Robee: "our transfer spendings were really low".
Reality: They are either top or top 3 in Italy. Thats what my posts showed. So how is top1 or top3 "really low" ?
Thats what made me post the numbers.
We bought and we sold more than Milan. We had more players to sell for value and we did so, while Milan lost top players of theirs for free, if you look through the transfer history of the last 3 years.
Thats enough, thats end of discussion for me.
And I see in my last post I made a wrong formulation here.
"If we had spent 80m less during those 3 years, we would have the same balance as Milan."
But my point stands except for that. We had top1-3 spendings and we managed to sell fringe players not wanted mostly.
Reality: They are either top or top 3 in Italy. Thats what my posts showed. So how is top1 or top3 "really low" ?
Thats what made me post the numbers.
We bought and we sold more than Milan. We had more players to sell for value and we did so, while Milan lost top players of theirs for free, if you look through the transfer history of the last 3 years.
Thats enough, thats end of discussion for me.
And I see in my last post I made a wrong formulation here.
"If we had spent 80m less during those 3 years, we would have the same balance as Milan."
But my point stands except for that. We had top1-3 spendings and we managed to sell fringe players not wanted mostly.
You add in a sale fee for Dybala alone and our net spend is even worse.
We had to sell to buy. You have to have players of value for other teams to want to buy them. Which means we had to sell useful players in order to buy useful players. Neither Milan nor Inter had to do so to anywhere near the same extent.
