I think the board will use the stones issue last day of the silly season. They know they won't get away with selling stones and only bringing in average names like a Lennon or some 5 million forward type player. If they can't get in a decent player with a reputation they will hang onto stones. If we can get one in they have a cushion to fall back on the stones issue. They will claim to win either way. Maybe they will
The thing is whichever way they spin it now, both arguments are lost. They have cash. They have had plenty of cash for a couple of successive transfer windows now. So if it's not being spent on players where is it going?
I'm all for not spending for the sake of spending (that's prudent) and equally buying bargains if they turn out to be quality. but bargains are always unqualified untested gambles. And that just seems to be the Board's modus operandi - take small short term gambles and hope for the best while not having to account for a lack of investment anywhere else in the business commercially.
If our net spend again is lowest out of all teams I think it's something the media can pick up on. But using last weekends team as an example the Board may counter argue that they've brought through Barkley, browning, Galloway and Osman for nothing while only paying minimal amounts or nothing over the years for Howard, Jags, Barry, Cleverley, Stones and Coleman plus Mori if they sign him?
In fact they only paid a significant fee (I.e £5m+) for 3 out of 20 of last weekend's squad - McCarthy, Lukaku, and possibly Mirallas (£5m-£6m)?
