I would theorize that we have spent plenty to bring in top players, we just haven’t spent on the *right* players.
According to TransferMarkt:
https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
Net spend with Prem rank the last 5 years:
1. Man City: 713m
2. Man United: 613m
3. Arsenal: 330m
.....
19. Tottenham: 35m
20. Southampton: +42m
This doesn’t include wages. There are many in the caf who say we aren’t spending enough. But that is clearly not true. We spend 90% of our time lamenting that Moyes, LvG and Jose weren’t good enough at man management and tactics, never measuring up to Sir Alex. Could it be that SAF’s greatest attribute was his ability to buy and develop great players?
We have a broken scouting and transfer strategy that must be fixed. Is it possible that the previous CEOs were so reliant on SAF’s transfer market and scouting acumen that when Woodward stepped in and SAF left, there was a huge shortfall in organizational capacity to find, buy, and develop a talent pipeline worthy of our lofty standards?
It’s shocking that The Spurs have spent so little yet have such a talented squad.
Also, assuming the accuracy of these numbers, can we really blame the Glazers for not spending enough? According to this data, the Glazers have spent more than Chelsea, despite the media trope that Chelsea is backed buy oil money and routinely build bonfires with fat wads of cash.
Actually, given the poor choices the scouting and management departments have made since SAF left, I don’t blame the Glazers / Woodward for wanting to hold back transfer funds. Yes, there is the income side to this equation, and in that area we are very strong, especially Woodward.
I just don’t believe that there is any logical person that can conclude that we aren’t spending enough given the data we have on hand.