stopped 2010 but still suffering from the damage.
stopped 2010 but still suffering from the damage.
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.
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.
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'.
Originally Posted by Syn
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!
Last edited by gooners; 04-09-2012 at 06:40 PM.
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
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.
Für eure Sicherheit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote