Yep, in Webber we trust to get 4th.

Toad knows

Caligula wrote:

y va marquer wrote:

The way I'm thinking at the moment I'd be in favour of paying squaddies far less and top players more.
Create inequality and give those at the bottom of the pile something to strive for.

This is how the rest of the world works, why not Arsenal?

That doesn't work within our current model. We're asking way more of kids than most other if not all other clubs in the world, there needs to be some parity in order to restrain ego. You can't have let's say Jack on 50k p/w and then Ramsey on 15k p/w and expect it not to go to Jack's head while expecting Ramsey to work just as hard knowing just how far from Jack the club considers him.

And then how do we attract the likes of so many youth players around the world? You think they're really coming for the Fabregas story? No Fabregas's success is an anomaly. They come because we've got an above average academy and they get paid well. It's like going to UCL when you've been rejected by Oxford and Cambridge.

We don't pay our younger and squad players too much. I don't know where this idea came from but it's ridiculous.

Nasri's just not worth on the order of 150k/w for a 5 year contract. 4 of those 5 years could be duds.

The problem is his level's still not quite established. Since he could go in various different directions, we should encourage him to take a smaller raise and a shorter extension. We'll be in the same place with him in one or two years but we'll have more idea of his value. If he's as good as he thinks he is, he'll be in an even better position to make demands.

Captain wrote:

We don't pay our younger and squad players too much. I don't know where this idea came from but it's ridiculous.

Yeah, ridiculous.
Who said we paid them too much?
:hmm:

In fairness the majority come because they know they will get chance here (rightly or wrongly) at an earlier age than they may elsewhere. Can work in our favour initially but then screw us over as we are seen as stepping stone to greater things a la Anelka (even though he had success here)

Didnt he sign a new deal at Marseille so they could secure a higher transfer fee? Considering he was another one running around and kissing the badge last season, if he pisses off for free then ill be seriously annoyed with both player and club.

Captain wrote:

We don't pay our younger and squad players too much. I don't know where this idea came from but it's ridiculous.

I could be wrong but wasn't it worked out based on our accounts and the knowledge we had of who was on what, that the average wage of our professionals were extraordinarily high given that we have amongst the highest wages in the league despite arguably the fewest stars.

We pay fourth place wages (now fifth) and hover between 3rd and 4th place, hence we don't overpay. Forget nonsense about 'stars' and whatever else.

Captain wrote:

We pay fourth place wages (now fifth) and hover between 3rd and 4th place, hence we don't overpay. Forget nonsense about 'stars' and whatever else.

Randomly done:
Chelsea: 25 players. Age averaging age 30. Wage bill for players p/a: £10m
Arsenal: 25 players. Age averaging age 23. Wage bill for players p/a: £8m

Not real figures but you get the point. We're not paying established stars who have done something and proved everything. We're paying and I believe in Wenger's or was it Gazidis's own words: We're paying for potential.

Also please note that Barca were quoted saying that Arsenal pay the players that we tempt away, more than they could ever hope to.

Barcelona pay the players we steal around £50 a week because they don't have professional contracts; that's where our window of opportunity opens which is why we sign most of them at the a similar sort of age. We pay a couple of hundred to that level of player as is the norm for england. Barcelona also have the highest annual wage bill of any team in world sport.

Chelsea's player wage bill is c.£150m per season, ours comes in at c.£100m. The difference is night and day and no, Chelsea do not have 25 players who have "been there and proven themselves".

they may not be packed to the brim of 25 players who have previous medals, but they don't have a majority of youth players who have won nothing bar FA Youth Cups either.

We don't have that majority either. Have you actually seen Chelsea's 25 or are you just going on what you have heard?

They have a core of players who have proven themselves and deserve big wages but the rest are at least in line with what we are paying our guys, which was my point.

Chelsea have some dirt at the end of their roster, but they have done a better job of getting quality at the top of their roster (Cole, Drogba, Lampard, Anelka, Terry, Essien, Cech) are all formidable.

The only problem that Chelsea have is that all of those players are entering or well into their 30s, so they do need to start thinking about replacing them and it will not be cheap, nor will it be easy to deal with numerous members of that caucus ageing on the team. They will have to make some hard decisions and shed a number of those guys and, like United, keep 2 or 3 who are vital and can be regular starters.

Why?

They brought in plenty of players who have done nothing for them over the years. Kezman was far worse than Chamakh, Shevchenko? Boulahrouz? Ben Haim?

They go through alot of players to find the quality that they have and that luxury is given to them by having far more money to spend than anybody else.

In the Abramovic era the below have hadly set the world alight

Shevchenko 30m
Veron 15m
Crespo 17m
Mutu 15m
Jarosik 7m
Ferriera 13m
Boularouz 8m
Parker 10m
Johnson 6m
Del Horno 8m
Kezman 5m
Geremi 7m
Wright Philips 21m

Some of the above flopped worse than others but setting up Chelsea as the yardstick for getting quality is hardly an apt comparison. They managed to recoup some of what they paid out on the above but nowhere near what they paid out

United might be better comparison maybe

Shevchenko and Kezman were silvestre type signings? Seriously? Come on man, Kezman came with a similar CV to Chamakh and Shevchenko came straight into the first eleven.

Squillaci is comparable to the defenders that I mentioned but then you could also look at Glen Johnson, Jerk off, Bridge, Bosingwa etc.

Point is that they go through players like no tomorrow; that is a luxury that they have had since Abramovich bought them. They have the capacity to make mistakes in the market that pretty much no other team has been able to in the last seven years.

Machete wrote:

true but you can bet wont be bringing in guys like squillaci and chamakh

That's what you said and I would take that bet everytime.

Captain wrote:

Shevchenko and Kezman were silvestre type signings? Seriously? Come on man, Kezman came with a similar CV to Chamakh and Shevchenko came straight into the first eleven.

Squillaci is comparable to the defenders that I mentioned but then you could also look at Glen Johnson, Jerk off, Bridge, Bosingwa etc.

Point is that they go through players like no tomorrow; that is a luxury that they have had since Abramovich bought them. They have the capacity to make mistakes in the market that pretty much no other team has been able to in the last seven years.

This is a very fair assessment. Torres, for example, could still go the way of Drogba or the way of Shevchenko.

I think Barca (f them) are a better example of a team that buys well albeit at very high cost (don't listen to all that homegrown, organic farm, mes que un club bollocks). Chrginsky failed, but they have largely gotten output from their expensive signings.

They spend 15-30m on their Silvestre type signings?

As for Sam Nas, I don't blame the club yet for the situation. We'll see how it plays out, but this feels like a situation where Nasri always had the power and is choosing to exercise it.

If Nasri comes out explicitly to say "I don't really want money, I want better players around me", then I start to put more responsibility at the club's feet.

Can anyone with some time on there hands do the research and make a true wage comparison?

It's not possible.

Captain wrote:

It's not possible.

Of course it is, provided you have the time and cash to spend.

Shag one of their HR ladies, bit of coffee talk. Wining and dining, casual lunch and a group outing to the French Riviera. Plenty of things can get done that way.

I fancy a trip to Cannes actually...

Save up and buy 30% of both Arsenal and Chelski, then you get access to their books. Job's a good 'en.

I haven't followed the Chelsea-Arsenal wage-youth debate, but I saw this and thought of it.

YoungGunsBlog Jamie Sanderson
Chelsea paid £5m for Piazón, rising to £8m. Only 17, didn't play first-team at São Paulo, but picking up £1m a year. Amazing.

Machete wrote:

They work at a higher level than us.

Of course they do. I don't know why people are arguing with you about it.

The problem is we just cannot work at that level because we can't spend at that level. Basically we're fucked. In fact the league is fucked, if not the game as a whole.

Nasri's on the cover of the official magazine - July edition.
There's an "in-depth" interview with him too.
I wonder if he reveals his plans for next season?

I think he would have signed by now if he really wanted to stay. At least there would be more confident voices coming out of the club.

I'm starting to get the feeling that Wilshere will replace Nasri next season, with Ramsey taking Wilshere's place in midfield. You'd have to say that Jack is better as a central midfielder than a forward at this point, but then again everyone bar Wenger would have claimed that the opposite was true last summer.