Well, it both does and doesn't

Where it is new investment, then it matters to an extent. But it forgets the total cost of the contract after the fees, pay and performance incentives i.e. the financial commitment made.

On that measure, I reckon Tottenham would easily outstrip out us on a three year basis even accounting for Bale's loss.

Posted By: Johnny Comecardiff on October 28th 2013 at 16:18:03

Message Thread

Oh, I don't know (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 28, 15:56:39
- pure bollocks (NCFC) - Henclrikus, Oct 28, 16:29:28
  - Even in 92/3, they were hardly vulnerable at home. They are now: VERY vulnerable (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 28, 16:43:32
    - give it up (NCFC) - Henclrikus, Oct 28, 17:14:57
- "- come in, Mr Calderwood, you useless sack of s**te, your time is up -" - yes, this is (NCFC) - CB41, Oct 28, 16:02:30
- They were vulnerable (NCFC) - Old Git, Oct 28, 16:01:22
  - They still are IMO. I can see them losing at Fulham next weekend (n/m) (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Oct 28, 16:02:24
- Could someone explain "net spend" to me please? (n/m) (NCFC) - Pixelman, Oct 28, 16:00:39
  - Spend on new players minus income from player sales (NCFC) - Johnny Comecardiff, Oct 28, 16:03:01
    - Ah, as I thought cheers. I see this mentioned a lot but (NCFC) - Pixelman, Oct 28, 16:05:59
      - not really... spending 20 millon doesn't mean much (NCFC) - phrankin, Oct 28, 17:27:07
      - Well, it both does and doesn't (NCFC) - Johnny Comecardiff, Oct 28, 16:18:03
  - How much it costs to buy a net (NCFC) - norway, Oct 28, 16:02:31
  - Yes (NCFC) - Old Git, Oct 28, 16:02:09

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.