I agree with your scenario. My issue with doing it is more about I don't think it goes far enough to resolve all our issues that need to be addressed. For that matter neither would using our Cash Reserves in isolation - remembering that all the contenders have spent over 100m in at least 1 summer to gain top4 and to then retain it.
As it stands none of the issues of the last 3 seasons have been resolved as yet, and I don't think they will be anytime soon if we restrict our finances. More to the point I think that action will not only fail to 'fix' the team balance, but the places us in further vulnerability.

When I say go hard in the market I think we go all in with the expectation that we'd not likely be making any further major moves in the market over the next 2 seasons to meet FFP. As such you can't go in half assed or keeping some powder dry just in case. That said if the team needed further signings in order to go to the next level re PL or CL title challenge, then you take it & argue the case afterwards. Basically it's no different to what DD did to AW re Sol, and I'm not sure The Invincibles would have happened had he not done so.

Ricky1985 wrote:

We're going to post a rather large operating loss this year, the first loss of any amount since 2002. Money isn't flowing.

We've funded our transfers with players sales for years though, so why should this summer be any different? Wenger always had to sell to buy. At one point he had to sell AND earn the club £15-30 million every summer while he replaced players.

Chambers, Xhaka and Laca would be worth well over £100 million in the market by conservative estimates. Elneny and a few others could be used to scrape together some extra pocket cash. It would leave us with big money for one midfielder and one forward. We just need to show the ambition and willingness to actually transform the squad.

goon wrote:

Rememeber when all those folks wanted us to finish outside the top 4, mockingly and relentlessly referring to the achievement as 'The Prize'? Well, this current situation we find ourselves in is your prize.

Yup. Like the guys saying the Democrats need to lose so the American elections so that they recognise the urgency of transitioning to the left. While Trump parades tanks and grabs em by the %$*!

Claudius wrote:

Ricky1985 wrote:

We're going to post a rather large operating loss this year, the first loss of any amount since 2002. Money isn't flowing.

And this a club that still has a massive debt balloon looming in the future. If we are making large losses we can't eat away at that balloon  . Fun times at Ashburton Grove

The stadium debt is being paid off at a fixed rate of 20m per season until 2031, with a final payment of about 50m in that last season.  The Home gate from 5-8 games covers that each season - essentially we could just about do so by a combo of both the Emirates Cup games and the domestic Cups.

jones wrote:

Ricky1985 wrote:

We're going to post a rather large operating loss this year, the first loss of any amount since 2002. Money isn't flowing.

The first loss since 2002 means money isnt flowing? Where's all the money from the 16 consecutive years of posting a surplus then?

We have about 150m in the bank, mate. Enough for one of those yachts you like so much. It would cover our 50m balloon and the 20m per year we have to pay per year for the next 10 years comfortably. We are in a very good position. We can afford to lose one year. Just don't make a habit of it 

jones wrote:

Ricky1985 wrote:

We're going to post a rather large operating loss this year, the first loss of any amount since 2002. Money isn't flowing.

The first loss since 2002 means money isnt flowing? Where's all the money from the 16 consecutive years of posting a surplus then?

It's sitting in the bank being eroded by tax payments and depreciation against inflation.

Klaus wrote:

Ricky1985 wrote:

We're going to post a rather large operating loss this year, the first loss of any amount since 2002. Money isn't flowing.

We've funded our transfers with players sales for years though, so why should this summer be any different? Wenger always had to sell to buy. At one point he had to sell AND earn the club £15-30 million every summer while he replaced players.

Chambers, Xhaka and Laca would be worth well over £100 million in the market by conservative estimates. Elneny and a few others could be used to scrape together some extra pocket cash. It would leave us with big money for one midfielder and one forward. We just need to show the ambition and willingness to actually transform the squad.

We are a club living in fear. Fear that too much change will lead to ruin. But in not moving...

Klaus wrote:

Ricky1985 wrote:

We're going to post a rather large operating loss this year, the first loss of any amount since 2002. Money isn't flowing.

We've funded our transfers with players sales for years though, so why should this summer be any different? Wenger always had to sell to buy. At one point he had to sell AND earn the club £15-30 million every summer while he replaced players.

Chambers, Xhaka and Laca would be worth well over £100 million in the market by conservative estimates. Elneny and a few others could be used to scrape together some extra pocket cash. It would leave us with big money for one midfielder and one forward. We just need to show the ambition and willingness to actually transform the squad.

Whilst I remember him saying that one of the criteria he had was to generate 20m every season re debt, IMO AW wasn't being quite honest when he made that claim.

Claudius wrote:

Klaus wrote:

We've funded our transfers with players sales for years though, so why should this summer be any different? Wenger always had to sell to buy. At one point he had to sell AND earn the club £15-30 million every summer while he replaced players.

Chambers, Xhaka and Laca would be worth well over £100 million in the market by conservative estimates. Elneny and a few others could be used to scrape together some extra pocket cash. It would leave us with big money for one midfielder and one forward. We just need to show the ambition and willingness to actually transform the squad.

We are a club living in fear. Fear that too much change will lead to ruin. But in not moving...

Exactly - paralysed by fear of our own shadow, and I also suspect there could well also be some element of fear of success.

The difference is the market landscape has completely changed. There are a few rival clubs that have caught up and in some cases carry more market clout than we do

Anzac wrote:

Whilst I remember him saying that one of the criteria he had was to generate 20m every season re debt, IMO AW wasn't being quite honest when he made that claim.

Based on more than conjecture and dislike for the man I'm sure.

I have no idea if we absolutely HAD to do it, but the records are crystal clear on one thing: we've always generated funds through sales. Even in Wenger's last year we managed to make a profit despite bringing in Lacazette, Kolasinac, Aubameyang and Mkhitaryan. It's insane to think Wenger self-imposed that restraint on himself. It came from above.

Ricky1985 wrote:

We're going to post a rather large operating loss this year, the first loss of any amount since 2002. Money isn't flowing.

The way our operating model works is basically any 'loss' from one season is carried over to the next as part of the new season's operating cost, and the available finances are adjusted accordingly.  Whereas any profits made are hoarded away and are not made available in general terms - although the BoD always said that funds were available if requested.

Claudius wrote:

jones wrote:

The first loss since 2002 means money isnt flowing? Where's all the money from the 16 consecutive years of posting a surplus then?

We have about 150m in the bank, mate. Enough for one of those yachts you like so much. It would cover our 50m balloon and the 20m per year we have to pay per year for the next 10 years comfortably. We are in a very good position. We can afford to lose one year. Just don't make a habit of it 

Its just horseshit operating of a billion pound business that's what it is Claude. We've been close to officially medically retarded in our handling of every aspect of the club, buying, selling, commercial deals until recently even the way we present our balance sheets compared to other clubs. We gouge fans with the highest ticket prices on the planet. Our owner is a piece of shit with a billion dollar ranch who tried to poach 3m for "advisory services" until there was an outcry that forced his hand. Yet apparently the club really is doing its very best and honest to God does not have any pound over the reported 40m, a fee which for comparison newly promoted Villa have already splurged on two spastic plumbers from Southampton and Bournemouth.

Anzac wrote:

jones wrote:

The first loss since 2002 means money isnt flowing? Where's all the money from the 16 consecutive years of posting a surplus then?

It's sitting in the bank being eroded by tax payments and depreciation against inflation.

Cash =/= profit and vice versa.

Also, we might need some of those cash reserves to finance some of the clubs _£400m operating expenses and aforementioned tax bills. Any company that operates with a nill bank balance is asking for trouble, especially one that has to shell out £20m a month of wages alone.

Klaus wrote:

Anzac wrote:

Whilst I remember him saying that one of the criteria he had was to generate 20m every season re debt, IMO AW wasn't being quite honest when he made that claim.

Based on more than conjecture and dislike for the man I'm sure.

I have no idea if we absolutely HAD to do it, but the records are crystal clear on one thing: we've always generated funds through sales. Even in Wenger's last year we managed to make a profit despite bringing in Lacazette, Kolasinac, Aubameyang and Mkhitaryan. It's insane to think Wenger self-imposed that restraint on himself. It came from above.

It came from the bloody self funding sustainable financial model we self impose upon ourselves, and that apparently is also part of our traditional beliefs and values that we won't dare take a look at revising how we apply it, because it's set up to generate profits.  There was a comment made in the last couple of years regarding our transfers, that had DD telling the scouts that we could make a 20m signing every season post the move if we wanted to do so as we had the money.

The only reason AW generated funds via sales was because we lacked cash flow with all our commercial deals being front loaded re the initial stadium financing, and the bloody BoD refused to accept the market had changed and also refused to diversify  our revenue stream by increasing our commercial deals.  For decades the role of the BoD was simply that to administer our finances based upon the operating model, and they did not see it as being their role or requirement to do anything other than that because they weren't getting anything more than a basic payment for their position.  This was part of the arguments going on when Kroenke became our largest shareholder and Usmanov was trying to get a share float to generate a war chest & he was offering to underwrite the proposed 500m from his own pocket.  Yes he would have gained all those shares had he done so, but he would have been putting his money where his mouth is directly into the club, which is more than can be said of any of the other shareholders or our current owner.

goon wrote:

Anzac wrote:

It's sitting in the bank being eroded by tax payments and depreciation against inflation.

Cash =/= profit and vice versa.

Also, we might need some of those cash reserves to finance some of the clubs _£400m operating expenses and aforementioned tax bills. Any company that operates with a nill bank balance is asking for trouble, especially one that has to shell out £20m a month of wages alone.

We don't spend a penny without covering our operating costs for the entire season from day 1.  Any finances made available is then used to cover all new business costs - fees, wages, infrastructure etc.

Anzac, it wasn't even about diversifying our commercial deals. When we signed our Emirates deal, it was far and away the biggest deal in football. Much credit to the team here. And then the size of commercial deals changed overnight, but we had already banked most of the cash. At this point, we should've gone to a Sony or Hyundai and asked for the biggest deal in football. And then just bought out Emirates for the remainder of their first deal.

Instead, we doubled down. We went back cap in hand asked them to extend the deal with all short and stadium rights still tied together and to again frontload the payments to make up for our cash-flow situation. To be caught out the first time is unfortunate. To put ourselves in the same circumstances a second time is careless

Anzac wrote:

goon wrote:

Cash =/= profit and vice versa.

Also, we might need some of those cash reserves to finance some of the clubs _£400m operating expenses and aforementioned tax bills. Any company that operates with a nill bank balance is asking for trouble, especially one that has to shell out £20m a month of wages alone.

We don't spend a penny without covering our operating costs for the entire season from day 1.  Any finances made available is then used to cover all new business costs - fees, wages, infrastructure etc.

That has nothing to do with the cash balance.

Again I don't disagree.

The club would have us think that it was beyond our means or ability to control things in the market, and whilst it may be true to an extent we essentially didn't even try to do so as we were too content to sit and wait until the extra revenues would come in after a decade, and AW got his pieces of silver for generating revenues via player trading to continue the illusion.

Bottom line we could have done more but chose to do nothing. Irony being that the lack of cash flow is exactly the scenario DD was against in term of how our finances were structured, and what ultimately led to him being kicked out.