Haha my fingers were ready to type in outrage too :P

On those players. I truly hope we don't sign any of them. They would take a club forward currently. We need first team players right now.

Im thinking about strengthening the squad, if you want players to strengthen the first team, then we might as well go for adam johnson, defoe and de jong.

They 'spent' over £100m no matter how you want to disguise the fact. If I sold my TV for £100 and bought a new one for £600, I still spent £600!! In fact, I spent £600 PLUS the loss made on my previous purchase as I still only have 1 TV, but how far back do you want to go to try and paper over the mistakes in order to some way try and justify p!ss poor business decisions?

Let's not try and hide the humungous management errors - let's just accept that we fvcked up big time and that it needs to be put right.

utter nonsense. what the hell have tv's got to do with it? these are human beings with no guarantee of what performance you would get. The squad in numerical terms has had 37mil spent on it, in comparison to other spenders in the Top 4 this is significantly lower, thats the point
maybe also we did not need to spend so much as the players we already have are already good enough? but the general consensus is that this was not the case.

The point being 37mil to improve an average team seems low.

i could use your analogy though:

we sold 14 tvs and replaced them with 8 tv's - using your calculations we should be better off although we are minus 6 tvs!!!!

A couple of things I personally disagree with here. 1, the team didn't have 37 mill spent on it, it had 115 million spent on it, this is the definition of SPENT, it had 37 million invested. These are two different things. Both are important figures for different reasons.

i.e. when looking at effective use of funds, you look at the SPEND figure, 115 mill for the return of hendo Carroll etc etc.
when looking at how much the squad has improved year on year, you are more likely to use the investment figure although still here, sometimes total spend needs to be looked at in this context too, as sometimes you get a ridiculous amount of money for a player, 50 mill for torres, and it whacks out the investment figure.

On the analogy of -6 tvs, that is far far too simplistic a representation. If I sell those 14 TVs for more than what they are really worth (Chelsea were desperate for Torres, of course you can say a player is worth what someone paid for him, but in the context of this it's largely irrelevant) because he's rich and desperately wants those particular TVs, I then have more money than I did before, replacing those TVs with 8 new ones with the cost of more than the 14 should have been worth, I should get 8 much better TVs and so the -6 is worse argument is heavily flawed.