Net spend is paramount lets not try and dress it up any other way.
We used net Spend to defend Rafa at all costs so we can't change that now just to suit arguments.
FSG are good owners, they've just made a monumental F**k up in the handling of the Suarez affair, but its their first stint of dealing with such an episode in the English Media where its ten times worse and ten times more verocious than it is in the states, they will learn from this.
So lets move on as until this incident most were content with their ownership.
Lets see where we are in 3 or 4 years under their stewardship other than 18 months down line.
Net spend is fine.
We need a net spend if we are to progress as a club.
Otherwise we will stand still as the likes of Manchester City and Tottenham overtake us.
That is what happened under h&g.
Stripping of assets like Alonso and Keane (Financial asset in the latter) and not replacing them,
while at the time City and Spurs started to invest in the squads.
So to level a net spend analysis at our previous owners is understandable.
What I don't understand is how, when we didn't use the wage bill as an argument before, we
are using the wage bill as an argument now. Smacks of double accounting to me.
Also we must factor in the players that have left.
I would have understood the argument if we leveled it upon losing the likes of Alonso,
but to use it when we have offloaded the likes of Cole, Poulson, Konchelsky, Ngog, Insua, Jovanovic...
Madness.
The damage was done in
08/09 £6,250,000
09/10 -£8,650,000
10/11 -£5,150,000
In the summer we had a net spend of £35,350,000.
To suggest three seasons of damage can be repaired in one go is insane.
Logged