Not adding anything to the above, only note that the context was deliberately the very narrow topic of "is it easy" (which was suggested earlier). In that respect, surely it does matter how much you spend on both signing and salaries (one does have to accept the premise that money spent on signing is an indicator of quality, which is not too hard to swallow. But even if one rejects the latter, it would actually work against the claim that "it is easy" in a different, perhaps more harmful, way, as it would necessarily mean somebody's doing a really good job signing top players and not paying for them, or alternatively, signing bargains and making them top players. We all know about these, but as the argument goes, that's how they actually work).
I'm not arguing against what is "a better indicator" and such. Just have a hunch that pointing at "3-4th expenditure, 3-4th in the league every year = easy" is a bit, well, easy. Can't ignore the big picture and point at only one element (salaries) where it's convenient, while claiming that as a whole (boss' job) it's easy. Doesn't look like a fair move to me.
