The evidence says that in relative terms Spurs have spent more on wages. The evidence says that in absolute terms Spurs have spent more on Transfers. 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.
It's obvious we are doing something wrong and need to have a rethink about our model. There is no way that Spurs with a smaller stadium, smaller fanbase and marketability should be doing better than us. Also they clearly have a better squad! With the new stadium we was suppose to compete with the best teams in Europe yet lastnight highlighted how badly our team has gone backwards. At least when we didn't win anything we looked good, now we don't win anything and look ok most of the time. We have been up and down this season but i still can't recall us looking fantastic in any game, something we used to look like just a little while ago. Even in that 7-1 drubbing, it was more down to Blackburn being terrible than us looking unplayable.
I agree. I think the problem lies in the fact that, whilst laudable, our financial model has also seen fit to sell our best players to balance the books - and thus it's been at the cost of our performances on the pitch. Wenger is a genius. He has built several title challenging squads, the later on smaller and smaller relative budgets - only to see them dismantled before him. I think we've reached a stage now where we need significant investment in the squad - like it or not, otherwise we will simply get left behind.
Interesting article that looks at Tottenham costs and finances. Has more to do with the new stadium, but some interesting points: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-boost-financial-backing-for-new-stadium.html "The cost of maintaining a large squad for European football saw overall costs, largely made up of wages, rise 35 per cent to £131.2 million, up from £97.1 million in 2009-10. " "Tottenham have not specified their precise salary costs but the rise in costs appears to have pushed the wages-to-earnings ratio to between 70 per cent and 80 per cent, an uncomfortable level. " "Operating expenses increased 35 per cent to £131.2m (2010: £97.1m), due in the main to the costs associated with a large squad size playing in both domestic and European competitions and a total of 53 games played (2010: 50) " "Operating profit before football trading and amortisation, which is one of the key performance indicators of how the Club is performing as a cash-generating business, increased by 42 per cent to £32.3m (2010: £22.7m)." So, the key points for me are: 1) Tottenham do not publish their precise wage costs. 2) Competing in the champions league drives up players salaries. Please note that I have only cut things that are to do with wages. Tottenham are in a healthy situation and are run very well. Like us (financially).
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 -------------- I don't think anyone was saying Spurs do it on the cheap. It was a direct comparison of finances vs squad depth/League Position. In real terms 150million is not alot, over 20 years (7.5million a year) when compared to 50million a year more on wages. No one is saying you havn't won more trophies or seen loads of fantastic players for that amount. (I know you wish you'd had Darren Andrerton in his prime!) However, for the years and years of investment into your youth team, the massive difference in squad depth when AW took over, the success that you have had to bring in better players, the increased wages to attract better players etc etc have not translated into results for a few years.
Absolute spend is the measure you should use to judge use of resources: you have spent more ££s than us but have a worse team Relative spend is a measure of efficiency; more of our turnover is channeled into football spend apparently - sounds the right answer to me. If we were making a loss then it would be unsustainable but we are not
A part of the solution is for Wenger to get tough and jettison the useless from our squad. We should then look at our wage structure again and pay players wages that are appropriate to there ability. This means getting rid of players like Bendy, Denilson, Squishy etc, free up wages and then get players in that are better and pay them better wages. Also bring in our youth/good squad players to supplement the squad and don't pay them over the market value for gods sake! 50k for players like Denilson etc is scandilous to say the least!!!
Financial accounts from 2009 - 2010 showed a £7M loss and a £15M cash injection from the owners for Spurs. Also worth noting that Arsenal had the 5th highest wage bill, but by far the lowest 'wages as a proportion of turnover' ratio at 29%. Tottenhams was 4th lowest at 56%. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/05/18/sportscribddoc.pdf http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/19/football-club-accounts-debt This was the latest published records I could easilly find which showed all clubs. Now, if only Arsenal could get rid of the dross and pay some World class players we'd be laughing.
Quite Mr 20K The catalog of discrepancies on our part is long. We have examined these in many discussions and yet Spurs are doing exactly what we ourselves used to do when playing big clubs out of a smaller stadium. Somewhere following the desire to have a bigger stadium something went wrong and which I don't think has been made aware to Arsenal supporters. I don't think the stadium debt is not being managed. Any self respecting budget management would have taken care of it as a long or longer term commitment. I think there is an unpublished requirement by this board that includes our majority shareholder and egghead CEO which relies on the money being left as an asset on the books. Wenger bought into what was sold to everyone as being a sustainable model. It was quite opportune really as the idea was mooted around the time of the banking crisis. Makes sense and was the order of the day after all so why not spin it in N5 too. That the model may have another motive may possibly lie in the coming of our majority shareholder. Money talks as we all know and shareholders votes win the day. And who has the most shares? We are an under-invested club in the sporting sense. In terms of buildings, land and other property matters, indeed we are anything but lacking in investment. If Arsenal are to become a powerhouse in football again, then the men to call the shots on the matter of money have to change. If not, the changes they have made will benefit only them and anyone who buys into their grand scheme. I would also venture to suggest that 135K a week can buy a lot of silence but as in all things, there is a breaking point.
I thought this was a football thread but it's all accounts talk. Stop whinging and support your team.You sound like all that is wrong with football today.
Agreed, there are things going on behind the scenes that we have no knowledge of. Every fibre in my body points towards the aim of this "self sustained model" was to make profit in a business sense and that only. The big question is, were we "self sustained" before all this was put into place? If so, then Arsenal FC and her stakeholders are driven by profit and profit only....
Hahahahaha so true. If it wasn't for teams like Chelsea, Man City, Real Madrid etc all stinking up the place with Billionaires and buying success, then we wouldn't be in this predicament so far!
I think the salient point is that unless we have success on the pitch, then the rest is academic. For this reason, I think we need a cash injection into the squad.
Without looking at the accounts I wouldn't know if we were self-sustained before the coming of the stadium and all that which followed. I'm sure other members such as Jayram will have looked into it. It is probably without doubt that the current majority shareholder is driven by self enrichment to the detriment of the sporting capabilities of his ventures. I think ample voice has been given in this regard. The only way this will change is if we have on board and by that I mean in a decision-making capacity, a shareholder who wants the club to be successful. One who loves the club and not just the money. I think there seems only one candidate for this. The quiet American won't change so we'll have to hope that he is changed. In all honesty, his lackey, that egghead CEO can go too.
Personally, I'd rather have a financially secure club that will be challenging for the rest of my lifetime, than short-term sucess.
I agree that we need to be financially secure but I think there may be an agenda at the club that goes beyond that. All things being equal I don't see why we cannot be in line for success. It may not come every year but a frequency greater than one in seven or eight would be appreciated. We have been nearly there such as in 2008 and dare I say, in 2010 as well. Silverware could again have been ours last year but if we lose an ability to motivate the team and are lost in an inability to retain our best players and attract new ones then we'll never be in the hunt.
