"Net" Spend

[Thespence]

Whoops, my mistake.

 

BBC.co.uk do say £4.2 million on some of there reports.

[Ally]

Regardless of price, he's been fucking pants so far.

[The College Dropout]

Net Spend is a convenient way of papering over poor signings.

 

Barton & Smith are straight swaps (in terms of price) with the under achieving Parker and Dyer... Barton & Smith have been poor. But their fees aren't included when we talk this net spend bollocks.

[samag]

Why buy Smith for 6m only to use him as a defensive midfielder? Couldn't we just sign a half-decent DM for 6m instead? =_=

we did (Faye)but we use him at centre back

[Wullie]

Buys a Spanish LB for 7m  and then continues to play a LW there instead, and a RW infront of him.

 

6.8m Euros = £4.2m

 

It was 9.3m Euros though

 

Either way, he was again all over the place for the brief time he was on the pitch today

 

Again? Apart from the second half of a Liverpool game where the XI were abysmal, the lad's looked good imo, plus he's still young and hasn't appeared for about two months.

 

I'm all for integrating foreigners slowly to get the best out of them, but I fail to see how shutting Enrique out completely is helping him. He won't learn the English game by sitting at home eating Greggs stotties and watching episodes of Byker Grove.

[Howaythelads]

People on this board are obsessed with net spend.

 

Net spend doesn't matter, especially when you sell 2 players for a combined fee of £12.5. That's more than enough money to replace them.

 

When people bring up Sam "only" spending £10m net, it just reeks of desperate justification of bad signings and wasted money.

 

 

That is all.

 

I agree.

 

Good post.