Topic: FSG (*)

[El Lobo]

might be the same people who said he may not be spending in jan so he has more to spend in the summer. If we get a large transfer fund that pushes us on, will those demanding a purchase this january admit they were wrong? pointless judging the owners until we see their actions, said earlier in here the jan window will be judged after this summer not in Feb.

I think if you actually just listen and read what Jurgen has said, it should give you a pretty clear indication of why we didn't sign anyone in January. Same reason I imagine none of our rivals signed anyone either, its just a shit time to sign players.

[CraigDS]

I know we disagree on a lot of your concerns, but this is one point I completely agree with. FSG's power structure is all in Boston and the communication disasters it has caused needs to be fixed. I'm not sure Edwards is the right man for that job.

I highly doubt Edwards has been employed to provide a link between Liverpool and Boston.

At the end of the day there are many many many successful multi-national companies who have a power base in one location yet remain close to a local market their business is located. It's about remaining informed from the people on the ground in that location, and Ayre would have been the main person providing that information (followed by other key members of staff, both to Ayre and direct to FSG).

Now if there have been issues between the link, and I think this has been discussed by FSG and is why Gordon took on a more active role which saw him over here more, then it needs looking if it was an issue of Ayre and others not providing the right info, or if FSG were not taking on board that information. I've no idea which is the case.

Hopefully with the change in power at the top, which will see a locally born yet well connected US business guy taking over the CEO role, a guy who is also experienced in running businesses across many many different local markets, the communication will continue to improve. In this day and age it really should not be an issue.

[didi]

stop flashing their knickers at players and pay the bloody wages it's the only way we can get top players regardless if we are in champions league or not

[WillG.LFC]

I think if you actually just listen and read what Jurgen has said, it should give you a pretty clear indication of why we didn't sign anyone in January. Same reason I imagine none of our rivals signed anyone either, its just a shit time to sign players.

exactly and the same point really. Wasting money in jan when there were limited players available would affect the money available in the summer.

[jambutty]

if they decided to sell LFC

The value of the Club continues to soar.

You don't sell valuable assets unless you have a better vehicle for your cash.

Our owners may be  looking for other investors to take minority shares to expand operations, but the idea of them selling outright has always been the biggest herring you lot have.

[So… Howard Philips]

The value of the Club continues to soar.

You don't sell valuable assets unless you have a better vehicle for your cash.

Our owners may be  looking for other investors to take minority shares to expand operations, but the idea of them selling outright has always been the biggest herring you lot have.

The value may continue to soar but that must surely limit the number of prospective buyers to state organs? China, Middle East etc. Putting aside any moral objections would any be more competent owners - and I'm not saying absentee owners like FSG are the gold standard.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

might be the same people who said he may not be spending in jan so he has more to spend in the summer. If we get a large transfer fund that pushes us on, will those demanding a purchase this january admit they were wrong? pointless judging the owners until we see their actions, said earlier in here the jan window will be judged after this summer not in Feb.

Then we shouldn't have gone into the season with no viable cover for Mané knowing he would miss 4-5 games at least without even considering any injuries he may pick up.

We were crying out for pace throughout last season; we then got said pace (and quality) in Mané, and then had it taken away from us again. But we knew that was going to happen and therefore it makes it negligence, not bad luck, not to fully prepare for it. There were others issues than just lacking Mané during that bad run, of course, but that was undoubtedly the main factor because he's the only player who consistently gets in behind defenders; whether it's through his off the ball runs when they're playing a bit higher, or with his excellent dribbling when they're playing a bit deeper.

You take that away from us and it all becomes a bit one-paced, as we saw last season, and that's something which should not have been repeated. But it was was and it cost us - how much we will have to see.

[El Lobo]

Then we shouldn't have gone into the season with no viable cover for Mané knowing he would miss 4-5 games at least without even considering any injuries he may pick up.

So maybe we thought having Sturridge, Ings and Origi would be sufficient but injuries curtailed that?

If you think Klopps the sort of manager who is going to go out and sign someone purely to cover for 4-5 games a season, then I think you're going to be disappointed. But then we know this already, he's said as much and its really not for an FSG thread.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

So maybe we thought having Sturridge, Ings and Origi would be sufficient but injuries curtailed that?

If you think Klopps the sort of manager who is going to go out and sign someone purely to cover for 4-5 games a season, then I think you're going to be disappointed. But then we know this already, he's said as much and its really not for an FSG thread.

None of those are wide players and two of them have a long history of injuries.

We didn't need said player for 4-5 games, we needed him to 100% start 4-5 games and provide an option for the rest of the campaign. The reason it's being discussed in this thread is because it's linked to our transfer strategy, which has left us short of squad depth throughout FSG's reign, not just under Jurgen Klopp.

Let's hope that changes this summer because I don't think they'll get away with another season of it.

[clinical]

So maybe we thought having Sturridge, Ings and Origi would be sufficient but injuries curtailed that?

If you think Klopps the sort of manager who is going to go out and sign someone purely to cover for 4-5 games a season, then I think you're going to be disappointed. But then we know this already, he's said as much and its really not for an FSG thread.

But I think he's also realised his mistake. It wasn't just about those 4/5 games. If Mane got injured for a few months it would have ruined our season. Hell it could still happen!

I think if Klopp knew how January was going to go I think things would be different. But it's not just about Jan. We have a lack of pace without Mane in the side.

And if there's a Mane clone somewhere in this world we should go and sign him. He's crucial to how we play.

[DangerScouse]

The value of the Club continues to soar.

You don't sell valuable assets unless you have a better vehicle for your cash.

Our owners may be  looking for other investors to take minority shares to expand operations, but the idea of them selling outright has always been the biggest herring you lot have.

How do you know it's a herring? You don't think they bought the club at a very reasonable price with the intention of appreciating the value of their asset and eventually selling?

[CraigDS]

How do you know it's a herring? You don't think they bought the club at a very reasonable price with the intention of appreciating the value of their asset and eventually selling?

I believe his point, which was fairly obvious as he spells it out pretty clearly, is they won't sell whilst the 'asset' is continuing to rise in value.

If they are purely here for the investment as some like to continually tell us, then they you then also can't argue they'll sell before maximum return has been achieved.

[JackWard33]

might be the same people who said he may not be spending in jan so he has more to spend in the summer. If we get a large transfer fund that pushes us on, will those demanding a purchase this january admit they were wrong? pointless judging the owners until we see their actions, said earlier in here the jan window will be judged after this summer not in Feb.

Given that we were basically joint top at the end of the year and the manager wanted to add players and instead we rolled the dice on a thin squad despite not having two of our best attackers for the winter months turning a certain top 4 into a gamble it's fine to judge them now.
As for 'spending more in the summer to push on' - we were already there - we were already where we wanted to be and that's when you invest. You don't wait so you can invest to get back to where you already were. It was a combination of budget restriction and hubris last summer and this winter that turned an opportunity into a hopeful scramble.

I'll also continue to judge the posters on here that insisted the manager doesn't want to win by spending in the market and/or pretend you can win without buying quality in the market because both those contentions are utter B.S.

[El Lobo]

Given that we were basically joint top at the end of the year and the manager wanted to add players and instead we rolled the dice on a thin squad despite not having two of our best attackers for the winter months turning a certain top 4 into a gamble it's fine to judge them now.

 

[JackWard33]

[cornelius]

might be the same people who said he may not be spending in jan so he has more to spend in the summer. If we get a large transfer fund that pushes us on, will those demanding a purchase this january admit they were wrong? pointless judging the owners until we see their actions, said earlier in here the jan window will be judged after this summer not in Feb.

All this talk of our "biggest ever kitty", remains to be seen if that's going to be a net spend. I mean we could spend £100m plus but if we sell Sturridge, Sakho and Origi for the best part of £50m then it's not really a big spend is it? And if those guys do go out the door then the squad is significantly slimmer. From where we are now you'd then be talking about a need to bring in 5 or 6 real top calibre players or we're not really strengthening.

And God forbid Coutinho is sold. I don't see anyone being appeased by a really big spending spree if that happens. I mean look what happened when we sold Suarez. Coutinho has literally just signed a new deal, we have to resist this summer no matter what because if he's going to deliver for Brazil like he did last night then we have to at least keep him here until after the world cup as his value could sky rocket.

[DangerScouse]

I believe his point, which was fairly obvious as he spells it out pretty clearly, is they won't sell whilst the 'asset' is continuing to rise in value.

If they are purely here for the investment as some like to continually tell us, then they you then also can't argue they'll sell before maximum return has been achieved.

They could get an offer that they feel overvalues the club and accept. Who knows.

[El Lobo]

All this talk of our "biggest ever kitty", remains to be seen if that's going to be a net spend. I mean we could spend £100m plus but if we sell Sturridge, Sakho and Origi for the best part of £50m then it's not really a big spend is it? And if those guys do go out the door then the squad is significantly slimmer. From where we are now you'd then be talking about a need to bring in 5 or 6 real top calibre players or we're not really strengthening.

And God forbid Coutinho is sold. I don't see anyone being appeased by a really big spending spree if that happens. I mean look what happened when we sold Suarez. Coutinho has literally just signed a new deal, we have to resist this summer no matter what because if he's going to deliver for Brazil like he did last night then we have to at least keep him here until after the world cup as his value could sky rocket.

And you know what, this is the biggest issue fans have and need to get into their heads.

Origi I'll take, but I don't think we'll sell him anyway.

Sakho has literally offered us nothing this season. Literally. Sturridge has offered very, very little. If we go and get £20 million for Sakho, and £20 million for Sturridge, and someone gives us £10 million for Markovic for example and then we go and spend £100 million on players.....whats the issue?

People need to get 'net spend' out of their head, it doesn't mean anything on its own. If the net spend is made up of getting good amounts for players who aren't contributing, what's the issue? Would you rather we get less money for these players? Or keep them? Or sign players we don't want so we can say our net spend is bigger?

[CraigDS]

They could get an offer that they feel overvalues the club and accept. Who knows.

It would have to overvalue it to a level where that is above what they feel it could be worth in 5yrs+, and I highly doubt there any many/any bidders out there who would pay such an amount.

[CraigDS]

If the net spend is made up of getting good amounts for players who aren't contributing, what's the issue?

People on here have moaned for years that we've not got good fee's for players we are selling, so it's been a nice change in recent years.

Although as said, now rather than it being seen as a positive it's used to complain about as it lowers the 'net spend' amount.

[Billy Elliot]

I think Klopp underestimated what he needed last summer, through no fault of his own, so we should see some progress if he's given money and has a plan.

That makes no sense.  If he underestimated it, then how can it be no fault of his own?  I think the whole world knew we lacked strength in depth.

[penga]

All this talk of our "biggest ever kitty", remains to be seen if that's going to be a net spend. I mean we could spend £100m plus but if we sell Sturridge, Sakho and Origi for the best part of £50m then it's not really a big spend is it? And if those guys do go out the door then the squad is significantly slimmer. From where we are now you'd then be talking about a need to bring in 5 or 6 real top calibre players or we're not really strengthening.

And God forbid Coutinho is sold. I don't see anyone being appeased by a really big spending spree if that happens. I mean look what happened when we sold Suarez. Coutinho has literally just signed a new deal, we have to resist this summer no matter what because if he's going to deliver for Brazil like he did last night then we have to at least keep him here until after the world cup as his value could sky rocket.

And you know what, this is the biggest issue fans have and need to get into their heads.

Origi I'll take, but I don't think we'll sell him anyway.

Sakho has literally offered us nothing this season. Literally. Sturridge has offered very, very little. If we go and get £20 million for Sakho, and £20 million for Sturridge, and someone gives us £10 million for Markovic for example and then we go and spend £100 million on players.....whats the issue?

People need to get 'net spend' out of their head, it doesn't mean anything on its own. If the net spend is made up of getting good amounts for players who aren't contributing, what's the issue? Would you rather we get less money for these players? Or keep them? Or sign players we don't want so we can say our net spend is bigger?

Exactly as Eel says. Net spend doesn't mean much without at the context. Especially when you sell a player for a big transfer fee e.g. Suarez for 70m or when you sell a lot of squad players for good fees like we did last summer. Spending something like 120m gross like we have done in the past should be enough to find a few players that slot into the 1st team to make it competitive again or improve (however in some cases it didn't workout like under Rodgers). You have to consider it's impossible for us to attract the same level of player as a Suarez and even a tier below is difficult (e.g. Sanchez) so you can only buy 3 Firmino/Lallana/Mane type players with that money for example. But when you sell non-contributors or fringe players like Benteke, Ibe and prospectively Sakho, Sturridge and can get good prices for them then it's a lot easier to improve your team.

When Man Utd sold their best player Ronaldo that had negative 80mil euros net spend - only buying Valencia, Mama Diouf and Obertan lol. The season after that they only spent 11mil net as well. When Chelsea sold Oscar this January they had negative 60mil net spend for that window during a title charge. When Juventus sold Pogba they had less than 20m net spend. None of these were accused of being unambitious or not backing the manager nor should they be. In this type of context it is not necessary to spend 200m just because you sold 100m. If you are reasonably smart enough you can replace what you just gained from an over inflated transfer fees and improve on what you had last season or at least maintain. Considering we are likely to actually spend something significant regardless of player sales and the only players we will be looking to sell are fringe players, then it is highly likely our squad will only improve after the next transfer window.

[DangerScouse]

When Man Utd sold their best player Ronaldo that had negative 80mil euros net spend - only buying Valencia, Mama Diouf and Obertan lol. The season after that they only spent 11mil net as well. When Chelsea sold Oscar this January they had negative 60mil net spend for that window during a title charge. When Juventus sold Pogba they had less than 20m net spend. None of these were accused of being unambitious or not backing the manager nor should they be. In this type of context it is not necessary to spend 200m just because you sold 100m. If

Those teams had title winning squads already, we don't! That's the difference.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-transfer-rumours-jurgen-klopp-12812356.amp - lets see how true this'll turn out to be. Obvious problem is it hugely depends on if we finish top 4 or not

[sms1986]

That makes no sense.  If he underestimated it, then how can it be no fault of his own?  I think the whole world knew we lacked strength in depth.

Due to his lack of experience with English football, but he knows what he needs to do this summer now. He's learnt lessons this season that will help us greatly.

[sms1986]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-transfer-rumours-jurgen-klopp-12812356.amp - lets see how true this'll turn out to be. Obvious problem is it hugely depends on if we finish top 4 or not

Pretty sure we'll finish top four. United's heavily congested April will probably see them drop points and if Ibrahimovic gets injured they lose their main source of goals. Arsenal are poor at the moment. Think it will be Chelsea, Spurs, us, City.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

Pretty sure we'll finish top four. United's heavily congested April will probably see them drop points and if Ibrahimovic gets injured they lose their main source of goals. Arsenal are poor at the moment. Think it will be Chelsea, Spurs, us, City.

I think so too, but I'm more concerned about the amount of points we'll drop rather than Arsenal or Utd

[Billy Elliot]

The value of the Club continues to soar.

You don't sell valuable assets unless you have a better vehicle for your cash.

Our owners may be  looking for other investors to take minority shares to expand operations, but the idea of them selling outright has always been the biggest herring you lot have.

Who are 'you lot'? 

[penga]

Those teams had title winning squads already, we don't! That's the difference.

Hence why we wont be spending negative 60-80mil! We are likely to spend positive that amount, maybe more who knows. Also before we sold Suarez that was basically a title winning squad we just didn't use it well enough or some of the players we bought just needed more time to adapt to show their top level.

Ok if you want we can also use another example. How many times did Southampton sell their top players but were able to replace them by buying reasonably priced players for less net spend more wisely and in most seasons were able to improve or at least maintain their level from a relegation up and comer to a top half of the table team? We don't necessarily have to be as "smart" as them either to improve our team with the amount of money we can spend more than them.

[Gerry Attrick]

Hence why we wont be spending negative 60-80mil! We are likely to spend positive that amount, maybe more who knows. Also before we sold Suarez that was basically a title winning squad we just didn't use it well enough or some of the players we bought just needed more time to adapt to show their top level.

Ok if you want we can also use another example. How many times did Southampton sell their top players but were able to replace them by buying reasonably priced players for less net spend more wisely and in most seasons were able to improve or at least maintain their level from a relegation up and comer to a top half of the table team? We don't necessarily have to be as "smart" as them either to improve our team with the amount of money we can spend more than them.

Have to take exception to this; so many of the squad were average as can be. It was a largely midtable squad carried to exceptional heights by Suarez and Sturridge.

[JackWard33]

Exactly as Eel says. Net spend doesn't mean much without at the context. Especially when you sell a player for a big transfer fee e.g. Suarez for 70m or when you sell a lot of squad players for good fees like we did last summer. Spending something like 120m gross like we have done in the past should be enough to find a few players that slot into the 1st team to make it competitive again or improve (however in some cases it didn't workout like under Rodgers). You have to consider it's impossible for us to attract the same level of player as a Suarez and even a tier below is difficult (e.g. Sanchez) so you can only buy 3 Firmino/Lallana/Mane type players with that money for example. But when you sell non-contributors or fringe players like Benteke, Ibe and prospectively Sakho, Sturridge and can get good prices for them then it's a lot easier to improve your team.

When Man Utd sold their best player Ronaldo that had negative 80mil euros net spend - only buying Valencia, Mama Diouf and Obertan lol. The season after that they only spent 11mil net as well. When Chelsea sold Oscar this January they had negative 60mil net spend for that window during a title charge. When Juventus sold Pogba they had less than 20m net spend. None of these were accused of being unambitious or not backing the manager nor should they be. In this type of context it is not necessary to spend 200m just because you sold 100m. If you are reasonably smart enough you can replace what you just gained from an over inflated transfer fees and improve on what you had last season or at least maintain. Considering we are likely to actually spend something significant regardless of player sales and the only players we will be looking to sell are fringe players, then it is highly likely our squad will only improve after the next transfer window.

Net spend is a crude measure and should be seen in context that's true. Wage bill is a better measure - although that's fast becoming not true because clubs are doing some pretty shady shit to change the wage bill up or down to help with FFP so its difficult to know whose spending what.
It is however broadly true that outgoing money relates to out going value / playing time. As an illustration we effectively lost Sakho, Beneteke and Allen (the last 2 generating fees) last summer with out like for like replacements which has resulted in Lucas/Klavan, Origi playing more minutes and not having a midfield change during games. Those outgoing players weren't fundamental to our side - or perhaps even right for it - but you can't generate fees without losing some playing quality so it has to be replaced and if you want to improve be improved upon. Again it's a crude measure - different single years business will make net spend seem relevant or irrelevant so I agree you need context...

The problem is our low net spend over recent transfer windows makes the context of under investment in our playing squad worse. We have not been achieving our aims as a club. We've mostly finished outside the top 4 and rarely challenged for titles. The context to our zero net spend over the last 2 windows and low net spend in windows before is finishing 8th last season and having a thin squad at a time when the club has more income coming into it than ever before. The club has the means to invest in the playing squad and the playing squad has urgent need for it to have happened over the last 3 years. It's simply not defensible and it still baffles me as to why LFC fans would want to defend it.

[DangerScouse]

Hence why we wont be spending negative 60-80mil! We are likely to spend positive that amount, maybe more who knows. Also before we sold Suarez that was basically a title winning squad we just didn't use it well enough or some of the players we bought just needed more time to adapt to show their top level.

Ok if you want we can also use another example. How many times did Southampton sell their top players but were able to replace them by buying reasonably priced players for less net spend more wisely and in most seasons were able to improve or at least maintain their level from a relegation up and comer to a top half of the table team? We don't necessarily have to be as "smart" as them either to improve our team with the amount of money we can spend more than them.

That's fine for a team like Soutampton, however the expectation at this club from management and supporters anyway, is that we can put together a squad that compete both in the league and champions league.  Replacing like or like won't suffice, we need to be bringing in top quality an to do that we'll have to premimu prices and wages. I can accept that we won't, and shouldn't be paying some of the fees and wages the likes of City, Chelsea and Utd are, but we need to show more ambition and back that up.

[didi]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-transfer-rumours-jurgen-klopp-12812356.amp - lets see how true this'll turn out to be. Obvious problem is it hugely depends on if we finish top 4 or not

4th gots nothing to do with it if we offer the right wages, thats what it boils down too

[jambutty]

Who are 'you lot'? 

The hard of herring.

[cornelius]

Exactly as Eel says. Net spend doesn't mean much without at the context. Especially when you sell a player for a big transfer fee e.g. Suarez for 70m or when you sell a lot of squad players for good fees like we did last summer. Spending something like 120m gross like we have done in the past should be enough to find a few players that slot into the 1st team to make it competitive again or improve (however in some cases it didn't workout like under Rodgers). You have to consider it's impossible for us to attract the same level of player as a Suarez and even a tier below is difficult (e.g. Sanchez) so you can only buy 3 Firmino/Lallana/Mane type players with that money for example. But when you sell non-contributors or fringe players like Benteke, Ibe and prospectively Sakho, Sturridge and can get good prices for them then it's a lot easier to improve your team.

When Man Utd sold their best player Ronaldo that had negative 80mil euros net spend - only buying Valencia, Mama Diouf and Obertan lol. The season after that they only spent 11mil net as well. When Chelsea sold Oscar this January they had negative 60mil net spend for that window during a title charge. When Juventus sold Pogba they had less than 20m net spend. None of these were accused of being unambitious or not backing the manager nor should they be. In this type of context it is not necessary to spend 200m just because you sold 100m. If you are reasonably smart enough you can replace what you just gained from an over inflated transfer fees and improve on what you had last season or at least maintain. Considering we are likely to actually spend something significant regardless of player sales and the only players we will be looking to sell are fringe players, then it is highly likely our squad will only improve after the next transfer window.

You've both missed my point. The squad as it stands right now, regardless of Sturridge, Sakho and Origi's contribution being negligible this season, needs 3 or 4 top quality additions to compete on 4 fronts next season. The bench has looked unbelievably weak when those guys haven't been available. You sell those 3 guys for £50m and only bring in 3 or 4 at a cost of £100m or whatever then the depth of the squad doesn't really improve. You sell those 3 and you need to be bringing in at least 5 or 6 first team level players and we're not gonna do that with a paltry net spend.

[clinical]

People on here have moaned for years that we've not got good fee's for players we are selling, so it's been a nice change in recent years.

Although as said, now rather than it being seen as a positive it's used to complain about as it lowers the 'net spend' amount.

See you are wrong. People don't just moan about low net spend. They moan about low net spend with a tiny squad. We just in no way shape or form did enough last summer.

I predict our budget will mainly be made from selling players like the last several years has been.

[CraigDS]

See you are wrong. People don't just moan about low net spend. They moan about low net spend with a tiny squad. We just in no way shape or form did enough last summer.

Would you like to point out where I say they 'just' moaned about low net spend?

[cdav]

You've both missed my point. The squad as it stands right now, regardless of Sturridge, Sakho and Origi's contribution being negligible this season, needs 3 or 4 top quality additions to compete on 4 fronts next season. The bench has looked unbelievably weak when those guys haven't been available. You sell those 3 guys for £50m and only bring in 3 or 4 at a cost of £100m or whatever then the depth of the squad doesn't really improve. You sell those 3 and you need to be bringing in at least 5 or 6 first team level players and we're not gonna do that with a paltry net spend.

I think we need 5-6 of the right players who can contribute instantly and be trusted by Klopp next season to perform. Add those to the 13-15 players he trusts from the current squad and that is a much stronger position than we are currently in to compete on multiple fronts. The thing is they don't all need to be £30-£50m signings- a few of the right undervalued/ cheap players (like Matip) would allow us to concentrate the majority of the funds on where it can be of most use (centre back and another goalscoring wide forward in my opinion). 

[Suareznumber7]

None of those are wide players and two of them have a long history of injuries.

We didn't need said player for 4-5 games, we needed him to 100% start 4-5 games and provide an option for the rest of the campaign. The reason it's being discussed in this thread is because it's linked to our transfer strategy, which has left us short of squad depth throughout FSG's reign, not just under Jurgen Klopp.

Let's hope that changes this summer because I don't think they'll get away with another season of it.

Our "wide players" are fullbacks. 

[El Lobo]

You've both missed my point. The squad as it stands right now, regardless of Sturridge, Sakho and Origi's contribution being negligible this season, needs 3 or 4 top quality additions to compete on 4 fronts next season. The bench has looked unbelievably weak when those guys haven't been available. You sell those 3 guys for £50m and only bring in 3 or 4 at a cost of £100m or whatever then the depth of the squad doesn't really improve. You sell those 3 and you need to be bringing in at least 5 or 6 first team level players and we're not gonna do that with a paltry net spend.

You seriously think we cant bring in 6 good players for £100 million....?