Time to dismiss the big spending bruce theory


Status
Not open for further replies.
I doubt it, but I would guess he'd have an input as it impacts on his transfer budget. He'll not be the one doing the negotiating though, that's for sure.

I know, I was just being pedantic really. He's generally signed good players for relatively small fees (assuming the info we get is correct).
 
Again, there IS a difference.

Examples (using random figures)

1. Short has invested £80m on players before Bruces arrival. He then gives Buce another £60m in cold hard cash. This would mean Short had invested £140m on players during his time at Sunderland

2. Short has invested £80m on players before Bruces arrival. Bruce then sells £40m of these assets, and reinvests the £40m into other assets. This would mean Short had invested £80m on players during his time at Sunderland

For any chairman, option 2 is far more financially sound. There is a HUGE difference between selling to buy and simply buying.

Example 1 would mean Short has invested a LOT more money than he would have in example 2.

That's a skewed argument.

The title of the thread is "time to dismiss the big spending bruve theory", not "which of these random scenarios is more favourable".

Short owns the club and all it's assets.

Short can give Bruce 30 million generated from players or he can give him 30 million from sky money. It's all the club/Short's money.

Which is preferable is dependent on a lot. If he sells Bent, Hendo and Gyan for 20 million each and buys Andy Carroll and Kevin Kilbane for the money, then that's not preferable.

You example 2 is so multifactorial for it to be not consistently "preferable". Whether SB gets value for what he spends is the issue. Not that he's had loads to spend.

The point is that Bruce has had shed loads to spend.

The fact that he has to wait for the club to take in some money doesn't change that.

Why do people concern themselves with net spends?
Wherever the funds came from Bruce has still spent the same total on an imbalanced squad with little pace strength and height.If Bruce had won the euro lotto and spent it on the crap we have ,hes still wasted a fortune wherever it came from.

Spot on. With a few exceptions, Bruce doesn't generate the money. He's given it by the club.
 
If we'd spent anything less than £20 million a year refining the squad annually then we'd be left behind anyway. The fact Bruce has done it without dipping into Uncle Ellis's pockets is canny going.
 
The article isnt talking about Bruce being a good wheeler dealer. It is trying to say that Bruce hasnt had loads of cash thrown at him and that he has had to sell talent in order to buy talent.

What you say above is not in the slightest bit relevant to the point of the article.

Maybe the title of this thread should be:

Time to dismiss the big spending Short theory

Because Bruce has spent big. He has cashed in a lot of club asset to fund his own transfer activity.
 
Five pages and clear as mud.

Simple question. How does the total player asset value on Bruce's appointment compare with now?

Players gaining in value IS in part down to him, as is players being sold off cheap (even if its not his fault they were poor), the difference is NOT what Ellis has injected, but it IS his net investment. Its how much money Bruce has 'cost' us in his time. The evidence seems to suggest he has cost us £15 to £25M which is not bad by PL standards, though nothing to get overexcited about.

Whether he has simply 'spent a lot of money and bought a lot of players' - and in the process seen a massive turnover of playing staff isn't surely in any doubt - he has. Its only a problem if it either leaves us performing badly or much weaker financially.
 
If we'd spent anything less than £20 million a year refining the squad annually then we'd be left behind anyway. The fact Bruce has done it without dipping into Uncle Ellis's pockets is canny going.
Not that I am blaming Bruce as it could be a result of prior events, however Ellis did dip into his pockets during the previous Financial Statement period (09-10)
 
Jack Blue said:
In my opinion, and I know some disagree with this, its mid-leading to include the Jordan Henderson sale in his net spend.

Henderson never kicked a ball for Sbragia.....and we all benchmark Bruce against Sbragia / Keanes achievements.

And Henderson wasnt signed by Bruce.

His sale was owing more to the academy and the coaching staff behind the scenes all that young mans life than Steve Bruces transfer nous.

I have no problem including the Danny Collins, Dean Whitehead sales - these players did play for Sbragia. They did contribute to us finishing 16th with 36 points. But Henderson didnt. He was a rising star on loan at Coventry in the Championship where their fans demanded his permanent signature!

Selling Henderson for £20m and re-investing in the transfer market is like Quinny melting down the Murray Gates, selling the gold for £20m, giving it to Bruce in the transfer market and saying Bruce has broken even. No, the club has - Bruce hasn't.

I'd give him more credit than that. Right from the outset in the Amsterdam tournament he was raving about Hendo and didn't hesitate in making him first on the team sheet. Keano was similarly decisive in that respect.
 
I'd give him more credit than that. Right from the outset in the Amsterdam tournament he was raving about Hendo and didn't hesitate in making him first on the team sheet. Keano was similarly decisive in that respect.

This. Bruce deserves credit for Henderson although last season IMO he made 2 mistakes with him.

(1) Playing the lad too much during his run of bad form.

(2) Trying to convert him into a CM.
 
That's a skewed argument.

The title of the thread is "time to dismiss the big spending bruve theory", not "which of these random scenarios is more favourable".

Short owns the club and all it's assets.

Short can give Bruce 30 million generated from players or he can give him 30 million from sky money. It's all the club/Short's money.

Which is preferable is dependent on a lot. If he sells Bent, Hendo and Gyan for 20 million each and buys Andy Carroll and Kevin Kilbane for the money, then that's not preferable.

You example 2 is so multifactorial for it to be not consistently "preferable". Whether SB gets value for what he spends is the issue. Not that he's had loads to spend.

The point is that Bruce has had shed loads to spend.

The fact that he has to wait for the club to take in some money doesn't change that.



Spot on. With a few exceptions, Bruce doesn't generate the money. He's given it by the club.

you did not bother to read behind the heading since it would damaged your argument and it would not paint Bruce in all black?
 
Five pages and clear as mud.

Simple question. How does the total player asset value on Bruce's appointment compare with now?

Players gaining in value IS in part down to him, as is players being sold off cheap (even if its not his fault they were poor), the difference is NOT what Ellis has injected, but it IS his net investment. Its how much money Bruce has 'cost' us in his time. The evidence seems to suggest he has cost us £15 to £25M which is not bad by PL standards, though nothing to get overexcited about.

Whether he has simply 'spent a lot of money and bought a lot of players' - and in the process seen a massive turnover of playing staff isn't surely in any doubt - he has. Its only a problem if it either leaves us performing badly or much weaker financially.

I alluded to it at the start of the thread, but it would be interesting to see what the book value of the squad is now, compared to when Bruce took over. I would imagine it is substantially lower than it was 2 years ago or when Bruce joined.

Not that I think however they value a player on a balance sheet is accurate or should be important (in the grand scheme of things), but you'd imagine it may be important to Short.
 
Invalid/outdated Link Removed

part of it

"And yet the most commonly heard criticism about Bruce is that “he’s had money to spend”. Yes he has, but only because he’s sold first. Until the official accounts are revealed such things are always to an extent a matter of estimation, but by my calculations, Bruce has spent £43million since the end of the 2009-10 season. In the same period, he has sold players to a value of £52million while trimming the Sunderland wage bill."

correct numbers?

Spent a lot of money, recouped a lot of money.

Save for fees (agents, signing on, loan etc), he's basically not "spent a lot of Short's cash".

However, with the number of changes, and the amount of actual money spent (I assume he didn't want 80% of the players he sold, but did want 100% of those his bought!), he should have a squad that he can stand in front of and state is his - and so, should be fully judged on it.
 
Once again too many fall into the trap of looking at transfer fees and ignoring wages.
The true test of whether SB has been given extra cash has to look at the whole picture, and include changes in the wage bill.

A player bought for £5M given a £40K a week five year deal, costs the club the same as a player bought for £10M on £20K per week - both around £15M.

Since we have no real idea on players wages (apart from those who make things up), we also have no idea on just how much SB has spent compared to what he's brought in.

For all we know the Brown deal is more expensive than the Gardner one, and the disposal of Steed far outweighs the investment in Ji and Wickham - we're just guessing.

When this years accounts are released we'll be able to compare the wage bills and get a better picture, but even then because of the timings of players movement it still won't be a full answer.
 
This is the most embarrassing thread ever created on here.

Some very good points, and some people completely missing the point.

You can tell some people haven't done any maths since they left school, or applied any logic to anything.

At the end of the day, if you have a group of said assets, whether that be stock, musical instruments, footballers, etc, and over a few years you have improved that collection of assets by having better quality of stock, musical instruments, footballers, without any fresh and net expenditure, you have done well.

The argument really is as simple as that. All this talk of still what he has sold does not matter. Of course it does. Selling deplete's the squad. It changes the list of asset's.

Now, Bruce is only in charge of the players, not the gates, so that is the only thing worth considering. He hasn't had much fresh, new expenditure. His net spending is very modest. He has used the players he had, which was quite a lot, to reivest, and in my opinion, has done that well. We are a lot better off for not having to invest much new money into the team. That was the OP's point, and it is there for all to see.
 
There are a plethora of managers who have spent less than the buffoon and are doing/have done a better job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top