Ok this is a bit of a ramble. I have looked at the numbers for the past 8 years (From 2005/06) to give a fair indication of how things really are. Rather than making unsubstantiated claims.
During Arry's period we spent an average of £10m per season net. In prem terms this the same sort of amount as Wigan and West Brom spend.
You still do not get it! You are unable to change your use of the inaccurate knowledge you claim to be fact, even when the information is there for you to see and use. Not everything you say is untrue, but just spend a little time looking at the information before making sweeping statements that are false. Now I know that the information can vary slightly from source to source but it is going to be within a narrow boundary of accuracy.
You keep talking about Harry's net spend but that is just part of the process. I pulled you up on that before, obviously no change in perspective Mr Blinker man. But as you are so keen to include this I will also share that aspect.
Transfer dealings look as follows.
Year Transfers In Transfers Out Net spend
2012/13 57.0m 62.8m +5.8m
2011/12 8.0m 35.0m +27.0m
2010/11 18.5m 1.0m -17.5m
2009/10 32.0m 33.0m +1.0m
2008/09 87.2m 67.75m -19.45m
2007/08 48.7m 14.75m -33.95m
2006/07 48.9m 25.1m -23.8m
2005/06 34.4m 16.65m -17.75m
TOTAL 334.7m 256.05m -78.65m
Average amount spent on players per season = 41.83m
Average Net spend per season = 9.83m
Should this figure be a problem? Does it matter if the net spend is relatively low, or is it that a good way to run a club? Would we rather we spent more on players and then had to sell them on for less money. I think the fact that we have spent on average £40 million per season shows that even if players have left us, we have always replaced them with similar or better quality in most cases.
Now let us look at West Brom’s and Wigan’s figures. (I will summarise)
West Brom:
Average amount spent on transfers: 8.39m
Average Net spend: 2.3m
Wigan:
Average amount spent on transfers: 10.78
Average Net spend: -0.22 (that is profit)
Neither anywhere near comparable to Tottenham’s figures.
Rubbish, we did not spend more than top prem sides on transfer fees.
Now to look at this sweeping claim –
(I will include amount spent AS, average outlay AO and average net spend ANS)
Spurs: AS= 334.7, AO=41.83, ANS= 9.83
Man U: AS= 286.65, AO=35.83, ANS=11.7 (rather closer to us than us than Wigan)
Man C: AS=595.35, AO=74.41, ANS=54.08
Chelsea: AS= 410.4, AO= 51.3, ANS= 40.81
Liverpool: AS= 373.95, AO= 46.74, ANS = 16.28
Ars*nal: AS= 219.05, AO= 27.38, ANS= -5.22 (profit)
Newcastle: AS= 142.4, AO= 17.8, ANS= 0.13
West Brom: AS= 67.185, AO= 8.39, ANS = 2.3
Wigan: AS= 86.25, AO= 10.78, ANS= -0.22 (profit)
Looking at these figures shows that the model we most closely resemble is Man Utd. Would you rather we looked more like Man City or Chelsea? Their approach to money is disgusting and is the very reason why financial fair play is the right way forward. Their approach is not sustainable and I abhor it. The alternative is the Ars*nal approach which actually does line the boards pockets, but with no success attached. I do not think this model is any good either as any system which takes out more than it puts in will eventually collapse as well.
Now please can people stop talking about things as truth, without at least spending a little time checking their thoughts actually have some basis in reality, rather than the concoction they have brewed up with three hags, some pot (a black one or smoked) and a mixture of unidentifiable, unreal ideas!!!