As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
brazilianGOONER wrote:just to give one example: squilacci is on a three year contract, meaning he still has 1 and a half years to go. if his wages are the aledged 60k a week, and a team like zaragoza wouldn't pay more than half of that, 30k a week for the next 18 months means 2,1 million pounds in wages until his current contract is up.
so the question is: is it better to keep squilacci and pay him the 4,2 million in wages to see him sit on the bench with that stupid looking face of him and then let him go on a free, or do we sell him for 1-2 millions and pay the wage difference to have little or no loss, or depending on the fee, even some profit?
supergeorgegraham wrote:As much money as Wenger has made in the transfer market his worst period has been from 2006 to now. I also agree that we only loan out players like Bendtner and Chamkah because nobody will pay their wages. We lose Van Persie because we wont pay his wages.
It is sickening to see Squallachi on so much money and obviously rubbing his hands as he does nothing with his footballing career. As much as these signings are mistakes by the Club you also have to question the modern day footballer and all of the players taking money and not agreeing to leave for other clubs because of a drop in wages are Scum.
So, how many on here would take a drop of say 20,000 a week
I think what people are forgetting on here is that a footballer is at the end of the day a professional making money, they don't love or support the club, and lets be honest the likes of squilachi must nearly cum in their pants when the contract was signed.
Then you have to counter in other factors, for instance, their wives and kids. "Hey love you know I love my football so I am leaving arsenal to play more, I am on 60,000 a week at the moment and am being offered 30,000 and I think that's good enough, what say you?"
"Darling you know I love you, right? And will stand by you on MOST of your decisions, but if you do this I am fucking off you fucking retarded ugly *word censored*!!!!!"
Lets be honest most football players are with models who basically hold them to ransom, they women wouldn't even look twice at them if they weren't on such ludicrous wages.
Then there's the agent who got squiddy this amazing contract in the first place and who takes a percentage of earnings (this is how he makes his income, pays his massive mortgage, pays for the kids to go the best schools etc) and probably has a clause in his contract that stipulates "with regard to any of my clients wanting to move to a club just to play more football but on significantly lower wages, you will be liable to my loss in earnings!"
I just don't see many players with all things considered move to a club just to play football, their agent will make a lot more when they move on a free as he will demand a fat fee to let his client move and as said player has moved for free will command decent wages as well.
It's a no brainier and I don't blame them one bit.
Are you suggesting Abbey Clancy did not marry for love???
supergeorgegraham wrote:As much money as Wenger has made in the transfer market his worst period has been from 2006 to now. I also agree that we only loan out players like Bendtner and Chamkah because nobody will pay their wages. We lose Van Persie because we wont pay his wages.
It is sickening to see Squallachi on so much money and obviously rubbing his hands as he does nothing with his footballing career. As much as these signings are mistakes by the Club you also have to question the modern day footballer and all of the players taking money and not agreeing to leave for other clubs because of a drop in wages are Scum.
So, how many on here would take a drop of say 20,000 a week
I think what people are forgetting on here is that a footballer is at the end of the day a professional making money, they don't love or support the club, and lets be honest the likes of squilachi must nearly cum in their pants when the contract was signed.
Then you have to counter in other factors, for instance, their wives and kids. "Hey love you know I love my football so I am leaving arsenal to play more, I am on 60,000 a week at the moment and am being offered 30,000 and I think that's good enough, what say you?"
"Darling you know I love you, right? And will stand by you on MOST of your decisions, but if you do this I am fucking off you fucking retarded ugly *word censored*!!!!!"
Lets be honest most football players are with models who basically hold them to ransom, they women wouldn't even look twice at them if they weren't on such ludicrous wages.
Then there's the agent who got squiddy this amazing contract in the first place and who takes a percentage of earnings (this is how he makes his income, pays his massive mortgage, pays for the kids to go the best schools etc) and probably has a clause in his contract that stipulates "with regard to any of my clients wanting to move to a club just to play more football but on significantly lower wages, you will be liable to my loss in earnings!"
I just don't see many players with all things considered move to a club just to play football, their agent will make a lot more when they move on a free as he will demand a fat fee to let his client move and as said player has moved for free will command decent wages as well.
It's a no brainier and I don't blame them one bit.
Are you suggesting Abbey Clancy did not marry for love???
1. Why doesn't Arsenal pay a portion of player's salaries to go on loan (as bG was saying). Why pay 80k/week for a player who will sit on the bench, when we can pay 30k/week instead and let him play football somewhere else? I'm guessing the club feels like the risk of expense due to injury is too great, or something. (We'd potentially lose selling value on the player greater than the amount we save by reducing the wage expense?)
2. Why doesn't Arsenal just buy out players' contracts that are hindering their movement? If a player is owed 1m for the next year and has no chance of featuring in the team, why doesn't the club offer them 800k one-time-lump-sum and tell them to F off? We'd be saving money. Again, my assumption is that the risk of not having adequate squad depth is considered too expensive to justify the relatively small amounts of money saved; that or greedy footballers would rather wait out a year and get the extra money instead of taking the immediate payment.
While the club is amazingly efficient at profiting from the fans via every possible angle, I feel like our contract management is awful.
Also, Arsenal is going to have to increase the wage bill - the "socialist" model is fine, but that average wage is going to have to shift higher to reflect the fact the marketplace - inflated artificially by moronic overspending oligarchs and superbillionaires - is more expensive. Arsenal is clearly banking (pun intended) on FFP making a heavy impact, although I think most are skeptical - and for good reason.
Champions League football is dandy, but players are primarily concerned with 1. ability to win and 2. salary. Arsenal is rapidly declining in terms of #1, and if we don't adapt to the new prices in the market, we're not going to have much salary to offer either. Without either of those, all the CL football in the world will do little to entice players. After all, who would want to play in a CL team for one season and get blown out in the group stages?
Barriecuda, in relation to 1) I think that's what we do try and do. Understandably we want to sell these players first to exonerate ourselves of any further loss and possibly recoup a small sum, and then when it becomes obvious they won't lower their wage demands to market rate we try and loan them out heavily subsidised, as we have with Bendtner and Denilson last two seasons. The strange one really is Arshavin because his wages are the highest of all that lot's and it's obvious Wenger has had zero intention of giving him any regular football this year. Perhaps other clubs weren't willing to pay even heavily subsidised wages for such a lazy and greedy player? Or more likely he plain refused to move somewhere inconvenient to go play for a shit team for a few months, I'm sure he's very comfortable with his situation atm.
Regarding 2), do you ever see Wenger admitting he's wrong to the extent that he'd pay a huge lump sum running into seven figures just to get rid of a player? Bearing in mind that this is a man who fiercely defends our outlay on wages.
Also, the chance to loan them out (even heavily subsidised) would recoup more than a minor discount in a lump sum.
