Actually in 16/17 Norwich broke even on transfers - &10.5m in and £10.5m out.
In 17/18 they made a profit of £16.5m and 18/19 the profit was £29m and they only spent £5m.
It’s not the only way to do it by any means but to downplay what Norwich have done by suggesting it is down to previous seasons’ spending is wrong and ignores the fact that Sheff Utd have also worked to a strict budget.
You are falling into the same fallacy as a good friend of mine by assuming that zero net spending is not actually spending.
You have a youngster of massive potential that money bags PL clubs decide to spend £20m on.
You lose ONE player. Maybe a very good one, but it's one player
You then spend, say £22m across the squad, greatly improving it with 6-7 players.
You did not just spend £2m and do everything on the cheap.
You spent £22m and hit the jackpot to pay for it.
You have signed 7 players and lost just one.
THAT is investing across several seasons. In an age of FFP it is the only way to do it if you don't have PP. Even Derby have had to do it that way.
The big difference is the club's that a) manage to produce those single, 'jackpot' players (of which we are one) and b) who can afford to actually spend what they make from them.
Norwich have been able to spend most of what they make, until this season we haven't.
£7m for Antonio, £13m for Burke, £15m for Assombalonga plus a handful of other small fees; at least £35-40m in sales over about two seasons. Virtually none was reinvested. Other clubs have been in that position as well