FFP Rules: More likely to inhibit rather than promote competition

[Joker]

There was this quote from Wenger on the other thread about how the FFP will supposedly make things more interesting:


"When you look at the history of England, there are Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa and Derby County who have all won championships.

"If that is possible again it will be even more interesting."

However, the FFP rules will probably ossify the football hierarchy, as Stefan Szymanski, a well known sports economist has said:

http://www.playthegame.org/fileadmin/image/knowledgebank/Challengesforfootball_pdf/Stefan_Szymanski.pdf


Significant risk that the dominance of the strong clubs will be enhanced, while the financial instability of lower divisions is not addressed

He also makes a good point questioning the criticism of the so called "fat cats" and "oil sheikhs" that some people love to revel in. Wenger is being disingenuous by claiming the FFP will enhance competition, when it seems to be more likely that it will simply strangle competition. You won't get the likes of Villa, Forest and County being competitive again because the only way they can is through investment from an owner, i.e. non football income. However, the new rules makes it much more difficult for owners to takeover clubs and finance losses through this "non football income" because of the demand to live within your own revenues, and the result will invariably be that the top clubs can cement their position at the top, while those not within the elite will find it very hard to achieve anything beyond mid-table mediocrity or avoiding relegation.

So perhaps we shouldn't see the FFP as a panacea. Although on the other hand, it does help us because it makes it unlikely that clubs like Villa, Everton, etc can ever begin challenging for a champions league spot, therefore reducing competition. However, let's be honest that our demand for a strong enforcement of FFP is due to selfish reasons, rather than a concern for the welfare of football as a whole.

[Coney]

However, the new rules makes it much more difficult for owners to takeover clubs and finance losses through this "non football income" because of the demand to live within your own revenues, and the result will invariably be that the top clubs can cement their position at the top, while those not within the elite will find it very hard to achieve anything beyond mid-table mediocrity or avoiding relegation.

Hang on - that is how it used to be, in the main. Clubs got revenue according to their support base along with a small amount from tv. There was a bit of advertising round the grounds with advert panels but that was about it. If your club could attract local support, you could afford to spend more on players.

It has mostly been the case before that clubs with a larger fan capture - usually in big towns - have been the winners of the title. However, a good manager can usually still punch above weight, hence the reference to Derby and Forrest, both of which succeeded due to one of the best ever managers - Brian Clough (who, of course, never managed England due to the snobs and control freaks in the FA, otherwise England might have won more trophies. No change there then.)

At least with FFP - if (IF!!!) the thing is correctly enforced, there will be more teams with a chance of getting somewhere. When you have the situation that Chavs and Citeh can just buy what they want and everyone fights over the scraps, it is more destructive. Manu have done better but that is on a negative budget that will explode in time if they don't get it under better control.

[Joker]

But the correct enforcement of the FFP will in the long term probably protect established clubs from competition, rather than open the league up. A better way to promote competition would be to put limits on advertising/sponsorship revenue, and undertake a more explicit redistribution of income from rich to less rich clubs. This regulation has strong unintended consequences that may achieve the opposite of competition. If we want football to be like it used to be, then simply stopping the "fat cats" is not enough, it will require the decommercialisation of football, which exploded after the creation of the Premier League. People like Wenger and Gazidis will not be prepared to accept that, because we (and others like Utd, Liverpool, Tottenham) have benefited from that immensely at the expense of smaller clubs. Notice how Wenger never points out the root cause of the problems in football, which is the "big bang" liberalisation that took place in the early 90s.

And this is not just my opinion, other academic papers have said similar things about FFP:

http://www.hwwi.org/fileadmin/hwwi/Publikationen/Externe_PDFs/1210201.pdf


Regarding long-term effects, a tighter regulation might turn out to be dynamically inefficient as it unintentionally protects well-established clubs from being challenged by non-established clubs. Therefore, Financial Fair Play could ultimately and counter-intuitively confirm an unbalanced competition rather than making it more even. As has been shown, a redistribution of income is additionally needed to restore competitive balance. Furthermore, a more market-based instrument would be less costly than just imposing a ban of equity participants in football. Alternatively, explicitly including income from non-football operations into a redistribution mechanism could lower the incentives for patrons and private investors to become involved in football clubs.
All in all it is highly doubtful whether such a far reaching and costly form of market intervention like Financial Fair Play is actually justified in economic terms. But only time will show how football will respond to Financial Fair Play and how “fair” it really is.

[Kano]

Notice how Wenger never points out the root cause of the problems in football, which is the "big bang" liberalisation that took place in the early 90s.

wasn't a problem when we were winning trophies from what i recall.

this is no right or wrong answer anymore. the wheels have long been set in motion decades ago, so there will be winners and losers. as long as we remain in the former category then thats all that matters.

[Joker]

wasn't a problem when we were winning trophies from what i recall.

this is no right or wrong answer anymore. the wheels have long been set in motion decades ago, so there will be winners and losers. as long as we remain in the former category then thats all that matters.

That's true tbh, I just wish there was a bit more honesty from people like Gazidis, who make these quasi-"moral" arguments about the benefits of prudence, "living within your means", FFP etc, when at the end of the day we're pushing for it because we stand to gain from it.

[Kano]

it's all part of the PR from a CEO. standard procedure.

[Coney]

It's part of being a bad loser, which is good.



"Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser." (Vince Lombardi)

[LDG]

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/news/newsid=1857626.html#prize+money+clubs+withheld

Interesting :popcorn:

[hobson's choice]

FFP was never meant to be about fairness, it was always about protecting the establish powers from the likes of PSG, Chelsea and City happening again.

[gooners]

FFP was never meant to be about fairness, it was always about protecting the establish powers from the likes of PSG, Chelsea and City happening again.

We've milked city for all we can get. But dont let that fool you, we despise what they are doing :good:

As i have always said, liverpool etc paying 35mil for the likes of carroll means clubs like newcastle stoke etc have more chance of being competitive using such 'wealth'.

[gooners]

It's part of being a bad loser, which is good.



"Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser." (Vince Lombardi)


Bad loser axioms :bow:

[Niall_Quinn]

FFP is most likely another step towards the establishment of a Euro league. Obviously it cements the position of the most wealthy clubs but the real problem is the gap between the super wealthy and the next tier. If that can be solved by stealing from the smaller clubs then I would think at least 32 clubs could be made viable in the long term and a league could be established on that basis. Remember, we are dealing with crooks here. FIFA and UEFA have been exposed. For them to be talking about financial fair play is comedy gold. For them to be talking about level playing fields and competition is too incredible even for the most gullible to believe. These guys are all about monopoly, not competition. What needs to happen is for FIFA and UEFA to be disbanded and an independent body run by supporters from all over the world to be created. This will at least give a couple of decades of genuine fair play before that is corrupted too.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/news/newsid=1857626.html#prize+money+clubs+withheld

Interesting :popcorn:

The little clubs need to be stamped on, so this is a very good thing.

[LDG]

The little clubs need to be stamped on, so this is a very good thing.

My thoughts exactly.

Withholding prize money, from the small guys. Yep, that's a good start.

UEFA :lol:

Awfully corrupt.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Yeah punish Atleti and Malaga who can barely get a TV deal domestically worth more than a jelly bean. Well done UEFA.

[Master Splinter]

How will Platini find a way to punish Wenget, even though he's the poster boy of FFP?

Platini is probably the worst person on Earth.

[Ollie the Optimist]

FFP was never meant to be about fairness, it was always about protecting the establish powers from the likes of PSG, Chelsea and City happening again.


just with chelsea and city. chelsea are ffp complient right now, city arent. sums it up really given how much the chavs spent

[Olivier's xmas twist]

just with chelsea and city. chelsea are ffp complient right now, city arent. sums it up really given how much the chavs spent

They will be by the time it comes round though because their is always ways to get round it especially with the big clubs.

[Ollie the Optimist]

They will be by the time it comes round though because their is always ways to get round it especially with the big clubs.

well they need to move fast because (and most likely i am wrong here ) if i am correct, then ffp comes into play from now on meaning if clubs post a loss they are banned from europe next season.

it could be from next year but i think its from now

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Falcao is coming home. :bow:

[Olivier's xmas twist]

well they need to move fast because (and most likely i am wrong here ) if i am correct, then ffp comes into play from now on meaning if clubs post a loss they are banned from europe next season.

it could be from next year but i think its from now

The fact City have not been fine by Uefa says alot and says they will be more fine then most thought on here.

[Ollie the Optimist]

The fact City have not been fine by Uefa says alot and says they will be more fine then most thought on here.

yeah but hten what prize money were they due? they hardly set europe alight last year :lol:

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

My thoughts exactly.

Withholding prize money, from the small guys. Yep, that's a good start.

UEFA :lol:

Awfully corrupt.

very flawed concept.

there's nothing stopping big clubs bumping up their merchandise sales or renegotiating their sponsorship deals just like man city did. city linked their shirt sponsor to the sheikh's private company which means they can stream endless amounts of money into all areas of the club.

as mentioned already, it also means there'll be less competition for the premier league title which is probably one of the reasons our board are huge advocators of the concept. no more teams challenging for top 4- no more PSG, malaga, chelsea or city being made overnight. and if uefa do decide to stump up fines for clubs who aren't in compliance or even dock points, we'll see the emergence of a european super league very soon.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

well they need to move fast because (and most likely i am wrong here ) if i am correct, then ffp comes into play from now on meaning if clubs post a loss they are banned from europe next season.

it could be from next year but i think its from now

As I understand it, which is not that much, the accounts for this (and last) season will be monitored along with the next 1/2 so any punishment wouldn't be for another couple of years anyway. The punishments handed out so far are different because they deal solely with overdue payments.

I don't think the stricter rules come in for another few years yet anyway, so there's still a period of bedding in and organising massive sponsorship deals with your half brother...

[Cripps_orig]

Wonder what Wengers excuse will be when this comes in to play and as expected it doesnt change much and we are still a bit shit?

[Özim]

Wonder what Wengers excuse will be when this comes in to play and as expected it doesnt change much and we are still a bit shit?
Probably that we lacked a little bit of sharpness.

[Boss]

Hope this leads to a European Super League.

A must get.

[Globalgunner]

Clubs living within their means should be a fundamental concept as it applies to about every other corporate entity in the world. Spend more than you earn and you are on the fast track to financial ruin. The real question is whether UEFA can properly audit and enforce such rules and outlaw ridiculous contrivances such as Mancity where basically the same company own the club and throws a colossal sponsorship deal completely out of kilter with economic reality at them. Or ManU who have a separate deal for their club kit and the training bib. I mean how ridiculous can you get?. <Maybe we can get someone to sponsor out toilet rolls at the emirates crappers.

UEFA if they mean business should also enforce more equitable television deals across the individual leagues and stop the lopsided deals that Barca and Real have in Spain that stifles the other clubs and perpetuates the Hegemony of those two. When will anyone other than Barca/real win the Spanish league.

If we need any other example of why this system works you should look at the US where most teams have near equal spending power and the respective championships are not the predictable 3 or 4 team round table that you find in the EPL for instance.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Probably that we lacked a little bit of sharpness.

Your face lacks a bit of sharpness.

[hobson's choice]

If we need any other example of why this system works you should look at the US where most teams have near equal spending power and the respective championships are not the predictable 3 or 4 team round table that you find in the EPL for instance.

Totally, totally different set up over here, just can't compare

[Kano]

we'll see the emergence of a european super league very soon.

i.e, a road towards the death of modern football as we know it.

[Marc Overmars]

I think a European Super League would probably be enough to see me call time on this sport.

[GP]

I think a European Super League would probably be enough to see me call time on this sport.

Yeah I'm not interested in that at all.

[Cripps_orig]

Would destroy football as we know it

[Letters]

Football as I knew it has been destroyed for ages.
It would make things worse but it's the logical conclusion of the game being all about the rich clubs and sod the rest.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I don't think it will happen - there is too big a gravy train in the Premier League for clubs to shun that and only have a Super League as the main source of TV income.

[Cripps_orig]

I am still holding on to the hope that the football we used to know and love will come back from the ashes

Define rich clubs? Clubs who spend lots of money on players ala Chelsea and City? Or clubs with rich boards/managers who wont spend? No need to give an example there

[Kano]

I don't think it will happen - there is too big a gravy train in the Premier League for clubs to shun that and only have a Super League as the main source of TV income.
perhaps but if it opened up opportunities for each club to negotiate their own packages in each region - europe, asia, north america etc, there is a lot more to be made in terms of revenue from TV companies, advertisers wanting a piece of the action and of course the internet.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don't think it will happen - there is too big a gravy train in the Premier League for clubs to shun that and only have a Super League as the main source of TV income.

A Euro Horror League would mean all the cash they are getting now plus the cash that is given out to the smaller clubs so they can survive. 32 clubs sharing the entire European football pie instead of hundreds of clubs. Plus a whole new audience as football becomes more of a carnival than a sport. Bigger brands, more merchandising, media companies having to club together just to afford the hugely expensive rights. The holy grail of pay-per-view. You think they wouldn't want that? The PL was a compromise to stop the big clubs splitting away. These clubs already have a "gang" that dictates the terms of their participation. And it all fits in so nicely with the whole Euro project, one Europe, one football league. The smaller clubs could become official feeders for the big 32, they could be owned by them, it could be like the collegiate system in the States with the whole aim being to shift on the best talent in an organised manner. The traditional fan could be cut out of the picture completely as the new consumer fan takes over. There could be cheerleaders, McDonalds franchises right the stadiums, bands, razzmatazz, draws could be outlawed in favour of penalty shoot-outs, pop stars could put on a half-time show, tickets could be £200 a game with corporations getting first pick and the leftovers being fought over. The CL could be rolled right in as the end of season extravaganza, it might even be called the SuperBowl. Governments could start blabbing on about how important these clubs are to the economy, to big to fail. They could start using our taxes as handouts, just like they do with the banks and other privatised leeches. The trillion dollar (sorry Euro) pie is not unthinkable. It's so horrendous it's inevitable.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

perhaps but if it opened up opportunities for each club to negotiate their own packages in each region - europe, asia, north america etc, there is a lot more to be made in terms of revenue from TV companies, advertisers wanting a piece of the action and of course the internet.

And that would be exactly why the 'lesser' teams of the ones mentioned for this probably wouldn't go for it, for us anyway it would just be a reenactment of La Liga. Plus we'd never supercede Man Utd and I would suggest many other clubs wouldn't either - in the Premier League there is a 'certain' amount allocated.

The Champions League will expand before a Super League ever comes to fruition.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

A Euro Horror League would mean all the cash they are getting now plus the cash that is given out to the smaller clubs so they can survive. 32 clubs sharing the entire European football pie instead of hundreds of clubs. Plus a whole new audience as football becomes more of a carnival than a sport. Bigger brands, more merchandising, media companies having to club together just to afford the hugely expensive rights. The holy grail of pay-per-view. You think they wouldn't want that? The PL was a compromise to stop the big clubs splitting away. These clubs already have a "gang" that dictates the terms of their participation. And it all fits in so nicely with the whole Euro project, one Europe, one football league. The smaller clubs could become official feeders for the big 32, they could be owned by them, it could be like the collegiate system in the States with the whole aim being to shift on the best talent in an organised manner. The traditional fan could be cut out of the picture completely as the new consumer fan takes over. There could be cheerleaders, McDonalds franchises right the stadiums, bands, razzmatazz, draws could be outlawed in favour of penalty shoot-outs, pop stars could put on a half-time show, tickets could be £200 a game with corporations getting first pick and the leftovers being fought over. The CL could be rolled right in as the end of season extravaganza, it might even be called the SuperBowl. Governments could start blabbing on about how important these clubs are to the economy, to big to fail. They could start using our taxes as handouts, just like they do with the banks and other privatised leeches. The trillion dollar (sorry Euro) pie is not unthinkable. It's so horrendous it's inevitable.

Well why hasn't it happened already then? It would only run alongside domestic leagues, not in place of.

[Niall_Quinn]

And that would be exactly why the 'lesser' teams of the ones mentioned for this probably wouldn't go for it, for us anyway it would just be a reenactment of La Liga. Plus we'd never supercede Man Utd and I would suggest many other clubs wouldn't either - in the Premier League there is a 'certain' amount allocated.

The Champions League will expand before a Super League ever comes to fruition.

If I'm understanding you correctly you're suggesting the "lesser" teams would forgo huge amounts of cash because they'd be fearful of being uncompetitive? It's a nice idea but you are placing a lot of faith in dogs like Kroenke and the vampires at Utd and Liverpool. In fact, what if Stan and the gang know something we don't? Their risky investments would suddenly be a whole lot less risky. It'll happen alright. For two reasons. First because football can't go on the way it is going. No matter what the economy or micro-economy, if you spend more than you earn then you die. Second, greed will always, always, always win the day.

[Letters]

I am still holding on to the hope that the football we used to know and love will come back from the ashes

Define rich clubs? Clubs who spend lots of money on players ala Chelsea and City? Or clubs with rich boards/managers who wont spend? No need to give an example thereOur wages are in the top few in the country.
We don't spend big on players - or, rather, if we do spend reasonable amounts of money we offset it by selling so we still make a profit - but we're in the CL every year, we have one of the biggest stadiums in the country and charge the highest prices and have a massive global fanbase. We're one of the 'haves'.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well why hasn't it happened already then? It would only run alongside domestic leagues, not in place of.

It IS happening. Shifting a centuries old infrastructure from the hands of the people into the claws of the few can't happen overnight and you need buy-in from the masses. They need to be wrapped in the sting and convinced. Plus everyone concerned has to scrabble like pigs in the dirt for their cut. Small steps instead of big leaps is always the best way to ensure people don't notice or fully comprehend what's going on and why.

[Kano]

And that would be exactly why the 'lesser' teams of the ones mentioned for this probably wouldn't go for it, for us anyway it would just be a reenactment of La Liga. Plus we'd never supercede Man Utd and I would suggest many other clubs wouldn't either - in the Premier League there is a 'certain' amount allocated.

The Champions League will expand before a Super League ever comes to fruition.

the next payment is going to be £500m each spread over 3 years i think, so £165m-ish a season. Pay as you view TV, advertising, internet - I think that could figure could be topped by every club involved in a 16 team league, selling different packages to separate regions.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

It IS happening. Shifting a centuries old infrastructure from the hands of the people into the claws of the few can't happen overnight and you need buy-in from the masses. They need to be wrapped in the sting and convinced. Plus everyone concerned has to scrabble like pigs in the dirt for their cut. Small steps instead of big leaps is always the best way to ensure people don't notice or fully comprehend what's going on and why.

Nah, UEFA will just adjust their current baby - the Champions League, like they did before when it was proposed.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

If I'm understanding you correctly you're suggesting the "lesser" teams would forgo huge amounts of cash because they'd be fearful of being uncompetitive? It's a nice idea but you are placing a lot of faith in dogs like Kroenke and the vampires at Utd and Liverpool. In fact, what if Stan and the gang know something we don't? Their risky investments would suddenly be a whole lot less risky. It'll happen alright. For two reasons. First because football can't go on the way it is going. No matter what the economy or micro-economy, if you spend more than you earn then you die. Second, greed will always, always, always win the day.

No they woudn't be foregoing huge amounts of cash because we already receive huge amounts of cash. In the same way we apparently don't go for it and try to win those prestige competitions as the amount of money we received is already more than enough because it's effectively guaranteed.

[Niall_Quinn]

No they woudn't be foregoing huge amounts of cash because we already receive huge amounts of cash. In the same way we apparently don't go for it and try to win those prestige competitions as the amount of money we received is already more than enough because it's effectively guaranteed.

I don't get that argument. The whole point of a corporation is to maximise profits for the shareholders and socialise expenses. Suggesting our football corporations will play it differently doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously I hope you are right but it would be a world's first if you are.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

the next payment is going to be £500m each spread over 3 years i think, so £165m-ish a season. Pay as you view TV, advertising, internet - I think that could figure could be topped by every club involved in a 16 team league, selling different packages to separate regions.

The Champions League fund has been increased too I believe. If we replicate last season to this season, I think we would get about £60 million or something.

However that is supposition on what TV deal might come across but it'd be assured (based on 16 teams) we'd lose out on 17 days of matchday income, plus, the other days we might get from domestic cup draws. For us that's £3 million a match roughly, so £51 million we'd lose out on.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I don't get that argument. The whole point of a corporation is to maximise profits for the shareholders and socialise expenses. Suggesting our football corporations will play it differently doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously I hope you are right but it would be a world's first if you are.

Maximising profits could have occured with just going one extra round in the Champions League. It's not about maximising profits, it's about enjoying the comforts resulting from a fairly basic and relatively easily attained level.

[Kano]

The Champions League fund has been increased too I believe. If we replicate last season to this season, I think we would get about £60 million or something.

However that is supposition on what TV deal might come across but it'd be assured (based on 16 teams) we'd lose out on 17 days of matchday income, plus, the other days we might get from domestic cup draws. For us that's £3 million a match roughly, so £51 million we'd lose out on.
we need the swiss ramble on this one.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

This is true.

[Niall_Quinn]

Maximising profits could have occured with just going one extra round in the Champions League. It's not about maximising profits, it's about enjoying the comforts resulting from a fairly basic and relatively easily attained level.

Ah, you're teasing me. Fair cop, well played.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Football as I knew it has been destroyed for ages.
It would make things worse but it's the logical conclusion of the game being all about the rich clubs and sod the rest.

This, the fact that id prefer another week of the Us open to our game on saturday. says alot to me about how much the game is dying and the Super league if it happens will be the final nail in the coffin for me.

[hobson's choice]

I don't see a super league happening in any our lifetime, for most of the clubs is just doesn't make any sense. Yeah they'll make some money in the short term, but clubs like Porto, Celtic, Ajax, and other big clubs in lesser will be nothing more than just filler clubs. And at some point their fans who are used to winning titles simply won't stand for it and just stop showing up.

I do see a time when there's gonna be some kinda proper world club type competition or CL games being played outside of Europe.

[Cripps_orig]

ARSENE WENGER fears a massive Manchester City sponsorship deal could make a ‘mockery’ of financial fair play.
City, owned by Sheikh Mansour, and Paris St Germain have been criticised for massive sponsorship deals with companies enjoying close links to their billionaire backers.
Etihad Airways have a 10-year agreement with City bringing in close to £400million a year, with many believing they have deliberately paid above the market price to pump money into the club.
Arsenal boss Wenger, whose side visit City tomorrow, said: “If the sponsorship deals are just a way of getting round financial fair play then it’s not financial fair play.
“It makes the system worse for me, as that would mean it makes a mockery of financial fair play.
“Originally, for financial fair play, sponsorship deals had to be at the level of the market price and I don’t know whether they will work or not.
“But what City do off the pitch, we’ve spoken about many times.
“On the pitch, they are an advert for football that’s always good to see.”


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4551191/Arsene-Wenger-Man-City-sponsorship-deal-could-mock-fair-play.html#ixzz279wjJw7O

Hasnt even come in to play yet and the excuses are out for why we will be a bit shit

[Joker]

What's the "market price"? There's no objective way to determine it, it's all based on individuals/companies personal valuations surely?

[Dennis Bendtner]

What's the "market price"? There's no objective way to determine it, it's all based on individuals/companies personal valuations surely?

Compare the winning offer to rival offers you would assume.

[Syn]

Record profits for The Arsenal :bow:

A gazillion in cash reserves.. :bow:

Handsome pay for Arsene. :bow:

[Kano]

What's the "market price"? There's no objective way to determine it, it's all based on individuals/companies personal valuations surely?

a market price exists everywhere, which is why so many businesses in competition with one another hold similar pricing.

it is also why every agrees that player prices have gone through the roof since the arrival of overseas investors and wages/fees have gone awry since then.

[Kano]

Record profits for The Arsenal :bow:

A gazillion in cash reserves.. :bow:

Handsome pay for Arsene. :bow:

it was a relief to hear we'd comply with ffp. thought we wouldn't make it for a minute there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/27/arsenal-pre-tax-profit-wage-bill

[fakeyank]

How did our wage bill increase when we offloaded two of our top earners? We also lost Almongia in the summer! Or did we again give the unproven kids 30-40K/week?

[Syn]

How did our wage bill increase when we offloaded two of our top earners? We also lost Almongia in the summer! Or did we again give the unproven kids 30-40K/week?

I think Kos and the Ox got increases last season. Presumably Podolski and Cazorla weren't cheap either; those two, together, would probably be earning more than Song and Van Persie were earning.