All this talk about Man City spending 50m on defenders.
Their full-backs consisted of Kolarov, Clichy, Sagna and Zabaleta. Most of them the wrong side of thirty. No sentimentality, he got them out quickly and brought in Stones in first season and Walker, Mendy and Laporte in second season.
Here's the thing. We joke that they're buying so many defenders, but the only reason we're not doing the exact same thing they're doing is because we're hanging onto the +30 defenders instead of replacing them. Do we think for a split second that replacing them with quality replacements wouldn't have cost us just as much as it cost City?
Sure, they spent money, necessarily, but the difference between the two teams is the investment in areas that needed to be invested in. We bought two CB's who are not first team players and neglected the much needed FB position. City identified the weak area of the team and got it sorted.