No, as in not understanding how many things he would need to know that he clearly does not know in order to reach the conclusions he comes to.
My favourite bit of analysis of his was along the lines of 'we have 50mil to spend but because we signed xxx for 20mil and committed to 5 years of wages totalling 25mil we therefore have 5mil left to spend this window'.
The moron
The trouble is people not knowing what the budget really represents or being fooled by the media into what it represents. We have £200m cash in the bank so actually paying for players isn’t that much of a problem. The £45m would be a figure the club would feel comfortable they could add on the books. With fees and wages being amortised over the length of a contract a £45m budget would always go further than what people think. The media painted a picture of us signing someone for £25m and only being able to spend £20m after that, which was false.
If you use Tierney as an example. Even if we paid all £25m up front on the books it would be £25m + £20m wages over 5 years / 5. So £9m added and £36m left in the budget (although it would be a bit less after agent fees and other ****e but you get the picture). If John Cross and the like reported it they’d be saying “after paying £25m up front Arsenal now only have £20m left in their budget”. Now they’ve started talking as though we invented installments, still not understanding football clubs amortise player fees and contracts.