The Bitter Truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

No - but you can play them more sensibly. Wenger is not bold enough to rest Kosceilny by playing Vermaelen - who might have been kept fresher and more interested by being played a bit, even without injury. Wenger kept playing Ramsey - even when he was clearly in the red zone - when an Ox experiment in the middle with Ozil still controlling our shape might have been a better introduction than lately. Gnabry - who had done nothing wrong when he did play - could have been used to relieve the first teamers. And you can rest players by judicious substitutions, but you ain't going to do it at 70 or 80 mins with the team under pressure....

---

I agree with everything you say, but i just don't believe it would have made a great deal more difference in terms of our overall points. I think the media like to pretend that it's all a tactical chess game so as give people hope weighed against the fact that 95 times out of 100 the club with the most money and the best players will win football matches. Especially when you consider the main area where we have suffered this season is away at the top sides, and for me the small changes and margins you mention weren't enough to bring us anything against those sides...a little bit of rotating here and there didn't change the fact that our squad is too small to have resisted injury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coutinho Is Boss

Source?

---

This is the first thing I could find ('Football rich list Feb 2014')


Manchester United £162 Million
Chelsea £173 Million
Arsenal £143 Million
Manchester City £202 Million
Liverpool £119 Million
Everton £63 Million
Tottenham Hotspur £90 Million
Newcastle United £64 Million

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie

I just posted earlier what your players were on.
Arguably i don't think there is a great deal in it, but none of our players are on 200k a week.
And you have a higher number of players in the 70-80k a week bracket than us.

---

You posted a list of unverified numbers. What was your source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

This is the first thing I could find ('Football rich list Feb 2014')


Manchester United £162 Million
Chelsea £173 Million
Arsenal £143 Million
Manchester City £202 Million
Liverpool £119 Million
Everton £63 Million
Tottenham Hotspur £90 Million
Newcastle United £64 Million

---

That tells you what a business is worth not what it's spending power is, with a fairly new stadium actually the value of the club isn't particurlarly that high compared to both Liverpool, Chelsea and United.
The simple Maths are the turnoveer is anything between 250 and 260 million a year, the wage bill is 160million....other operational costs means we are only able to generate profit through player sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie

As i've just explained players at clubs like Liverpool who are even younger than ours are on similar wages, it's not about paying too much for potential it's unfortunately just a sign of the times.

---

It's really not the sign of the times.

Take a look at this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...s-Arsenal.html

Carl Jenkinson joined us in summer 2011 and already in December 2012 we've bumped up his pay with many years left on his contract.

Oxlade joins in the same year as Carl and we triple his pay to £60k in December 2012 half way through his 2nd season for us even though he's just signed a long term deal.

Jack Wilshere signed a £40k-£55k deal in November 2010 that would have had him here until 2015. He was originally on £15k. In December 2012 he signs another long term deal that puts him up to £80k to £85k. That was whilst he was out crocked for most of the season too. It wasn't performance related. From £15k to around £85k before he's 21. This off the back off 1 full season in the first team as a regular.

Ramsey signed a new deal in December 2012 and he's just signed a new contract again in March. He was on £60k then no idea what he's on now. £80k maybe? Just over a year into his new deal. :blink:

Does all this seem logical? Why are offering new deals to players less than two years into their new deals or first joining the club and they're already committed to long term deals? We've bumped up the wage bill for no reason. If they've signed new deals they're happy and have no intention of going, plus they have long contracts. There is no risk of them leaving. Rival clubs don't want them and they weren't unhappy with the original deals they signed. All this was happening in the midst of the Theo contract saga. We're signing up players with 3 maybe 4 years left on their deals, haven't reached their full potential, some have already had major injuries whilst we've got our top assister and scorer in the last year of his contract and we're pleading poverty! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coutinho Is Boss

You posted a list of unverified numbers. What was your source?

---

Multitudes of sites on google will give you the wages of the Liverpool squad as of August 2013, it's certainly no secret that Luis Suarez is on 200k a week and that Gerrard is on about 150k a week.
I wouldn't take it hard, Spurs' wage bill is also bigger than ours and look at how they are doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

It's really not the sign of the times.

Take a look at this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...s-Arsenal.html

Carl Jenkinson joined us in summer 2011 and already in December 2012 we've bumped up his pay with many years left on his contract.

Oxlade joins in the same year as Carl and we triple his pay to £60k in December 2012 half way through his 2nd season for us even though he's just signed a long term deal.

Jack Wilshere signed a £40k-£55k deal in November 2010 that would have had him here until 2015. He was originally on £15k. In December 2012 he signs another long term deal that puts him up to £80k to £85k. That was whilst he was out crocked for most of the season too. It wasn't performance related. From £15k to around £85k before he's 21. This off the back off 1 full season in the first team as a regular.

Ramsey signed a new deal in December 2012 and he's just signed a new contract again in March. He was on £60k then no idea what he's on now. £80k maybe? Just over a year into his new deal. :blink:

Does all this seem logical? Why are offering new deals to players less than two years into their new deals or first joining the club and they're already committed to long term deals? We've bumped up the wage bill for no reason. If they've signed new deals they're happy and have no intention of going, plus they have long contracts. There is no risk of them leaving. Rival clubs don't want them and they weren't unhappy with the original deals they signed. All this was happening in the midst of the Theo contract saga. We're signing up players with 3 maybe 4 years left on their deals, haven't reached their full potential, some have already had major injuries whilst we've got our top assister and scorer in the last year of his contract and we're pleading poverty! ;)

---

Again i hate to keep harking back to Liverpool but if you look at what their young players are on relative to us the difference is no difference.

Joe Allen, Raheem Sterling, (Jay Spearing was on 60k a week before he moved to Bolton FFS), Jordan Henderson etc all on at least 50k a week. Henderson on 70 in fact (because you can't move for 20million and accept anything less)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

No - but you can play them more sensibly. Wenger is not bold enough to rest Kosceilny by playing Vermaelen - who might have been kept fresher and more interested by being played a bit, even without injury. Wenger kept playing Ramsey - even when he was clearly in the red zone - when an Ox experiment in the middle with Ozil still controlling our shape might have been a better introduction than lately. Gnabry - who had done nothing wrong when he did play - could have been used to relieve the first teamers. And you can rest players by judicious substitutions, but you ain't going to do it at 70 or 80 mins with the team under pressure....

---

Yep, I agree with that. Not sure why he hasn't made use of players like Gnarby, Bendy, Vermaelen, Jenkinson....even Ryo. They're all bound to have ups and downs but they need match practice to get sharp, it gives other players a rest and we could potentially have an extra weapon from the bench if they're played into form. Not wholesale changes, just small from game to game just so it doesn't disrupt the balance of the squad.

You can deny the obscene money culture awash through football all you like, especially prevalent in domestic talent in this country.....make Wenger out to be thoroughly incompitent maniac who thinks he is Napoleon. I think he has got a lot of things wrong, tremendous amount of things wrong in fact but it really doesn't make any difference his errors pale into insignifance when your fighting against clubs that have the power to vastly outspend you like chelsea, city and liverpool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie

That tells you what a business is worth not what it's spending power is, with a fairly new stadium actually the value of the club isn't particurlarly that high compared to both Liverpool, Chelsea and United.
The simple Maths are the turnoveer is anything between 250 and 260 million a year, the wage bill is 160million....other operational costs means we are only able to generate profit through player sales.

---

No. Its the salary expenditure of each club 2013/14.