I've never understood the net spend critics if you replace a 10mil player with a 5mil player, you'd expect to be worse if you replace a 10mil player with a 15mil player, you'd expect to be better does it happen 100% of the time? no, of course not but averaged out over multiple players it's pretty much in the realm of fact.
It means that you've had to sell in order to buy. Sometimes like Chelsea you sell worse players for good money and buy improvements whichx makes you look good (and is the best way of doing it if you can afford to stock pile young players for a few years) But sometimes like us, Spurs, United with Ronaldo you s your best player and you take 2 steps back. Therefor you need to spend that money just to get back level to where you were. Sometimes it works (southampton) sometimes it doesn't like us and Spurs. United net spend was small because you could sell your squad ply ayers for 6/7 and allowed you to buy 1 or 2 better players and improve your first team.
You can plot on a graph data over several years: Net spend vs points earned. There is definitely a strong correlation between the two. Spending money does not guarantee success... nor does not spending money mean you will flop- but there is a strong statistical mathematical correlation between the two. Those that spend typically do better than those that don't.
Take away the last 12 months and there really isn't any at all. 13 months ago arsenal were bottom of the net spend league along with everton and Newcastle. Chelsea and city were top and liverpool were ahead of united with spurs just behind. Today stoke are ****ing 4th in net spend terms. Stoke ffs.
