Yup it was always going to be difficult to strike a deal with PSG because they're loaded. The fact that we did meet that value which was well in excess of what anyone else would pay (the other reported offer was Roma for €5-6m), and for a player who would be available for nothing in a year.
I think now, a good couple of seasons into FSG's ownership, you can at least see some kind of coherent strategy in the transfer market. Yes, there's an emphasis on younger talent with relatively modest starting salaries, but we're prepared to look at older players on the right kind of deal. We're prepared to pay top money to established players when they've earned it. We seem to be looking at transfer fees in a more holistic way - looking at the fee, wage and agent fees and are prepared to walk away if the deal isn't right. We've got someone - the committee presumably - assigning a value to players. Sometimes that'll mean we walk away from deals (Gylfi, Willian), but sometimes it'll mean we're prepared to really push the boat out.
I just don't see how that can be a bad thing.
The headline figure in the OP is nonsense as well of course. While we've cut some big wage earners from the team but we've spent a lot of that on proved contracts and wages for incoming players. I'd guess that we'll see the wage bill creep down a wee bit in the next accounts, but we're still going to be sitting at over £100m. We appear to have a steady transfer kitty of £30m at the minute. The idea that FSG are slashing their way through our wage bill is nonsense. The idea that they're haven't backed their managers with money to spend is nonsense.