At the conclusion of 2016-17 we had a good 10-12 players who were on wages massively below the market rate, most or all of whom had enormous transfer market value.
Since that very season we have tried to extend all our key players deals on far improved wages (and in most cases succeeded). Let's not pretend we simply ignored the market pressures... we didn't.
Ultimately, each of the much fabled players in question has EVER right to run their deals down and there's NOTHING we can have done to stop them if they were determined to do so.
Trying to just keep all of them while nipping and tucking at the wage structure was a shaky strategy. You risk players running down their contracts, hard feelings in the squad, but also loss of form and loss of that value (Dier, Rose).
But of course, at one position we tried the other strategy, and the Trippier/Aurier combo proved to be a shadow of what Kyle Walker gave us.
Ultimately you just have to know your players as athletes and as people and know the culture of your dressing room and the football vision of your coaching staff and make the RIGHT moves. It's not one-size-fits-all.
Letting it all go stale here seemed like a mistake at the time and so it has proven to be. A new manager and new ideas passes the straight face test for a sensible next step from there, but big, thorny squad questions loom.
The broader idea of "stale"(*) seems a bit out of whack to me considering the goings on surrounding the new stadium. Anyway, aren't we at a point where a large portion of the fanbase would argue it was in fact the manager that got stale?
(*Sure, confirmation bias of those that forever protest that we never spend enough will see this as vindication and excuse to further regurgitate their endless complaining, but I shan't waste my time indulging such 1-dimensional thinking...)
Beyond that...
It could very easily have turned out differently though. If we sell 1-2 key players as you suggest, do we make the Champions League final last year? Obviously we didn't win but the publicity and funds gained were huge.
It's a bit simple minded to me to say it was all a mistake because even though we may get less or nothing for them now, we gained a bunch elsewhere along the way.
^^^^^ What this guy said.
(Then add to that the fact that so many fans would have eagerly re-adopted the notion of us being a selling club as a stick to beat us with.)
We rode a financially challenging period in the clubs growth by 'squeezing' some assets for their immediate, on-pitch value to the broader 'project', rather than cash in on them and roll the dice on replacing them during a near 2 year spell playing away from home (which would have brought with it it's own integration issues, I'm sure). Ultimately, I'm cool with that.... Least of all because of the Walker/Trippier/Aurier scenario that you (
FightingIllini
) yourself highlight, but mostly because we have arrived in the new stadium, on track, having accumulated some damn good memories along the way, with a damn good squad and plenty of hope for the future. Even this current season looks entirely salvageable despite some shit early season form.
Did the fabled 'phase one' play out perfectly?
No? ....But it certain areas it played out far better than we had any right to expect.
Lastly, whilst some may choose to mourn (with the notable gift of hindsight) the fact that we didn't cash in on CE, TA or whoever at the peak of their form for us as the proverbial golden eggs; is it not fair to say that we have very much got value for money from the what we have forked out in terms of initial fees and subsequent wages.... ? (Rhetorical question.... Of course it is, especially once you consider Levy is also regularly accused of being only concerned with sell-on value rather the on-pitch value of a player sticking around.)
