I think it was a joke aimed at most of the people who just seem to be mad that we don't have high net spend.
I could be wrong though. :soldadowtf:
See this is the issue I have. I don't want a high net spend (define high anyway, £5m, £10m or City levels?).
But you can't dress up a zero net spend as anything but a general short-changing and even a failure when you're having to flog out most of your recent signings at a loss individually and, having had 4 managers in 3years.
It's about a smart net spend that may have nicked 2 more points in a season and seen us appear in the Champions League again, more than negating that spend, making us more attractive to players, investors etc.
It's not easy of course but it's been pretty plain to see at times that even when we spent money there were some bigger question marks and gambles than there needed to be. Magnificent 7 for £100m without a kick in the Premier League between them?....Fucking nuts. Now all those that want to cover themselves by cuddling up in a comfy balance-sheet and take the high ground about their patience, as if any of us seeing a different bigger picture other than it's all part of a perfectly acceptable 20year master-plan, we are all of us wanting to do a Leeds or expecting to spend like Chelski or City. That's total crap, there is a balance that we are way way off of.
Bottom of net table spend and finishing 4th, 5th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 5th is lucky-old-us for some, how dare we aspire to more or we can't catch the top 4 anyway so why bother. I think it says that with some more money spent smartly at the right times and who knows what might have been. Maybe not tons of inadequate players following falling just short of 3rd and 4th and therefore watching players leave for Champions League or not coming to us because we don't have it.