There's still work to do of course, like I said, it's no guarantee, better managers\coaching staff\medical teams will all increase your chance of winning (and the big clubs with the best facilities are again spending more on those very things). But look at what City, Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, etc all spend, now compare that to the teams who have just come up. If the "spend more, get more" wasn't true then the Premier League would be a free for all every season and not just the same few teams at the top. Apart from Leicester (which was shocked the footballing world it was so unlikely) you've got to go back to 1995 for a non current "big club" to have won the league when Blackburn did it, 26 years ago. And then you've got Leeds in 92, a massive run of Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton and then back to 81 when Villa won it. Football was very different 40 years ago.
Or look at the FA Cup, even in a competition that has a knock out element to it (and so luck of the draw plays a part), and it's possible that in a one off match a lower division team can sink a higher one, since Wimbledon's "Crazy Gang" won it in the mid 80's, there's been Everton, Portsmouth and Wigan that have won it, that's it.
Put it this way as an extreme example. Build a team of players worth £1m, and now build a team of players worth £100m and pit them against each other. Who do you think would win?
I realise that some of us want to see the club through rose tinted lenses, but we've got to be realistic, by relying on nominal fees and loans we're making promotion a much bigger challenge than we need to. I refuse to believe that with the parachute payments, player sales, gate receipts being back, tv money, wage bill reductions that we're broke as a club and will be out spent by other championship teams.
Sorry, but that's a really one dimensional view of things, all you have considered is transfer fees.
Transfer fees are not a good metric to measure the quality of a player, wages are a better metric, but you've chosen to ignore that.
I doubt very much that our ex-EPL players or EPL loanees are on much less than £30k per week. As others have said, I believe our wages bill will be around £40 million.
A poster, this morning, pointed out that, due to a reduction in media revenue last year, our parachute payments are likely to be reduced to around £34 million. In other words the parachute payments are unlikely to cover the wages.
Then we have the £23 million loss that we made in season 2019/20, which has to be serviced somehow.
I suspect our income last season would also have struggled to cover our expenditure, especially when we had to pay compensation for Bilic, & I can't imagine Big Sam & his entourage would have come cheap.
Which means that the loss will have been compounded.
If the owner can't or won't put any cash into the club that loss has to be self funded from the football club, either the profit and loss account, or through player sales, or more likely both.
The BBC have listed all of the final days transactions & by far the majority were frees & loans.
Personally, I think we've done OK
