Wenger’s Myths Exposed (3/1)

[gooner.ed]

http://www.onlinegooner.com/exclusive/index.php?id=1452

don't normally start these threads anymore, but think this particular offering might encourage some feedback, so if you've any thoughts you wish to offer, feel free to leave them here. (if you are not registered on the forum, it's a simple process, so please join the debate - it'll take 2 minutes to sign up and we promise not to send you any email beyond confirmation you have registered!)

[Gunner4LiF3]

We spent double to what Villa have? Wenger was referring to the statistics below,

The following is this summer’s club by club transfer expenditure:

£118m – Manchester City
£43.6m – Aston Villa
£39m – Liverpool
£31.4m – Sunderland
£27m – Tottenham
£22.2m – Everton
£21.85m – Stoke City
£21m – Manchester United
£19.75m – Chelsea
£19.45m – Birmingham
£16.5m – Wolves
£13m – Hull City
£12m – Blackburn
£11.3m – Arsenal
£10.75m – West Ham
£9.4m – Wigan
£9m – Portsmouth
£8.7m – Bolton
£6.65m – Burnley
£5.5m – Fulham

http://www.tribalfootball.com/man-city- ... ble-292001

[Gunner4LiF3]

Arsene invests in youth, that's his policy...

The kids are getting older, Wenger's policy is a long term project, he will continue bringing in young talented players and developing them. Some will make it into Arsenals first team but a large majority will not.

The fact Arsenal bought 2 very young Brazilians proves Wenger is going to carry on this policy. As soon as the new crop are good enough to replace the existing players I have no doubt Arsene will make changes.


Btw I have never heard the club or the board say we don't have money to spend...

I really think we are run completely differently from the large majority of premier league teams. Therefore we cannot compare the stats to other teams.

The reason why we have a high wage bill is because we have a very good team. They get paid what they deserve, for some even that wasn't enough (Cashley and Flamoney). Thanks to Wenger we spend much less on transfers by buying young players on the cheap and developing them ourself.

[I Hate Hleb]

Excellent article by the author and whether you agree with the general thrust of it or not, the slightly controversial opinion he holds has been very well argued and defended in this piece.

Although I didn't totally agree with the premise of the last one, this article explained things better and more comprehensively, therefore I can better understand where the author is coming from and find myself in agreement with a lot more - although not all - of the points he made.

Like all gooners, I will eternally be grateful to Wenger for changing people's perception of us and for producing teams that so often play breath-taking football. However, a fear of mine for a couple of years now is that we indeed turn into another Spurs or West Ham, where we are praised for our style of football but aren't taken seriously for or rarely win the big trophies.

Yes, the move to the new stadium has had an impact but the sad thing for most gooners of a critical mindset is that we know we've been/currently are just a couple of top players away from getting success and therefore really having it all - great football plus the silverware.

It might be considered greedy, especially by supporters that don't get to see the kind of football we do, but one of the things about being a fan - regardless of the club or it's actually status within the pantheon of football - is that you want your team to be the best, and like it or not, that means winning stuff.

And given the relative financial strength of the club's position compared to previously, and the fact that we are so frustratingly close, questions do need to be asked as to why we aren't as successful as we maybe should be. Is it purely down to Wenger's chosen policy, and if so, how much longer do we give it to bear fruit? Or was it borne out of necessity and therefore what he is producing is a minor miracle? Although one time I thought I did, I'm not so sure I know anymore.

[Amos]

The disingenuous part of his long diatribe is that the author invents his own myths and poses them as Wengers. The argument is contructed around a 5 year period in which ManU has spent on average (based on the authors own figures culled from guesstimates by others) some £20m each year on transfers than we have been able to do but doesn't apparently see that as significant??? Stop and think what an extra £20m each year could bring and the silliness of the point is pretty evident. The fact that our wages have been as close to ManU's in that time as they have simply explains that the club has invested more in the team, as a percentage of the revenues available, than he is prepared to admit. The myths are also based on a 5 year period as though nothing significant has happened in that time. The stadium cost some £400m to build. In June 2006 the club reconstructed it's loans to fund the stadium costs not met from our own resources. The sum was £260m (£210mm in 25 year fixed rate bonds and £50m on a 5 year floating note). Where does he imagine the difference of £140m between the construction costs of £400m+ and the loans of £260m came from if not from our own resources? Does he not imagine that had any restraining effect on our player budget until the stadium started contributing positively to resources? Bear in mind also that the first year in the new stadium to May 2007 yielded only a nominal profit. We have only made a significant profit in the last 2 financial years while also completing related property developments yet the author writes as though unlimited funds were available in all of the 5 year period he refers to. That's just foolish. We are generating money now but that is really only very recent. When referring to the spending of Villa and Everton he overlooks the fact that in the 5 year period he refers to both clubs on more than one occassion have spent more on their player budgets than their total revenues in those years. The other argument is that our team isn't a young one as though average team age is a constant. It ignores that Cesc and others have been regulars since their teens yet the argument is based on the average team age today (still below the average of our competitors) as though these players have remained the same age over the past 5 years. Our team has been a young one and it is now maturing as would also have been the intention when the project started. Funds are now only recently becoming available as any reasoned review of the last 5 years would also have understood to be the purpose and intention. The only true myth in this whole debate is that the author has applied much real logic to his argument.

[cmpecc]

5 years ago the amount required for the new stadium was already spent .
The cost of poor board negotiations with the banks at that stage (as they easily could achieve 85% loan) is that commercial contracts with Nike and Emirates were signed as real dumping.

And anyway this is not a question for manager's headache.
Profits and costs are CEO's job. And i'm going to demand fin.results from CEO and win.results from manager.

And i dont care WHO is the manager if he is about bringing titles to the CLUB.
If he is about youth policy - let him go to the academy.

Arsenal must win titles cause gooners pay to the club 100mln per annum.
And that's it.
If current manager cant win anymore he must be replaced.

[TeeCee]

Part of the problem is that Wenger is very interested/qualified in Economics and he is far too concerned about the clubs finances. Don't get me wrong, I do understand and agree to a point that he should be but ultimately, we pay people a fortune to manage the clubs finances, Arsene should really worry about winning trophies and let others manage the money........but, if he did that then he would have people telling him what he could and couldn't do and we all know that he doesn't like that.
We've seen proof that spending a bit of cash on quality (Vermaelen and Arshavin) really does make a difference. If we could just go and spend around 20m on two more players of quality, then it would quite possibly take us to a level where we can win the league or CL. At the moment we are still a bit short (literally) and we depend on two or three players a little too much.

[Robb]

I'm an American who has only been a gooner since '04. So I'm not really qualified to comment on long term issues or what strategies work. I do feel like the squad now is very much superior to three years ago or two years ago. Who could have imagined a Christmas spell of 16 points from 18 in '06 with the type of injury crisis we have now?

Chelski seem vulnerable lately, especially with Essien and Drogba off to the ACN, and Man Utd just lost to Leeds. At least our half-kids squad dealt with West Ham.

As an American I'm pretty embarrassed how Hicks and Gillett have ruined LFC with debts they can't pay. And even Chelski haven't won the CL (or matched Arsenal's and Man U's style of play) with investment on the order of a billion pounds per decade. While it seems the "I love youth" policy has not proven completely successful, it certainly seems better than Liverpool's and not that inferior to Chelsea's. How Man U will survive their American ownership (plus their inevitable debts) over the long term is an interesting question, but I'm proud of the Lerners' work with Aston Villa. Not all American ownership kills Premiership teams. I worry about that, since Kroenke seems set for owning AFC.

Again, I'm not a lifelong gooner or follower of the Prem, but that's my $.02.

I feel like Arsenal are healthy, and they're in with a shout in three competitions. I hope Wenger brings us some silverware this season to silence some of the criticisms. But I wouldn't mind another Vermaelen/Arshavin type this transfer period.

Go Gunners!!

[Sandy D]

Amos, I respect your views as a fellow Arsenal fan, but in order to have a sensible debate we need to get the facts right. So, for the record…

1. the five year period chosen was chosen for the simple reason that it is the last five year period where annual financial accounts are available (2003/04 through 2007/08 inclusive). Arsenal have since published their 2008/09 accounts but not all clubs (e.g. Man Utd) have also done so yet. We could do the same thing when the 2008/09 accounts come out but it would not change much I don’t think. For 2009/10 there is the Ronaldo windfall (all paid in cash up front) as well.

2. contrary to what you say, the figures are neither the author’s own figures nor guesstimates. They are the audited club accounts taken from the Deloitte Annual Review of Football Finance who, in turn, take them from Companies House. If I have made a mistake then I apologise – in which case please post your figures and source them.

3. it’s true that spending £20m extra a year (Man Utd vs Arsenal) should allow a team, all things being equal, to achieve more (in this five year example period: two championships and one European cup more) – just as spending an extra £40m a year (Arsenal vs Everton/Villa/Sperz, etc) should allow a team, all things being equal, to achieve more.

4. Arsenals wages-to-revenue ratio over the five years was 55% (£410m/£750m) and Man Utd’s was 47% (£453m/£968m). The net player spend ratio is better (60% vs 57%) but Arsenal still spent less as a percentage of revenues. So when you say that “the fact that our wages have been as close to ManU's in that time as they have simply explains that the club has invested more in the team, as a percentage of the revenues available, than he is prepared to admit.â€

[Amos]

Sandy I don't see that your post changes my rationale that your argument is ill considered and ill informed.

The accounts for 2009 were available on the club website some time before your first article but in any case that's irrelevant to the argument. Audited accounts don't show direct expenditure on transfers just movements in player registrations (intangible assets) as payments are amortised over the period of the contract and can include the cost of renewal of existing players contracts and payments based on performance related targets (number of games played, international aappearances et c.). It isn't as easy to make a direct comparison between one club and another in the simplistic terms that you have done. But in any event for the purpose of my point that the amount ManU have been able to spend more over that 5 year period is far, far more significant than you suggest your figures are as good as any. Your argument studiously avoids the impact that Chelsea's finances have had over the same period of time. I would have thought that was a significant factor in our relative ability to compete financially while also funding the stadium. Given that Chelsea and ManU have been able to spend more than we have had then on the basis of your argument we have achieved as much as our finances have allowed.

I don't follow point 4 at all. You concede my point that Arsenal has spent more than ManU on wages as a percentage of revenue but claim that I am the one that is factually incorrect. Please explain your reasoning.

If Villa, for example, aren't spending more than their revenues how is it that they have failed to make a profit in any of the last 9 years and debts have climbed to some £70mn ? (Source also Deloitte) There hasn't been any sizeable investment in assets other than players. When spending exceeds revenues then losses are made and debts grow. Fine if the investments are for tangible assets but intangibles are something very different.

You are right that your figures don't prove anything - least of all the argument you appear to have made that Arsenal have had significant funds available to spend on team building other than in the last 2 financial years since the stadium started generating greater income and profits. If you accept that it is prudent not to spend money before it's made then the first opportunity that the club would have had to spend the money they made in the year to May 2008 would have been in the succeeding year. Profit after tax was £26mn transfer spending in the following year was circa £36mn on Nasri, Ramsey, Silvestre and Arshavin (though transfer spending is amortised so it won't be seen directly in the accounts).

The thrust of your articles are that somehow the club has underachieved based on the resources that it has had available in the last 5 years. My view is that that is a seriously blinkered view of the step change we have made as a club in that time and that a rounded view of what has been achieved with the resources available would lead to a very different conclusion than yours.

[Amos]

The specific point I made about the spending of Villa and Everton in my first post is corroborated in this piece taken from the Telegraph's appraisal of the Deloitte review of 2006/2007 figures:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... lysis.html

The salient parts of which are:

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million

Aston Villa: ..... their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit

[Herd]

Back of the fag packet indeed.
This person may be able to read a balance sheet but he knows sweet fanny adams about football.
Way to much waffle to warrant a formed reply.

[hatemanu99]

The specific point I made about the spending of Villa and Everton in my first post is corroborated in this piece taken from the Telegraph's appraisal of the Deloitte review of 2006/2007 figures:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... lysis.html

The salient parts of which are:

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million

Aston Villa: ..... their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit

Wasn't your initial point that Villa and Everton DIDN'T spend more than their respective revenues? So now you are contradicting yourself?

For anyone struggling to comprehend some of Wenger's decision-making, I would strongly recommend reading "Why England Lose, and other curioous football phenomena explained", by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski. A top read.

[Amos]

The specific point I made about the spending of Villa and Everton in my first post is corroborated in this piece taken from the Telegraph's appraisal of the Deloitte review of 2006/2007 figures:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... lysis.html

The salient parts of which are:

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million

Aston Villa: ..... their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit

Wasn't your initial point that Villa and Everton DIDN'T spend more than their respective revenues? So now you are contradicting yourself?

No to both questions

[hatemanu99]

I agree we need investment in the team but to suggest what we have achieved is poor in comparison with Villa and Everton is dubious to say the least.