Some people have alluded to the fact that we have a wage cap or that we don't pay high wages, which is why we can't sign players like Mata. However, Gazidis has outright said that we don't have a 'salary ceiling': http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15208498.stm So are we being lied to?
I don't think it's disingenuous to say so. There's every possibility that we could play a player a high wage, above and beyond what some might assume our wage ceiling is - as long as it fits into our business model. That could mean, say if one or two players were sold, then more wages would become available, or as is currently happening, Gazidis is negotiating several lucrative commercialdeals for Arsenal, which could in theory allow for a higher wage. A business model is designed to be sustainable, but that doesn't mean that there's not room to juggle things within in, as long as the sums add up.
You outnumbered our midfield and had lots of possession, but you created nothing. Szczesny made lots of impressive saves to keep you in the game. Friedel made none. I understand that everyone is biased towards their own team, but try to be a little objective.
You created nothing. Gervinho missed a good chance and... erm, that was about it. Friedel didn't make a save. You dominated possession by outnumbering us in the midfield. You failed to turn that possession into meaningful chances and after Sagna went off injured and we brought on Sandro the possession swung towards us, too.
I think what he means is that we have a model that will ensure that we remain solvent over the next 5 years, not that it's rigid. In fact, Gazidis is negotiating commercial deals now, including a new shirt sponsorship deal that has been described as being 'as lucrative as champions league income' He's also negotiated several other deals, with Citroen for example, that will, in real terms, increase our revenue stream. A business model doesn't necessarily mean a rigid set of spending figures, it means that it is a model designed to ensure that the basic requirements are met i.e we don't get into unmanageable debt or unsustainable spending, but still allows for dynamism within it, to reflect the needs of the club within an ever changing economic landscape. Gazidis didn't say we have a model that 'controls' our finances for the next five years, he said that we have a model that 'looks at what we need to do' to compete next year and over the next five years. To me that suggests that it is a dynamic model that can adapt to changing needs. "We have a very sophisticated business model that looks at what we need to do to compete today and what we need to do to compete next year and five years from now."
Modric wasn't outplayed by Coquelin, he was outnumbered in the middle by him, Arteta and Ramsey, with only Parker in there with him. You still created nothing, something which you've denied without actually offering up any chances as an example. Gevinho's bad miss, Walcott's shot from outside the box and the goal - that's about it. Actually I think it was the introduction of Sandro, which meant that Bale started to get some service, as we matched up numerically in the middle and the injury to Sagna, which allowed Bale to come into the game more.
Spurs one season in the CL and suddenly they are a big club. The last time Spurs won the league, Ken Barlow was a teenager.
So what you're saying in effect is that you've got a huge wage bill for players that can't get the basics right. I think the op has a point, don't you?
Everton fan in peace. From what I have read and that includes following a recent phone-in with Martin Keown, Arsenal does operate a wage cap which explains why as you yourselves have discussed on your board, you were outbid by Chelsea for Mata on the wages front. Admittedly your manager's delays left the door open for Chelsea. However it should not detract from what is well known and often discussed, the existence of a wages ceiling at Arsenal whatever your CEO may say.
I see no reason for Gazidis to say there isn't a wage cap if there was. It would just make his position more difficult to defend if he was lying. I think the board have always been consistent in saying that they will pay up, if Wenger says that he wants a player. Of course it would be difficult to bring a player in like Mata, who was on £120k at Valencia, because our top earners are on around the £80k mark. You'd either have to convince him to take a huge drop in wages, or then expect players like RVP and Wilshere to ask for similar, and that would push our wage bill through the roof. I think rather than seeing it as a black and white - yes or no answer to a wage ceiling, you have to understand that a high wage could be met, if it was pragmatic to do so.
It is a well known fact that Arsenal will not now pay any player more than £100k/wk, that is in the 'model'. A wage bill of £120Mill suggests that we are in line with what other clubs are paying in TOTAL so our 'average' player wage must be higher. If the first team were all on £100k/wk that would be £5.2M each a year viz £57.2M leaving £62M for 'other' wages, not unaffordable. It is clear Wenger tried to have an 'equitable' player wage policy, it hasn't worked and it needs to be changed if we are to retain existing or attract quality players. Man Utd seem to be able to pay top players high wages so we should also be able to do so.
VdV has 91 caps for Holland including a world cup runners-up medal. Modric has 49 caps for Croatia and was named in the UEFA Euro 2008 Team of the Tournament. Arteta is not even an international and Wilshere is still learning. Not hard to see who is better is it?
