One of the 'excuses' I listed in that post was precisely that: the high wage bill. And of course, it's easy to say with the benefit of knowing our current situation (with one CL campaign to our name) that we couldn't have afforded a squad full of high earners while also spending big on transfers. However, that's a conclusion reached via our current perspective. However, what if we had another couple of CL campaigns under our belt, as seemed eminently possible in both 2011 and 2012 (and perhaps even in 2013)? Wouldn't the revenue streams from those campaigns have covered the transfer spending required to back the manager in charge at the time (Harry) while also allowing for a greater wage bill?
At the time, we held off on spending big in critical windows (the January windows in both 2011 and 2012, for example), when doing so could have secured us the CL campaigns we needed to move up a level in the football world. And, again, there are plenty of excuses available for that behaviour ('not risking our financial stability to chase dreams', not 'doing a Ridsdale', etcetera). But that isn't 'backing' the manager to the point where it destabilized us in later seasons, and it cannot be used as an explanation for our current status, trying forlornly to reach the CL again four-odd years after we started thrilling Europe for what remains our first and only experience of the modern 'big time'.
Harry's high earners could have been supplemented with buys for the future, had we made the CL again. We were agonisingly close to doing so, but in the end were let down by our shortcomings and (Despite the inevitable and righteous blame attached to Redknapp himself in 2012) our thin squad depth. Whether we could have pushed ourselves a little further to secure CL football is the ensuing question that continues to be debated here today, but it shouldn't mask the reality that the statement 'we backed the manager so hard that it's still hurting us' is not just patently false, but also somewhat disingenuous, ascribing a level of investment in the club and backing of our managers to ENIC that has historically never existed and will never exist for the entirety of the remaining time they will spend running this club.
Not getting into all that again, but that implies that we had 'transfer warchests' to begin with that were independent of the motive of ending the windows with a negative net spend. Perhaps that was once the case, but certainly by 2012 that was no longer the reality of the situation.