Name one owner (with the exception of City)All the owners of these clubs use their own funds from their own various companies and back pockets to fund transfers. Even if it means losing profits. They know that spending money can be a good thing and making the right investments win trophies long term even if it means profits are down.
Levy and Joe literally use player sales to buy players. Its all in house. Gross spend means fuck all. There's no improvement when you lose your best players or do not improve on the squad you have when you are peaking. Its a rinse and repeat job. We buy a set of players. Young and with resale value. We do not make adjustments when there's a need to push on. We ultimately fizzle out and have to rebuild. It's the spurs life cycle. Difference between Liverpool and spurs. They saw the problem and spent heavily to push them To the next level. We would literally be in their shoes right now had we made the right calls at the right time and had ownership that saw the value of buying heavy to get the right player even if it sometimes meant a negative net spend. IF YOUR INTENTIONS ARE TO WIN TROPHIES AND BE THE BEST FOOTBALL CLUB
Thats never been the Enic, Levy, Joe Lewis plan. Never will be. They've played their part to modernise us but eventually we need to be sold on to more ambitious owners who will push the boat out now and again to win us something. It doesn't have to be mad, but it cannot be as dogmatic as the ENIC approach, which is all about making profit for its offshore investment company.
That have spent there own money and not expected to get any of it back.
Owners might put their own money in to a club but it goes down as a debt that the club has to repay.
See Chelsea owing 1.75 BILLION to their owner