I get pretty much all of the critique of the higher ups, but our transfer policy comes down to - can we afford it? Can we afford paying larger wages? Can we afford paying more money for players? Levy was big on staying within FFP, but no one seems to care about that anyway, and there doesn't seem to be any repercussions for those that don't - yet, from a legal perspective, we were doing the right thing. Sure, in theory we could've given as much of a fudge about FFP as Chelski and City, but without mega rich owners wanting to spend, how are we going to just blast money at five senior players over a summer?
I want us to just throw money at anyone and everyone that moves as much as the next guy, but are we really in a financial position to do so with having to pay the debt on the stadium and so on? It seems like such a footnote whenever this is discussed, "they should spend more, the cowards! well, ok, so the downpayment on the stadium cost a bit, yet still!" - kind of like squad of 10 fit players should perform as well as a squad of 22 fit players.
I don't know. Playing a bit of devil's advocate here. A lot of our higher ups clearly don't have a clue about football, and the higher ups in the club (and the club as whole, maybe) probably do have a culture of being self-defeating cowards (ironically), but how much leeway have we really had when it's come to our finances? We are in reality nowhere near any of the big teams, probably due to lack of domestic and international success over years and years (as well as the stadium).
I'm rambling and quite possibly wrong - but it just sounds a bit simplified to say, "if they had just spent more, they would win more". I would've spent more too, if I had more money, but alas.
