Jump to content
IGNORED

Arsenal

cubeadvance

By cubeadvance
in Sport

 Share

Recommended Posts

George Clooney

George Clooney

Posted
Posted

To put that in some perspective, in the last five years Stoke have spent £85 million nett more on players than Arsenal. So either spend loads on average players and pay them poorly* or spend little on decent players and pay them well. I'd suggest that, regardless of how poorly this seasons gone, the Arsenal approach seems to work a bit better.

I'd also question the veracity of those wage numbers, some of them seem made up.

*poorly in relative terms, obv.

But the nett figure takes into account the players you've sold. You've still spent more on players than Stoke have. In the last year alone you bought 4 players costing as much or more than our record signing, but your nett is less because you sold Nasri to Moneybags City, and Fabregas to Barca. So you are spending more on players, and on their wages, of course that approach is going to work better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Petrousgyre

Petrousgyre

Posted
Posted

But the nett figure takes into account the players you've sold. You've still spent more on players than Stoke have. In the last year alone you bought 4 players costing as much or more than our record signing, but your nett is less because you sold Nasri to Moneybags City, and Fabregas to Barca. So you are spending more on players, and on their wages, of course that approach is going to work better.

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes of course nett includes players sold. We no longer have players like Nasri and Fabregas in our squad so it seems a reasonable way to calculate overall expenditure on players. Also, didn't Crouch cost 12M? That's what we paid for the Ox, who was our biggest signing since Arshavin four years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky

Lucky

Posted
Posted

The Arsenal Insider article that published it says "We can’t completely confirm the verasity [sic] of this information but the level of detail leads us to believe it to be accurate."

Sorry but that's bollocks. Anyone with a comprehensive list of Arsenal staff could knock that up in an hour if they were bored enough.

I mean, take Koscielny's alleged salary for instance. This is a guy bought from Lorient, uncapped by France, who even Sirloin hadn't seemed to have noticed much, and who had been playing in Ligue 2 not long before we bought him. I simply cannot believe that we had to pay him anywhere near £50k a week in order to secure his services, given his experience and reputation.

Arsenal list of wages - As if anyone that posts on "Arsenal Insider" would have access to that info.

Le Grove Transfer rumour - they have been full of shit since their inception. Worthless website.

They are all made up! Any accuracies there are just blind luck. Not even worth discussion.

No one is saying they are straight from the horses mouth but surely worth a little discussion and not to be taken too seriously.

Some of them are probably not that far away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rev

Rev

Posted
Posted

I'm sure if you put "ish" after them they'll be ballpark correct. They all basically tally with what we do know, none of them seem unreasonable enough to be massively wrong. As I said in Big Post the only genuinely surprising one was Chamakh being on so low.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Clooney

George Clooney

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes of course nett includes players sold. We no longer have players like Nasri and Fabregas in our squad so it seems a reasonable way to calculate overall expenditure on players. Also, didn't Crouch cost 12M? That's what we paid for the Ox, who was our biggest signing since Arshavin four years ago.

Nope, Crouch was £10 million, same as arteta and Mertesacker and less than Gervhino. My point is you said that spending little and paying them more with decent players is better than spending more and paying less wages for average players. Well of course it is. But you've only done that because you sold 2 of your best players for pretty high amounts. Its not like you are spending £5 for someone awesome. You are still spending £10 million plus for some players, something that doesnt happen very often at smaller teams like Stoke. "The Arsenal way" as you put it is better, but its not something teams like Stoke really have a choice of doing.

EDIT: Add Toure and Adebayor to that list of players as well, thats 4 players you sold in the past 3 years that went for nearly £100 million. I dont think Stoke could sell their whole team for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Petrousgyre

Petrousgyre

Posted
Posted

EDIT: Add Toure and Adebayor to that list of players as well, thats 4 players you sold in the past 3 years that went for nearly £100 million. I dont think Stoke could sell their whole team for that.

Perhaps Stoke should buy better players in the first place? It's not like Arsenal have some magical system here, buy good young technically capable players, develop them and sell them for a profit rather than spunking substantial amounts of cash on lumbering carthorses that no other team wants. Swansea, amongst others, have done similar on an much tighter budget than either Arsenal or Stoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dude Ranch

Dude Ranch

Posted
Posted

We don't tend to buy players for tens of millions and then make a small profit. Adebayor, Toure, Fabregas, Clichy. The fact is quite clear that the transfer business we do is better than more or less anyone. There's no way even a Stoke fan could accuse us of chucking money at transfers cos when you look at the bigger picture the facts say otherwise. We're shrewd and mean in equal measure. Unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rev

Rev

Posted
Posted

Stoke would probably do better in the transfer market if they did more than measure how many hands the new guy is up to shoulder height, check the teeth and then spend £10m. Arsenal could scour eastern Europe for every bloke over six and a half feet tall and be able to get rid of the concept of sponsorship simply by selling them one by one to Stoke.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve007

Steve007

Posted
Posted

Regardless if that wage list was accurate or semi-accurate (Diaby & Denilson are actually picking up £60k a week), the players & staff are still getting obscene wages for achieving nothing.

I don't have much of an issue with players being rewarded with a good contract if they have actually achieved success, but RvP aside, they all have contracts that do not match their status & ability.

Back at Highbury when Henry was in his prime, he was getting £350k a month, so that was nearly £90k a week for one of the best footballers on the planet who had won everything except the Champions League. To give run-of-the-mill players wages of £50k+ a week is disgusting. It's no wonder some of them show a lack of hunger, determination & effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Fox

The Fox

Posted
Posted

How do we KNOW Diaby and Denilson are picking up £60k a week? Did they do a Riise and leave their pay slip on the bus?

Comparing Henry's wages to those of current players seems a bit pointless, given that things have moved on vastly since 8 years ago thanks to the artificial inflation from oligarchs, sheikhs and TV-deal-rich, debt-laden, training-ground-reclassifying Spanish clubs. And don't forget that we also paid him £10m for his one shitty final season with the club!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daley

Daley

Posted
Posted

You have to love Szczesny.

http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/news/newsid=1761407.html

I remember Tony Adams, the ex-Arsenal defender, who used to say that if you don't lose goals, you don't lose games. We followed that concept today and I am glad. We played against the best attacking players in the world so we must be pleased not to concede. I don't agree I had a lot of work; I just had one good save in the first 45 minutes, and in the second half they did not even have half a chance.

:wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Fox

The Fox

Posted
Posted

Vermaelen played 90 minutes for Belgium despite carrying an ankle knock. :facepalm:

Djourou and Squillaci are out I think so if Vermaelen doesn't make it we'll have to play Song at the back and lord knows who in defensive midfield (no Frimpong or Coquelin). Alternatively we could play Miquel and keep Song in midfield. Diaby looks like he might be in the squad but I can't imagine he'll be up to starting the game.

If Vermaelen AND Song are out then I don't even know what the fuck will happen. Probably this:

Szczesny; Sagna, Koscielny, Miquel, Gibbs; Arteta, Rosicky, Benayoun; Walcott. Van Persie, Oxlade-Chamberlain

Check out that trio of midfield enforcers!

So yeah, kinda hope Song and Verm are ok. I think they will be to be honest. And I'm pretty sure RVP is alright.

edit: forgot Rosicky is a doubt too isn't he, and Ramsey is defo out. Sooo....I don't even know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept