The Goon Thread

[Neymar]

The Deloiite football money rich list they produce every year that usually has Manure or Real at the top each year. I'd be shocked that you are not aware of it

Lol. YOU are the one that bangs on and on about how finances dictate where a club finishes and how they do in the CL! But yet the Delloite football club rich list is not relevant?
I have read it all from you now!

thats a revenue league table. it does not represent the value that teams put into their playing squads. and herein lies the explanation for why arsenal perform worse than the teams around them in that table. most teams put in all that revenue back into their playing squad, plus more (in most cases). arsenal hold back some of that as financial profit.

 

[Baleforce]

not gonna put words in neymars... keyboard, and I don't know the generation criteria for this list, but if it's solely based on spend and doesn't differentiate between the free spenders of other people's money like the Spanish clubs and clubs which still have to turn a profit then there is a valid distinction imo

 

[glorygloryeze]

no, the reference to liverpool was yours. arsenal have been at the bad end of variance for the past 5 years (i think), hence why pundits are creating a false narrative of arsenal being perenial underacheivers. in the same way, teams like atletico and dortmund have been overacheiving and getting lucky for the past few seasons. and pundits have been wrongly attributing this success down to skill, when luck explains far more.

if it was skill, id expect a team like atletico to be in the same place in 5 years time. i think we all know, thats not going to be the case. they are just another deportivo, valencia, sevilla. a flash in the pan. just got lucky in being able to assemble a good squad of players within their budget in a short period.

A hilarious and contradictory (but of course pro-Arsenal/Arsene) post that i can't even be bothered to debunk at this time.
Perhaps someone else will take this time

 

[glorygloryeze]

thats a revenue league table. it does not represent the value that teams put into their playing squads. and herein lies the explanation for why arsenal perform worse than the teams around them in that table. most teams put in all that revenue back into their playing squad, plus more (in most cases). arsenal hold back some of that as financial profit.

Unless you can show how much is held back for profit at Arsenal and at other CL clubs then that is again just conjecture on your part imo. Especially when they have spent 80m on Ozil and Sanchez in the last two years AND that their wage bill is reported to now exceed even Chelskis.
Happy to see figures by all means though

 

[Neymar]

Unless you can show how much is held back for profit at Arsenal and at other CL clubs then that is again just conjecture on your part imo. Especially when they have spent 80m on Ozil and Sanchez in the last two years AND that their wage bill is reported to now exceed even Chelskis.
Happy to see figures by all means though

so if i have got this right, you're argument on arsenal/wenger hangs on the belief that stan kroenke is a benefactor, just like abramovic. and is willing to personally make losses in order to pay for the club's sporting success?

 

[Baleforce]

swiss ramble on arsenals recent finances

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/arsenal-half-world-away.html?utm_source=BP_recent&m=1

 

[Raziel]

hahaha .. Berbs gets one in for us .. love when they get kicked out in such a heartbreak manner.

Btw, this has been grinding me for a while, wtf is it with the Scum and the alternate/warm up kits?
- Their warm up jacket is White/Blue with yellow striping
- Their kit yesterday was blue with (tv colours) a yellow/green lettering

Really? if you were a Scum fan you would buy white/blue kit?

 

[glorygloryeze]

so if i have got this right, you're argument on arsenal/wenger hangs on the belief that stan kroenke is a benefactor, just like abramovic. and is willing to personally make losses in order to pay for the club's sporting success?

No, my point has always been that Wenger and how good he is slowly being shown to be a bit overrated given that Arsenal now do not have the excuse of "we cannot compete financially" with City, Chelski etc. The argument that they do well considering their finances is now being shown as hogwash as they can and do compete financially with the likes of City, Chelski etc (see their net spends in the last 2/3 years whilst they remain comfortably within FFP restrictions, the fact their wage bill is now as large as Chelski's, the fact they tripled their record transfer fee in one summer) but still show the same failing in the top tier competition.

Whether Kroenke is a good/bad benefactor or not is largely irrelevant as the cash is fully flowing at the Emirates and no-on can say that Wenger has been operating on a tight budget.

Wenger is being shown as nowhere near as good as his reputation suggests these days. Many people can now see that

 

[Jurgen the German]

Neymar, losing to Bayern or Barca is not the end of the world, but losing to Monaco is a pretty poor showing. They've clearly regressed over the last 10 years. The bigger crime was them not doing better in the CL consistently when they clearly were one of the best teams in Europe. They never in progressed past the quarters when they had the likes of Campbell, Henry, Vieira and Pires all in their heyday.

I do actually think Arsenal will be worse off when Wenger retires, but he should have done better in that competition. He hasn't because he never changes his tactics for any side. He only recently started to set them out to be a bit more cagey in away games this season, after nearly 20 years of managing them!

 

[Baleforce]

2006?

 

[Jurgen the German]

2006?

They had regressed by then and finished 4th in the league. I meant when they were dominating the league and the cups along with United. The year they went unbeaten you would have to say they were the best team in Europe, if not 1A.

 

[Baleforce]

i would never say that

 

[Neymar]

They had regressed by then and finished 4th in the league. I meant when they were dominating the league and the cups along with United. The year they went unbeaten you would have to say they were the best team in Europe, if not 1A.

i seem to remember that the likes of milan and real madrid had a lot more star names in their lineups than arsenal did during the early-mid 2000's. even the next tier of teams, juventus, barcelona etc had more bigger names too. you have to remember that the premier league and the top premier league sides werent the most attractive sides for the best players to join during this era.

and yes they may have had the likes of bergkamp, pires and henry, but they also had a lot of crud players that made up the squad. the current 2nd arsenal xi, are a lot stronger than the 2nd xi of that generation.

 

[Neymar]

Neymar, losing to Bayern or Barca is not the end of the world, but losing to Monaco is a pretty poor showing. They've clearly regressed over the last 10 years. The bigger crime was them not doing better in the CL consistently when they clearly were one of the best teams in Europe. They never in progressed past the quarters when they had the likes of Campbell, Henry, Vieira and Pires all in their heyday.

I do actually think Arsenal will be worse off when Wenger retires, but he should have done better in that competition. He hasn't because he never changes his tactics for any side. He only recently started to set them out to be a bit more cagey in away games this season, after nearly 20 years of managing them!

i agree that losing to monaco is probably a bit dissapointing for arsenal, but its a 2-legged affair. im sure theyre just as dissapointed to lose to us over 2 epl games this season. just as Emirates Marketing Project are not to have beaten burnley at all in either of their epl games.

 

[Neymar]

No, my point has always been that Wenger and how good he is slowly being shown to be a bit overrated given that Arsenal now do not have the excuse of "we cannot compete financially" with City, Chelski etc. The argument that they do well considering their finances is now being shown as hogwash as they can and do compete financially with the likes of City, Chelski etc (see their net spends in the last 2/3 years whilst they remain comfortably within FFP restrictions, the fact their wage bill is now as large as Chelski's, the fact they tripled their record transfer fee in one summer) but still show the same failing in the top tier competition.

Whether Kroenke is a good/bad benefactor or not is largely irrelevant as the cash is fully flowing at the Emirates and no-on can say that Wenger has been operating on a tight budget.

Wenger is being shown as nowhere near as good as his reputation suggests these days. Many people can now see that

firstly, arsenal do not spend as much on wages as chelsea do. thats absolute nonsense. the journo who first came up with those stats should be ashamed of himself. and in addition, they way arsenal allocate their wage budget/finances is different to chelsea. this is what makes the two sets of figures (between the sides) somewhat closer than the difference in ability shows. basically if you look at the top 20 earners at chelsea, and compare that with arsenal's its a lot bigger. but a relatively larger portion of arsenal's wage budget is allocated to the next set of players (i.e. the 20th-30th highest earners). this is similar to our model. im sure youve figured out why this is. but its unfair to compare the wage budget of a team like chelsea'd directly with arsenal.

Emirates Marketing Project are another great example to look at.

how many of their key players hold any genuine transfer fee? silva and aguero. thats probably it. the rest of them are over/approaching 30 years of age. this is not the case at arsenal. what this shows is that teams like Emirates Marketing Project have a lot more players available to them in the transfer market, whilst arsenal have to filter a lot of options out, simply because they dont represent "good investments". so even if the wage budget was similar (which its not), there are a load more other non-sporting factors that have to be taken into consideration when comparing these sides.

also, ffp is a joke. clubs like chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project are so obviously (going to be ) manipulating their accounts, you cant genuinely use this as evidence to show that arsenal are now spending the same amounts as other ffp compliant clubs

 

[90291Spur]

Of course Poocastle have only 13 fit outfield players for their game against the Goons.

 

[glorygloryeze]

firstly, arsenal do not spend as much on wages as chelsea do. thats absolute nonsense. the journo who first came up with those stats should be ashamed of himself.

Please show how this is the case with recent data/information

and in addition, they way arsenal allocate their wage budget/finances is different to chelsea. this is what makes the two sets of figures (between the sides) somewhat closer than the difference in ability shows. basically if you look at the top 20 earners at chelsea, and compare that with arsenal's its a lot bigger. but a relatively larger portion of arsenal's wage budget is allocated to the next set of players (i.e. the 20th-30th highest earners). this is similar to our model. im sure youve figured out why this is. but its unfair to compare the wage budget of a team like chelsea'd directly with arsenal.

Again, please show how this is the case with recent data/information.

Emirates Marketing Project are another great example to look at.

how many of their key players hold any genuine transfer fee? silva and aguero. thats probably it. the rest of them are over/approaching 30 years of age. this is not the case at arsenal. what this shows is that teams like Emirates Marketing Project have a lot more players available to them in the transfer market, whilst arsenal have to filter a lot of options out, simply because they dont represent "good investments". so even if the wage budget was similar (which its not), there are a load more other non-sporting factors that have to be taken into consideration when comparing these sides.

I think if you look at Arsenal's team that started vs Monaco would you be able to find many more than 2 who could hold any genuine fee. Aside from Ozil and Sanchez who in the Arsenal would "hold any genuine transfer fee"? Ozil, Sanchez? Perhaps. Anyone else? Welbeck? After that you get a very similar situation to City really as many of their other mainstays are similarly approaching 30/are 30. Yes, you have Ramsay and Bellerin, but Bellerin would perhaps not even be in the squad had Debuchy (another who's nearly 30) been fit. If Arsenal had bought some of the players that they've targettted in recent years then the age profile between the two teams would be even more similar. It's not like Arsenal's average age is as low as ours, for example.

also, ffp is a joke. clubs like chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project are so obviously (going to be ) manipulating their accounts, you cant genuinely use this as evidence to show that arsenal are now spending the same amounts as other ffp compliant clubs

FFP may be a joke but the fact that Chelski and Emirates Marketing Project have to think about trying to abide by the rules has meant some effect on the bombastic signings. Chelski now shamelessly use player trading as barter as a result, showing they at least have to look like they are playing by the rules.
Oh and if Chelski and Emirates Marketing Project can manipulate their accounts, then so can others - like Arsenal, who have form in manipulating financials as was shown when the story of broke about how they paid players and Arsene millions in bonuses via off-shore accounts to avoid tax. No doubt you will dismiss this last point in your usual "Wenger/Arsenal would never do such naughty things" but here's the articles for reference:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1467295/Parlour-divorce-exposes-Arsenal-offshore-tax-dodge.html

http://www.footballeconomy.com/archive/archive_2005_oct_11.htm

I find it funny how this exposure then co-incided with their period of 'austerity'.....hmmmmm...

 

[braineclipse]

firstly, arsenal do not spend as much on wages as chelsea do. thats absolute nonsense. the journo who first came up with those stats should be ashamed of himself. and in addition, they way arsenal allocate their wage budget/finances is different to chelsea. this is what makes the two sets of figures (between the sides) somewhat closer than the difference in ability shows. basically if you look at the top 20 earners at chelsea, and compare that with arsenal's its a lot bigger. but a relatively larger portion of arsenal's wage budget is allocated to the next set of players (i.e. the 20th-30th highest earners). this is similar to our model. im sure youve figured out why this is. but its unfair to compare the wage budget of a team like chelsea'd directly with arsenal.

Emirates Marketing Project are another great example to look at.

how many of their key players hold any genuine transfer fee? silva and aguero. thats probably it. the rest of them are over/approaching 30 years of age. this is not the case at arsenal. what this shows is that teams like Emirates Marketing Project have a lot more players available to them in the transfer market, whilst arsenal have to filter a lot of options out, simply because they dont represent "good investments". so even if the wage budget was similar (which its not), there are a load more other non-sporting factors that have to be taken into consideration when comparing these sides.

also, ffp is a joke. clubs like chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project are so obviously (going to be ) manipulating their accounts, you cant genuinely use this as evidence to show that arsenal are now spending the same amounts as other ffp compliant clubs

Stating that something is nonsense doesn't make it so... At least post a source mate.

I disagree that Arsenal's model is all that similar to ours. They've seemed to continued on with the model that gave them success with players like Fabregas. Look around the world for the biggest talents you can find and entice them with solid sign-on bonuses and relatively high wages. The success of this model in the last 5 years or so has been fairly limited. It's a model other clubs have struggled to succeed with too, including (imo) ourselves, Chelsea and Liverpool.

Our recent success with young players has stemmed primarily from players developed through the academy from a younger age, or picked up early without the added pressure and individual success for the player resulting from the early big payday. Kane, Mason, Townsend, Bentaleb, as well as Carroll, Pritchard, Fredricks and Veljkovic enjoying loan spells this season along with recent PL level sales like Livermore and Caulker have fitted into this category. We have also picked up some cheaper young players either into our academy like Rose, or (a bit further back) to send out on loan like Walker and Naughton. We did of course also sign Bale, and more recently Alli for significant fees and most likely on solid wages. Bale was signed for the first team though, not the reserves/academy and I hope the same is the case for Alli.

Signing relatively expensive, higher profile, relatively high wage players for the academy and development squads as a model hasn't been as successful as I think many used to assume (and still to an extent think). To become a true producer of quality young players you have to actually produce young players yourself with a quality academy, not just scout and sign talent I think. The narrative about Arsenal and young players is becoming a bit of a myth these days I think.

 

[Neymar]

arsenal vs chelsea wages. since i made this a while back, i think chelsea have moved even further ahead in wages. ie. iirc a few chelsea players have received new improved contracts and arsenal have loaned out a couple, but brought it a new cb, rumoured to be on around 50k.

also iirc the sources that claimed arsenal paid more in wages were mainly tabloid papers or sensationalist online news outlets.

i've complied a list of first team squad members from both arsenal and chelsea and their weekly wages. i've always thought that it was a bit impossible for arsenal to be outspending chelsea in regards to wages, and i think the below table shows that. i got the majority of figures from :

http://www.tsmplug.com/football/arsenal-players-salary-list-2014/
http://www.tsmplug.com/richlist/chelsea-playerss-salaries-2014/

but i have made a few adjustments based on new signing, new contracts etc. adjusted figures come from averaging a number of results from various google search sources.

View attachment 2152

However, there are many more important factors to consider in addition to these basic first team salary figures.

- the above chelsea squad list is the result of filtering through many high profile signings (who cost a lot and were on high salaries). ie. the current chelsea squad is the one that they have settled on after numerous trials and errors. therefore the cost of the players that havent worked out does not show up on the table. for example the 50m (+wages) loss that they took on torres does not show on the table. but losses like that were crucial if you want to end up with a worldclass team that gells well and understands each other. arsenal on the other hand, do not speculate on that level. and so their losses in this regard will be much smaller.

- arsenal have a much flatter wage structure. this is a much less riskier way of spreading the wage budget and thus allows them to hold more players (than if they had a more polarised wage structure). as they can't take as bigger hit on any one indivual player. ie. if arsenal had 2 players on 200k and spent 50m on them each, and they completely flopped like shevchenko and torres. that would set arsenal back years. if arsenal want a self-sustaining model, speculating in the transfer market in this manner is just something that arsenal cannot afford to do. Chelsea's team on the other hand was built on this type of transfer market speculation. Therefore, the key point is that arsenal's flatter wage structure enables them to spend a bit more than otherwise. And this should be taken into consideration when comparing Arsenal's wage structure with Chelsea's.

-Chelsea have a lot of players out on loan. guys like marin, moses, and even torres. these players were obviously not included when journalists were making the sensationalists headlines that arsenal were spending more than chelsea. but players like marin are out on loan because they are players that chelsea cannot offload probably due to their high salaries. and chelsea are probably covering part of their wages. arsenal (like every other top club) has these unsuccessful players too, but not to the extent that chelsea do.

- also chelsea are paying absolute fortunes to reserve and youth team players. articles below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...00-week-never-played-team-wont-time-soon.html

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/premier-league-chelsea-teen-will-earn-1-7m-142846987.html

and i have not doubt that if all players on the chelsea books were compared to arsenals, the difference would be monumental.

 

[Neymar]

I think if you look at Arsenal's team that started vs Monaco would you be able to find many more than 2 who could hold any genuine fee. Aside from Ozil and Sanchez who in the Arsenal would "hold any genuine transfer fee"? Ozil, Sanchez? Perhaps. Anyone else? Welbeck? After that you get a very similar situation to City really as many of their other mainstays are similarly approaching 30/are 30. Yes, you have Ramsay and Bellerin, but Bellerin would perhaps not even be in the squad had Debuchy (another who's nearly 30) been fit. If Arsenal had bought some of the players that they've targettted in recent years then the age profile between the two teams would be even more similar. It's not like Arsenal's average age is as low as ours, for example.

arsenal have a lot of players at a good age who arent on the highest wages in the world; guys like Wheelchair and ramsey to name a few. arsenal could easily find buyers for these guys at £20m+. in contrast mancity have older players like navas, or someone like nasri, who is on a wage packet that buyers will find difficult to match.

and you're right, re our players being younger. i beleive that our players are even more easier to sell (when comparing players who would command similar transfer fees). our players are younger and on smaller salaries. this is why arsenal are better than us. and why Emirates Marketing Project are better than arsenal.