The Goon Thread

[Gazza Dazzla]

Neymar if you think paying Walcott 140k a week means you'll start to compete for the league again you're in cloud cuckoo land!! You've been paying players obscene amounts of money for years, in the top 2 or 3 of the pay league and you've only just hung on to 4th spot on many occasions, let alone had any credible challenge for the league!

What your boys have done here is nothing new for arsenal, paying wages well above market level, it's just you've pushed the boat out for Walcott who won't be in your starting 11! It's crazy and everyone else who negotiates wages with arsenal now will site this. So going from a 2nd/3rd in the pay league vs struggling for 4th in the real league to GHod knows what! Your first 11 will need to be paid over that and whose going to take Walcott off your hands after you've paid him those wages?!? The guys a bogarde/ade situation waiting to happen!

There's no problem paying the best players in the world those sums to lure them to your club and keep them, but what you've done here is paid an average player those sums. I love it personally, maybe you can bump Gibbs up to 150k as well, or chambers!!

I think this topic was done to death a few months ago?

 

[Baleforce]

I think some are being overly harsh on Walcott, he's not a bad player, he's improved a hell of a lot in the last 5 years. He's one of their best imo, not at the level of Cazorla or Sanchez for sure but he's certainly on the next rung down, if I was picking their team he'd be a starter.

Would he be worth 140k to us, no way, but we pay at a different scale, years of CL money have inflated things over there.

The Sterling comparison is pretty apt, nothing between them as far as I'm concerned, Sterling has had more headlines for his performances over the last two seasons and I think he has a higher ceiling but I've not seen anything from him for Liverpool or England that I've not seen from Walcott previously.

Lastly, like I've said a few times in other threads, 140k a week just isn't that much money in PL football these days.

 

[milo]

all things considered, its not really that surprising...

-hes english. look how much sterling went for due to being english. there are numerous other examples too.
-his contract was coming to an end (as well as being english). milner is a good comparison here. and im sure his wages are sky high due to the above reasons too.
-Ar5ena1 can now afford to pay these wages. in the past, they lost the likes of sagna/nasri/clichy/adebayor etc in similar circumstances. and consequently lost squad cohesion. i worry that they might now be showing signs of financial power to not lose squad cohesion in such situations. we (as spurs fans) may think paying 140k to walcott is mad (fwiw, im of this opinion too), but look at us. whenever we develop a good player, we lose them and thus lose squad cohesion and the rebuilding job starts all over again. teams that win trophies dont lose key squad players, and thus they have great team balance. it should be worrying for us that Ar5ena1 could be heading in this direction.

we may think its bad business (and i do) or whatever, but the reality is that giving players like walcott 140k (in this situation) is what title winning teams do.

I think that it is a lot more simple than that. Could they get a better player and pay them less? The answer is undoubtedly yes.

Their flat pay structure is madness because it means they pay over the odds for so so players and still lose the best to clubs who will pay more.

 

[milo]

I think some are being overly harsh on Walcott, he's not a bad player, he's improved a hell of a lot in the last 5 years. He's one of their best imo, not at the level of Cazorla or Sanchez for sure but he's certainly on the next rung down, if I was picking their team he'd be a starter.

Would he be worth 140k to us, no way, but we pay at a different scale, years of CL money have inflated things over there.

The Sterling comparison is pretty apt, nothing between them as far as I'm concerned, Sterling has had more headlines for his performances over the last two seasons and I think he has a higher ceiling but I've not seen anything from him for Liverpool or England that I've not seen from Walcott previously.

Lastly, like I've said a few times in other threads, 140k a week just isn't that much money in PL football these days.

I'd be interested in knowing how many PL footballers are paid more.

 

[Baleforce]

I'd be interested in knowing how many PL footballers are paid more.

so would I, starters at the CL clubs, I'd guess most

I should have qualified that with at that level, not the irrelevent oiks of the PL, you know, us and below

 

[Baleforce]

I think that it is a lot more simple than that. Could they get a better player and pay them less? The answer is undoubtedly yes.

Their flat pay structure is madness because it means they pay over the odds for so so players and still lose the best to clubs who will pay more.

maybe, they are still a secondary destination to Chelsea and Manchester

plus, Walcott knows the schemes and the league and they know exactly what they will get from him, he's a plugin guy, any replacement they sign adds an element of risk, it could be an Henry sure, but it could be a Reyes or a miyachi

 

[Neymar]

What your boys have done here is nothing new for Ar5ena1, paying wages well above market level, it's just you've pushed the boat out for Walcott who won't be in your starting 11! It's crazy and everyone else who negotiates wages with Ar5ena1 now will site this. So going from a 2nd/3rd in the pay league vs struggling for 4th in the real league to GHod knows what! Your first 11 will need to be paid over that and whose going to take Walcott off your hands after you've paid him those wages?!? The guys a bogarde/ade situation waiting to happen!

the thing is, its quite difficult to find a team to compare arsenal's wage structure with. we know that they spend more than us/lpool, but less than manu/city/chelsea overall. they are the only team in the epl in the unique position of being favourites to finish top 4, but little chance to actually win the title. if they are overspending, i would argue that its certainly not by any big margin.

and also, why would they need to pay every player 140k, just because they are paying walcott this? every player at arsenal is not an england starter who has contributed around a goal every three games from midfield over the past few seasons. do Emirates Marketing Project now need to pay all their players the same wages as sterling?

 

[Neymar]

I think that it is a lot more simple than that. Could they get a better player and pay them less? The answer is undoubtedly yes.

Their flat pay structure is madness because it means they pay over the odds for so so players and still lose the best to clubs who will pay more.

i disagree with this. their "flat" pay structure is the result of having many players of similar calibre. they havent overpaid for their weaker players as such.

compared with chelsea for example, arsenal have their obi mikels and salomon kalou's. they just didnt have as many real star names (or at least when they did, they didnt want to pay above a certain threshold to keep them). if you got rid of chelsea's top 5 or so players, their wage structure would look very similar to arsenals. and so would the overall quality of the squad. the likes of oshea, fletcher, brown etc were all on 40k when arsenal were paying that to players like denilson, squillaci etc.

 

[milo]

i disagree with this. their "flat" pay structure is the result of having many players of similar calibre. they havent overpaid for their weaker players as such.

compared with Chel53a for example, Ar5ena1 have their obi mikels and salomon kalou's. they just didnt have as many real star names (or at least when they did, they didnt want to pay above a certain threshold to keep them). if you got rid of Chel53a's top 5 or so players, their wage structure would look very similar to arsenals. and so would the overall quality of the squad. the likes of oshea, fletcher, brown etc were all on 40k when Ar5ena1 were paying that to players like denilson, squillaci etc.

As others have said, it means that players with half a season under their belt are paid big sums. I assume that they do it because they think it aids squad unity but it does mean that a lot of their players are paid above the market rate.

 

[milo]

so would I, starters at the CL clubs, I'd guess most

I should have qualified that with at that level, not the irrelevent oiks of the PL, you know, us and below

I don't think so. I cannot find an up to date top twenty salaries but the top ten only starts a smidge above Walcott's new salary:

Wayne Rooney Manchester United £300k
Radamel Falcao Manchester United £280k
Van Persie Manchester United £250k
Yaya Toure Emirates Marketing Project £240k
Sergio Aguero Emirates Marketing Project £225k
Cesc Fabregas Chelsea £220k
Diego Costa Chelsea £200k
Eden Hazard Chelsea £190k
Angel Di Maria Manchester United £180k
Mesut Özil Arsenal £150k

http://www.tsmplay.com/top10/highest-paid-premier-league-footballers/

 

[Baleforce]

I don't think so. I cannot find an up to date top twenty salaries but the top ten only starts a smidge above Walcott's new salary:

Wayne Rooney Manchester United £300k
Radamel Falcao Manchester United £280k
Van Persie Manchester United £250k
Yaya Toure Emirates Marketing Project £240k
Sergio Aguero Emirates Marketing Project £225k
Cesc Fabregas Chel53a £220k
Diego Costa Chel53a £200k
Eden Hazard Chel53a £190k
Angel Di Maria Manchester United £180k
Mesut Özil Ar5ena1 £150k

http://www.tsmplay.com/top10/highest-paid-premier-league-footballers/

interesting

I'm assuming the lastest TV deal has pushed things up in the past year, I'd also say that Walcott being paid about the same as Ozil (bearing in mind his years of service and his status a couple of years ago when there were rumours of a move before an improved deal) is about right

if arsenal can afford "any player in the world except Ronaldo, Messi and Bale" they can afford to pay Walcott this, and if I'm Walcotts agent knowing all of the above I'm starting high

 

[milo]

interesting

I'm assuming the lastest TV deal has pushed things up in the past year, I'd also say that Walcott being paid about the same as Ozil (bearing in mind his years of service and his status a couple of years ago when there were rumours of a move before an improved deal) is about right

if Ar5ena1 can afford "any player in the world except Ronaldo, Messi and Bale" they can afford to pay Walcott this, and if I'm Walcotts agent knowing all of the above I'm starting high

I think that it is over the odds for a player that would be touch and go whether he'd make their first choice eleven but really what do I care what they pay their players.

 

[Neymar]

I think that it is over the odds for a player that would be touch and go whether he'd make their first choice eleven but really what do I care what they pay their players.

tbf, their first 11 isnt like ours. he isnt up against the likes of chadli there. he needs to better than one of ozil, cazorla, alexis, ox to get into the starting 11 at arsenal. look at the three teams above them. they also have players that arent neccesarily starters on over 100k. thats what it takes to finish in the top 4 consistently. we can talk about "overpaying" and "market rates" etc all day long. but look at the players we have lost and failed to sign because of this. thats ultimately the reason why arsenal have been able to field a stronger team than us every year. the more a club focuses on "not overpaying" and "market rates", the smaller the pool of players available to them becomes.

Emirates Marketing Project/chelsea have shown that to win the prem, you have to have a blasé attitude to football finances. as long as we are more focussed on "finding value", we will massively struggle to finish in the top 4. unfortunately, you dont get points for underpaying players.

 

[Baleforce]

I think that it is over the odds for a player that would be touch and go whether he'd make their first choice eleven but really what do I care what they pay their players.

I guess we care about the same level looking at the words wasted on it

difference is how we rate him I guess, I think he's decent, a sure starter when fit

I was just trying to add a level of context to the thread, it only sounds crazy compared to spurs players wages, I'm sure there is a thread in RAWK questioning why he turned Liverpool down to stay on such low wages at arsenal

 

[milo]

tbf, their first 11 isnt like ours. he isnt up against the likes of chadli there. he needs to better than one of ozil, cazorla, alexis, ox to get into the starting 11 at Ar5ena1. look at the three teams above them. they also have players that arent neccesarily starters on over 100k. thats what it takes to finish in the top 4 consistently. we can talk about "overpaying" and "market rates" etc all day long. but look at the players we have lost and failed to sign because of this. thats ultimately the reason why Ar5ena1 have been able to field a stronger team than us every year. the more a club focuses on "not overpaying" and "market rates", the smaller the pool of players available to them becomes.

I don't think that paying players more than they are worth is the secret to cracking the top four but I am glad to see that you are agreeing that Arsenal are outspending their direct competitors to achieve success at last

 

[milo]

I guess we care about the same level looking at the words wasted on it

difference is how we rate him I guess, I think he's decent, a sure starter when fit

I was just trying to add a level of context to the thread, it only sounds crazy compared to spurs players wages, I'm sure there is a thread in RAWK questioning why he turned Liverpool down to stay on such low wages at Ar5ena1

I think that he is decent too, he'd walk into our team but I would not put him in the top fifteen players in the league.

 

[Baleforce]

I think that he is decent too, he'd walk into our team but I would not put him in the top fifteen players in the league.

same here

that's why he's slumming it on half the wages of Rooney

 

[milo]

same here

that's why he's slumming it on half the wages of Rooney

To be fair, Rooney got very lucky with his wage negotiations. Man U could not afford to lose him at that time and that is why he is paid loads more than he is worth.

 

[Baleforce]

To be fair, Rooney got very lucky with his wage negotiations. Man U could not afford to lose him at that time and that is why he is paid loads more than he is worth.

yep, I think Walcott had that last time around as well, there was lots of talk about Liverpool and it wasn't long after a couple of other high profile defections

 

[Neymar]

I don't think that paying players more than they are worth is the secret to cracking the top four but I am glad to see that you are agreeing that Ar5ena1 are outspending their direct competitors to achieve success at last

city, utd, chelsa, arsenal all have numerous players being paid more than they would be worth if they were playing for us. do you think gareth bale would be worth his half million per week salary for us?

"paying more than they are worth" seems to be the exact strategy requied for top 4 finishes.