"selling without buying" doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Also, it's not really like we have underperforming profiles we could just sell and make improvements.
If by the end of the season, we didn't reach our goal, not a single person will look back and say "well at least we spend the most without having to sell".
"Buying without
winning" doesn't mean shit neither, tho. I think we all can agree that your transfer campaign, whether you are focusing on
net spending or
gross spending, is only worth as much as your success on the pitch afterwards. With Fassone and Mirabelli we have spend a lot but badly, and we payed the bill for that in the subsequent years, including sitting out one year of EL. We are spending much less now, and we have just won a Scudetto. Spending for the sake of spending has no correlation with success (and a lot of people here, not you, have a hard time understanding this). Spending wisely does, tho (I know you got that long time ago, it's not necessarily referred to you). The thing is that we can only determine if we or others have spend wisely in hindsight, once the season has concluded and we wrap up the final standings.
The net spending argument has been brought up as counter argument to those saying
"Milan is poor and has no money" and to a further extend to those saying
"look at Juve, they are spending, they are rich, we aren't". Because if we were
that broken, how can we spend money without selling before? That's all. We are not poor. Not poorer than Juve in that regard. It doesn't mean tho that we have conducted a better mercato than those with a positive net spending. Again, that's to be seen at the end of the season.
www.theguardian.com
