Sure you would, but the financials, particularly looking ahead, do not support that.
That was interesting, but I'm still not quite clear where the money went, something about bonus payments increasing the wage bill I think, which doesn't seem to affect City as much, quite weird!
In summary our financial position seems to be improving rapidly under FSG but in many respects we are still behind the other top 6 clubs, I can live with that, we are certainly moving in the right direction.
Having said that I'd still like to see us find some money to fund at least one transfer.
The alternative as explained in the thread with all the tables (which you spent about 15 minutes on judging by time stamps of your posts), is the club taking out loans or the owners paying their personal money into the club (which would have FFP ramifications and which they've said all along they won't be doing anyway). Yes there was 34 million in loan repayment, the zero-interest loan from the owners which has been key to getting the club back to financial health. The owners don't collect a dividend from the club's profits/revenue.
As he estimates in the closing posts, from the end of last season through the coming season, the club may be looking at a 100 million shortfall in revenue, due to (in order) losses in match day, commercial and broadcasting revenue. Obviously this number is uncertain because we don't know what the coming season will bring CoVid-wise. But that is the point, in terms of wanting the club to spend money. You can't just say in a vacuum that you want the club to spend more money.
Other clubs, as the thread goes into, run on different business models, almost always involving a lot more debt. We don't do that, and especially given the world financial situation, that is a very good thing (not even getting into the on-field success it has helped this team achieved recently).