We need a sugar daddy to compete.

[Flavs]

He's actually on 200k a week, but thats the calibire of players we used to have in a team with "mentality" and all that other shit.

Ok so just as a posing question, how much do you think Fabregas should be on?

[budesonide]

The season before last, we where beating all the lower league teams handily, and we where all complaining about not being able to beat our competitors. You've latched to a problem that's only really developed THIS season - and has come off the back of some SHOCKING individual performances from players WE ALL KNOW NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, but weren't replaced with the quality needed - or just weren't replaced at all.

And whose fault is that? And whose fault was it that the situation couldn't even be arrested when the manager (on 6mil a year) came out to say we will fight till the end".

Individual performances? --- i don't think so! As a team we cannot defend; and it has been a problem for years now. We cannot even take corners properly. So i suppose what we need is a sugar-daddy to sign a 5o million player to take corners for us. Isn't wenger the one who professes technical football acumen?

[Joker]

We can't complain about sugar daddies when the major problems at this club stem from Wenger's poor managerial decisions in the last 5 years. Moreover, I don't think that Sunderland, Blackburn, West Brom, Bolton, Newcastle etc are richer than us, yet they all took points off us last season.
The problems are closer to home, and we cannot look at Man City or Chelsea and blame them for our failings. The problems inherent at the club have been around for many years, long before City were taken over.

[AKBapologist]

Ok so just as a posing question, how much do you think Fabregas should be on?

The going rates for marquee players in this league is about 200k-250k per week.

And LOL at LDG using the most overrated players in the league as an argument for anything.

[Kano]

Scouting is getting harder. Not only has the scouting systems of our rivals improved. News of our interest spreads faster, and rarely do we enter final negotiation without any rival bids - which results in us having to play inflated fees for unknowns...

Inflation in transfer fee's is insane - and It's not going to end. In the EPL, a greater distribution of wealth from TV money has meant that clubs no longer need to sell for as little as they did before. Lower league teams are also in a much more stable financial position - and can hold on to their stars shrugging off all but the most insane bids from the biggest clubs.

Inflation in wages has also followed. Not only does that make us a lot less attractive club for perspective targets to come too, it has a massive disruptive effect on our own squad with our stars looking else where whenever they underperform.

The top clubs are earning more and more. Yes, their debts are huge but it's likely that there'll be bringing in more revenue due to having recent success and competent marketing departments. It's likely even Liverpool will continue to outspend us without drawing attention to the Fair Play Rulings (which I don't think take into account current levels of debt)

AND these sugar daddies aren't going away, they'll be building bigger stadiums, improving their youth and scouting systems catching up on the framework we've already built, whilst achieving success... Yes, At a cost, but football was never suppose to be a business and I no longer think it's correct to believe that billionaire owners purchase clubs to make a few million pounds a year on dividends...

No, I'm not asking for a Glaizer style, debt driven take over, and no - I'd be less than thrilled if Usmanov with his questionable history or an Abramovich style meddling owner came in.

What I'm asking for however, is a honest look at the realities of the situation. For the club to able to match the aspirations of the fans, we must accept that sustainable financing will no longer be relevant given this new age where money = titles. Without an urgent change in course, it's more likely than ever that everything we've accomplished could collapse in an ever accelerating talent draining spiral, the likes of which we seem set to experience this summer.

so you want someone to come in, pay off all the debts and spend big too? it won't happen given the way we've financed the stadium.

we've got two huge potential investors but they won't spend big or pay off the debts as they can watch their share value rise and as the debt falls. every investor wants a significant return at any club

[budesonide]

And if we had an owner who didn't put up with that crap and demanded more, he's be gone. Why are you making this false argument, regurgitating GB's point about how this is all the managers fault?

what, so we just need a sugar-daddy just to tell wenger to wake the fuck up?

if so, then we are royally fuc*ked --

[AKBapologist]

And whose fault is that? And whose fault was it that the situation couldn't even be arrested when the manager (on 6mil a year) came out to say we will fight till the end".

Individual performances? --- i don't think so! As a team we cannot defend; and it has been a problem for years now. We cannot even take corners properly. So i suppose what we need is a sugar-daddy to sign a 5o million player to take corners for us. Isn't wenger the one who professes technical football acumen?

WHY do you keep on talking as if I'm trying to defend Wenger - totally indifferent on him as a manager at this point. You certainly need an owner to change manager, so please sit down and shut up.

[Flavs]

The going rates for marquee players in this league is about 200k-250k per week.

And LOL at LDG using the most overrated players in the league as an argument for anything.

You think that "marquee" players such as Yaya Toure should be on that amount? Then i am even more glad we dont have someone at the top sanctioning such moves and a manager who can keep us in the top 4 without joining such stupidity.

[Flavs]

so please sit down and shut up.

Hmm well debated

[AKBapologist]

so you want someone to come in, pay off all the debts and spend big too? it won't happen given the way we've financed the stadium.

we've got two huge potential investors but they won't spend big or pay off the debts as they can watch their share value rise and as the debt falls. every investor wants a significant return at any club

Abramovich has spunked +700mill into chelsea, City around 500mill they won't be getting that back in there life time (unless they ruined there clubs) even if they decided to stop spending tomorrow - which they won't.