On second thoughts this is probably a bit too dismissive and rude.
I get your point that our business model is reliant on us being able to sell players for big money in order to cover our losses and that's simply not reproducable nor advisable if it is. I just dislike the insinuation that what goes well for us is pure luck, while everything that goes badly is the status quo. If nothing else, it seems to ignore the fact that buying players cheap and improving their quality is an actual policy, it's not like it happened when we were trying to do something else. Lescott was intended to be a football player who was worth more then he paid him for, we didn't hire him as a ball boy and got lucky. It was a case of our policy working spectacuarly, which any policy will do on occassion. It's one thing to say that's not sustainable and quite another to write of any sucesses as pure fortune.