Are we unlucky with player loyalty?

[Dicks and chicks]

When Juventus got relegated in 2005, several world class players including Buffon,David Trezeguet, Del Piero stayed despite the prospect of 2 years without Champions League football and one season in Serie B. Tottenham hotspur were able to keep gareth bale despite 2 seasons of no champions league and were able to keep a hold of Luka modric for 1 season without CL football. Whereas for Arsenal no player seems really loyal nowadays at our club, Nasri left as soon as he got good, as did RVP and Alex Song went, it seems that no player seems attached to Arsenal FC anymore, players don't seem to love the club enough to stay, is it because we have the players with the wrong type of loyalty in their personality? Personally I'm happy we signed Podolski because he is a loyal player and played for Koln even though they weren't that great a team (it was his home club though) But I think Carloza will force a move in the future.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Our Manager is loyal. :whistle:

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Players are not Loyal and have not been for a long time. Our manager and a few fans are naive to think Loyalty still exists in the game.


When Juventus got relegated in 2005, several world class players including Buffon,David Trezeguet, Del Piero stayed despite the prospect of 2 years without Champions League football and one season in Serie B.

Would not say these players or Bale are Loyal, think these lot settled in juve and saw no reason to move on to a place where they'd be squad players.

Bale will go if spurs don't get cl footie he is no more loyal then modric.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I disagree.

LDG was a playa and he is loyal.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

I disagree.

LDG was a playa and he is loyal.

:haha:

LDG is the man.

[Dicks and chicks]

Players are not Loyal and have not been for a long time. Our manager and a few fans are naive to think Loyalty still exists in the game.



Would not say these players or Bale are Loyal, think these lot settled in juve and saw no reason to move on to a place where they'd be squad players.

Bale will go if spurs don't get cl footie he is no more loyal then modric.

Totti rejected a move to real madrid in his prime to stay with Roma, Trezeguet, buffon and del peiro would never have been squad players if they left, a lot of the rangers squad has shown loyalty despite relegation of 3 divisions

[Marc Overmars]

I think we've had our hands burnt too many times now for it to just be down to bad luck.

We've got to shoulder some of the blame as well.

[Cripps_orig]

We are unlucky with player shitness

[fakeyank]

We are unlucky coz we have AW and Gazidis

[Boss]

It's a combination of a few things

- Relative lack of homegrown talent (players with genuine affinity for the club, although this is changing of late with the likes of Wilshere, Jenkinson, Gibbs and so on)
- Lack of trophies in the last seven years
- Low upper wage limit

Which convinces players to join us when they're young (due to us paying them more) but forces them to leave after a few years (generally once they've reached their peak) for more money / trophies. Our wage structure definitely needs to be reviewed soon.

[Penguin]

It's all because our lack of ambition. We could have easily kept those players if we showed we really wanted to win trophies instead of just talking about it. We only buy after we sell our best players and even then we're buying unknowns instead of top quality replacements. The players are as frustrated as the fans, why should they stay on a sinking ship.

[LDG]

I disagree.

LDG was a playa and he is loyal.

Awww man. I miss those days :(

Now I have to battle to plumb in washing machines, buy new toasters and paint bedrooms.

Fuckin sucks :(

[Letters]

We only buy after we sell our best players and even then we're buying unknowns instead of top quality replacements. The players are as frustrated as the fans, why should they stay on a sinking ship.
Interestingly this summer we did the exact opposite although the net result was the same.
The ship isn't sinking, it's bobbing around in the doldrums.
IMO we'll still finish 4th this year. It's not decline, it's stagnation, and I don't know which is worse.

[Grebbo]

I think we were unlucky with RVP. If ever a player should have been loyal it's him.

Paid him top money for 8 years and he was injured for 6 of them.
Defended him during times of petulance.
Stood by him when he cheated on his wife with some slag who then accused him of rape.
Made him Captain.
He then has an AMAZING 18 months and fucks off to Man U.

Of course we only did these things because he's a great player, but still.

And this summer we actually did show some ambition. We signed three quality players (I'm including Giroud). The funny thing is if we had RVP this season I think we could have challenged :ninja:

The others are a bit different. For all that's said about the Arsenal player exodus I think the only players Wenger did not want to sell were Fabregas, Nasri and RVP. Clichy, Toure, Adebayor, Song etc were either not that good or had attitude problems. Adebayor begged us not to sell him to City!!

RVP: Well I personally think he's been a **** to us.
Nasri: ****
Cesc: He wanted to play for his home town club who happen to be pretty good. He gave us great service, wasn't a great captain, but went in a dignified way.

If Man U didn't win shit for 7 years and were not the highest wage payers you can bet that Scholes, Giggs, Rooney etc would have all fucked off as well. It's not just Arsenal.

There is no player loyalty, other than Juventus!

[Syn]

Mostly agree with the above ^. But still don't think 'trophies' are an obsession for players as it is for some fans. But linked to trophies - 'prestige' is a bigger factor. Maybe saying you're a footballer at Juventus just feels better than saying you're a footballer at Man City, all else equal. On that front, I think we've sold ourselves short for a club with Arsenal's traditions. I reckon Liverpool would get more player loyalty than us for this reason. When you sell your captain to one of your biggest rivals for the last 15 years, it's small-time and you can't claim you give a shit about club traditions IMO.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

I think we were unlucky with RVP. If ever a player should have been loyal it's him.

Paid him top money for 8 years and he was injured for 6 of them.
Defended him during times of petulance.
Stood by him when he cheated on his wife with some slag who then accused him of rape.
Made him Captain.
He then has an AMAZING 18 months and fucks off to Man U.

Of course we only did these things because he's a great player, but still.

And this summer we actually did show some ambition. We signed three quality players (I'm including Giroud). The funny thing is if we had RVP this season I think we could have challenged :ninja:

The others are a bit different. For all that's said about the Arsenal player exodus I think the only players Wenger did not want to sell were Fabregas, Nasri and RVP. Clichy, Toure, Adebayor, Song etc were either not that good or had attitude problems. Adebayor begged us not to sell him to City!!

RVP: Well I personally think he's been a **** to us.
Nasri: ****
Cesc: He wanted to play for his home town club who happen to be pretty good. He gave us great service, wasn't a great captain, but went in a dignified way.

If Man U didn't win shit for 7 years and were not the highest wage payers you can bet that Scholes, Giggs, Rooney etc would have all fucked off as well. It's not just Arsenal.

There is no player loyalty, other than Juventus!

Top post sir.

[The Wengerbabies]

It's a combination of a few things

- Relative lack of homegrown talent (players with genuine affinity for the club, although this is changing of late with the likes of Wilshere, Jenkinson, Gibbs and so on)

Ashley Cole :bow:

[Syn]

That's just about the only example people can point to but it doesn't make the overall point less true. Homegrown is more likely to stay.

[Letters]

That's just about the only example people can point to but it doesn't make the overall point less true. Homegrown is more likely to stay.It's my least favourite logical error that people make, not just on here.

"Smoking is bad for you"
"My granny smoked for 50 years and she lived till she was 93"

:doh:

That isn't a counter-argument, fuckwit! Probable != Possible.

:fury:

[LDG]

Oh shut up you miserable old bastard!

[GP]

:haha:

[Letters]

Oh shut up you miserable old bastard!

And they say the level of debate on here has gone down.


<_<

[LDG]

It's possible.

[GP]

And they say the level of debate on here has gone down.


<_<

They say the level of your face has gone down.

Though I'm not sure that's possible.

[Letters]

It is, however, probable.
<_<

[Kano]

That's just about the only example people can point to but it doesn't make the overall point less true. Homegrown is more likely to stay.

not sure about that. loads have left clubs like west ham, leeds for example. chelsea have no homegrown players, bar terry. man utd had their bunch but that was a one off. liverpool have gerrard. city are just ****s.

[Syn]

not sure about that. loads have left clubs like west ham, leeds for example. chelsea have no homegrown players, bar terry. man utd had their bunch but that was a one off. liverpool have gerrard. city are just ****s.

I think after you reach a certain level, say CL football, that the Briitish guys stick around. When you're West Ham or Leeds or whatever, it's more difficult but the clubs also tend to want the money too. E.g. Leeds won't mind taking £30m for Ferdinand, Southampton £12m for Oxlade etc.

I'm not here to sell some xenophobic policy but I just think the fact that British people are happier in their comfort zones with no second language, we don't view moving abroad as an attractive option compared to the Europeans. So options to move are limited to start with and then if you're direct rivals with top teams, moving to them should be difficult. I'll change my views if, for example, Theo leaves but I don't think I'm being too controversial.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

unlucky with player loyalty?

no its called the manager putting us into the shit by exhausting a flawed youth ideology.

players gave up on the youth project time ago.

dont blame them either.

[Syn]

This 'youth policy' was stopped a couple of seasons back. For anyone who left 2010 onwards, they need a different excuse.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

stopped 2010 but still suffering from the damage.

[Syn]

If Van Persie stayed, I'd argue we have a squad capable of challenging. Certainly a decent chance of finishing above Man Utd (he's already got 4 points for them). With that in mind I can't see what 'youth policy' reasons he fucked off for, and with that in mind I don't know what damage we're still suffering regarding the 'youth policy'. It's done. We're going after 27 year olds who won't attract Barcelona at the age of 31 when their contracts run out.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

what damage? how about the wage structure which has been completely crippled. overpaying for average, weak minded youth players who never delivered and putting them on bumper contracts for doing absolutely nothing. that stops us offering higher wages to those who feel they deserve more and it also creates a sense of injustice. denilson on 50k a week and rvp on 80k? that's shocking.

also the deep rooted psychological effect it established. our team seems to have a mental barrier when when we get to an important stage of the season or come close to winning something. its almost as if they doubt themselves.

and lets not forget the reason many players leave is because they've had enough of the club and the loyalty towards the youth project in the first place. they doubt we can get back to the top, we haven't won anything for 7 years and didn't invest properly during that time. players are leaving and the trophy excuse gives them the perfect opportunity.

perhaps if we splashed a bit more cash in certain areas we would have a trophy or 2 by our name and they wouldn't be so adamant to leave.

[Syn]

This whole Denilson on 50k argument is so overcooked. It's genuinely like that at most to clubs. Nobody gets it spot on because you don't have the benefit of foresight. RVP might well have been on 80k but at the time of the contract a lot of us were thinking it was a waste. Similar with Diaby now - we were all calling for him to be sold but now we're thinking let's wait a bit. You take gambles. The youngsters are not getting paid according to their age, but their role. If Oxlade is set to get a new contract it's because he's going to play the role of a first-team player. Guys like Chamakh and Arshavin are a more transparent waste so it's got little to do with a 'youth policy'.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

This whole Denilson on 50k argument is so overcooked. It's genuinely like that at most to clubs. Nobody gets it spot on because you don't have the benefit of foresight. RVP might well have been on 80k but at the time of the contract a lot of us were thinking it was a waste. Similar with Diaby now - we were all calling for him to be sold but now we're thinking let's wait a bit. You take gambles. The youngsters are not getting paid according to their age, but their role. If Oxlade is set to get a new contract it's because he's going to play the role of a first-team player. Guys like Chamakh and Arshavin are a more transparent waste so it's got little to do with a 'youth policy'.

:gp:

[gooners]

That's just about the only example people can point to but it doesn't make the overall point less true. Homegrown is more likely to stay.

errm....nasri,ade,toure,clichy all moved next door to manchester --- not exacty their homes though, sir.

ade is actually 'next door' at spurs -- not exactly togo, that.

[Syn]

errm....nasri,ade,toure,clichy all moved next door to manchester --- not exacty their homes though, sir.

ade is no actulally 'next door' at spurs -- not exactly togo, that.

Can't call adebayor and nasri homegrown. and i get the feeling it was the clubs choice to sell toure and clichy - they had given their best years to Arsenal and after a long spell were sold, loyalty isn't an issue there.

I was focusing more on the British angle too when talking about not knowing second languages and such.

[gooners]

This whole Denilson on 50k argument is so overcooked. It's genuinely like that at most to clubs. Nobody gets it spot on because you don't have the benefit of foresight. RVP might well have been on 80k but at the time of the contract a lot of us were thinking it was a waste. Similar with Diaby now - we were all calling for him to be sold but now we're thinking let's wait a bit. You take gambles. The youngsters are not getting paid according to their age, but their role. If Oxlade is set to get a new contract it's because he's going to play the role of a first-team player. Guys like Chamakh and Arshavin are a more transparent waste so it's got little to do with a 'youth policy'.

And what role exactly was denilson paid for? --- none; we were paying him for his supposed talent. It turned out he had none.

This is the stupidity of it all. And then IF their talent actually develops and they want big boy wages we start fobbing them off ala song!

[Ollie the Optimist]

And what role exactly was denilson paid for? --- none; we were paying him for his supposed talent. It turned out he had none.

This is the stupidity of it all. And then IF their talent is actually develops and they want big boy wages we start fobbing them off ala song!

when you sign a five year deal and then demand the club pay you higher wages one year into the deal and get told to do one, they are not fobbing you off, your agent is just shit

[gooners]

Can't call adebayor and nasri homegrown. and i get the feeling it was the clubs choice to sell toure and clichy - they had given their best years to Arsenal and after a long spell were sold, loyalty isn't an issue there.

I was focusing more on the British angle too when talking about not knowing second languages and such.

Well, I am sure Wilshere/oxo will fuck off to city/utd/chelsea in a few yrs if we have won nothing and fighting for a europa place :good:

[gooners]

when you sign a five year deal and then demand the club pay you higher wages one year into the deal and get told to do one, they are not fobbing you off, your agent is just shit

if he was now considered a key player then he had every right to demand a wage review --- it happens in any employment! Otherwise the club would have just told him they WONT offer him any.

Anyway, his 'shit' agent got him a better deal at BARCA --- they think he deserves it :good:

[Ollie the Optimist]

if he was now considered a key player then he had every right to demand a wage review --- it happens in any employment! Otherwise the club would have just told him they WONT offer him any.

Anyway, his 'shit' agent got him a bette deal at BARCA --- they think h deserves it :good:


you dont sign a fucking five year deal with your employer and then a year later go to them i want more money as my agent fucked up last year and i wnat more. it wont happen. Arsenal, rightly, told him to fuck off.

[gooners]

you dont sign a fucking five year deal with your employer and then a year later go to them i want more money as my agent fucked up last year and i wnat more. it wont happen.

yes, every one with basic knowledge of employment law and employee rights would! if you hire a contractor to fix a sink for you and then midway into that youask him to fix the tap as well, he has every right to revisit the initially agreed terms--- and if he has any common sense to ask for more money



Arsenal, rightly, told him to fuck off

No they didn't! they kept postponing the talks. Hence his 'shit' agent went and shopped him around to barca --- and they decided he deserved better terms.

[GP]

you dont sign a fucking five year deal with your employer and then a year later go to them i want more money as my agent fucked up last year and i wnat more. it wont happen. Arsenal, rightly, told him to fuck off.

:gp:

[Olivier's xmas twist]

you dont sign a fucking five year deal with your employer and then a year later go to them i want more money as my agent fucked up last year and i wnat more. it wont happen. Arsenal, rightly, told him to fuck off.

Pretty much just shows how spoilt footballers really are.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

yes, every one with basic knowledge of employment law and employee rights would! if you hire a contractor to fix a sink for you and then midway into that you ask him to fix the tap as well, he has every right to revisit the initially agreed terms--- and if he has any common sense to ask for more money
.

Well if he is fixing the sink he is more or less going to be fixing the tap if he uses his sense anyways, you'd not employ him to do one and not the other.

If you think he has done a a superb job then you might think it is worth it given him a lil bit more then he asked for, if has only done what you asked him then why should you pay him over the top, because he might be better then other contractors in the business.

[Ollie the Optimist]

yes, every one with basic knowledge of employment law and employee rights would! if you hire a contractor to fix a sink for you and then midway into that youask him to fix the tap as well, he has every right to revisit the initially agreed terms--- and if he has any common sense to ask for more money




No they didn't! they kept postponing the talks. Hence his 'shit' agent went and shopped him around to barca --- and they decided he deserved better terms.

one, rightly so we postponed talks, who is more improtant? kos, theo and rvp who are approaching final years or final two years of contracts and need to be sorted or some twat who signed a new five year deal a year ago? of course they were going to ignore song, they have more important people to deal with.

song was paid a wage which he and his agent agreed with Arsenal. he was paid a wage for playing football, thats it. when he signed his deal, he was already playing most of our games so his role hasnt changed that much, not enough to warrent a new deal 1 year into a five year deal. however with agent, and the club, he should have bonuses added into his contract, so he is paid a wage, but if he does brilliantly, he gets some money as a well done. however, he didnt do brilliantly, because ultimately he failed to win anything with us, he played well but didnt get us near winnning.

[Niall_Quinn]

We don't hire players to fix sinks or taps, we hire them to give 100% every single week, with 99% never, ever being acceptable. 100% is the absolute, barest minimum, full stop. So what extra could they possibly ever do to justify a pay rise during a contract? It's impossible. They should count themselves lucky they don't get sacked for being shit most of the time - which most of them are.

[gooners]

he was paid a wage for playing football, thats it

yeah, you would know! I forgot you sat in at the contract table :rolleyes:

[gooners]

Well if he is fixing the sink he is more or less going to be fixing the tap if he uses his sense anyways, you'd not employ him to do one and not the other.

no; not if you hired him to fix your blocked sink --- just because he is a plumber doesn't mean he has to fix your tap that is faulty as well.

And, by the way, he did what any sensible employee would do --- shopped his cv to one the best firms around and got the wages and respect he feel he deserves :good:

He is not the one moaning about loyalty.

[gooners]

We don't hire players to fix sinks or taps, we hire them to give 100% every single week, with 99% never, ever being acceptable. 100% is the absolute, barest minimum, full stop. So what extra could they possibly ever do to justify a pay rise during a contract? It's impossible. They should count themselves lucky they don't get sacked for being shit most of the time - which most of them are.

i think we are talking about different things here.

[Xhaka Can’t]

he was paid a wage for playing football, thats it


yeah, you would know! I forgot you sat in at the contract table :rolleyes:

He was also the fire safety officer.

Now look where our penny pinching has got us.

[Ollie the Optimist]

yeah, you would know! I forgot you sat in at the contract table :rolleyes:


im not sure what else he would be paid for? he plays football, he gets paid to play football. or am i missing something?

[IBK]

Yes -I think we are. IMO we treat our players exceptionally well. And I think we have suffered from the lack of a role model - a player that genuinely loves and committs to the club. Most others have someone. We don't - and haven't really had since Adams/Bergkamp.

[IBK]

This whole Denilson on 50k argument is so overcooked. It's genuinely like that at most to clubs. Nobody gets it spot on because you don't have the benefit of foresight. RVP might well have been on 80k but at the time of the contract a lot of us were thinking it was a waste. Similar with Diaby now - we were all calling for him to be sold but now we're thinking let's wait a bit. You take gambles. The youngsters are not getting paid according to their age, but their role. If Oxlade is set to get a new contract it's because he's going to play the role of a first-team player. Guys like Chamakh and Arshavin are a more transparent waste so it's got little to do with a 'youth policy'.

:gp:

[Niall_Quinn]

i think we are talking about different things here.

We're not. We're both talking about extreme player greed, extreme player lack of appreciation for the club and the fans, extremely over-hyped players who aren't within 5% of being as good as they are made out to be and absolutely nowhere near worth a fraction of a percent of the money they are paid. That's the starting point. Then these ****s come in and start making demands and then more demands once their terms are met. I think when you have jackals negotiating with jackals there's no such thing as right and wrong, these don't enter into it. All there is is greed. Pure, undiluted greed. In the clubs, the players. So is Song, Nasri, van ****infection right or wrong? Neither. They are greedy, spoilt, ungrateful, shallow twats. Same as the filth who run the clubs. Simple really.

[gooners]

We're not. We're both talking about extreme player greed, extreme player lack of appreciation for the club and the fans, extremely over-hyped players who aren't within 5% of being as good as they are made out to be and absolutely nowhere near worth a fraction of a percent of the money they are paid. That's the starting point. Then these ****s come in and start making demands and then more demands once their terms are met. I think when you have jackals negotiating with jackals there's no such thing as right and wrong, these don't enter into it. All there is is greed. Pure, undiluted greed. In the clubs, the players. So is Song, Nasri, van ****infection right or wrong? Neither. They are greedy, spoilt, ungrateful, shallow twats. Same as the filth who run the clubs. Simple really.

yes we are.

basically YOU would have no problems with squillacci earning the same wage as vermalaen,carzola,arteta or sagna.

that is similar to wenger's fantasy-land socialist economics that has burdened the club with an unworkable wage structure that sees top-tier players headed for the exit come contract renewal time.

whether any footballer deserves what they earn is an entirely different issue.
whether bankers deserve the bonuses they take home is an entirely different issue.
whether WENGER deserves the salary he takes home is an entirely different issue.
whether PHW & co. deserve to be undressed in public and have their arses whipped for their greed is an entirely dofferent issue.

whether the idiocy of football fans deserves to be tolerated along with fundamentalist culture, is an entirely doffrent issue.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

This whole Denilson on 50k argument is so overcooked. It's genuinely like that at most to clubs. Nobody gets it spot on because you don't have the benefit of foresight. RVP might well have been on 80k but at the time of the contract a lot of us were thinking it was a waste. Similar with Diaby now - we were all calling for him to be sold but now we're thinking let's wait a bit. You take gambles. The youngsters are not getting paid according to their age, but their role. If Oxlade is set to get a new contract it's because he's going to play the role of a first-team player. Guys like Chamakh and Arshavin are a more transparent waste so it's got little to do with a 'youth policy'.

it's not overcooked.

it's not genuinely like that at most clubs. the youth project meant it only happened at our club. 50k-60k a week for a 20 year old is not the going rate, its arsenal's going rate. every club has a couple of talented players who deserve to be rewarded and fast-tracked for their natural gift. the problem with our club was that 80% of the squad were put on inflated wages and rewarded for doing absolutely nothing. furthermore, it became worse when wenger stuck by them through the failure even though it was obvious the project wasn't working. this exhaustion of the project was ludicrous and caused much of the chronic problems we suffer from today. if you put youngsters on big money at an early age they will hit the ceiling of our wage structure sooner than they would elsewhere. so not only did they win nothing but they also think they deserve more money.

most of us were quite happy for arsene to treat us like his little toy for a while, we all knew we would have to tighten our belts with the stadium move. the fans have been patient but this patience has been abused.

[Niall_Quinn]

yes we are.

basically YOU would have no problems with squillacci earning the same wage as vermalaen,carzola,arteta or sagna.

that is similar to wenger's fantasy-land socialist economics that has burdened the club with an unworkable wage structure that sees top-tier players headed for the exit come contract renewal time.

whether any footballer deserves what they earn is an entirely different issue.
whether bankers deserve the bonuses they take home is an entirely different issue.
whether WENGER deserves the salary he takes home is an entirely different issue.
whether PHW & co. deserve to be undressed in public and have their arses whipped for their greed is an entirely dofferent issue.

whether the idiocy of football fans deserves to be tolerated along with fundamentalist culture, is an entirely doffrent issue.

Where do you get that from? Squillaci shouldn't even be playing in the PL, never mind getting paid. Yes, of course it's a fuck up to pay him and any others like him - of which there are many. That's the problem. The talent margins between most of these players are razor thin, the talent itself being barely detectable. Genuine talent stands out a mile. The PL is overburdened with dross that wouldn't last 5 minutes in a proper league. Half these players are there to fill the numbers and keep the money machine rolling. That's why even ex-players who know the game but are now serving as pundits can keep a straight face while they apply euphemisms such as "brave" and "spirited" to hellish anti-football outfits (that would be misfits in any other league) like Stoke. And because it's much easier to wreck something than create it we explain away the destruction as "competition" and reward ourselves with pats on the back for having the best league in the world. Players like Song are mediocre. Nothing special. They make up the numbers but add nothing of merit to the game. A little shitbag like that thinking he's worth a wheelbarrow of money each week is a joke, a delusional symptom of a money circus called the Premier League. The shittiest, least talented, most hyped league in all history where the chances of seeing a genuine football contest between two football teams is as close to nil as makes no odds. That's the pool of shit these players are swimming in, pretending they are artists when all they are are rodents. Theo Walcott. We're talking about these non-entities demanding their contracts be thrown away as soon as they meet a bare minimum standard so they can get even more reward for doing what was expected of them in the first place. Just like we talk about bankers getting bonuses for not fucking up the economy. How low can the standards go? It's all connected. These footballers, bankers, shareholders, they are all demanding the earth for non-performance and the earth plus bonuses when they up their game dramatically and hit the middle peaks of mediocrity. It's not just about what they deserve or what they think they deserve, it's also about their total non-performance. Imagine a pair of ****s like Song and Walcott having the nerve to demand more money. It's beyond belief. What the fuck for? What did they do?

[Özim]

Unlucky, no we bring it on ourselves.

Sagna questioning things and undertstandably so. If you sell your best players all the time and make a profit almost every transfer window questions will be asked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19503848

[Cripps_orig]

Sagnas gone

[Özim]

Some people are never happy, endless 3rd/4th place medals and 15 years of CL football and they still complain! :rolleyes:

[Power n Glory]

And what role exactly was denilson paid for? --- none; we were paying him for his supposed talent. It turned out he had none.

This is the stupidity of it all. And then IF their talent actually develops and they want big boy wages we start fobbing them off ala song!

It's a stupid structure and it has cost us a lot. Wenger has used the youth policy to justify letting certain players go or not buying and then it comes back to haunt us. I think of the many years we've gone without buying a striker because we've had Vela and Bendy but we then end up getting rid of them anyway. Song's sale is baffling because he's a success story but we sold him off anyway. We've lost our way.

The logic behind this structure is flawed. We pay over the odds for kids because we seem to think we it will keep them content and shield them from big club poachers but if one of oil rich clubs wanted one of our young stars, £50k a week won't make the slightest difference. If City put a crazy bid in for Ox and saying they'd pay him £100k a week, we're stuffed because we won't match that. Why pay so much when it's not necessary and doesn't protect us? For a young player, there focus is breaking into the first team and improving their game.

Then on the flipside, because we pay so much on an average, it restricts us from topping up our star players wages. Say we have 5 key players in the squad and all are demanding over £100k a week. With our structure, we're bound to lose all 5 players because we're so rigid. But if we had a sensible policy and we lowered the average we're paying out to squad players, we could actually afford to pay maybe 2 or 3 out of the 5 players big wages. At least we retain some of our key players and not lose them every season.

[Niall_Quinn]

It's a stupid structure and it has cost us a lot. Wenger has used the youth policy to justify letting certain players go or not buying and then it comes back to haunt us. I think of the many years we've gone without buying a striker because we've had Vela and Bendy but we then end up getting rid of them anyway. Song's sale is baffling because he's a success story but we sold him off anyway. We've lost our way.

The logic behind this structure is flawed. We pay over the odds for kids because we seem to think we it will keep them content and shield them from big club poachers but if one of oil rich clubs wanted one of our young stars, £50k a week won't make the slightest difference. If City put a crazy bid in for Ox and saying they'd pay him £100k a week, we're stuffed because we won't match that. Why pay so much when it's not necessary and doesn't protect us? For a young player, there focus is breaking into the first team and improving their game.

Then on the flipside, because we pay so much on an average, it restricts us from topping up our star players wages. Say we have 5 key players in the squad and all are demanding over £100k a week. With our structure, we're bound to lose all 5 players because we're so rigid. But if we had a sensible policy and we lowered the average we're paying out to squad players, we could actually afford to pay maybe 2 or 3 out of the 5 players big wages. At least we retain some of our key players and not lose them every season.

The wage policy has helped us hang on to Bendtner, Park, Squid and Shitmak - so your argument is badly flawed.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

It's a stupid structure and it has cost us a lot. Wenger has used the youth policy to justify letting certain players go or not buying and then it comes back to haunt us. I think of the many years we've gone without buying a striker because we've had Vela and Bendy but we then end up getting rid of them anyway. Song's sale is baffling because he's a success story but we sold him off anyway. We've lost our way.

The logic behind this structure is flawed. We pay over the odds for kids because we seem to think we it will keep them content and shield them from big club poachers but if one of oil rich clubs wanted one of our young stars, £50k a week won't make the slightest difference. If City put a crazy bid in for Ox and saying they'd pay him £100k a week, we're stuffed because we won't match that. Why pay so much when it's not necessary and doesn't protect us? For a young player, there focus is breaking into the first team and improving their game.

Then on the flipside, because we pay so much on an average, it restricts us from topping up our star players wages. Say we have 5 key players in the squad and all are demanding over £100k a week. With our structure, we're bound to lose all 5 players because we're so rigid. But if we had a sensible policy and we lowered the average we're paying out to squad players, we could actually afford to pay maybe 2 or 3 out of the 5 players big wages. At least we retain some of our key players and not lose them every season.

not a word wrong there pal.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Some people are never happy, endless 3rd/4th place medals and 15 years of CL football and they still complain! :rolleyes:

People would not be happy even if we won the league works both ways. their'd still be moaning.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Sagnas gone

Most probs.

[Tipsychubbs]

It's a stupid structure and it has cost us a lot. Wenger has used the youth policy to justify letting certain players go or not buying and then it comes back to haunt us. I think of the many years we've gone without buying a striker because we've had Vela and Bendy but we then end up getting rid of them anyway. Song's sale is baffling because he's a success story but we sold him off anyway. We've lost our way.

The logic behind this structure is flawed. We pay over the odds for kids because we seem to think we it will keep them content and shield them from big club poachers but if one of oil rich clubs wanted one of our young stars, £50k a week won't make the slightest difference. If City put a crazy bid in for Ox and saying they'd pay him £100k a week, we're stuffed because we won't match that. Why pay so much when it's not necessary and doesn't protect us? For a young player, there focus is breaking into the first team and improving their game.

Then on the flipside, because we pay so much on an average, it restricts us from topping up our star players wages. Say we have 5 key players in the squad and all are demanding over £100k a week. With our structure, we're bound to lose all 5 players because we're so rigid. But if we had a sensible policy and we lowered the average we're paying out to squad players, we could actually afford to pay maybe 2 or 3 out of the 5 players big wages. At least we retain some of our key players and not lose them every season.

Yup, seems the club are cottoning on to this and hopefully the policy is in the process of changing; Gazidis said this in June:


Robin Van Persie, who receives a reported £70,000 per week, holding negotiations over a new contract with the Gunners.

But fringe players such as Manuel Almunia and Marouane Chamakh are not far behind the star striker and earn weekly wages of between £50,000-£60,000-per-week, according to the Daily Mail.

Gazidis confirmed his intention to reshape the club's salary structure at an Arsenal Supporters Trust meeting and the Gunners are also expected to embark on a summer clear out in a bid to cut £23 million from the wage bill.

Gazidis said: "We have inefficiency of spending in our squad - but we are moving towards as efficient a model as possible.

"Our wage structure has been based around a flatter salary structure - that is part of a team ethos the manager develops, it's about interaction between players - not superstars.

"But we have looked at this carefully and we have to make adjustments for top talent. They are earning a lot of money and I don't think that will slow down. We have to adjust our model."

[Power n Glory]

Thank goodness for that. It's just common sense. But I want to see action and not just words. This summer hasn't filled me with much confidence.

[Niall_Quinn]

When a **** like Gazidis mentions efficiency then check you still have all your fingers and toes. Don't think he'll be kicking out shit like Bendtner so he can be replaced by a decent player on £50K pw. They'll just hack up the squad and bring in minimum wagers. This will be a great excuse to move top players out the door too - couldn't afford the wage demands, blah. Hateful bastards running the place.