|
|
"If Everton were playing at the bottom of my garden, i'd close the curtains”
Net spend is an important Barometer of course and FSG could definitely pursue being a little less conservative on the spending front so we don't enter seasons feeling we're "a player short" - however I think we should be careful about it being the only Barometer.
Agent fees for transfers wages, the Nature of our incentivised contracts, agent fees for transfer renegotiations - they all add up.
As indeed does infrastructure. Man United for example have a much higher net spend than us, but have allowed Old Trafford to continue to crumble into a ruin - so much so that there are media articles here and there about the leaky roof, rats and the possibility of a new stadium.
We on the other hand developed the Main Stand, will soon have a redeveloped Anfield Road End and have a state-of-the-art training facility.
Each season is a Battle. But the "War" is forever and we have invested in things that will benefit us over multiple seasons. That's certainly where (some of) the money has gone - when we are able to generate £11m extra per season via the benefit of the developed new stand, we can't say that the money disappeared.
Caveat - we need to spend more on transfers. But the whole FSG/spending debate really needs to welcome more shades of grey than the polarising black-and-white stuff we all have on here. Said as a generality, not "at you" Nineteen - net spend just happened to be a good springboard.
Bookmarks