Does it actually say CEO salary?
Net spend is an extremely weak argument, arguably the absolute worst argument to put forward.
There is far more going on in transfer the the vast majority of supporters consider.
What about release clauses? Agent fees? Wages (A massive consideration these days), VAT, FA Fee, Signing bonuses and finally image rights.. All these extras are separate from the reported fees we generally just use.
The club with probably the best net spend in recent years is Liverpool (not looked at any definite figures here).
See, the vital part of net spend figures that often isn't considered is the loss
loss of significant assets (that's what each player is now in the game). Folks think net spend should suggest huge sums of money spent, it doesn't.
So, Liverpool lost
Suarez, Sterling & Coutinho in 3 out of 5 of the post Ferguson years. Hardly something to praise is it?
It's only this summer where we have offloaded significant names / big investments to balance the books and guess what, we still have folks like you creating rhetoric. What I'm saying is, when we are spending huge sums you ignore it and create anti glazer narratives, then when we try balance the books for the auld net spend they (the glazers) are also in the wrong and they are "milking" the club. Both sides matter of fact can't be true, it has to be one or the other.
Which is it?
As for the list of clubs like Arsenal, Wolves and Villa... seriously?
We've outspent all those clubs massively in terms of transfer fees.
If we consider the post Ferguson years
Man United Spend - £946m approx -
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-united/alletransfers/verein/985
Arsenal spend - £621m approx
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-arsenal/alletransfers/verein/11
I can't even be arsed going looking at Wolves & Villa's spend cause its completely irrelevant and untrue what your saying.