This is the biggest load of Rubbish I've ever read. Net spending on transfer fee's over the last 5 years. Net Spending on transfer fees (£) Team 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Total Man City 39.1 117.9 99 126.5 382.5 Chelsea 7.5 -10.8 17.5 87.5 101.7 Tottenham 33.9 19.4 -0.5 17.5 70.3 Liverpool 39.8 6.35 -8.7 -5.1 32.35 Man Utd 36.7 33.7 -64.5 13.5 19.4 Arsenal -13.4 0.05 -31 6.8 -37.55 Wenger may have won little in the last few years but he's had to work under extremely tight financial circumstances. Back when Wenger had the kind of transfer budgets that Redkanpp currently has Wenger was regularly winning trophies and even assembled possibly the greatest league side in Premierleague history. It's not even close Wenger is one of the greatest living managers while Reknapp just tends to spend beyond his means - often to the clubs detriment (see Pompey/Southampton). Wenger has been successful at EVERY club he's managed while Redknapp is hated at Southampton, Portsmouth and to a lesser extent West Ham.
No redknapp is not better. That is all. Try harry having the funds that wenger had through out the years and tottenham wouldn have half their squad.
The 'money spent' argument is always an interesting one - like stats, it can be manipulated any way to match your argument. According to Deloitte your wages have been consistently over 210% of ours over the last 5 years. Interesting reading.
I had this debate yesterday over comparitive wage bills so I will repeat it. When Wenger came to Arsenal, it was fairly much level pegging between both clubs. Wenger's success enabled Arsenal to get richer and therefore pay higher wages to attract better players. The fact Arsenal got richer was football related and not due to an Abramovich or a sheik in which case I would understand Spurs fans being peeved at Arsenal taking a ' short cut' to greater access to money. In saying that I respect Harry for taking Spurs into the Champs League on a comparitively low wage bill and in terms of playing style, I also respect him for risking losing to win games.
You really need to collate all the facts before making such a bold statement Steevee, otherwise you look a little daft.
If we add wage bills to transfer spending then deduct that from gross income do you really think it will show Spurs to be the more frugal? Especially considering we have the income from a 60,00 capacity stadium and regular Champions league football.
Maybe not, but surely it's better to have both sides of an argument rather than throwing a random figure in and thinking that's the gospel. For example - one of the most common arguments against us from your fans is the amount of money we've spent on transfers. Your figures show us spending nearly £33m more than you in the last three seasons - yet your wages in the same period have eclipsed ours by nearly £150m Looks different on the other side of the fence doesn't it
We are allowed to spend money on wages like that because of years of being in the champions league. When we have earned a lot of money due to our sporting achievements is it unfair of us to spend it?
No-one's questioning the fairness RVF, just that it needs to be taken into consideration to build a good case rather than a 'throwaway' comment You spend your pocket money how you want.
That's like going over to the Fulham board and saying 'what's the point of being in the Prem if you know you're going to finish comfortably each year? why not try relegation,that could be fun!'
If Spurs had been playing consistently in the Champions league as Arsenal have been, then their players could realistically be expecting similar wages. We have simply been remunerating players for the level that they are at. Anything else would be short changing them. It would be a bit like paying an Architect a labourers wage. To extend this analogy further, we have assembled a luxury house on a budget that has been significantly less that Spurs' attempt which has yielded an abode far less palatial.
I'm sorry, but you miss my point completely. Spend on wages is far more important than spend on players. One is a one-off payment; the other is an annual commitment. You Gooners commit yourselves to far greater excesses than Spurs can afford. That is a simple fact.
Surely that means any direct comparison of Wenger and Redknapp is thus impossible? Wenger is managing a bigger and richer club, so you would expect him to do better? Isn't comparing them on that basis similar to saying Ancelotti is better than Wenger (I don't think he is) based on the fact that he finished above Arsenal every season he was managing Chelsea?
The fact that you can pay your considerably players more wages than us means that you have a greater expectation of keeping hold of them for longer, which gives you the stability that is essential for building a good team. Do you really think that Fabregas would not have put in a transfer request long ago if he was being paid the paltry sum that we pay Modric? Whinger is nowhere near as good as Harry. Let's do a manager-swap, and see how that works out. I'm betting that Whinger wouldn't even make it to the end of a season at Spurs, whereas Harry would probably win your team the silverware that you so desperately crave
