shurlock

Nah, I'll leave you to think through your muddled, private thoughts. Nobody gives a flying ****. Far more interesting is to consider the possibilities and limits of being a 'showcase club' in Les Reed's own words- which, of course suggests that spotting 'hidden' talent and selling it for huge fees is a far more deliberate strategy than you intimate. But hey, what does Les Reed know. http://readsouthampton.com/2015/07/14/les-reed-talks-schneiderlin-signings-and-snooping/

Again with the Sunderland reference which you alone conjured up for your own amusement. Guess it's your teeny, weeny crux in the absence of a convincing argument or anything else you may have. Smacks of desperation, so you can have it pal. Talking of smack, glad to see the lottery-winner reference making a coming back, though again, the vacuuous, knee-jerk clichés give the impression of a child lashing out and don't really help you. Just need a reference to Stoke (RIP Pap) for a complete set, though I must admit my professional dealings with the Coates family have always been more than cordial. You can have that too

F**k me, you're a slow one. Because those fees (and profits) have enabled us to invest in the squad in the absence of substantial net spend. The table you happily lapped up, showing we have the seventh most valuable squad is only possible because of the huge fees we've generated for players. Let me spell it out again for you, our ability to build the squad is driven almost entirely by the fees we've received for the likes of Shaw, Schneiderlin, Chambers, Lallana, Oxo, Clyne and in the future, no doubt, Mané. I assume they ring a bell? Strangely, the majority of posters on this thread see fees, whether from Academy prospects or talent we've bought in and sold on, as central to our business model. The obsession is not mine. A word of advice: stick to your lawro, jack cork or box of frogs routine. Theres a good lad.

He's been very good for united this season.

Exactly. People have been spoilt by the last few years - a once-in-a-generation-pipeline-of-talent, likened to Fergie's Fledgings- that they are confusing the exception for a rule, even for a well-run Academy like ours. Alas, buy low, sell high has become the new simpleton's charter. If only it was that simple, everyone would be doing it, though of course, profit opportunities would also dry up. Perhaps we're especially skilled at unearthing talent but the reality is that everyone is investing heavily in scouting and recruitment. As you say, we've seen to have stopped buying English which is expensive but potentially the most lucrative. Instead, we're like looking to the likes of Juanmi, Cedric, Gardos, Clasie, Romeu to break through. As you say, Mané should be the next one to turn a significant profit -and possibly JWP by the virtue of the fact that he's young and English. But beyond that? Wanyama -we'll be lucky to earn a small markup on what we paid for him. Bertrand is a £15m player (£5m), assuming a side like Liverpool want him. All this is a reminder that to successfully sell high in today's market requires players who are ready for the big four. Being good or promising is not enough. After the biggest teams, the falloff is steep and significant -just look at Spurs or Everton's relatively frugal willingness to pay. If anything, the more pressing task is to ensure that our big outlays Long, Pelle, Tadic don't depreciate in value, a prospect that's as, if not more likely than a churlish faith in buy low, sell high. There seems to be an acceptance we may slip down the table in some years; but little awareness of what that means for the sustainability of the business model. While there are exceptions, teams that struggle are less likely to command the highest fees for players. The halo effect of success cannot be underestimated. In large part, that's why Swansea or Stoke's players haven't got picked off. Perhaps we'll buck the trend; but I doubt it. Either way, the next few summers will be an interesting test - it remains to be seen how much net investment is forthcoming if we can no longer rely on capital appreciation of players to fund our transfers. Of course, all this is perfectly consistent with sound, sustainable business, though you wouldn't always guess that from some of the drivel and scare-mongering on here.

Not sure what your point is. In essence, the table shows that we've turned over £100m in profit (excluding development costs) by selling the cream of our Academy and have reinvested (most of) it in our squad. You might have a point if we could repeat this trick time and time again; but there is little evidence of a similar windfall on the horizon. Like it or not, the cupboard is now relatively bare. Outside the la-la land and the ability to conjure up £30m players from the Academy, most 'growth' clubs will do what every business has done since time immemorial - they'll improve by turning the occasional profit on a player and reinvesting it, mindful that many signings will be busts -and even good ones may depreciate in value. More reliably, they'll grow over time through net investments (transfer fees and wages), strengthening what they already have (N.B. its what we did for our first two years in the premiership before we cashed in on the Academy windfall). There is nothing mysterious or complicated about this that requires a 'defense'. And I don't have to belabour the blindingly obvious point that whatever the value of the squad, with a higher net spend, it would have been higher still. Alas the only muppets are the ones grizzling and generalising from a very unique set of circumstances. But then again the 'illiteracy' on this place never ceases to amaze.

Dear oh dear, no it isn't. You're confusing the metric (net spend) with the time or evaluation period (3 months). Two completely and breathtakingly different things. Just as you wouldn't judge Costa or Aguero's goal record on whether or not they scored last week, so I wouldn't use any metric over a short time period. And I've never attempted to do so. None of which changes the fact that net spend is vastly superior to gross spend over longer time periods. HTH.

You still don't understand, kiddo- that one window's net spend -just as one window's gross spend- reveals very little. Your Norwich and Sunderland examples are by extension meaningless. But heigh ho, you're a f**kwit -and no number of windows explaining the simplest of concepts to you will change that.

Not sure if that relates to player wages; or total club wages (from Les Reed right down to the tea lady). If it's Companies House Data, I'd assume it's the latter, so not a very good measure of our ability to recruit and retain better players. The Mirror article cited above uses data that manages to separate players wages from the rest of the club.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-wages-your-club-5729730 If you look at average squad salaries, we were 15/20 in 2013/14 (latest figures), though differences across the middle-of-the-pack sides are pretty small. Of course, averages don't tell the whole story. Pay between the top and bottom squad members could be very unequal which is not implausible for a squad like ours that until recently has lacked depth. Figures are also unlikely to capture performance-based incentives very well.

Is there an accurate one for the last five years?

Could well be, though UK sports are very different from US sports with respect to the role of transfer fees and free agency. On one level, I guess they're pretty strongly correlated and clearly more correlated and revealing than gross transfer expenditure. After all, total salary spend automatically makes net adjustments: if a player is sold, he's no longer on the wage bill.

In case you haven't gathered, the two charts are comparing vastly different time periods. Couldnt care less about Sunderland or Norwich's net spend over one window; its net spend over a longer period, though, is another matter. Ultimately, let's keep things very simple for you, kiddo: on paper, which side would be stronger: one that spent €180 on players or one that spent €180m while keeping the likes of Schneiderlin, Shaw, Lallana, Chamberlain et al. Not too difficult is, it?

So what? Charitably, I thought you might take a more nuanced position and point out that there may be cases in which a club is selling players that are surplus to requirements -or outright dross- and reinvesting the money in 'good' players. In which case, a club may still be strengthening, even with low net spend through a more efficient allocation of resources. Think Spurs. You might also point out a 3 month snapshot is essentially meaningless. But in the main, kiddo, there's no better measure to gauge a club's willingness to improve on its position than net spend.

A bit? It's still bothering me. Still have the Alan Parsons Project's Eye in the Sky blaring in my head.

That old chestnut again

A bit weird.

Of course, he is...

Way too open. If you're going with four attack-minded players (I wouldn't), I'd start Romeu over Clasie. In practice, I'd have Romeu and Wanyama in the middle, with one of Clasie, Davis and JWP (none of whom are ideal) in front of them. The front three from Jrod, Tadic, Pelle, Mané (not to mentiom Juanmi and Long) is debatable, though if you're opting for Tadic, at least, play him on the left.

That's a horrible line-up

Can I be the first one to say we could have got him for £3.5m less if we hadn't been run like a penny-pinching seaside B&B.

How does it clearly work? How do you know that our effectiveness at defending corners is (partly) due to having Mané back? Don't think your reasoning proves anything of the sort.

Another 'victory' for the 'experts' on here.

Agree...or they support Arsenal

Jeff, I believe you.