When an economic powerhouse hits hard times, one way to get out of the predicament may seem counter-intuitive: spend more, not less. The idea is to dip into the common coffers, find some cash, and kickstart the whole operation into gear.

John Maynard Keynes figured it out a long time ago, Barack Obama has been doing much the same over the past few months. Football is no different, as evidenced by Lyons’ summer stimulus spending plan.

Last season, Lyons failed to win the French title for the first time in eight years, finishing a disappointing third, nine points behind Bordeaux, the champions. Jean-Michel Aulas, the club president, could have razed the side to the ground, beginning with Claude Puel, the manager who had come up short where Jacques Santini, Paul Le Guen, Gérard Houllier and Alain Perrin had suceeded. And some suggested he do just that.

They contended that if the above — generally unremarkable — group of predecessors had all delivered titles, surely Lyons had all the tools in place to win year after year. After all, they are France’s wealthiest and best-run club, one that have grown steadily under Aulas’s tutelage (before his arrival they had a total of zero French titles). When things go badly wrong — as they did last year — surely the problem must be the one new variable in the footballing equation: Puel.

But that is not how Aulas sees it. And it may be that he is right. Maybe Lyons’ underachievement wasn’t solely down to Puel but also to the inertia that sets in when you get too accustomed to winning. Maybe the way to prove that last season was a blip is to shake things up by spending even more cash.

Aulas put his money where his mouth is, with an outlay of more than €70 million (£58.4 million), a phenomenal sum by the standards of French football. Half of that was offset by the sale of Karim Benzema, the club’s best player, to Real Madrid for €35 million (about £29.7 million). But the other half came from Lyons’ war chest in what is undoubtedly a bold move.

Spending so much under what could well be a lame duck of a manager — it’s hard to see Puel staying if they fail to win the title this season as well — takes guts.

Lyons however were clever about it, buying the kind of players who have a long-term future and who are likely to come in handy even if Puel departs. In other words, they provide both a short-term boost and longer-term benefits, like any good stimulus package.

To replace Benzema, Lyons acquired not one, but two strikers, spending £31.5 million (rising to about £36 million depending on performances) on Bafétimbi Gomis, from Saint-Étienne, and Lisandro López, from Porto.

Gomis, 24, is the kind of forward scouts tend to love more than pundits. Nevertheless he is a French international who, if he harnesses his considerable skills, could turn into a dependable centre forward. López, on the other hand, is more of a sure thing. The Argentinian has scored 44 goals over the past two seasons for Porto and, just as importantly, he has four seasons of European football under his belt, including some dazzling performances in the Champions League.

Lyons also raided Porto for Aly Cissokho, arguably one of the top left backs in Europe in the latter half of last season. The 21-year-old was a virtual unknown 12 months ago, but now he is a £12.7 million rising star who was pursued long and hard by AC Milan.

The final piece of Lyons’ stimulus package is Michel Bastos, the leftsided midfield player. Like Cissokho, the elegant Brazilian came up the hard way, joining Lille as an unheralded 22-year-old in 2006 and establishing himself as one of the best players in Le Championnat last season. At £15.3 million he did not come cheap, but Lyons were no doubt impressed that he has proved himself in France. Puel, who previously managed Lille, has also worked with him before.

This quartet represent the biggest gamble in Lyons’ history. By the time the transfer window closes, Lyons will have outspent all but a handful of clubs in Europe (Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester City and perhaps one or two others). In the financial climate — and given the club’s situation — it’s a massive gamble and one that could backfire badly. Then again, so too is Obama’s stimulus plan.

Tough times call for tough decisions.

And another thing...

Spanish tragedy raises important questions

On Saturday evening, Daniel Jarque, the Espanyol captain, skipped dinner at his club’s training camp in Tuscany and instead stayed in his room, speaking on the phone to his pregnant girlfriend. At some point, the 26-year-old central defender suffered a massive heart attack and died.

His tragic passing calls to mind the death of another Spanish defender, Antonio Puerta of Seville, less than two years ago. It also leads us to reflect on how, professional athletes can be taken from us with little or no warning. If these incidents are just accidents of fate, we have to accept them. If, on the other hand, something could or should have been done differently, football has a duty to ensure it never happens again.

Juventus come out best

Last week, the Court of Arbritration for Sport, the game’s highest judicial body, upheld a lower tribunal’s decision whereby Adrian Mutu, the Fiorentina striker, must pay his former club Chelsea €117,173,990 (£14,601,788.45) in compensation. In October 2004 Mutu tested positive for cocaine. He was banned for seven months and Chelsea duly cancelled his contract. When his ban ended, he went on to join Juventus on a free transfer, before being sold to Fiorentina in 2006 for £6 million.

You can read CAS’s 36-page decision in full on its website. It is a fascinating case that raises a whole range of questions.

Should players be banned for taking illegal (but not performance-enhancing) drugs? How can Chelsea demand damages when it was their decision to rescind the player’s contract?

Where is Mutu going to find the £14.6 million to pay his fine? And if Mutu, as appears likely, can’t stump up the cash and is further banned, who is going to compensate Fiorentina?

But, most of all, are Juventus the luckiest club on Earth for coming out of this whole affair with a tidy £6 million profit?