• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Klopp: owners backed me 100%

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suspect Klopp already knows his "net spend" budget from the bosses, and isn't inclined to over pay. Anyway, even if he'd like a little more he isn't the sort to bitch about his limitations so we will never know.

Which is the way things should be.

More importantly, there seem to have fairly limited influence from 'external' sources on who Klopp should spend the money on, who he should sell etc.

That is important, but when have Liverpool managers been influenced on who they should sell?
 
He's had the backing thus far, but if we still sell the likes of Balotelli, Benteke, Allen, Alberto, Lucas and Markovic, our net spend will be pretty much zero. It could be argued he hasn't been backed based on finances as you'd believe we have 30-40m to spend
I swear there was an article posted on here which show's the whole 'net spend' thing is a myth.
 
I wonder if many he doesn't plan on spending too much (net) this season, if he gets us back to champions league, he'll spend more?
 
I swear there was an article posted on here which show's the whole 'net spend' thing is a myth.

In what way? I don't think may people will dispute that winning trophies is usually easier when you spend more money on players and wages than everyone else.
 
In what way? I don't think may people will dispute that winning trophies is usually easier when you spend more money on players and wages than everyone else.
it was in this article here which talks about 5 myths in football.:

http://thesetpieces.com/features/transfer-window-myth-busting/

the bit about net spend says:

Net spend

Despite what you may have heard, “net spend” is completely irrelevant to how big clubs do business and is not something they consider when calculating player costs.
Consider the following: Manchester United recently signed Henrikh Mkhitaryan from Borussia Dortmund for £35 million. Mkhitaryan will likely be earning the equivalent of at least £180,000 per week over the length of his four-year deal.
In practice, clubs like United, for which cash flow is never an issue, often pay the entire transfer fee up front or in a few instalments over a short period of time (less than 12 months). This helps reduce the overall cost of the transfer, and most selling clubs will much prefer to see the entire fee paid quickly, as opposed to several instalments over two or three years.
However, on the books – and this is how clubs actually calculate player costs – United, like every single other football club in Europe’s top eight leagues, will record the transfer fee as £8.75 million in each of the next four years, not £35 million now.
This is a universal accounting practice called player amortisation, and it is fundamental to how clubs calculate player costs. Rather than recording the entire purchase when it was made, the club will spread the transfer fee over the length of the player’s contract.
Naturally, wages must also be included in the calculation of player costs. Ideally, agent fees and image rights payments will be included as well, but to keep things simple, we’ll focus on the two big expenditures: amortisation and wages.
With Mkhitaryan costing Manchester United £8.75 million per year in amortisation and £9.36 million in wages (£180,000 per week multiplied by 52 weeks), his overall cost to the club is just over £18.1 million per year.
That £18.1 million per year is what clubs look at with regards to player costs, not just the transfer fees coming in and out.
[bcolor=#fff] [/bcolor]
Let’s compare the Mkhitaryan deal to that of another recent Premier League signing from the Bundesliga: Arsenal’s £30 million purchase of Granit Xhaka from Borussia Mönchengladbach.
Xhaka signed a five-year deal and will reportedly earn around £125,000 per week at Arsenal. The transfer fee will be spread out over Xhaka’s contract at £6 million per year (£30 million divided evenly over five years). So including Xhaka’s wages, the overall cost to Arsenal is £12 million per year.
While the transfer fees for Mkhitaryan and Xhaka are similar, Mkhitaryan is costing Manchester United 50% more than Xhaka is costing Arsenal on an annual basis.
To further illustrate why net spend doesn’t tell you anything about how clubs do business, consider United’s signing of Zlatan Ibrahimovic on a free transfer. While the “net spend” on that deal is zero, he adds well over £10 million to Manchester United’s player costs this year.
If those were the only transactions United and Arsenal made this summer, their “net spend” figures would be similar (£35 million and £30 million, respectively). However, after applying the business and accounting principles that the clubs themselves use, we see that Arsenal added £12 million to its total player costs for the coming season, while United added over £28 million.
Rather than a difference of less than 20% in actual spending (which is what net spend would show), the actual difference is over 200%.
 
That doesn't address anything about what most folks refer to in terms of net spend - i.e. transfer fees paid - transfer fees received
 
Businesses run on p&l. That's not a myth. And that's also the basis of net spend. Whether they amortise the contracts and transfer fees or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom