Is having a high transfer net spend good or bad?

as the title says.

If it progresses your team and allows you to win stuff, then it's good I suppose. (As long as you stay in budget)

If your spending lots and not getting any success from it, then it's not so good.

High net spend means you are spending more on transfers than you are getting back from selling players.

Is it good or bad? Can be neither, can be both depending on your circumstances.

Probably bad as you might end up paying crazy money in dividends and then crazy money in taxes the following season...

taxes and dividends represents only some of your profit

I ask because im not even in the top 12 teams on the list yet i win the league year in year out and have 344m in the bank to spend. Man City top the list on transfer net spend.

Neither. It depends on how much money your team has to splash out on transfers.

Net spend is simply the sum of what you got for sold players and payed for bought players.

If you buy players for 70 mio. € and sell players for 40 mio. € your net spend will be 30 mio. €.

It's not bad as long as you improve your squad and don't ruin the future of your club financially (ie getting them into debt or using stuff like 48 month transfers, not worrying how the club will pay them). Even then sometimes it's necessary to get the club deep in the red and it's worth taking that risk. I took my Torino side to 10M€ in the red, but the players I bought with it gave us Champions League football and the TV and prize money for it meant the following season we were 20M€ in the black.

Even though my club has a bank balance of $1 BILLION I still try to have a negative net spend every transfer window (of course I can have a positive net spend one window if I then sell a player or two in the next window). Just adds a little incentive to developing my current youths, rather than being tempted into replacing them. Its definitely a mistake i have made in previous versions, to always think the grass is greener on the other side, and that a new signing MUST be better than what I already have, as why else would the lad cost $25m?

Moral of the story, a player that costs $25m to bring in might be no better than a 8-12m rated player already on your team.

I always have a low net spend and the challenging teams around me always have spends well up in the 70+ millions mark Dont know if thats a good or bad thing?!

I've been at Bury for five seasons - i've forgotten what spending (or making) money is like!

The lower the better, as it ultimately adds to your club revenue and therefore profit and therefore more resources for expanding and building new facilities, hiring more background staff, extending your scouting network, and adding more feeder clubs.

I tend to have my highest net spend in my first season when I am re-shaping a club, and hope to fill the difference with prize money.

2012/13: Net Spend £34.0M - £128M purchased, £94M sold

2013/14: Net Spend £ 2.5M - £36M purchased, £33.5M sold

2014/15: Net Spend -£27.5M - £22.5M purchased, £50M sold

2015/16: Net Spend -£35.0M - £44M purchased, £79M sold

2016/17: Net Spend -£49.0M - £35M purchased, £81M sold

2017/18: Net Spend -£ 2.0M - £10M purchased, £12M sold*

Total Net Spend: -£77.0M

*Incomplete Season

sometimes impossible to avoid though, it doesnt matter that much really.

sometimes impossible to avoid though, it doesnt matter that much really.

How does it not matter?

depends how you do, if you spend a stupid amount and not win anything, then it is bad. mostly incomes from winning things cover it.

depends how you do, if you spend a stupid amount and not win anything, then it is bad. mostly incomes from winning things cover it.

Well put it this way;

I'm in 2024 in my save and I'm currently in charge on Mancheter United (this my third seasn with them), and throughout last season I regularly made a loss every month from Septmber to April of between £5million and 11million due to wages, running costs, etc. Lets go in the middle of those two figurea and say that I lose £8million a month - that would be a loss of £64million between those months. Over the summer just gone I had a net spand of -£36.5million, taking my balance to just over £60million. Had that my net spend been the other way round, then I would have been buggered come April/May time.

It does matter. To say it doesn't, and to blindly believe that it will be covered if you are successful, is nonense. It just depends on the situation your finances are in as to whether having a high net spend is good or bad.

If you are signing players who will bring in more prize money, and can be sold for a profit, it doesn't matter.

It's when you sign players without much resale value (Shevchenko at Chelsea), or for such huge fees that nobody will ever better them (Carroll at Liverpool) that you might have a problem. It doesn't matter if you have a generous owner, of course.

I don't understand the question, unless it is just a way of asking for praise for your good management?

"I spend the least amount on groceries of anyone on my block. I only spend $40.00 a week. Is this a good or bad thing?". What, really? Are you suggesting there is possibly something bad about spending less than others? If so, what is it that would be bad?

and shirt sales/ sponsorship.