Piskie - I showed the Invincibles, a team in 2003/2004 as an example, that wasn't even 10 years ago so my example is VERY relevant. Jayram the fact is there are only a finite number of spaces at Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man U, Chelsea and Man City. all the decent players in the world cannot just play for those teams so simple maths tells us that some have to play for other teams. You are right, how on earth do we buy players if they only want to go to 4 or 5 teams in the world ??
I was wondering how long before the names of Cisse and Cabaye appeared in the fray. Just a couple of points, no matter how hard we try we CANNOT take a chance on any "hidden" potential out there, and only time will tell whether have a gem in Cisse and Cabaye. Secondly, even if this players were to make it at Newcastle, what is to say they would have flourished at Arsenal, no disrespect to Newcastle, a good/excellent season is finishing top 10 or perhaps even avoiding relegation, whereas for us, the aim is to challenge for major honours...... This comes with its own pressure, can these players handle that? I kinda share your sentiment about only a handful of players in the city lineup of world class quality...... But do you really need a team heaving with world class players to win the league? I will also maintain my point that we have been priced out of the rough "diamond market".... Chelsea, Citeh and Manure to a certain extent, will gladly pay 20mill and upwards and stick them in the reserves.... You have to accept there is so much money in the game now, and soon as we are linked to a player, a couple of millions gets added. I think it is difficult for Wenger to go under the radar and go shopping for hidden talent.
Could be a very bad week for English football with chequebook bullies winning the league and the Champions Lge. Chelsea have spent something like £610m in the 8 years since the Russian walked through the door, Man City are a shade short of £500m in 4 years, sick sums of money that have transformed average clubs into champions. Just goes to prove that if you throw enough money at a team you can buy silverware...
Dortmund are the best example but dont forget Wenger won all his titles without spending ' big bucks' though. Also Barca have bought the odd big name here and there but their squad is 90% academy grown.
You're looking at this too simplistically. The players you mentioned didn't come 'on the cheap' Other than Wilshere, who we developed through the ranks, we paid the going rate for the others. Both Walcott and Oxo were expensive teenagers. Also you're being too simplistic with the argument that it's either top dollar or nothing. Of course there are players around who could improve us who don't cost the earth, but finding them is a lot more tricky that it was before the Oil money came pouring in. Your comparison with RVP and Aguero makes my point perfectly. He is not worth 2x RVPs, but the fact that a club is willing to spend that means that it pushes up the price to talent ratio. If RVP was available on the market today, how much do you think he would be worth? especially if City came in for him Do you think that we could afford him at those market prices ?
Good post. On the one hand we have people saying that Wenger doesn't need to spend and can build a title winning team on the cheap with 'potential' whilst at the same time bemoaning the fact that he doesn't go out and buy proven talent and relies on unproven players with potential. It's a contradictory stance. I think we can find a balance between potential and established players, which was Wenger's approach last summer. But I still think that overall the market has been skewed by the riches of City and Chelsea. Wenger makes no secret of not naming the players he's after, because as soon as he does - he's outbid both in the transfer fee and wages. The argument is not a black and white one, between only having to pay top dollar or developing your own players, there are players out there who can improve us at reasonable amounts of money - I think you will find that Wenger will already have a few in mind. But the fact remains that you cannot ignore the fact that the rich clubs have skewed the transfer market - and relative value to talent is not the same as it was before they started splashing the cash.
Sorry Piskie but you've missed the point. The only circumstances where money can play a significant part to differentiate the top teams across Europe is if the difference in player talent within the top ~200 players across Europe is large - and it is not. To make it simple here's an extreme example for illustration : if every player had exactly the same ability money would have no impact at all - no matter how much you spent. So, the further the spread in talent the bigger the role of money. My view is that City, Chelsea, real, and Barca could go and take their pick of the top 10 strikers worldwide, sign them all, and there would be players just as good remaining. The suggestion that rates are pushed up by City's money also does not make any sense when you consider the price we paid for Podolski. How much better is Dzeko than Podolski (if at all?). Money does swill around from time to time - i.e. the money Chelsea spent on Torres had a knock on effect for the Carroll deal, but that's not the norm (in fact is Carroll 3 times better than Podolski?). We can assemble a team for less than 1/3 of what City would assemble a team for and the difference in talent would be wafer thin - easily made up by the right tactics, team play, and sheer will to win. The only simplistic argument here is that "we cant compete because we dont have as much money". Its an excuse and it always has been.
There's a good interview here with David Dein http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14588552 In it he talks about the transfer market and how difficult it is to sign proven players as there 'is too much money, chasing too little talent'. It's basic market principles, supply and demand. If supply is low and demand is high, the price goes up. If you have a few buyers with considerably more funds, the price goes up even more. I'm not saying that 'we can't compete because we don't have much money' but you cannot ignore that the market has been skewed by the rich clubs buying power.
Dein is not talking about demand, he is talking about the amount of money being spent on the very best players. City's and Chelsea's money is only in the market for a limited part of the market, not all of it (they cant buy everyone!) - and I am saying that once they have skewed that very small portion of the market, other players are still available and they are very close to being just as good as the players City would buy. No way in my view does a gulf exist between the players City and Chelsea buy and the ones left over. In fact we have seen it this year Arteta half the price of Gareth Barry, Podolski one third of Dzeko... I could list many many examples.
I agree that there are players who don't cost the Earth who we could (and have) signed. Dein is talking about demand though, you can't separate it from the argument. Even if City are plucking the very best out (at top prices) then the next tier of players are naturally in more demand amongst the clubs who can afford to sign them and accordingly their price and availability is affected too.
Dortmund are the very best example out there. Under the 'can't compete because of money' logic, they should have stood NO chance against Bayern, and yet they have won back to back titles, and have a striker like Lewandowski who has banged in 22 goals and got 8 assists this year.
Yes but their prices are not being effected too are they? Players are being signed for £10m that are as good or in some cases better than those fetching £30m. Reality does not support your theory. The reason I know he is not talking about demand is that he mentions money - demand and supply is about quantity not price. Price is the result, but only in a competitive market. Demand / supply principles only hold in a competitive market. Only then can price equilibrium be reached. Football transfers do not operate in a competitive market - it is skewed. In fact there are essentially two markets - the super rich and the rest. We are not trying to compete at the same prices as City, but because the supply of players is such that City cannot buy everyone, we can still compete on the football pitch with a team assembled for far less money.
???? How is Cisse hidden talent ? 2nd highest scorer in the Bundesliga last season. We bought Gervinho from the same club that Cabaye played in. Unknowns to me and you maybe but certainly not our scouting network. I'm not saying we should've bought these guys I am saying there are plenty of decent players out there and most of them cannot play for the usual suspects because there is a finite number of spots available. So I do not and never will buy the money argument - no pun intended.
Piskie Arsenal are regarded as a top team so players not going to the usual suspects would clamber to join us, the next best - when it comes to money and prestige.
It's because of their excellent academy, and shrewd buying, like we used to do before Wenger let his ego get in the way.
I'd like to think that they'd clamour to join us. But if we're considered a top team, then surely we should be aiming to sign players of the same quality that the usual suspects are signing.
Clamber - LOOOOL. I shouldn't use words I can't spell. Anyway, yes we should look to get the best but being realistic we cannot. so we have no choice but to go for the next best.
You spelt Clamber right I agree we have to be realistic, I also believe we have to be realistic about how the market affects the price of players through the tiers too. The very best cost astronomical prices, the next tier relatively are more expensive than they were before the oil money polluted the premier league
Its not an 'ego' thing. It's a ethical thing. he does'nt agree with the big money spent in football so he tries to find other ways.
