@lejackal are those "net" spend figures?
The whole, 'net or gross' spend argument is dull, but it is true Liverpool (for example) spent big on VVD and Alison in consecutive windows. Albeit that was financed by the sale of Coutinho (cheers Barca). City and Chelsea have sold a few for big bucks too. Hazzard to Real etc.
Utd couldn't sell a tenner for 20p so that hinders them.
I have to agree with
@theforceuk City would be nowhere without the money. They have now built the infrastructure to enable them to claim a high income and thus to continue to spend.
But then both they are Chelsea have used some seriously questionable, albeit not illegal, accounting methods.
8yr contracts anyone (now outlawed AFTER Chelsea got the benefit of using them)? Selling naming rights of your stadium to a company owned by the owner of the club (no conflict of interest there at all). Chelsea's latest trick is to sell the hotels in/near stamford bridge to a company owned by the same company that owns the club. To make it even cheekier they have included a 'management fee' whereby Chelsea continue to get an income from the hotels even after selling them. What odds that income amounts to exactly, if not more, than the hotels were making before? Thus allowing chelsea to book a profit on the sale (useful when you are about to breach FFP), continue to bank the income and the company that bought them can also declare a loss for tax purposes. Not illegal, but to call it 'questionable' is being very kind. If I was the PL I would tell them to **** off when they tried to claim that profit from the 'sale'. But we all know that won't happen.