There was clearly a strategy after failing to get promoted last season, and having to let the heart of that team leave. Akpom, Archer, Ramsey and Giles were all massively better than what has replaced them. The club tried to get similar players for a fraction of the cost, but it was a gamble that hasn’t worked.
Everyone says that the "model" is to buy young players with potential, not older players with more experience and hefty price tags. I'm not sure I know what a "model" is but it's clear that the club can't afford to pay both big transfer fees and big wages.
So it's not a surprise that the replacements cost less than the players that are sold. Of course it's a gamble, but the gamble is not going to break the club.
And it's possible that the club will unearth a few good players who contribute to a promotion push. If Boro are promoted, they stay, if not then some are sold to fund buying some more.
But as always on here, there's outrage about season ticket prices, shirt prices, etc, while expecting the club to splash the cash on transfers and wages.
The equation just doesn't balance as far as the club is concerned. As far many on here are concerned the equation doesn't need to balance. Just spend more on transfers, more on wages, disregard FFP and let Steve Gibson plough in even more money.
I don't know whether people just don't understand this, or they think MFC shouldn't have financial constraints.
I do know that if the team can beat Chelsea, Leicester, Southampton, Sunderland et al it can't be that bad. Injuries, mistakes, tactical errors happen, they shouldn't be blamed on the club, and don't mean the club is being run badly.