How many other Prem clubs can spend 30 mill

[glasses]

I have work to do, not going to argue the toss. Perhaps it is simplistic. We also wont have paid Sunderland upfront for Bent, it will be in staged payments. There is another variable to add in to this mathematical equation.

[pauliewalnuts]

I have work to do, not going to argue the toss. Perhaps it is simplistic. We also wont have paid Sunderland upfront for Bent, it will be in staged payments. There is another variable to add in to this mathematical equation.

I'm not trying to make it any more complicated than it needs be, I am genuinely just saying that it's not as simple as "sell for x, have x to spend on new player".

Niall Quinn said the same thing last week, that he hasn't got 24m pounds burning a hole in his pocket, and then described how they're still paying Spurs off.

Still, it's funny how some of the people who, when we were waiting for MON to wake up in the transfer windows, used to tell us "it's not like playing Football Manager, you know" now seem to think that, actually, it is.

[Chris Smith]

If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.

[pauliewalnuts]

If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.

I know, unfortunately that example is of no relevance here.

[sfx412]

If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.

And if you had any finance left on it you'd have to pay that off first which lowers the value you got for it.

[Concrete John]

All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.

Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.

Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!

No we didn't.

Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised.  Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.

Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).

I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.

Sorry, we now take out initial transfer fee of players who we sell to see how much we got for them?

I didn't agree with the 'recycled transfer fee' comment when I saw it either, but that's exactly what you're doing! 

How is it what I'm doing? I am pointing out that "sell Milner for 16m, spend 16m on Bent" does not mean "it's just money we got in then spent".

The point which was made was that we raised 20m in player sales, and that we were just reinvesting that. That argument falls down because we didn't raise anything like 20m for those players.

If you spend 11 on something, then shortly after sell it for 16, you haven't raised 16. You've raised 5. Which is exactly the point I made about viewing football transfers so simplistically. We won't even have finished paying Newcastle for James Milner. Just like Sunderland hadn't finished paying Spurs for Bent.

So if we're including the £12m we paid for Milner by taking it off the incoming fee, do we then discount it from the summer it was initially spent and say we outlayed £30m instead of £40m?  Of course we don't.

The point was that we have had circa £20m in, excluding Ireland, since we last bought a player.   Which means that the majority of it is not 'new money', but pre-existing investments in players being used once again as is good business sense.

I'm perfectly happy with what Randy is doing, but this 'we only got £5m for Milner' stuff doesn't add up unless you're totally dismissing the initial outlay.  Class it how you want, but our net spend on players went up by £30m this month, but it's also only gone up by circa £10m in the 18 month period.   

[pedro25]

I've never heard anything so bizarre as to follow transfers back in a chain like that.  Doesn't matter what Milner cost, could have been 300 mill, point was we made 18 mill from selling him and reinvested it in Bent.  Gardner/Shorey/Sidwell sales reinvested in Makoun.  Randy said all along he would invest significantly yrs 1-3, but from yr 4 onwards we should be more sustainable, and so it has proved. Net spend yrs 1-3 was about 20 mill per season, now we break even just about, one in one out etc.

[pauliewalnuts]

[quote author=pauliebentnuts link=topic=42042.msg1687898#msg1687898 date=1295874
So if we're including the £12m we paid for Milner by taking it off the incoming fee, do we then discount it from the summer it was initially spent and say we outlayed £30m instead of £40m?  Of course we don't.

The point was that we have had circa £20m in, excluding Ireland, since we last bought a player.   Which means that the majority of it is not 'new money', but pre-existing investments in players being used once again as is good business sense.

I'm perfectly happy with what Randy is doing, but this 'we only got £5m for Milner' stuff doesn't add up unless you're totally dismissing the initial outlay.  Class it how you want, but our net spend on players went up by £30m this month, but it's also only gone up by circa £10m in the 18 month period.   

I am not dismissing the initial outlay, you are.

I am saying...

Buy James Milner - 11 million pounds.

Sell James Milner - 16 million pounds.

Yes, we might have 16m in our hands having sold him, but we've still got to finish paying Newcastle off, so the suggestion that it is as simple as "we've raised 20, so let's spend it" is well wide of the mark, and transfer deals are far more complicated than that.

And who cares if it is not "new money" as you put it, it is still money we've invested in the playing staff.

Over the last few months, plenty of people on here have been moaning that Randy isn't investing. Now he has done, spectacularly, there's an air of "well, it's not real money", "it is recycled Milner money".

That's not the point. The point is that it is still money he could have quite happily not committed to spending on Darren Bent if he wanted, regardless of how he got it.

For one so firmly behind Randy, you're not too reluctant to take a trip down any path which casts doubt on his investments in the club, John.

I'd hate to see you if you ever really turned *wink*

[Chris Smith]

If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.

I know, unfortunately that example is of no relevance here.

Glasses said we earned £20m in player sales, you said we didn't. All the Dougonomics in the world doesn't alter the fact that we sold players to a value in excess of £20m during the period stated.

[pauliewalnuts]

I've never heard anything so bizarre as to follow transfers back in a chain like that.  Doesn't matter what Milner cost, could have been 300 mill, point was [we made 18 mill from selling him and reinvested it in Bent.  Gardner/Shorey/Sidwell sales reinvested in Makoun.  Randy said all along he would invest significantly yrs 1-3, but from yr 4 onwards we should be more sustainable, and so it has proved. Net spend yrs 1-3 was about 20 mill per season, now we break even just about, one in one out etc.

I've never seen anything so bizarre as people who think you "make" a profit of what you sell a player for, and totally ignore what he cost in the first place.

We received 16m (or 18, whatever it was) for Milner, we didn't "make" it - that's the crux of the confusion.

[pauliewalnuts]

If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.

I know, unfortunately that example is of no relevance here.

Glasses said we earned £20m in player sales, you said we didn't. All the Dougonomics in the world doesn't alter the fact that we sold players to a value in excess of £20m during the period stated.

We sold players to that value, yes, but we didn't "earn" 20m - that's the entire point.

And not ignoring what a player cost in the first place when working out how much you earned from him is hardly Dougonomics.

[Concrete John]

I am not dismissing the initial outlay, you are.

I am saying...

Buy James Milner - 11 million pounds.

Sell James Milner - 16 million pounds.

Yes, we might have 16m in our hands having sold him, but we've still got to finish paying Newcastle off, so the suggestion that it is as simple as "we've raised 20, so let's spend it" is well wide of the mark, and transfer deals are far more complicated than that.

And who cares if it is not "new money" as you put it, it is still money we've invested in the playing staff.

Over the last few months, plenty of people on here have been moaning that Randy isn't investing. Now he has done, spectacularly, there's an air of "well, it's not real money", "it is recycled Milner money".

That's not the point. The point is that it is still money he could have quite happily not committed to spending on Darren Bent if he wanted, regardless of how he got it.

For one so firmly behind Randy, you're not too reluctant to take a trip down any path which casts doubt on his investments in the club, John.

I'd hate to see you if you ever really turned *wink*

And I'm saying

But Milner for £12m

Sell him for £16m

Buy Bent for £18m

Means we've invested a net £14m in players.

You can't talk about Randy's great investment, which I agree it has been great, and then dismiss the initial money.  Randy hasn't spent £30m since he last put his hand in his pocket - he's spent the £30m less whatever we got back for sales inbetween.

I like Randy and he's answered any doubts I had about his continued commitment.  But I call it as I see it and his overall net spend has not increased by £30m.     

[bob]

I thought something similar to this myself when we were about to sign him.

To elude arguments about the money in and money out, perhaps a better question is how many other clubs could or would go out and spend £18-24m on a player right now?

In the Premier League: Man City, Man U, Chelsea. I would say that's it.

[pauliewalnuts]

You can't talk about Randy's great investment, which I agree it has been great, and then dismiss the initial money.  Randy hasn't spent £30m since he last put his hand in his pocket - he's spent the £30m less whatever we got back for sales inbetween.

Yes, and I didn't say he had spent 30m, I said that in the same way you can't ignore the money we got for Milner, you can not ignore the money we spent on him, either.

For example (simplifying the figures) - we got 18m for Milner, we've spent it on Bent, does not mean a net spend of zero, which is what some people think.

[pauliewalnuts]

I thought something similar to this myself when we were about to sign him.

To elude arguments about the money in and money out, perhaps a better question is how many other clubs could or would go out and spend £18-24m on a player right now?

In the Premier League: Man City, Man U, Chelsea. I would say that's it.

At the end of the day, regardless of what went on before,  this is the important point. He could have kept that cash and suggested we go and get Robbie Keane on loan. Thank fuck he didn't.

I think your list is about right. I also think that's part of the reason the press don't seem to like it. We're not supposed to think big.

Oh, actually, maybe Liverpool, too. At least I wouldn't be massively surprised if they did with their new owners.