ENIC

[SpurMeUp]

Depends who is buying
They made a profit selling a kid to Saudi who never played for them

That’s just a hustle. But maybe that is their plan. Or they looked back and saw how successful they’d been buying up talent and they think they can buy-loan-sell on.

There are a number of players like the Ukrainian or midfielder who they paid top money for, who must be worth half what they paid now, even if someone would carry the wages.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Just accidentally opened this thread on page 1, instead of 393

Found myself reading for 5 minutes during which time I learned that in 2013:

We should spend more money

The chairman needs to go

The moving on of deadwood takes too long

We won't have another chance to get fourth again if we don't capitalise now.

Good to see a lot has changed in the ensuing 11 years.

Good to see that we’ve improved in some of those areas. Would be nice to see a trophy this season, that’s one of the unfortunate things not on your list that hasn’t changed. We are spending more money on transfers and getting rid of deadwood, wages for me a key. We won’t truly challenge unless we pay higher wages. If we’re happy being a club that occasionally gets into the top 4 then the ENIC model will give us that fairly often.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Good to see that we’ve improved in some of those areas. Would be nice to see a trophy this season, that’s one of the unfortunate things not on your list that hasn’t changed. We are spending more money on transfers and getting rid of deadwood, wages for me a key. We won’t truly challenge unless we pay higher wages. If we’re happy being a club that occasionally gets into the top 4 then the ENIC model will give us that fairly often.

True, but also depends on what you define as fairly often. Since the heyday of Poch, we have been in the CL once in five seasons.

Personally think that's around the average we will have under ENIC, especially in this era of the big boys spending ever more and more ambitious newer clubs joining the fray every year. One could feasibly argue there's a top 9/10 now of clubs equipped to challenge for Europe, so it's hard even without the deadweights in charge weighing us down.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Good to see that we’ve improved in some of those areas. Would be nice to see a trophy this season, that’s one of the unfortunate things not on your list that hasn’t changed. We are spending more money on transfers and getting rid of deadwood, wages for me a key. We won’t truly challenge unless we pay higher wages. If we’re happy being a club that occasionally gets into the top 4 then the ENIC model will give us that fairly often.

We pay higher wages than Arsenal in the last set of accounts

 

[Mikey10]

We pay higher wages than Arsenal in the last set of accounts

Probably skewed by the amount we were still contributing to the wages of Ndombele, Lo Celso, Reguillon etc.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Probably skewed by the amount we were still contributing to the wages of Ndombele, Lo Celso, Reguillon etc.

Players we had to pay for
But we also were paying for Kane and others
But it matters because people think we don’t pay well

 

[Bullet]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1831341287691411790

 

[metalgear]

credit to levy and enic they've improved net spend drastically.

still some areas to think about regarding spending and investing that affects net spend

- WAGES: i would say many players put this at the top of their priority as much as winning things. its also how top players can stay motivated on the bench. Complements net spend analysis.

- "VALUE ADD": we've had some success with players like berbs, modric, bale and kane etc. and some youth players who we have profited from. However the it feels like a lot of players have wasted their time here with us - ndombele, lo celso, sanchez etc. maybe its because of lower wages, perhaps just poor support systems like fitness routines. Anyway the point it that to value add players also means selling players at higher prices which REDUCES net spend.

- HIGHER PRICES FOR WINNERS - simply, players who have won stuff costs more - thats how the world works. Same as in the real world, employees from the worlds best firms get paid higher wages and command higher transfer fees. Recently Liverpool sell a lot of players for crazy monies, so do Emirates Marketing Project and sometimes Chelsea. There's a halo effect for recent winning clubs and is something that REDUCES net spend. (also players forcing their way into winning clubs reduce transfer prices).

So, what else to consider when thinking about net spend? Sure looks to me like a metric to judge "how hard the club tries" but the smarter way still seems to win things, which may actually reduce net spend but affect other areas like increasing wages and taking less risks on player purchases and player support (fitness, nutrition and psychology).

 

[billyiddo]

Probably skewed by the amount we were still contributing to the wages of Ndombele, Lo Celso, Reguillon etc.

Arsenal's wage bill went down dramatically when they cleared out the dross in their squad

 

[Bedfordspurs]

credit to levy and enic they've improved net spend drastically.

still some areas to think about regarding spending and investing that affects net spend

- WAGES: i would say many players put this at the top of their priority as much as winning things. its also how top players can stay motivated on the bench. Complements net spend analysis.

- "VALUE ADD": we've had some success with players like berbs, modric, bale and kane etc. and some youth players who we have profited from. However the it feels like a lot of players have wasted their time here with us - ndombele, lo celso, sanchez etc. maybe its because of lower wages, perhaps just poor support systems like fitness routines. Anyway the point it that to value add players also means selling players at higher prices which REDUCES net spend.

- HIGHER PRICES FOR WINNERS - simply, players who have won stuff costs more - thats how the world works. Same as in the real world, employees from the worlds best firms get paid higher wages and command higher transfer fees. Recently Liverpool sell a lot of players for crazy monies, so do Emirates Marketing Project and sometimes Chelsea. There's a halo effect for recent winning clubs and is something that REDUCES net spend. (also players forcing their way into winning clubs reduce transfer prices).

So, what else to consider when thinking about net spend? Sure looks to me like a metric to judge "how hard the club tries" but the smarter way still seems to win things, which may actually reduce net spend but affect other areas like increasing wages and taking less risks on player purchases and player support (fitness, nutrition and psychology).


View attachment 17615Players

You have it the wrong way round about Tanguy and Lo Celso
The reason they stayed here was they were so well paid. They didn’t want to leave for less money and as they had failed, no one was gonna pay them more

 

[Lilbaz]

Arsenal's wage bill went down dramatically when they cleared out the dross in their squad

Might have gone up when they added the likes of Jesus (£350k a week).

 

[Raziel]

Might have gone up when they added the likes of Jesus (£350k a week).

They have also renewed a few of their contracts (Saka) at quite high wages

 

[Raziel]

credit to levy and enic they've improved net spend drastically.

still some areas to think about regarding spending and investing that affects net spend

- WAGES: i would say many players put this at the top of their priority as much as winning things. its also how top players can stay motivated on the bench. Complements net spend analysis.

- "VALUE ADD": we've had some success with players like berbs, modric, bale and kane etc. and some youth players who we have profited from. However the it feels like a lot of players have wasted their time here with us - ndombele, lo celso, sanchez etc. maybe its because of lower wages, perhaps just poor support systems like fitness routines. Anyway the point it that to value add players also means selling players at higher prices which REDUCES net spend.

- HIGHER PRICES FOR WINNERS - simply, players who have won stuff costs more - thats how the world works. Same as in the real world, employees from the worlds best firms get paid higher wages and command higher transfer fees. Recently Liverpool sell a lot of players for crazy monies, so do Emirates Marketing Project and sometimes Chelsea. There's a halo effect for recent winning clubs and is something that REDUCES net spend. (also players forcing their way into winning clubs reduce transfer prices).

So, what else to consider when thinking about net spend? Sure looks to me like a metric to judge "how hard the club tries" but the smarter way still seems to win things, which may actually reduce net spend but affect other areas like increasing wages and taking less risks on player purchases and player support (fitness, nutrition and psychology).


View attachment 17615

For me the way forward is simple

- Continue to invest in youth (see reason below), Udogie, VDV, Sarr and likely Dragusin, Gray, Bergvall & Wilson are good pickups
- The Solanke (hopefully ready made) adds, one per window (maybe by most of the investing being done in youth, we can lift the limit on what that cap is (seems currently around 65-70M)
- Keep/back the manager
- If we change the manager, system/philosophy needs to stay, reason we had so much deadwood was players bought for a variety of systems, have to avoid that in future.

The biggest challenge I see is the second item, ready made players in their prime, even if we want to pay for them, will probably have other options.

 

[billyiddo]

Might have gone up when they added the likes of Jesus (£350k a week).

Yeah it will have risen substantially in the years since they had the clear out - next set of accounts will have them back ahead of us.