What happened before those 5 years.. The highest spending clubs in the history English football have won the most. I understand it's a depressing realisation, but that's how it's done.... Sorry was done.
Now do last 15 years.......... The top 6 argument is a circular argument and everyone knows it and this is how it starts: Top 6: NUFC cant be allowed to spend freely ( Like Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea etc did when they got rich owners and before they pulled up the draw bridge). They need to increase their revenues organically. NUFC: How can we increase revenues Top 6: You need to become successful on the pitch NUFC: How do we become successful on the pitch Top 6: By buying good players. NUFC: but we cant buy good players due to PSR limits and also any good players are snapped up by the top 6 Top 6: well you need to increase your revenues to compete with us NUFC: Youre just taking the piss now! Top 6: Well done, now **** off back in line
24/25 - 68m 23-24 - 148m 22-23 - 185m 21-22 - 130m Total 531m That’s not net spend. That’s actual spend without taking into account sales. So other than last year spending over 100m each year. Just for contrast liverpool 24/25 - 42m 23/24 - 172m 22-23 - 145m 21-22 - 89m total 448m So ignoring this window, Newcastle have outspend Liverpool even before take into account net spend.
Not disagreeing with you. I’m arguing the point that since you won a trophy the top 6 have ‘closed ranks’ somehow. But I’m yet to understand how - apparently so far it’s because they can spend more (albeit history shows that isn’t true of all clubs) but also they seem to be stealing Newcastle targets - which again historically is how football works. Better clubs sign the better players and better players are attracted to bigger clubs. It’s not a new thing since Feb.
Money is the easy excuse for poor teams mate. Newcastle have spent more than you but don't like to admit it because they have either spent too much on poor player (bit like us) or give the players to poor managers (again a bit like us). I would never fault Liverpool for their spending because on the whole it's very good spending.
But, clearly ignoring my point… we were absolute ****e and you were competing for titles at the start of the aforementioned period. Soooooo as it has been since the dawn of time, we had to start spending (just a little) bit more than you to catch up. Despite our ambitions, we’re not allowed to keep it up. Look at our last 3 windows for ****s sake.
That’s not even wumming, it’s just pure ****e and shows you up a little to be honest. Expected better.
If you spend money on already well constructed house it's not the same as starting off with an argos tent mate
Even spending freely it took city a few years to become champions, you’ve won a cup within a few years starting at a worse place. You’ve got into the CL twice now. That grows your revenue. You then buy decent players - tonali, Bruno, Isak, botman, all very good signings that improved you. You then get a coach that improves players - does Howe do that? Maybe, maybe not. You sustain European football on a regular basis that helps grow the reputation and commercials and attracts better players. That allows more investment. Sounds simple, obviously isn’t. But you’re also allowed to buy cheaper players and develop them, sell for big money and reinvest to make stronger. Brentford do it. Brighton do it. Football is always going to have a pecking order. It always has done, not every club is going to compete every year. Way you’re talking as if you can’t buy a 3/4 good players for 80m and develop them into top talent. Salah 30m mane 30m firmino 30m henderson 20m fabinho 40m robertson 8m gini 30m matip 0 that was the core of league winning side. A great manager develops good players into great players and if you can’t always buy the best, you try develop good ones into the best.