whatever....... saying we've spent 90 odd million when in fact no such outlay has occured is simply inaccurate, deliberately misleading and generally sneaky. saying we will have spent that in 4 years time is ok but still it ignores the simple fact that the tranfer (one time outlay) is considered differently on the balance sheet and is what determines out yearly profit/loss. the wages paid are also in the balance sheet but not one off so they are paid each year, 32.8million will mean no profit this year but the wages will not tip us into loss on any of the 4 years in question simply put to report the spend in any other way than in proper financial terms (impact on balance sheet, profit/loss) is plain wrong. If you're not willing to do that then merely comment regarding the "value" you've seen in the outlay and to be frank 9 players in 2 windows for a net initial outlay of les than 40mil plus getting **** of anyone not good enough or lacking the committment is extremely good. Only carroll's transfer is questionable, not for him but for the fee
