That's the issue, isn't it? There's a BBC article on last night's match which drew comparison of our current side to the one that beat AC Milan 2-0 at the San Siro back in 2008, just 4 years ago. To think that our team has degraded from that one and that one eventually won nothing. How far can this club fall in the hands of this board? Piskie defends Arsene saying it was not our manager who sold Fabregas and Nasri. Yet in another breath he defends the board and that egghead CEO Gazidis. Seems to me you can't defend both since someone has to be responsible for the way the club has declined on the sporting front. But wait a minute - I forgot we still make money. Perhaps some of the members of this forum have bought into that model too.
Im sure the the difference in wages spent between us and Tottenham is that we include everyone in our accounts from the tea lady to the players where as Spurs dont include them and only include the players and training staff. That alone can make a huge difference. Also I agree tht Spurs have a very tight wage structure and for some reason we pay the likes of Denilson, Almunia, Bendtner over 50Kper week. That alone is shocking.
Clearing out the deadwood is also imperative. Wenger needs to be ruthless, he has shown enough faith in certain players and they have proved themselves unworthy of the shirt. I was always sceptical about the 'we need British grit' argument but now I'm inclined to believe that with a few homegrown players we would see a better team spirit and will to win. And for God's sake lets buy some established talent!!!
And yet Spurs still spend more on wages than Arsenal in proportion to their turnover. along with £153m more in nett spend on transfers since the Premier League began. Like I said, the myth that Spurs somehow do all of this whilst spending less than Arsenal, is just that -a myth.
Wenger did'nt let Fabregas and Nasri go - it was the board. All the evidence points towards that being the case.
I don't agree with this. When United sold Ronaldo for £80m it showed their net spend at being £17m or something that year. Lets assume they did good business for 5 straight years, they would have a negligible net spend like us, but that is not an accurate picture - you are selling players for massive amounts. This hides what is actually going on. Net spend is of no interest to me, what we spend gross is the only figure that matters. If we are spending £40m we should be spending that £40m on players that will take us forward - not players that we can sell on in a few years time for massive profit - to make our net spend look like we are not spending much. In the past 5 (up to 2011) years Bolton, Newcastle, Sunderland and Villa have spent more on players than us gross from the teams that are not traditionally top 4. (ok Spurs too). West Ham and Middlesborough have spent more than us gross FFS. How are Sunderland and Villa almost spending TWICE what we spend gross ???? How are we so hamstrung when it comes to spending ?
Thanks for the link Mr Power I don't see why you keep insisting on seeing evidence Piskie. Can you not accept that some members here may be widely read or more knowledgeable? The evidence is out there and several know of it. Just accept that it is and that we have an enormous amount of money in the bank according to our accounts. Accept too that by Gazidis's own admission, Arsene ( or Arsenn as he calls him ) came to them asking to understand their sustainable model and pledged for his part to keep the club in contention. So Wenger is part of the sustainable program which to many is beginning to look more like a model to enrich our majority shareholder and which is eroding our sporting prowess. And please, there's no need to ask for evidence of what Gazidis said. I heard it from his lips. It was on the airwaves and the net. If you didn't pick it up, you should have.
The alternative was to keep players for their final year, would they bother? Value in transfer fee would reduce. Hoping they would re-sign was a lost cause.
Fair do's. After re-reading my post, I didn't mean to sound as aggresive as it may have come accross. Spurs are one of the top grossing teams in the world, (11th or 12th I believe) so we have been able to spend. However, I think one off transfer fees are better than contracted wages, as it is more liquid. You've either got the money or you havn't. wheras wages, could be for 5-6 years if you cannot shift the player for a fee that you agree with. Unless you have a majaor clear out, or champs league clauses, you will be lumped with expensive kids, that people wont buy. The stadium build was supposed to increase your competitiveness, not your profit margins, non?
A Simple take on our Wage wastage is as follows, these aren't exact figures but are pretty close. Alumunia - 50K - x 4 = 200k Per Month Diaby - 60K - x 4 = 240K Per Month Bendtner - 55K - x 4 = 220K Per Month Denilson - 40 K - x 4 = 160K Per Month Squllachi - 55K x 4 = 220K Per Month Total Monthly Wage wastage for these clowns = 1Million 40K Per Month x 12 = £12Million 480K That's over 12Million on players that aren't good enough to play for us and this is where our problem lies overpaying for DROSS. I've picked 5 players but I could easily add others to this list.
Nobody said that PISKIE - the argument is .. if Spurs can spend the money .. why can't we when we have more money than them
Agree 100%. I think it is a bit rich coming from the spuds telling us how to run our club..... What have they achieved? They have had a couple of good seasons, all of a sudden they think they are better. We should not fall for their parochialism, no doubt we are in decline, I think we have to look at the bigger picture. We have one of the best youth set up in Europe...... a brand new stadium, we are not spending above our means etc etc. Spurs say we have spent more than them in the premier league or have paid more in wages more than them. That I feel is just half the story, as I am sure we have earned more in revenue as well, so we should be comparing the percentage of revenues earned...... and how reckless some clubs have been in their finances.
Sorry mate, but that was EXACTLY the point that was being made, that Spurs have spent less. When in fact that is a complete myth.
Surely the question to address here is "how can Spurs run their club self-sufficiently while outspending Arsenal, who have a bigger stadium, higher income & marketability." I understand the Stadium was expensive, but it's meant to be paid off long-term. It's baffling me how Spurs are doing it and Arsenal aren't.
So how does a greater proportion of your turnover spent on wages equate to spending less on wages ? --------- 100>50million??
It's relative though and that's the point. Spurs have spent more of their turnover than Arsenal on wages, thus they spend more of their money on wages than Arsenal do. Also, Spurs wage increase from previous years is greater than Arsenal's by some 7% difference. So as well as spending more of their turnover than Arsenal on wages - Spurs are also increasing their spending of that turnover on wages each year. This is of course on top of the fact that their nett spend on transfers since the EPL started is £153m MORE than Arsenal. The claim that they somehow 'do it on the cheap' is a myth.
Depends how you want to play it, which depends which side of the fence you want to be on. You can say Arsenal, in absolute terms, have spent more money on wages in the last XX years. Or you can say that Spurs have spent a higher proportion of their income on wages. The fact of both matters is...Spurs are currently outperforming Arsenal, and that's a travesty, when you look at the incomes of both clubs. The question is...where is the money going at Arsenal, and why is it going there?
I agree. The point was to expose the myth that Spurs have spent less though, which can only be measured by relative income. They have spent more than Arsenal. I do agree though that given our capability to generate a large income, that we should be doing better than Spurs.
