i disagree with some of the comments here. i do think fsg have strict guidelines on wages and spending policy, but i don't think the driving factor is "buy them young, sell them for profit". i think it's much more about (here's the dreaded word) sustainability. people will give me the arsenal model as an example of how it's not doing them any good in their chances of winning the league, but what's the alternative? a billionnaire owner is the only other short term solution, which is not really an option for us.
The other option is to load the club with debt like united, which i don't like. FSG are not owners who have quillions like city or chavski.
however, where fsg aren't doing enough in my opinion is growing the commercial side of the business. our revenues in 2013 of £170m were way behind united (£320m), arsenal (£245M), City (£231m) and chelsea (£260M). that's where we get the money rolling in to spend on players. some of the revenue will come from success on the pitch, but we have the richest footballing history in the world, we need to tap into it in south america and more in asia.
Logged