 that is net spend....but some managers who have had more gross spend have generated it themselves. BINGO. Someone who gets it. Everyone gets net spend. Just not everyone agrees that its relevant when you've inherited a small squad of average players that has already been asset stripped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Well in my opinion the football we play while not being great is world's away from the shite McLeish dished up and McLeish inherited a far better squad and spent more money on individual players. You're obviously entitled to your opinion. But in what way was the palace game better? Better than say Spurs at home under McLeish? In every way possible, not lining up with 6 defenders and Heskey in midfield for a start. But I'm going to bow out here I think. The line up and approach was better. But was the performance? I think its fair to say the majority of performances this season have been as bad as McLeish. That's not progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's. A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion. example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion. ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks. Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons! He didn't at Porto No, he just inherited the best squad in the league. I'm not disagreeing with his man management and tactical nous but he really is a bit of a cheque book manager. Did he win the champions league by outspending the rest of Europe? Did he do it again with inter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Everyone gets net spend. Just not everyone agrees that its relevant when you've inherited a small squad of average players that has already been asset stripped. Firstly I doubt everyone gets it! Secondly, Alex Mcleish managed to get this supposedly asset stripped squad to 16th place the season before Lambo and that was considered a bad enough performance for him to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Everyone gets net spend. Just not everyone agrees that its relevant when you've inherited a small squad of average players that has already been asset stripped. Firstly I doubt everyone gets it! Secondly, Alex Mcleish managed to get this supposedly asset stripped squad to 16th place the season before Lambo and that was considered a bad enough performance for him to leave. Ding ding ding ding. I think we might have a winner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Everyone gets net spend. Just not everyone agrees that its relevant when you've inherited a small squad of average players that has already been asset stripped. Firstly I doubt everyone gets it! Secondly, Alex Mcleish managed to get this supposedly asset stripped squad to 16th place the season before Lambo and that was considered a bad enough performance for him to leave. Ding ding ding ding. I think we might have a winner. Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's. A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion. example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion. ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks. Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons! He didn't at Porto No, he just inherited the best squad in the league. I'm not disagreeing with his man management and tactical nous but he really is a bit of a cheque book manager. because he can...why do it the hard way when you can do it the easy way. I seem to remember him bringing in a number of players at Porto on modest sums....I just think this money thing in isolation is a bit of a kop out. Don't get me wrong money is a big part of it....but there are many other important factors to get right too. Yeah his net spend at Porto was around break even point. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the lack of funds on its own is an excuse though are they? Unless i've missed it which I may have. For what its worth I agree. Not having money to spend shouldn't be a kop out on its own. I do however think that in an ultra competitive league, barely spending, and still managing to stay in the league is quite impressive. Albeit done by playing bang average football. You think what he's done at villa is impressive? You're impressed by breaking club records? Impressed by losing 50% of the time? I can understand the conditions he's had to work under but to say its impressive is ridiculous IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Everyone gets net spend. Just not everyone agrees that its relevant when you've inherited a small squad of average players that has already been asset stripped.Firstly I doubt everyone gets it! Secondly, Alex Mcleish managed to get this supposedly asset stripped squad to 16th place the season before Lambo and that was considered a bad enough performance for him to leave. Ding ding ding ding. I think we might have a winner. Oh dear. Care to elaborate. McLeish achieved 38 points in an awful season. You've claimed thats impressive under lambert. What's the big difference that makes it impressive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 that is net spend....but some managers who have had more gross spend have generated it themselves. BINGO. Someone who gets it. Everyone gets net spend. Just not everyone agrees that its relevant when you've inherited a small squad of average players that has already been asset stripped. Yeah, if he had milner, young and downing to sell when he took over he would be 20 mill to the good. Though he didnt have, as Lerner started stripping back in 2009 and not replacing. You have to have good players to sell before you can buy good players, at least at Villa. We all seen what he did when he spent his record spend of 7million. A wooping 7 mill. People dont mention that record when they are going on about his records Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 We all seen what he did when he spent his record spend of 7million. A wooping 7 mill. People dont mention that record when they are going on about his records And funnily enough people don't bring this up when they say we can't compete because of money spent. Strange that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts