Burrell Married to Schafer for life

[Sir X]

Who is the "they" in this presentation Pete'y

The NET SPEND comes into play because it affects #1 and #2 above. If the manager inherits a squad worth $100m and goes out and buys $50m worth of players, then he has a +$50m net spend and a squad value of $150m (mitigating factors such as player depreciation/appreciation aside). If he goes out and buys $50m worth of players, and sells $50m worth of players, his squad value has not changed.

Now, if his competition starts at $100m and goes out and buys $150m to give them a squad value of $250m, the FACTS show that his competition will probably finish higher up in the table AND on a year over year basis, (if that gap remains), be more likely to challenge for the top spots in the table than our manager in question who is still at $100m in squad value (or even if he's at $150m in squad value).

Squad value therefore, can only be INCREASED with a POSITIVE net spend


The question you need to answer is can squad value only be increased with a positive net spend ?

Hint :

* Beckham
* Giggs
* Neville - Gary and Phil
* Scholes

[Peter R]

Paul alluded to this, actually it was a direct reference when he asked you the other day" Appreciation aside has the squad value increased?"

It is a real question and it demonstrates where you fixation with, and confusion about, and I have to say ignorance of this "net spend" and its relation to squad value.

In business, and football is a business, the only verifiable cost of anything is what you paid for it! Market value only becomes a fact, when someone actually pays you what you think something is worth.

Today's lesson!

[Peter R]

The answer is in my post below... but since you didn't do accounting, you're forgiven!

"They" will ALWAYS refer to acquisition cost!

[Sir X]

Paul alluded to this, actually it was a direct reference when he asked you the other day" Appreciation aside has the squad value increased?"

*You are asking me about a reference from the other day , when we are talking about what he said in specific quotes in two paragraphs , I provided today ?::

It is a real question and it demonstrates where you fixation with, and confusion about, and I have to say ignorance of this "net spend" and its relation to squad value.

*My confusion and ignorance , or you are trying to confuse me ?

In business, and football is a business, the only verifiable cost of anything is what you paid for it! Market value only becomes a fact, when someone actually pays you what you think something is worth.

*That said , can squad value only increase with a positive net spend ? ::

Today's lesson!

My confusion..lol

[Peter R]

I'll ignore the first question.

No.2 - I am not trying to confuse you, but educate or inform you. You can take it or leave it.

No. 3 - In business (football)/accounting ONLY a positive net spend will increase squad value. Businesses report acquisition cost on their Balance Sheet, not market value. Football would be no different.

Market value on the other hand is a fluid concept, and that is what you are trying to say...that squad value can increase simply because a players value because of his proven ability regardless of what was paid. The opposite is also true, value can decrease. I know this and Paul knows this, and you should realize that Paul knows this, hence his question "Appreciation aside".. It was not a frivolous question.

These market value changes are not reflected on the books of the business. It would violate some GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) is my guess, and because it would be somewhat arbitrary to ascribe a value to player x and y simply because you think he is worth $x or $y. If you wanted your Balance Sheet to look more attractive, there would be nothing to prevent you from saying, e.g. we have a player named Benteke, and we think his value is now $50M so we going to report that. It isn't done.

That said, the only way to factually compare squad values is to look at what owners paid for the players.

Now, when anyone is looking at an individual player with the intent to buy, or sell, what you pay if buying will be the cost of the player on the buying club's books. If you sell, you make a profit or loss on the sale. The players cost on the selling company's books would not have changed. Typically, a profit or loss is a combination of the cash received and the amount depreciated on the asset, less the acquisition cost of said asset.

One caveat, over time, and I doubt that football does this, some businesses will adjust their Balance Sheet to reflect market value of certain long term assets, but this is not something that is done willy nilly. A real accountant on the board might be able to explain how it's done, as well as correct me if I have erred in anything I've written. I don't mind being educated!

And to help you out, there is nothing to prevent you from saying that Leicester for example generally had an increase in market value because of the team's performance but if you had to say what it is, it would be pure speculation.

[Sir X]

You will ignore the 1st question,o.k, thanks for the info .How should I know Paul'y knows this ? Given his theory on a positive net spend being the only vehicle to increase squad value ?

What you have put forth is in no way similar to his presentation to the point where you have to make the excuse that " he knows this".

FYI I have stated Leicester did increase its squad value after winning the Prem an issue your brother found fault with.

I agree with you ignoring the 1st question is wise.

[Peter R]

Paul's mistake is that he gave you credit for understanding more than you actually do! That's all!

[Peter R]

You will ignore the 1st question,o.k, thanks for the info .How should I know Paul'y knows this ? Given his theory on a positive net spend being the only vehicle to increase squad value ?

What you have put forth is in no way similar to his presentation to the point where you have to make the excuse that " he knows this".

FYI I have stated Leicester did increase its squad value after winning the Prem an issue your brother found fault with.

I agree with you ignoring the 1st question is wise.

[OJ]

We are saying a lot but not explaining anything. Forget if they are ub40s and not home grown developed ( that's a different argument and silly one) the fact is that team showed quality in the compa and lost in the finals to Mexico in the cc. What happen since then?

[Sir X]

Good question,lets examine the GC,some would argue 1)we were lucky to be in the finals.2) a WC campaign is a different proposition than GC campaign.

Our only convincing win in the GC was against a disillusioned USA,Haiti ball wi face off,like they did in the Office,the difference now is they made use of their chances.

Before the GC results were just as erratic.In truth be it Mex or Panama in the final,we would be lucky to win against any of them in that final.

That said ,given all these facts,did anything really odd happen.We played Haiti who we played in the GC,C.Rica who we played in the GC ,escaping with draws,only to lose to them in WC campaign .Panama who we should have played in the final beat us.


Why do you have the impression something changed?

[Don1]

Jamaica bruk and can't afford to get the team together often enuff to play good practice matches.

Willi this is a general fallacy.

It is true ONLY when the bulk of the team consists of foreign and/or foreign-based players...as it is now. That policy is clearly an ABYSMAL failure

If/when our national team's core is based @ home in Jamaica where it belongs....there is ZERO problem re assembling the CORE group. Those foreign or foreign-based players who are unwilling/unable (routinely) to be available for practice games...that should be a disqualifier imo.

We should ONLY want players able & willing to commit early & often...not some so-called "best players" That's RUBBISH. None of them is an A player JA should be bending over backwards to accommodate

This was the formula that formed the "best units" that led to success in 96-98

It is ONLY (as you know) by having the core of any team playing & even living together for extended periods that a cohesive unit can develop. This is why I cringe when I hear the specious nonsense about only using the "best players". It is the "best unit" that must be used at all times.

The best unit will more times than not emerge from the players who are together for long periods and mutually committed. Meanwhile the so called "best players" may be off on their own frolics in foreign parts.

When one observes specious nonsense like the philosophies behind the totally failed Snowball-dominated Jamaica teams...dat fi get bun out widout any apology to di eediat JFF an' dem weak heart supportas

[Bricktop]

what happens when the local players develop & are snapped up by foreign teams?

[Don1]

what happens when the local players develop & are snapped up by foreign teams?

Dat noice fi dem an' dem club & JA ball ....Plus more inspiration & more room fi odda yutes fi progress

win-win

[Bricktop]

yes...but then arrangements have to be made to fly them in for games...they have to maintain their caps for country...

[Don1]

yes...but then arrangements have to be made to fly them in for games...they have to maintain their caps for country...

Absolutely. Even the senior team should be part of the development process