Wenger Slaughterhouse

[V-Pig]

As Letters said, it's all relative to the club at that level. If a shit player comes from Arsenal, they'll still command fees/wages higher than a player of the same standard from the Championship, because it's the all about the level of the club. So of course £20m for a player like Wilshere would be an insult, because he's clearly (barring injuries and the like) has a fuckload of potential. Whereas if he were playing for some shitty Championship side, £20m would be too much to pay because of the financial level they're at. The financial level at which they're prepared to lose a good player is obviously less because less money means more to them, playing as they do in the league below and having far fewer resources.

Is there any need to get pissy and talk about "bullshit reasoning" when Letters points this out? This is simple economics. You have to give a richer/bigger organisation a bigger financial motivation to do something they don't particularly want to do, like sell a good player.

[Power n Glory]

As Letters said, it's all relative to the club at that level. If a shit player comes from Arsenal, they'll still command fees/wages higher than a player of the same standard from the Championship, because it's the all about the level of the club. So of course £20m for a player like Wilshere would be an insult, because he's clearly (barring injuries and the like) has a fuckload of potential. Whereas if he were playing for some shitty Championship side, £20m would be too much to pay because of the financial level they're at. The financial level at which they're prepared to lose a good player is obviously less because less money means more to them, playing as they do in the league below and having far fewer resources.

Is there any need to get pissy and talk about "bullshit reasoning" when Letters points this out? This is simple economics. You have to give a richer/bigger organisation a bigger financial motivation to do something they don't particularly want to do, like sell a good player.

It means the smaller clubs have no chance of making it to that elite level and the status quo is maintained. Without a sugar daddy model, these clubs will stay where they are. Basic economics? Not so sure about that. Sweat house style exploitation, maybe.

[fakeyank]

It means the smaller clubs have no chance of making it to that elite level and the status quo is maintained. Without a sugar daddy model, these clubs will stay where they are. Basic economics? Not so sure about that. Sweat house style exploitation, maybe.

[V-Pig]

Well, realistically, that's capitalism. Why would a football club pay more than it has to for a player without special reason? Generally, they'll pay whatever the club will accept. And if Arsenal started deliberately paying massively over the odds for Championship players they'd soon be reduced to a lesser level themselves.

[Letters]

It means the smaller clubs have no chance of making it to that elite level and the status quo is maintained. Without a sugar daddy model, these clubs will stay where they are. Basic economics? Not so sure about that. Sweat house style exploitation, maybe.

The reason these clubs have no chance of making it without serious financial backing is NOT because larger clubs buy their better players. That has always happened and obviously top players will want to play at top clubs. Le Tissier is an example of a player who chose to stay at a smaller club because he was happier there when he could clearly have made it at a bigger club and achieved more in his career but he's the exception that proves the rule. Generally players who come through in lower division clubs and show enough promise to make it at the top will be bought by clubs at the top. The players will want to move up the ladder, the club get financially compensated. And yes, the sums I quoted above wouldn't have been paid 20 years ago but that's irrelevant because wages and transfer fees throughout the game were proportionally different. We bought Ian Wright from Palace for about £2.5m. Peanuts now but serious money for a player back in the day.

The reason clubs struggle to move up the ladder is because the TV and prize money is so horribly distorted in favour of the top clubs. THAT is what maintains the status quo. Players at lower clubs showing potential and moving to bigger clubs has always happened and it never stopped clubs from moving up or down the ladders when the levels of money in the game were less obscene and there was less difference between the haves and have nots.

[Kano]

50 - 9
60 - 7
70 - 6
80 - 4
90 - 5
00 – 3
10 – 3

amount of clubs that win the title per decade - clearly a trend. so where did it start?

[Letters]

50 - 9
60 - 7
70 - 6
80 - 4
90 - 5
00 – 3
10 – 3

amount of clubs that win the title per decade - clearly a trend. so where did it start?

Sky Sports. "A Whole New Ball Game".
They weren't kidding

[Kano]

The reason i posted that is because of the argument that in the ‘good old days’ there were new champions almost every season. you can see that over the years it has steadily declined and the past decade really isn’t that different from the 80s

[Letters]

Maybe it started a little before that actually, but that and the rise and rise of the CL have definitely accelerated it.

[Power n Glory]

The reason these clubs have no chance of making it without serious financial backing is NOT because larger clubs buy their better players. That has always happened and obviously top players will want to play at top clubs. Le Tissier is an example of a player who chose to stay at a smaller club because he was happier there when he could clearly have made it at a bigger club and achieved more in his career but he's the exception that proves the rule. Generally players who come through in lower division clubs and show enough promise to make it at the top will be bought by clubs at the top. The players will want to move up the ladder, the club get financially compensated. And yes, the sums I quoted above wouldn't have been paid 20 years ago but that's irrelevant because wages and transfer fees throughout the game were proportionally different. We bought Ian Wright from Palace for about £2.5m. Peanuts now but serious money for a player back in the day.

The reason clubs struggle to move up the ladder is because the TV and prize money is so horribly distorted in favour of the top clubs. THAT is what maintains the status quo. Players at lower clubs showing potential and moving to bigger clubs has always happened and it never stopped clubs from moving up or down the ladders when the levels of money in the game were less obscene and there was less difference between the haves and have nots.

It's a combination of both. The best players constantly moving to top teams means it's difficult for a small club to build a solid team and the money in the game is what maintains the status quo. Take international football for example. When a nation finally develops a group of talented players or the 'golden generation' they usually do a lot better in international tournaments. Spain is a good example. They were garbage 15 years ago but now they've developed a solid group of players that dominate on the world stage. The same thing happened with France from 98/2000. African Nations like Ghana and Ivory Coast have risen and become tough teams to beat because they have talented squad.

It's not just the prize and TV money alone. Aren't lower league teams and relegated teams getting more money than they used to? That's not going to change anything. If there wasn't such a huge dependency on the transfer window for team improvement and mobility, we'd see an emphasis on Academy's and youth development as seen in International football. That would change things.

As for the compensation talk....I'm not talking about 20 years ago. I'm talking under Wenger and recent history. Let's not talk as if we treat all clubs fairly and they're happy to sell compared to what City do. Example, we courted Chamakh in public, offered a very low fee because we knew he wanted to join us plus he's in his final year....his club wanted more money but we told them no and waited for him to be a free agent. Plus,we still sign supposed wonder kids for small fees. I'm not talking about the early 90s.