Simon Jordan says figures ‘don’t stack up’ in net spend debate and hits back at claims Man City have actually spent less than Liverpool and Premier League rivals on transfers

Simon Jordan has hit out at suggestions that Manchester City are more financially prudent than Liverpool, saying the claim is ‘not right’.

Martin Samuel’s column in the Daily Mail stuck up for Pep Guardiola’s side amid Jurgen Klopp’s complaints about how the Reds can’t compete with the likes of state-funded clubs City, Newcastle United and Paris Saint-Germain when it comes to transfer spend.

The piece highlights that selling the likes of Gabriel Jesus, Raheem Sterling and Oleksandr Zinchenko, alongside bringing in Erling Haaland for an initial £51million and Kalvin Phillips for £42m put City bottom of the Premier League table for net spend, suggesting that their business was particularly shrewd.

City was also reported to be 12th in net spend over the last five year. Liverpool would ninth, highlighting that in that specific timeframe it was actually Klopp’s side that had a bigger net spend in the transfer market.

Former Crystal Palace chairman Jordan was asked to take a look at the numbers mentioned, and his analysis suggested that the column was written to ‘advance the club’s argument’.

The White and Jordan host said: “I’ve looked at the last five or six seasons and Man City made a £20m profit this year on their transfer activity, Liverpool lost £8million.

“From 2017/18 to the beginning of this season and including this season, Man City have lost £440m in transfer activity. That’s what they’ve lost.

“Liverpool have lost £205m. I don’t understand where the numbers are coming from to suggest [what’s been written].

“Even if you take out this year’s figures, the one figure that suits Man City is the 2017/18 season being excluded from the equation because they lost £210m in one season.

“Go around and see how many football clubs have lost £210m in transfer activity in one season.”

Asked for his verdict on the figures quoted, Jordan said: “They’re not right. They’re not right. City is able to make that argument.

“In 21/22 they lost £42m, in 20/21 they lost £96m, in 19/20 they lost £80m.

“They are not horrible figures because the values of players are a moving feast, but they’re not quite as they’ve being advanced.

“If you look at Liverpool, in 18/19 they lost £126m, in 19/20 they made £30m, in 20/21 they lost £60m, in 21/22 they lost £51m and this year they’ve lost £8m because of the transfers for Darwin Nunez and Sadio Mane going a different way and other players going.

“The numbers don’t stack up, but also if you just take a selected period of time – why the last five years? Because it supports an argument.

“If you take a sixth year into the equation, or do it over ten years – if you do any analysis you do it over a decade. Over the last decade you’ll see that Manchester City are miles bigger spenders than most people and we’re only halfway through the sixth season.

“If you actually do five and a half seasons instead of five exactly, Man City have lost £440m. That’s their net spend, -£440m, so they’ve spent £440m more than they’ve achieved in transfers.

“Liverpool have spent £200m more than they achieved in transfers.

“Of course, you can find that skewed because they got £150m from selling Philippe Coutinho, but in an overall picture if you want people to look at it properly, then look at it properly.”