I wasn't talking about quality of recruitment either.
You just keep making up things I've said.
I will try one more time *sigh*
I have always advocated looking at gross spend as well as net when comparing resources between clubs and how much they have been spending.
A club could spend £60m on 10 outrageous players for this level while losing only a couple that were never going to stay at the club after relegation and get a net spend of zero.
A team like Rotherham may well have a net spend of zero as well.
Not the same access to resources and transfers though is it? They haven't 'spent' the same remotely. Any examination of club A's transfer business (let's call them Coke shitty) and spending in comparison to the lesser resourced club (IE Rotherham) becomes completely disingenuous.
For FFP terms the two may be the same, but in the real world and on the pitch their business has been poles apart.
The distortion of the PL makes this even more relevant. A relegated club can have single players that teams are willing to pay £20m or £30m for, which players home grown in the SBC would rarely if ever fetch.
Spending £30m on a number of players but selling just one can lead to a zero net spend but a vastly resourced club and strengthened team.
Whereas a team like Barnsley that sells 6-7 of its best players and spends a fraction of what it made is a different story- one that is far better illustrated by net rather than gross spend.
I do happen to know what qualitative means (and can spell it) having done part of my masters in qualitative research.
Rather than just looking at a defined set of numbers regardless of context, I prefer to look qualitatively and quantitatively at the whole business; what they have lost, what they have gained in body numbers as well as money, and those player's importance to the squad.
Context is something you seem to struggle with and are constantly trying to ignore
