"Bought the league" argument
Keep seeing the money argument brought up every time we don't win a game, or when we do win we "only win by one or two goals". It's often used to criticise Davies and while I understand partially, people forget we have built a completely new squad, playing style and new management. Regardless, I've just spent a bit of time looking at the heavy spenders across the leagues since 2000 and while I knew spending big in the transfer window doesn't usually equal instant success, I didn't realise just how little success it brought.
In the prem for example, in the 24 seasons since 2000 just 5 were won by teams who spent the most in the same transfer windows. Notable examples of big expenditures not winning the league:
Chelsea 03/04 - €180m - 2nd, 20/21 - €247m - 4th (CL Winners), 22/23 €630m -12th, 23/24 - €464m - 6th
Man City 08/09- €157m - 10th, 10/11 - €183m - 3rd (FA cup winners), 15/16 -€208m - 4th
Man United 14/15 - €195m - 4th , 19/20 - €236m - 3rd
Arsenal 21/22 - €167m - 5th
Again in the championship just 4/20 seasons were won by the highest spenders, with most also missing out on promotion (Transfermarkt goes a bit weird during the last years of the old first/second division so excluded those). Again big spenders who "failed":
Stoke 18/19 - €62m - 16th
V*lla 16/17 - €85m - 13th
Fulham 19/20 - €37m - 4th (PLW),
L1 - not really the same levels of examples here, and we blow everyone else away on spend in the league but still just one season since the current format was brought in was won by the biggest spenders (Wigan 15/16).
I noticed most who spend big start to see success in the season after, and while transfermrkt isn't that accurate and this is just expenditure not net spend it's clear building player "infrastructure" takes time to take effect so generally I think we're doing pretty well even after considering the money we've splashed out. We're on course for a record breaking season, so I wish people would stop being so negative when we don't win or win by enough.
Rant over, TLDR: History shows money doesn't equal instant success. We're clear at the top of the league with a game in hand which should be considered a success even accounting for the money we have spent.
KRO
In the prem for example, in the 24 seasons since 2000 just 5 were won by teams who spent the most in the same transfer windows. Notable examples of big expenditures not winning the league:
Chelsea 03/04 - €180m - 2nd, 20/21 - €247m - 4th (CL Winners), 22/23 €630m -12th, 23/24 - €464m - 6th
Man City 08/09- €157m - 10th, 10/11 - €183m - 3rd (FA cup winners), 15/16 -€208m - 4th
Man United 14/15 - €195m - 4th , 19/20 - €236m - 3rd
Arsenal 21/22 - €167m - 5th
Again in the championship just 4/20 seasons were won by the highest spenders, with most also missing out on promotion (Transfermarkt goes a bit weird during the last years of the old first/second division so excluded those). Again big spenders who "failed":
Stoke 18/19 - €62m - 16th
V*lla 16/17 - €85m - 13th
Fulham 19/20 - €37m - 4th (PLW),
L1 - not really the same levels of examples here, and we blow everyone else away on spend in the league but still just one season since the current format was brought in was won by the biggest spenders (Wigan 15/16).
I noticed most who spend big start to see success in the season after, and while transfermrkt isn't that accurate and this is just expenditure not net spend it's clear building player "infrastructure" takes time to take effect so generally I think we're doing pretty well even after considering the money we've splashed out. We're on course for a record breaking season, so I wish people would stop being so negative when we don't win or win by enough.
Rant over, TLDR: History shows money doesn't equal instant success. We're clear at the top of the league with a game in hand which should be considered a success even accounting for the money we have spent.
KRO