http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/.../d7b295aa0c415310VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.htmJust because you don't like reading the excuse over and over, doesn't mean it isn't valid. Look at the post above where a poster kindly points out how Liverpool's commerical earnings more than double ours. Liverpool don't need a "shiny new stadium" to generate considerably more money than us.
Arsenal made fantastic signings early at Hignbury - indeed they did. THEY WERE THE LEAGUE CHAMPIONS half the time! They could afford it and had regular CL football.
Our approach to replacing Bale was, in hindsight a little scatter gun. But what do you want? Decide.
Do you want us to fuck money around the place again like last year, or do you want us to target a few players upon our manager's insistence and try to secure them. And as for a direct replacement for Bale. There isn't a player in world football who is a direct replacement for Bale who we could even dream of affording. I, for one would not be happy seeing close to 30 million spunked on MS. We wouldn't get half of that back when we went to sell him. Why? Because he isn't worth it and we don't generate enough money as a club to afford it.
It's fine that you want a lovely new signing, we all do, but the club are right to not get ripped off. And the stadium, has everything and is central to that. It has literally, everything to do with it. Just because you don't like that fact, doesn't make it any less a reality.
Seems Liverpool rev is around 50 m more than ours so not double at all