1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

PL teams paid much more last year.

Discussion in 'Arsenal' started by Bergkamp a Dutch master, May 31, 2012.

  1. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    You must have misunderstood what I've written then.
     
    #41
  2. theHotHead

    theHotHead New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    9
    I said the same thing. Nobody ever said we could compete with them with salary but it is clear PISKIE's comment was a thinly veiled attack at those who claimed City and Chelsea etc being super rich is just an excuse for our failures.
     
    #42
  3. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    I think it's clear to most people reading, that a thread about wages would naturally attract a comment about wages.
     
    #43
  4. Sanj

    Sanj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    19,108
    Likes Received:
    891
    Back to the original topic of the thread, it's hilarious to read Liverpool's wage bill. What they achieved last season, was one of the biggest failures in premier league history. Well done Kenny.
     
    #44
  5. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    Liverpool's spending is startling in comparison to their achievements.
     
    #45
  6. Kyle?

    Kyle? New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    15,002
    Likes Received:
    137
    But so is ours. Our wage bill is insane, yet we don't achieve much (aside from the near guaranteed top 4 spot, take that spurs)
     
    #46
  7. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    Overall though, Whilst we have the 5th highest wage, we finished 3rd and when you take into account the transfer spending of Chelsea, City, Utd and Liverpool- who also outspent us in wages, then we actually represent fairly good value for money.

    When you see that City spent 114% of their revenue on wages, it's just ludicrous business practice
     
    #47
  8. Kyle?

    Kyle? New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    15,002
    Likes Received:
    137
    How do we represent value though, we spent little on transfers, yet still sit 5th in the wages table. It's ridiculous, whilst admire Wenger's "all men shall remain equal" policy, the truth is our team are not equal. Reserves getting 50k a week is stupid.
     
    #48
  9. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    I agree that reserves getting 5Ok per week is stupid, I also understand why at the time those players were tied down to long, healthy contracts. The reason that we represent fairly good value for money, is compared to the teams in the OPs article, who all massively outspent us on transfers. All outspent us on wages and yet only two of them finished above us in the league. One of those teams spending a ludicrous hundred and fourteen percent of their revenue on wages - completely unsustainable
     
    #49
  10. theHotHead

    theHotHead New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    9
    Fairly good value for money ? Is this how we console ourselves and make ourselves look/feel better than we should ?? Much like the trophy for best bank balance in the premier league, do we win the trophy for fairly good value for money ??

    Suit yourself

    <doh>
     
    #50

  11. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    That's not really the point. Nobody is saying we're consoling ourselves, simply making the comparison about the wage issue, which is after all, what the OP is about. Coupled with the massive transfer spending of these teams, it shows how relatively, we've been comparing against them.
     
    #51
  12. Its a bit of a moot point though - they spend more on wages... so what? It has little to no bearing on the comparison to the quality of players we can bring in compared to them, and little to do with whether we can actually compete on the football pitch, which is far more important.
     
    #52
  13. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    I would say that in the case of Mata, where Chelsea offered a reported £8m more in wages than us (and more in transfer fees)
    It was a direct example of where a club spending more on wages affects our ability to bring in players.
     
    #53
  14. By some accounts we could have wrapped up the Mata deal but were too slow, but besides there are other players as good or better than Mata that we can bring in. For example, my view is that Arteta was better than Mata last season, and lets not forget we finished well clear of them.

    There are plenty of top players to go round. Just because, for example Chelsea decide to pay £38m for Hulk, does not mean he is 3.8 times better than Podolski.

    We CAN find the players and then its down to the manager to build a title winning team, with the right tactics, style, and motivation.
     
    #54
  15. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    I would also say that the wage effect from the big hitters also affects the clubs trying to compete around them.
    Nasri was a classic example. He was at a club who were playing champions league football and as Jayram rightly points out, able to compete on the pitch with City, yet their massive wage offer turned his head and we lost his services. The trickle down effect of this is that any quality player at a club like Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, Newcastle and even Utd to an extent - knows that if their club won't match what City are offering (which they can't) then they can go there and get it.
     
    #55
  16. ...and then we are able to bring in another player just as good for less than half the price.
     
    #56
  17. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    I think had Chelsea not come in for Mata, he would probably be an Arsenal player now. As for the comparison with Arteta, they both could have a place in our starting line up. There's no way that Hulk is 3.8 times better than Podolski, but that just outlines where clubs like City and Chelsea skew the transfer market. I also believe that we can find the players to build a title winning team, but I don't think it should be underestimated how much of an effect the big hitters have. Basically, we were fortunate that neither Chelsea or City were in for Podolski, because if they were, we would not have got him for £10m
     
    #57
  18. theHotHead

    theHotHead New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    9
    This is the point. Lets delve a little further into the issues of wealth.

    Salaries and transfer fees paid are traditionally higher for clubs with greater financial might. The main argument seems to be, we cannot be expected to win trophies with the likes of Chelsea and City buying all the best players. We cannot compete with clubs that are willing to spend more than us on players and their salaries. We have the 5th or 6th highest wage bill so we should be lowering our expectations to match finishing relative to our spending - anything higher is a bonus and the manager should be praised.

    The argument against this is - we have NEVER been the highest spenders but we have been far more competitive than we have recently. We were consistently far more competitive than we are now. So, we argue, the money issue - salary and transfer fees - can't be the reason we have fallen from grace.

    Liverpool and Man U were ALWAYS able to spend more than us and their greater prestige meant we could never compete for the same players. Introduce Chelsea and City and now there are 4 richer and prestigious teams in front of us - so more teams chasing the best players, leaving fewer for us to buy. But not necessarily, because the transfer market has opened up worldwide, the pool of players available has grown and Arsenal are the best of the rest now. Only Chelsea, City and Man U can offer what we can't and the cream of the other Euro leagues.

    Taking your example of Mata, nobody was rumoured to be after him and had we made a £17m bid within the deadline the clause in his contract would be activated, but we pussy footed about and missed the boat. The Chelsea affect only played a part because we didn't make a bid in time and, according to the article linked, Mata had chosen Arsenal.

    http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/871023-juan-mata-transfer-to-arsenal-on-the-verge-of-collapse

    So the argument that Arsenal cannot compete with City and Chelsea financially is correct, of course we cant, but nobody ever said we could. The argument that Arsenal cant compete with City and Chelsea on the pitch because they have far greater spending money than us is nonsense. We are responsible for our own problems. Dilly dallying with the sale of Cesc and allegedly losing out on Mata as a result.
     
    #58
  19. But we DID get Podolski for £10m. We also picked up Kos on 'cheap', and Vermaelen. Szczesny cost nothing, neither did Wilshere. Arteta was £10m, OXo £12m, Walcot £12m(?), Song nothing (or very cheap?). We can afford to go out and buy players that are as good or better than City THINK are worth £40m in the £10-20m bracket. Two more and of those and we can beat City, Utd, and Chelsea. Our problems lie with the way the team play, are set up for each game, and their lack of motivation and concentration to give 100% for 90 minutes.
     
    #59
  20. PINKIE

    PINKIE Wurzel Gummidge

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    125,457
    Likes Received:
    73,441
    I wouldn't agree with this argument. I think we can and should expect to win trophies. I also don't think that we can't compete with clubs who are willing to spend more, I think we can't compete with their wages and transfer offers. I don't agree that we should be lowering our expectations either, but I do think that the overall effect of the big spenders makes it harder to overhaul them.
     
    #60

Share This Page