As I said I am genuinely interested in why, if one does a compare and contrast with pervious owners, why, and who you believe have made a better job of it?

I think in general the current incumbents have done a good job, they have been lucky or clever to get Textor onboard, but the transfer policy over the last 4/5 years has been a shambles, no thought at all to sell on values. i think this last window was excellent, but that is down to Textors money, it seems to have taken a long time to learn it is a business.

“That’s a joke son, I say, that’s a joke.” “Nice boy, but he’s sharp as a throw pillow.” “He’s so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent” “ “Son… I say, son, some people are so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes.”__ Forhorn Leghorn

I would disagree with shambles, rather emotive. Could have done better. Again I'm sure all concerned would agree. However we remain in the most competitive league fighting way way above are market value against by-enlarge clubs with a bigger spend budget.

Occasionally using Wilf as a decoy runner, dragging the opposition defence out of position ( to provide others the space in front of goal) would be a useful tactic.

Useful link. To me, it looks like we are punching above our nett spend compared to the majority. Doesn’t look like a shambles at all.

You what?

Brighton have an immense negative net spend even after the White windfall. If you want to go against our business strategy you need to look at salaries where we were major sinners. Various arguments about whether net spend or salaries is the better indicator. In reality you need to look at a combo of the two.

If you take a moment to consider you should be able to see that the strategy during the Hodgson years was to minimise spending and offset that by paying wages to secure PL hardened players. Rather than spend on transfers we spent on retaining players. Turned out to be a valid strategy - retaining a core of players who bought into the club and brought stability.