Really? It seems to me that he was explaining how well we'd done before (8th) with little first team investment, so imagine how well we could do if we invested more than in the Lowe years. The Swansea example, in my mind, was to strengthen the point that a certain level is possible without significant buys for the first team, so with them why not hope to do better than a team like Swansea are currently?
You're right that it's straightforward to understand that without spending on the first team squad you have no hope of success, but that isn't the point that's really being debated. If anything, the Staplewood upgrade shows how willing the regime is to spend where necessary. So why wouldn't the first team come under that category?