:nod: Precisely. With money that wasn't actually available.
Printable View
That offer as you know was predicated on the fact that City were giving us 60m for the “contract rebel Chilean”.
Now if you go back to the financial accounts you could argue that they suggest such expenditure is possible without the incoming fee however it all boils down to our willingness to spend, not ability. An issue we are all extremely familiar with by now.
The question is whether it is the board that are unwilling to spend or the manager. I would suggest that Wenger has less control over these things now & so the likely reason is that the board wish to run the club with a large cash reserve. Perhaps to insure against a period where the club won’t be in the top 4 for a while. Austerity, if you will.
A club with £422.8m annual turnover!
£200m on wages.
£44m EBITDA
Why the **** does a football club need a £145m cash reserve for 'austerity'?
Wouldn't they be better of buying London property if they wanted a ROI for austerity's sake?
Stick to poking your finger up people's arses, Dick. And occasionally, patients' arses.
and even if we didn't have a pot to piss in...it's hardly the only problem
motivation/tactics/how a top club can take so many savage beatings (4's 5's 6's EIGHTS), the top players we missed out on due to incompetence, the utter dross we have signed, the simple things we fail to address - like how did we not sign a centre half in the summer? We need someone who has the first ****ing clue on how to defend. I could go on. I could write a book on it
But Rich your attitude seems to be just blame it all on the money, and continue what we're doing because improvement is apparently impossible. So why even bother trying?
I think it says it all about the Board of the club and the lack of ambition, tbh, tr2.
We actually have been doing what we've always done. And instead of getting what we've always got, we've gone backwards. The Board have done nothing about that. They are complicit in the footballing regression of the club.