The Bitter Truth?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Yes, wages over 5 years. We don't pay that much outright.

But you need to know your going to have the money to pay the wages whilst the player is at the club, that's why wages always figure in our transfer budget, so when we have had a 30 or 40 million to spend that means one player worth 10-15 million.

[selassie]

Again for me the two issues are seperate, I think Wenger can no longer take us forward but it's irrelevant anyway because we don't have the finances to take us forward

Herbert, we're awash with money, how much do you think we actually need to take us forward? Take us forward being an improvement on 4th place or wherever we finish this season.

I'll be honest and it's been brought up already on this thread...the issues with the team and our lack of progress are not directly related to finances.

Sure..we need to improve the squad and we need to spend...but we need to sign the "right type of players".

[selassie]

Not when your competing with clubs that spend ridiculous amounts of money, and have your owners tie you up to commercial deals which they are linked into

Clarify what you mean regarding commercials deals.

[Özim]

But you need to know your going to have the money to pay the wages whilst the player is at the club, that's why wages always figure in our transfer budget, so when we have had a 30 or 40 million to spend that means one player worth 10-15 million.

Ozils wages would have been partially offset by the players we got rid off and thus got off the pay roll.

[Power n Glory]

But you need to know your going to have the money to pay the wages whilst the player is at the club, that's why wages always figure in our transfer budget, so when we have had a 30 or 40 million to spend that means one player worth 10-15 million.

Impossible. Last season we bought Cazorla, Podolski, Giroud and Monreal for that fee. Does that mean we had £120m - £160m to spend in the year? And that's before the sponsorship announcement. What about the season we bought Ox, Gervinho, Arteta, Merts, Santos, Jenkinson and Park? That's got to be over £200m. It can't be done that way. How do other clubs manage? How were Spurs able to spend £100m from the bail money and find the wages for those players as well? This can't be the way.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Ozils wages would have been partially offset by the players we got rid off and thus got off the pay roll.

No that offset the players we already had at the club that have been awarded new contracts in the last 18 months

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Impossible. Last season we bought Cazorla, Podolski, Giroud and Monreal for that fee. Does that mean we had £120m - £160m to spend in the year? And that's before the sponsorship announcement. What about the season we bought Ox, Gervinho, Arteta, Merts, Santos, Jenkinson and Park? That's got to be over £200m. It can't be done that way. How do other clubs manage? How were Spurs able to spend £100m from the bail money and find the wages for those players as well? This can't be the way.

The players you have mentioned, Cazorla, Podolski and Giroud offset by the sale and wages off the books for Song and Van Persie....but even then our wage bill would have skyrocketed with 130k a week for Podolski.
Arteta, Gervinho, Santos, Mertesacker etc - Eboue, Clichy, Nasri, Fabregas

[Bumble]

when you compare arsenal to liverpool, its alot closer than you realise in 2013 we earned about £47m more in revenue than liverpool, despite getting the CL money and higher average attendance. of course both liverpool and everton are run as businesses. they arent bankrolled like city or the chavs.

also i believe with transfer fees they are often paid in instalments over the length of the contract, so it is possible that we didnt give all that money to Real in one go and hence we always seemed to be owed money by Barca.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

when you compare arsenal to liverpool, its alot closer than you realise in 2013 we earned about £47m more in revenue than liverpool, despite getting the CL money and higher average attendance. of course both liverpool and everton are run as businesses. they arent bankrolled like city or the chavs.

also i believe with transfer fees they are often paid in instalments over the length of the contract, so it is possible that we didnt give all that money to Real in one go and hence we always seemed to be owed money by Barca.

I realise about doing it in instalments but the money still has to be there, we made technically have the 120 million but I would be surprised if 100million hasn't been earmarked for paying the club we bought him from, paying his wages etc.

That's why Wenger is adverse to spending big money, because unless you sell them off at a bigger fee than what you bought them for your making a huge financial loss.

One that a club run as a business cannot afford to make

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

when you compare arsenal to liverpool, its alot closer than you realise in 2013 we earned about £47m more in revenue than liverpool, despite getting the CL money and higher average attendance. of course both liverpool and everton are run as businesses. they arent bankrolled like city or the chavs.

also i believe with transfer fees they are often paid in instalments over the length of the contract, so it is possible that we didnt give all that money to Real in one go and hence we always seemed to be owed money by Barca.

I believe Liverpool are bankrolled, I don't believe even with better commercial deals than us that they can afford independently the transfer outlays that have been made by them in the last few years.