'Rewarding failure' and 'giving a player a contract based on potential' are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!! When you have a world class talent like Chamberlain or Wilshere you have to tie them down or risk loosing them. To not do so is beyond foolish. Chamberlain has come into the first team and produced. He has shown he is in fact already good enough to make an impact. In this case he deserves a 'first team' contract. In the case of Nicholas Bendtner we did in fact 'reward failure'. He got a new contract and payrise despite failing to perform at the top level. Oxo will get a a good payrise and new contract but because of his age it will still be a good 50% lower than say Robin Van Persie's. Also buying young top class players and securing them to contracts makes good finacial sense.(the problem we have made is that we have too many youngsters on the fringe and some of which have not produced to the required standard. Wenger has not been 'cut-throat' enough. But still I think a good academy and investing in youth is the way forward for Arsenal, as we have the infastructure. To quote moneyball's Billy Bean: “You know why it is better to buy young players? The reason is because they are cost effective,” he says. “They may cost more to acquire, but their wages are lower. With an older player you may be paying for past performance, whereas with a younger player you are paying for future performance. It is like buying stock. "
Of course that is a factor too. Although maybe his body is in better condition now because he works harder and therefore gets less injuries?
I have neither seen nor heard anything to suggest that he works harder than before to prevent injuries. His quality has always been there to see. He has been massively unlucky with the injuries picked up.
You are nit picking. It all makes absolute sense and explains every pay rise we make including the Middlesboro example you cite. Ravenelli was an experienced pro, of course he got a higher salary than players that hadn't played as much. Stop trying the sensationalize everything. At the point he got the last contract Bendtner had almost as many games for the first team as Van Persie. I repeat, salaries are paid objectively. Setting wages subjectively can actually be illegal, no one does it.
Are you saying that there were no experienced pros at 'Boro when Ravanelli was there ?? Of course there was. Players at all clubs get paid different wages and the differences are not small.
That is why I accused you of nit picking. The key point is not the difference in the salaries, but why they are different. If the salaries differ a lot, at a well run club, that difference will be based on measurable player attributes and not on whether the manager likes him or what his agent can negotiate. If you cite Middlesboro', Portsmouth, Newcastle, Chelsea or Man City as examples of how it is done, then I'll point out the obvious mistake. You cannot run a club that way and stay solvent. The problem with a lot of clubs being in debt, is running the business side of the club unprofessionally and haphazardly. It is one ofthe reasons managers these days do NOT run the business side of a club. I am telling you that far from being bad management, it is extremely good management. Players at Arsenal know that they are rewarded fairly based on their actual playing time, experience and position in the team.
If a black player was paid significantly less than a white player and everything else was equal, I think he would have an excellent case for racial discrimination against the club. I believe rulings have shown that he would NOT have to prove that it was a trend at the club. The individual circumstantial evidence alone would be sufficient.
That's rubbish. The last major injury he got was playing for Holland, chasing down a direct through ball.
I'm sure that you would agree that it's a massive leap of faith to suggest that 'tippy tappy' football is responsible for RVP's past injuries.
You missed the point If Wenger gets it wrong then he is to blame. You can't exonerate him from blame just because its difficult. He's paid to get it right. He has wasted a lot of time, money, and effort with several players where quite simple he has got it wrong.
No, I didn't The point you made was that Wenger employs a 'throw as much mud at the wall and see what sticks approach', which he clearly doesn't. He makes an informed judgement based on the available information and future potential. He has no crystal ball, and cannot accurately predict future events. So making a judgement in hindsight that he got it wrong is only a luxury afforded with the benefit of knowing how something turned out. As was mentioned earlier, using the Flamini situation as an example. Some people have made their minds up already and damn him if he does and damn him if he doesn't. That's just lazy criticism in my opinion.
As I said - excuses. If a trader on a trading floor picked the wrong stocks and lost his company money how far do you think he would get in the bosses office shrugging and saying "Well, I can't predict the future you know.." Wenger is paid to make the right choices. With your argument you can give him zero credit for any of the signings he has made that have succeeded. After all, how could he have known? In several cases Wenger has got it badly wrong and wasted money.
So what's the alternative ? Wait until players have become world class before tying them down to long contracts ? As I mentioned, Wenger was lambasted over the Flamini situation for doing just this. i.e. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. You can't have it both ways. He needs to make a judgement call and stick to it. It's inevitable that not every player is going to make it, but show me a successful manager who doesn't take a gamble from time to time. . .
Maybe we should all pretend that Wenger has never made any mistakes and was just a victim of circumstance, and then glorify him for any success...
No Piskie - you cant have it both ways. Losing Flamini was a mistake, just as signing up players who are not good enough was a mistake. He's had many wins too - Pires, Henry, Vieira, Petit, Overmars, Fabregas... It's just some of us don't believe that he is flawless. Your argument above is just the usual use of extremes. You don't have to wait till a player is world class. You are right though that all he can do is use his judgement - it's just that he has been wrong on several occasions.
Massive over simplification to try and shoe horn in a non point. Simply reeling off silly nonsense arguments doesn't cut any mustard Tell me what the alternative is Jayram. Should Wenger wait until players have proven themselves at the top level and risk losing them a la Flamini, or should he use his judgement to tie down the players he thinks will make it ?
I don't believe he is flawless either, but his judgement on unknown players over the years has been proven to be right more often than it's been wrong. Unless you are contesting that?
