Are we unlucky with player loyalty?

[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.

[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.