Are we unlucky with player loyalty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooners

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ollie the optimist

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ollie the optimist

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ollie the optimist

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooners

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooners

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.

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.

Quote:

---

he was paid a wage for playing football, thats it

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

he was paid a wage for playing football, thats it

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooners

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooners

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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'.

---

:gp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooners

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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'.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooners

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?

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

Sagnas gone

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooners

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsMe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ach

Sagnas gone

---

Most probs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

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:

Quote:

---

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."

---

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.

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.