This is where it becomes a subjective argument though. Over what the RIGHT transfer constitutes. (For example:In 2008 we 'reportedly' missed out on Xavi Alonso over a reported £1 Million disagreement with Liverpool.) Wenger tends to want the right player at the right price. Which is fair enough but it seems if he cant get that he simply wont buy. (whereas just about every other big club will pay that little bit more if they feel the signing is worth it) This becomes even more clear when you hear Wenger talk about the signings we narrowly missed out on - Ronaldo, Mata, Cech, Makelele, Eto'o etc.. most of which never happened because of an unwillingness to 'spend' more than the bargain rate we were after. Sometimes it would have done our club better just to spend that extra £3-4 million and not leave a huge gaping whole in the squad. Which has happened numerous times.
A few things with this. 1. It is all reported. We have no clue on what negotiations failed or did not fail. Arsenal are constantly reported to be interested in players that are clearly rubbish. 2. Mata, for example, originally seemed to be wanting to come to Arsenal, but went to Chelsea for 28M. Arsenal must have stopped bidding when it became clear that Chelsea would continue to offer just a bit more than Arsenal. When you are in an auction the winner always pays a "little bit more" than everyone else. Doesn't mean that anyone could have got the player by just paying just "a little bit more". Chelsea might have been willing to pay 50M for Mata. 3. It is easy to point out the players we missed that were a success, but were a gamble at the time. We can't expect Wenger to pick every gem from the transfer market. Saying he didn't get Ronaldo is crazy. In the end United paid nearly 13M for this guy, who played in Portugal. Yes, it paid off, but that was a big deal at the time (2003) for an 18 year old, and a club that couldn't offer him first-team football. There was no gaping hole in the team. That was Bobby Pires' spot. 4. Xabi Alonso in 2007 was on 65K/week, which was, back then, an astronomical salary. So large in fact that Liverpool tried to off-load him the summer before he finally left, souring the relationship between player and club. I hate to keep beating you up over salaries, but you cannot just look at transfer fees. Bringing a player in who will be paid more than the salary structure allows will eventually raise the wage bill to breaking point. 5. Finally, there is another problem with your "gaping hole" argument. In most cases the "gaping hole" (if one existed) did not develop until well after the transfer window was closed. In 2008 we were well in contention until Eduardo went down. For a whole run of seasons we were doing fine until spring. There was no "gaping hole" that could be predicted, until we suffered injuries. I find your analysis very simplistic, and benefiting from hindsight.
Yep, spot on fella I would also add that the true figure of wages added to transfer fees increases the overall price considerably - Mata not only eventually cost much more than the reported extra 2-3m we 'should' have spent on the transfer, but his wages were also likely to cost another 5m per season . So over the course of a 5 year contract he would cost around 25-30m more than Arsenal could afford. And this is the point, it's what we can realistically afford, not because of an 'unwillingness' to spend. Wenger has confirmed this week that our transfers business (in's and out's) have been restricted by our finances, so overspending would have been negligent. It's because of our pragmatism in this area that we're NOW in a position to be able to spend serious money. If we'd have just thrown cash at our problems in the past in an attempt to 'outbid' the others, we would have landed ourselves in serious debt and would now have to be clawing back in an attempt to stay solvent.
