Swiss Ramble: Arsenal's Transfer Budget: Page 3 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Swiss Ramble: Arsenal's Transfer Budget

Qwiss

I wonder if the latter half of the season would have been better from Nasri if his contract situation had been sorted out last summer.

Qwiss

Captain wrote:
What has Nasri done to deserve being paid the same as Cesc then?

He's been better than him this season for starters. The thing is Nasri could go to alot of teams and earn £120-£150k a week no problem.

I completely disagree that we could replace him easily either. Anyone of his class is going to ask for a top level wage too. If we want to be competitive we have to pay our best players what they want.

Qwiss

Without Nasri this season we'd have been pitiful. He did exactly what you say you expect and he drove the team through the first half of the season.

We've waiting for for 3 years for Nasri to go from a decent team player to one of the very best in Europe and now people are willing to see him go because he'll cost us a few quid extra to keep.

And as for him wanting parity with the clubs top earners then fine, who apart from Cesc could you really say deserves to earn more than him?

Timbob

If we sell him over this contract dispute we'll all end up regretting it as we watch his career progress from afar.

Timbob

Anyway, what's this about a transfer budget that includes new contracts? Cant quite work out how that works or why the club would work out their finances like that.

Captain

My assumption was that people meant things like signing on and agent fees come out of the transfer budget.

Timbob

Captain, that makes sense.

But I've heard/seen people add up the cost of the contract over the first year and take that amount out of our transfer budget. So for instance, if a player is bought for £10m and is on £3m a year, £13m is taken out of the budget (along with any otherr one-off fees associated with the transfer). I've seen quite intelligent bloggers and fairly clued up people claim that's how it works. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Timbob

Lagos wrote:
Tim wrote:
If we sell him over this contract dispite we'll all end up regretting it as we watch his career progress from afar.

we could also extend him and watch him decline, nobody knows! The one thing you can control is your budget or break your wage structure unless you come across a Messi or Henry! With due respect Nasri is not in that league!

Well I'm making a prediction. Nasri, while not quite an outrageous prodigy, is an incredibly gifted footballer imo. I think he'll have a long and succesful career and I would rather the bulk of it came at Arsenal.

Timbob

Salaries are a running cost though. Your normal business should generate enough funds to pay any wages that you take on. If you're already at the limit of your budget then you either cut costs elsewhere or walk away from the transfer. You shouldn't need to set aside money up front to pay a new player over the life of his contract, it should all come from the cash generated by the club, year-on-year.

Captain

Tim wrote:
Captain, that makes sense.

But I've heard/seen people add up the cost of the contract over the first year and take that amount out of our transfer budget. So for instance, if a player is bought for £10m and is on £3m a year, £13m is taken out of the budget (along with any otherr one-off fees associated with the transfer). I've seen quite intelligent bloggers and fairly clued up people claim that's how it works. That doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't know then, but I wouldn't be inclined to work it out that way.

Timbob

I agree Lagos. You either account for the life of the contract or not at all.

But I would have thought it made most sense to have a budget for wages, which is a figure arrived at based on the running costs your business can bare, and a seperate pool of money set aside for any big, one off investments like transfers and signing on fees.

Claudius

It's just another way to obscure the math. Our 50 million will go towards new contracts for Clichy and Nasri, which I think is incorrect. We should be accounting for the salary in year 1 + the fraction of the transfer fee due year one (remember, not all transfers are born equal. some are front heavy, others are evenly spaced)

Biggus

Captain wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:
I'm not isolating that particular purple patch Captain. I've been at pains to put it in context. But chances are if we signed a Young or another name, even an Oezil, we'd be risking them underperforming at Arsenal as well.

Basically we don't want to pay for the name. We want to pay for a top player in top form. I would rather take out a five year, 30m contract with that form than with the name and the lump of player attached to it, hence my thought that we need to look at a way to be generous, but tie that generosity to performance.

Fair enough.

You guys simply rate Nasri's performance more highly than I do. I'm not advocating selling Nasri and I don't actually care what money he signs for, I don't care what any of our players get paid. I do however feel that it would be easier to replace him than some of you may think.

But thats all he every does is replace players Capi, we never build on any foothold we might have gained, all he does are patch up and repair jobs because the whole theory it's all based on is wrong.

Qwiss

Lagos wrote:
Fact is much as I bemoan our lack of spending etc etc we aren't Real, City or Chelsea and we can't afford to match their wages and it would be stupid to match them when our income doesn't match theirs, it doesn't mean we can't compete, it just means we have to be sensible.

If we can't afford to pay the best players then of course we can't compete. Even if we can manage to bring players through on the cheap they'll all leave if they are earning less than the going rate. And the wages we're talking about here aren't City, Chelsea, Real level either. Nasri wants half what Yaya Toure or Wayne Rooney get. He'd easily get it if he moved club. We have to pay it, simple as that. Otherwise we are back to square one. And what do we say to Cesc? "you know how you wanted additional quality, well we've sold one of our other best 3 players instead but don't worry we're buying a kid from Ligue 1 who'll probably be just as good in 2 years time"

y va marquer

He won't have to break the bank for Nasri though will he?

I can't imagine that Nasri is that stupid that he's making excessive demands.
Or maybe he is.

I get the impression that they're not talking massive amounts of money (relatively speaking).

Armor

So we sell him then...we can't keep our best players, we can't afford to buy world class players but Wenger is still expected to land a PL title despite being blown out of the water by other clubs. Then next summer we'll hear how Wenger is too stingy to pay top dollar to keep this bunch together and the cycle of developing players starts all over again everytime we lose a Flamini or a Nasri.

est

He would be stupid not to demand close to 100k per week wages.

The 80k that has been reported is really a pittance, given the taxes in England and compared to what players in his position/status make at other top clubs.

As far as I'm concerned these are just regular contract negotiations between a player and the club. It's not like he's holding us out for a ransom or threatening to leave. He's already said that he's happy here and would like to stay. It doesn't mean he has to accept whatever low ball offer the club makes him.

lorddulaarsenal

I don't blame nasri for pushing for as much as he can get.

y va marquer

I see.
Wouldn't a Nasri equivalent cost just as much in terms of salary though lagos?
Plus we'd have the added issue of adjustment time for any new player.
I think people are forgetting just how good Nasri was before Christmas.
He was our most consistent and important player.
He had an excellent understanding with Cesc too in the few games they played together after Christmas before both got injured.

Big Willie

So have we got money or not? That is the question.

« Previous Page Next Page »