You can't, but it's speculative to say that they would have. Given the quiet nature of the transfer window and Spurs' wage ceiling, it's quite reasonable to suggest that they would not have secured the services of a player of Adebayor's quality and thus would not be in the position that they are enjoying now, courtesy of City's generosity.
PNP, I think the argument is that there is no evidence that Arsenal are paying Bendtner's wages, or any evidence that Chelsea are paying Benayoun's wages. There is however evidence that City are paying an extraordinary amount of money to enable Adebayor to pay for Spurs, which they would otherwise not be able to afford to do.
Again, speculative at best, more likely to be an untenable standpoint, given the fact that it's highly unlikely that you would have been able to secure a player of Adebayor's quality on significantly less wages.
How quick do you think I am? Reading your questions, then rewriting them and editing my post? Might also help if I hadn't posted it 2 minutes before you. I answered the questions in my last post. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that you're paying Bendtner's wages. He's publicly talked about his high wages in the past and is rumoured to be on a fairly obscene amount, which would clearly put him beyond Sunderland's ceiling. The same applies to Benayoun, as a result of the Arteta transfer. You appear to have imposed a wage ceiling and his wages would extend beyond that. The most logical position is that Arsenal are paying some of Bendtner's wages and Chelsea are paying some of Benayoun's. You don't want to admit it though, as it undermines the whole point of this thread.
Sorry, that's not evidence, that's speculation. It's not a logical conclusion either, because Bentner may well have accepted a wage reduction in order to play more regularly. The same applies to Benayoun. I could easily speculate that we are not paying Bendter's wages or that Chelsea are paying Benayoun's as there is no evidence that proves that we are. However the evidence that we do have is that City are enabling Spurs and themselves to benefit by an extremely unusual deal that skews the competition in those club's favour and to the detriment of the clubs around them.
Players on loan are never paid less than their original contract. You're ignoring the most logical position because it damages your argument.
This argument could go round in circles all night (fortunately I'm off out in a bit ) The conclusion is though, that City are dubiously benefiting both themselves and Spurs by paying Adebayor to take points from their rivals. and there is no evidence that Arsenal are paying Bendtner's wages or Chelsea paying Benayoun's.
In my opinion, getting players on loan should be aged capped to around 20 years of age. That way, it's used mostly as it should be, for youth development, and prevents any experienced 'stars' from being put out on loan who could provide an unfair advantage.
This article is really only up because Adebayor has been successful so far If he had done a Torres or Carroll or gotten injured it would not have been posted. I don't recall any complaints being made when negotiations were in progress and it was obvious Spurs could not afford to pay all the wages In any event if not for cash rich Man City, Arsenal wouldn't have received all that money on Toure, Clichy and Nasri and Spurs would be in the CL this season and thus in a better position to attract top players
RE: SNIAW The link that you've given is dubious, at best. Darren Bent features for both Villa and Sunderland, for example. It all looks like it's been made up, frankly. Benayoun's wage have been listed elsewhere as £60k+. As he's clearly been signed as a squad player and Arteta had to take a wage cut to join and is part of the first XI, I'd suggest that it's likely that his wages are being subsidised. Liverpool pay good wages, Chelsea pay ridiculous wages. It doesn't seem like a player of his age that's played for both clubs would be on relatively low wages.
Simple really Man City finished 3rd due to rich owners. Spurs finished 5th. Take away the rich owners and Spurs finish 4th
The whole point of this article is that we've done better because we've borrowed Adebayor, instead of signing another striker. If you don't accept MA's hypothetical, then you have to reject the OP's, too.
And Benayoun's older, a squad player and a temporary signing. Do you honestly believe that you're paying him more than Arteta?
"Chelsea are thought to have received a nominal loan fee, but won't be paying any of his reported £70,000-a-week wages during his time at the Emirates Stadium." That's a really strong statement, isn't it? But Benayoun's reported wage at Chelsea was higher than that which Arteta accepted. There's now way that Benayoun took a wage cut, so either the Israeli's being paid more directly by Arsenal or Chelsea are subsidising his wages. I've repeatedly stated that loans between teams in the same division shouldn't be allowed, let alone subsidised ones.
