Sentences with phrase «net spend»

The percentage amount of the annual bonus is determined by which tier the cardholder's annual net spend falls into.

If you mainly use Tesco for gift cards and not your actual weekly shopping then gift cards are a good way to build up your spend to get the discount — in the case of the above coupon I would buy # 100 of gift cards and a little over # 10 worth of shopping and that would net me around 310 Clubcard points (744 Avios or 775 Flying Club miles) for a net spend of # 100....

There should probably ne a new one about Net Spend — and those interested in it will find the info they need.

For every additional $ 10,000 in eligible net spend, you will receive an additional Free Night E-Cert, up to two additional E-Certs given during the 12 - month statement cycle period immediately prior to the annual anniversary of the Account opening date.

I started using a net spend debit card 7 months ago.

Why because of the card its jus like a net spend or green dot card I can't get a regular checking account so I had to go with a prepaid card.

Liverpool blew it, not unlike us in 2013, but with City's unrivalled financial muscle (nearly # 0.5 billion net spend over the past 5 years), they should really be winning their titles far more convincingly, and Chelsea will be much stronger next season, as I hope will we!

Spurs have a net spend of zero.

But the emergence of Marco Verratti onto this summer's market has complicated a summer that was already going to stretch Barca's financial limits, with self - imposed budgets meaning that the club could only countenance a net spend of around # 75m this off - season.

A net spend comparable to Huddersfield and Watford and Leicester is nowhere near what was required.

A quick Google (multiple articles) suggests that Houllier's net spend in his first season in 1998 - 1999 was around # 17.5 million.

So we have a net spend today that is similar to almost 20 years ago?

We could end up with a situation where we get both Aubameyang and Mkhitaryan in, with Sanchez leaving, and a net spend of just # 53m.

47.6 million net... which is 467.9 m less than Chelsea's net spend in the same period!!!

There is an argument, of course that # 75m of that money has already been spent on Virgil van Dijk — and while the timing of both deals does hint at that, Liverpool have a net spend of around # 30m over the past two years not including the Coutinho and Van Dijk transfers.

The club promised a net spend well in excess of # 100M, key reinforcements, and the kind of recruitment that would ensure their top four survival and give them legitimate title credentials.

Now, net spend is typically a facile way of assessing a club's business.

And so, when a player like Zlatan Ibrahimovic is signed by United on a «free transfer,» that doesn't get calculated into net spend — even though the club paid him more than # 10 million in annual salary.

For a club our size the net spend is significant in circumstances where we have had no big - money exits in many years.

His words were along the line of «a top club like Liverpool should have a higher average net spend of # 10m - # 15m each year `.

I'll let you lot get stuck into that net spend stuff if it interests you.

They have massively improved (whilst still being complete coonts obviously) on a net spend of # 410 000 a year in the same period.

In Net Spend terms we have shelled out more than Liverpool, Spurs, Everton and Southampton during that period.

Some people will tell you net spend isn't important.

Compare our net spend this window with, for example, Everton.

Aside from Barcelona and Real Madrid, only Villarreal, Granada, Valladolid and Elche have a net spend in transfer dealings.

According to The Liverpool Echo, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City & Manchester United had a combined net spend of approximately # 450million this time around on transfers.

Indeed, during FSG's first four full seasons, net spend was approximately # 40m per season on average whereas over the three most recent full seasons the net spend was only # 11m.

Liverpool had a net spend of minus # 10million i.e. they made # 10million.

It is a fact that our net spend is less than the interest the owners receive on loans to the club The money spent on players only makes up part of what we didn't spend last year Other clubs spending about # 60 million outside top 6 We should try for Barkley for # 30m pay Lanzini # 100 k a week which we pay to less good players and plan to play Rice with Reid at CB as he's better than all the other CB's we have Buying Kone for more than # 6 mill would be a waste of money Sunderland supporters think he's the worst CB in premiership last season!

Cumulatively, the four clubs have a net spend of approximately # 12m, enough to buy you half of Roberto Soldado.

For 10 years our net spend was less than Spurs, in fact for 10 years it was a POSITIVE net spend, and on the back of that we won nothing.

Yes Spurs do really well on a very meagre net spend.

This perhaps explains why over the corresponding period transfer net spend was relatively low compared with previous seasons.

This article aims to explain why the club's net spend in recent seasons has appeared to be so relatively low, examines the story behind the infamous # 200m war chest and looks at forecast revenue for this season to give an indication of how much money will be available to spend this summer.

Granted, that net spend is considerably higher this season but that's because several high earners were removed from our books while the new arrivals came in on much less wages than many of the departing players.

That's a point I alluded to earlier Amos — some people are quick to jump on our net spend in the current financial year and arrive at the conclusion that we're riding roughshod over FFP but when the cost of these players and wages is amortised over the length of their contracts, coupled with removing high earners (Tevez being the main one) from our books then it's entirely conceivable as to why we've spent # 80m - # 90m net without it jeopardising our chances of meeting FFP.

Either way, City's latest accounts are for the 2012/13 season and they details a net spend of around # 19 million.

Firstly, FFP won't allow for it and secondly, with the squad we have now it won't be necessary, so what we'll see is a more moderate net spend each season and much less player churn.

That world record Pogba fee — added to other sales, such as the $ 13m received from Watford for Roberto Pereyra — did, however, mean that Allegri's net spend this summer was under # 15m, while simultaneously improving his side and weakening that of his rivals.

Or invest more money or less money, and who has the lowest net spend.

In the 5 full seasons under FSG the club has spent # 220m more than Spurs in net spend and currently paying # 66m more in wages.

At # 101.3 m, City had the biggest net spend of any club in Europe.

In comparison, Klopp has spent # 221million in his five transfer windows at Liverpool yet has a remarkable net spend of - # 35 million.

Manchester City had an uncharacteristically quiet transfer window due to the imposition of FIFA fair play restrictions which limited boss Manuel Pellegrini to a net spend of # 49 million, a mere snip compared with the millions splurged by their cross city rivals Manchester United.

The total net spend for Premier League clubs was # 481m, much of it paid out by the likes of Newcastle United, West Ham United, West Bromwich Albion and Bournemouth.

Manchester City have the biggest net spend here.

We often hear tell of things like «net spend» and «war chests,» which purport to quantify the spending power of a particular club during a particular transfer window.

Manchester United have made the fewest January purchases over the last 11 seasons Only four Premier League clubs have a positive net spend during...

«Net Spend» is a much scoffed at phrase in modern football, but to transform Liverpool into the gegenpressing, offensive monster we often see now, from the weary, possession - obsessed «animal» it was at the end of Brendan Rodgers» reign — while making # 34m — is nothing short of...