Wenger - footballers deserve obscene wages

[USMartin]

Regardless of how successful they've been in the past, they wouldn't be the first multi-millionaire businessmen to make subsequent mistakes in judgement though, would they?

No - but that would ignore the fact that they clearly have been successful in buildiing a new stadium at the cost of 500 million pounds or so and borrowing another 120 million to redevelop Highbury for an additional 30 million pound profit and seeing the share price rise from 5K to 11K in the same time period. And they did all this even as a what was almost a Global Economic Depression transpired.

Amazing how they managed do so well for the shareholders throughout this same period, and were so aware of how competently manage the business but just couldn't see that Arsene Wenger had gone all mad right in front of them. Amazing that.

We're lucky they had the foresight to go into the property business as our football business isn't that great, got screwed by the commercial deals that were negotiated, but the overall is.

You conclude that based on what exactly?

Our footballing business wasa at its height siince before World War two prior to 2005. Indeed had we stayed at Highbury there was no danger that we would have gone bankrupt imminently or anything like that. The necessity of a new stadium arose because if we wanted to continue to compete at the level we reached we needed to have more financial muscle.

Now how does borrowing re-develop Highbury fit into that? And let's remember that had as much as anything to do the deals we got screwed on as you correctly make reference to. How does the additional 30 million pound profit short or long term rescue the business as a whole?

We wouldn't have anything to spend otherwise.

Seriously how do you figure that? The fact is had we sold Highbury as originally planned(Keith Edelman reputedly advocated re-developing it ourselves and that is said to be why he was sacked - if in fact he was - and this was after we first bid to buy Wembley Stadium).

Had we sold Highbury for 40-85 million GBP most estmates suggest 60-70 million) all that cash could have gone into repaying the original loan borrowed to complete the Emirates Stadium. As A result our cash flow from 2005 forward would have remained stable without having to borrow money from any other part of the Club's business inclusding the football budget, and would have put us in a stronger position when negotiating those contracts that were frontloaded but far underpay aus relative to other big clubs rather significantly.

Not only did we not have that money to pay off the original loan, and not was our cash flow radically if not dangerously de-stabilized, immediately but it was all the way through in fact to 2009 and 2010 as we received none of the revenues from this project to then and so far it is hard to say what if any benefit the additional 30 million pound profit made by re-developing Highbury has had to anyone besides the Club's Bankers and Major Shareholders.

Unfortunately its not nearly so hard to see the negative impact it has ahd in the meantine.

[Arsenal 1991]

No - but that would ignore the fact that they clearly have been successful in buildiing a new stadium at the cost of 500 million pounds or so and borrowing another 120 million to redevelop Highbury for an additional 30 million pound profit and seeing the share price rise from 5K to 11K in the same time period. And they did all this even as a what was almost a Global Economic Depression transpired.

Amazing how they managed do so well for the shareholders throughout this same period, and were so aware of how competently manage the business but just couldn't see that Arsene Wenger had gone all mad right in front of them. Amazing that.

We're lucky they had the foresight to go into the property business as our football business isn't that great, got screwed by the commercial deals that were negotiated, but the overall is.

You conclude that based on what exactly?

Our footballing business wasa at its height siince before World War two prior to 2005. Indeed had we stayed at Highbury there was no danger that we would have gone bankrupt imminently or anything like that. The necessity of a new stadium arose because if we wanted to continue to compete at the level we reached we needed to have more financial muscle.

Now how does borrowing re-develop Highbury fit into that? And let's remember that had as much as anything to do the deals we got screwed on as you correctly make reference to. How does the additional 30 million pound profit short or long term rescue the business as a whole?

We wouldn't have anything to spend otherwise.

Seriously how do you figure that? The fact is had we sold Highbury as originally planned(Keith Edelman reputedly advocated re-developing it ourselves and that is said to be why he was sacked - if in fact he was - and this was after we first bid to buy Wembley Stadium).

Had we sold Highbury for 40-85 million GBP most estmates suggest 60-70 million) all that cash could have gone into repaying the original loan borrowed to complete the Emirates Stadium. As A result our cash flow from 2005 forward would have remained stable without having to borrow money from any other part of the Club's business inclusding the football budget, and would have put us in a stronger position when negotiating those contracts that were frontloaded but far underpay aus relative to other big clubs rather significantly.

Not only did we not have that money to pay off the original loan, and not was our cash flow radically if not dangerously de-stabilized, immediately but it was all the way through in fact to 2009 and 2010 as we received none of the revenues from this project to then and so far it is hard to say what if any benefit the additional 30 million pound profit made by re-developing Highbury has had to anyone besides the Club's Bankers and Major Shareholders.

Unfortunately its not nearly so hard to see the negative impact it has ahd in the meantine.

Only you would reply to 1 line with 20.

I believe we have the monies and arsene wenger is not spending it because he is so high and mighty.

[USMartin]

We're lucky they had the foresight to go into the property business as our football business isn't that great, got screwed by the commercial deals that were negotiated, but the overall is.

You conclude that based on what exactly?

Our footballing business wasa at its height siince before World War two prior to 2005. Indeed had we stayed at Highbury there was no danger that we would have gone bankrupt imminently or anything like that. The necessity of a new stadium arose because if we wanted to continue to compete at the level we reached we needed to have more financial muscle.

Now how does borrowing re-develop Highbury fit into that? And let's remember that had as much as anything to do the deals we got screwed on as you correctly make reference to. How does the additional 30 million pound profit short or long term rescue the business as a whole?

We wouldn't have anything to spend otherwise.

Seriously how do you figure that? The fact is had we sold Highbury as originally planned(Keith Edelman reputedly advocated re-developing it ourselves and that is said to be why he was sacked - if in fact he was - and this was after we first bid to buy Wembley Stadium).

Had we sold Highbury for 40-85 million GBP most estmates suggest 60-70 million) all that cash could have gone into repaying the original loan borrowed to complete the Emirates Stadium. As A result our cash flow from 2005 forward would have remained stable without having to borrow money from any other part of the Club's business inclusding the football budget, and would have put us in a stronger position when negotiating those contracts that were frontloaded but far underpay aus relative to other big clubs rather significantly.

Not only did we not have that money to pay off the original loan, and not was our cash flow radically if not dangerously de-stabilized, immediately but it was all the way through in fact to 2009 and 2010 as we received none of the revenues from this project to then and so far it is hard to say what if any benefit the additional 30 million pound profit made by re-developing Highbury has had to anyone besides the Club's Bankers and Major Shareholders.

Unfortunately its not nearly so hard to see the negative impact it has ahd in the meantine.

Only you would reply to 1 line with 20.

I believe we have the monies and arsene wenger is not spending it because he is so high and mighty.

So if you see that the Board must see it too - they have had six years of it after all, so again why don''t they sack him? They employ him, not the toherway around.

As to why I would reply with 20 lines to your one (or more like six lines to your one) look at what you just wrote. Says it all. And do you care to produce one piece of evidence supporting your contention.

Amazing I seek to validate my views or to give them creedence based on facts , while you have no hesitation at all to say something that serious without a hint of of effort to prove or justify it and I'm the WUM . Amazing really.

[I Hate Hleb]

Regardless of how successful they've been in the past, they wouldn't be the first multi-millionaire businessmen to make subsequent mistakes in judgement though, would they?

No - but that would ignore the fact that they clearly have been successful in buildiing a new stadium at the cost of 500 million pounds or so and borrowing another 120 million to redevelop Highbury for an additional 30 million pound profit and seeing the share price rise from 5K to 11K in the same time period. And they did all this even as a what was almost a Global Economic Depression transpired.

Amazing how they managed do so well for the shareholders throughout this same period, and were so aware of how competently manage the business but just couldn't see that Arsene Wenger had gone all mad right in front of them. Amazing that.

As usual you've stayed from the point!! I'm talking about in relation to believing that Wenger can make the club successful again, which precede your post about successful businessmen. Again to use your style: Even successful businessmen have in the past made mistakes YES or NO?

Yes. Businessmen make mistakes Look up Harry Frazee on Google or Wikipedia

But to ignore this point is perilous in the very least. For if we all can see what the Board cannot it is not merely a matter of mistake but mistake bordering on incompetence and even negligence. .

But we can't all see it though, can we? That's the point!! Despite loads of fans believing they know what the team needs to become successful again, they are equally those that think that we'll get there eventually doing it the Wenger way. And that is where my reference to the Board came in - like some of the fans, perhaps they also believe this? Or do you have evidence to the contrary? That the Board don't believe this but are hanging on to Wenger solely so they can reap more profit?

I would remind you that Brue Rioch was sacked even after he had taken us back from mid-table mediocrity to a fifth place finish in one year prior to Arsene Wenger being named manager. If they were unwilling to give him a second full season why would they continue for six straight seasons of disappointment or even arguably failure to reward Arsene Wenger?...

But Rioch wasn't sacked because of a perceived lack of success, was he? It was because a) he'd fallen out with some of the players (namely our best player at the time, Ian Wright) and b) because Dein always had it in his mind to get wenger as manager of Arsenal and this seemed as good an opportunity, given point a above, to do it!!

You can't seriously believe that the upward business spikes and downward footballing spikes are purely some coincidence or accident of circumstance can you - or that the business just got really really lucky as this happened? Yes or no....

No I don't believe that. But I could do without the condescending attitude as well, okay matey? In effect your saying that the Board are deliberately depriving Wenger of funds to spend on players because all they care about is cashing in their shares when the time is right. And that Wenger is more than happy to go along with this plan, just as long as they don't interfere in his project.

Now even if that is true, and neither I or you know for certain, what does that say about Wenger? And how in hells name those that effect our inability to defend properly? Or cross the ball? Or shoot? Or the teams tactics? or the substitutions made and when they are made? Or the motivation of the players? Or the giving of extended contracts to players that patently haven't earned them? Or of the excuses that are made for each cock-up or under-performance?

As I've said on another thread in reply to your constant asking of could others do as well or better in the same circumstances: yes, I believe there are managers out there that could do better with the same resources, but my doubts lie in the Board's ability to identify and then appoint them. And that has nothing to do with finance and everything to do with their lack of football knowledge.

[Jumpers For Goalposts]

Nobody is gonna read any of that . . . . . . . . .

[I Hate Hleb]

Phew!!!

[Arsenal 1991]

You conclude that based on what exactly?

Our footballing business wasa at its height siince before World War two prior to 2005. Indeed had we stayed at Highbury there was no danger that we would have gone bankrupt imminently or anything like that. The necessity of a new stadium arose because if we wanted to continue to compete at the level we reached we needed to have more financial muscle.

Now how does borrowing re-develop Highbury fit into that? And let's remember that had as much as anything to do the deals we got screwed on as you correctly make reference to. How does the additional 30 million pound profit short or long term rescue the business as a whole?

We wouldn't have anything to spend otherwise.

Seriously how do you figure that? The fact is had we sold Highbury as originally planned(Keith Edelman reputedly advocated re-developing it ourselves and that is said to be why he was sacked - if in fact he was - and this was after we first bid to buy Wembley Stadium).

Had we sold Highbury for 40-85 million GBP most estmates suggest 60-70 million) all that cash could have gone into repaying the original loan borrowed to complete the Emirates Stadium. As A result our cash flow from 2005 forward would have remained stable without having to borrow money from any other part of the Club's business inclusding the football budget, and would have put us in a stronger position when negotiating those contracts that were frontloaded but far underpay aus relative to other big clubs rather significantly.

Not only did we not have that money to pay off the original loan, and not was our cash flow radically if not dangerously de-stabilized, immediately but it was all the way through in fact to 2009 and 2010 as we received none of the revenues from this project to then and so far it is hard to say what if any benefit the additional 30 million pound profit made by re-developing Highbury has had to anyone besides the Club's Bankers and Major Shareholders.

Unfortunately its not nearly so hard to see the negative impact it has ahd in the meantine.

Only you would reply to 1 line with 20.

I believe we have the monies and arsene wenger is not spending it because he is so high and mighty.

So if you see that the Board must see it too - they have had six years of it after all, so again why don''t they sack him? They employ him, not the toherway around.

As to why I would reply with 20 lines to your one (or more like six lines to your one) look at what you just wrote. Says it all. And do you care to produce one piece of evidence supporting your contention.

Amazing I seek to validate my views or to give them creedence based on facts , while you have no hesitation at all to say something that serious without a hint of of effort to prove or justify it and I'm the WUM . Amazing really.

It is.

Heres the evidence

http://www.arsenal.com/the-club/corpora ... al-results

[USMartin]

But we can't all see it though, can we? That's the point!! Despite loads of fans believing they know what the team needs to become successful again, they are equally those that think that we'll get there eventually doing it the Wenger way. And that is where my reference to the Board came in - like some of the fans, perhaps they also believe this? Or do you have evidence to the contrary? That the Board don't believe this but are hanging on to Wenger solely so they can reap more profit?

It certainly is a possibility that that is exactly what they are doing.

Let's assume you are correct and the Board are not competent to see this on own or to lacking in football knowledge or acument to see it. That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. But if that is the case would it not be rank incompetence first to sack David Dein, and second to fail to appoint a replacement for over two years? And unless Arsenal football Club are in afct a poroerty mangement company and not a football club how logical would that be in the first place. After all the property mangment business never takes off if we aren't a highly successful football club which requires a highly successful football team and thus executives with some footballing acumen somewhere in the company.

And again any competent buisinessman would I will suggest realize that, meaning that sacking David Dein and not replacing imperiled the success of the entire project and the survival of Arsenal Football Club and the loss of some big money potentially. So I am going to guess there is sufficient knowledge of the football business and the the business of football on our Board now even.

Which again raises the question is the shifting fortunes of Arsenal's business and its football team purely coincidental or a torrentt of lcircumstance as you seem to be suggesting at the very least.

But Rioch wasn't sacked because of a perceived lack of success, was he? It was because a) he'd fallen out with some of the players (namely our best player at the time, Ian Wright) and b) because Dein always had it in his mind to get wenger as manager of Arsenal and this seemed as good an opportunity, given point a above, to do it!!

Yes but again could David Dein have acted without the Board's backing? And if the Board had taken the same apprach you suggest they are taking now with Mr. Wenger is it not possible that David Dein might have been out-voted and Bruce Rioch remained as our manager because a majority on our Board believed in the job he was doing?

No I don't believe that. But I could do without the condescending attitude as well, okay matey?

If you took offense I apolgize. No offense was meant. However I did intend to drive home how ridicuous the idea that there is simply no relation between the two ends of Arsenal's business at this point really is.
It is truly remarkable the lengths to which people will go to try to convince themselves (I suspect in some cases) as much as they would me that in fact there is no relationship between the fortunes of the property development/management and football businesses


While you have indicated you do not see that, and that is to your dredit does it not give you pause that maybe you and we all should be more curious and concerned about that relationship then and how it works?

[I Hate Hleb]

What can we actually do about it though Martin? Something that's going to have a positive outcome? Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, we are powerless to effect the share-holders in any way at all. Even less so if they have the attitude you prescribe them with.

[Arsenal 1991]

What can we actually do about it though Martin? Something that's going to have a positive outcome? Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, we are powerless to effect the share-holders in any way at all. Even less so if they have the attitude you prescribe them with.

Arsenal fanshare.

[USMartin]

In effect your saying that the Board are deliberately depriving Wenger of funds to spend on players because all they care about is cashing in their shares when the time is right.

I am saying that is possible and there is plenty of evidence to back that up. No smoking guns or incriminating audiotapes, but enough evidence of a variety of things that together make a compelling case to at least be very concerned that may be what is happening.

One could even argue that rather than simply a purely greed-driven case that it is a case of simply as some have suggested of Mr. Wenger the Board being overly conservative about spending in this time period and that we simply need to be concerned about whether the Board is being as smart as it neeeds to be. But that takes a hit when you look at Dan Fiszman pocketing 30 million GBP and looking potentially making another 60 million at least and reports of Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith looking forward to making over 100 million GBP in the not-distant future.

And that Wenger is more than happy to go along with this plan, just as long as they don't interfere in his project. Now even if that is true, and neither I or you know for certain, what does that say about Wenger?

Yes - I am not sure there is any actual project here, although 'project" sounds better than "my new policy is just not to spend nearly as much as I used to because it's not avalable to me any more' for all concerned.

And I am not so sure its just going along as maybe he just believes his job is to manager with what his employers choose to make available to him no matter what that is. At least that sounds better than just pocketing really good money for merely doing just the minimum required of him, which might be the case too I fear.

What I am sure of is he clearly has shown minimal resistance at any point to any of this and clearly is in League whether as the originator or most likely the agent of these policies. And that alone will to some extent forever tarnish him for me.

And how in hells name those that effect our inability to defend properly? Or cross the ball? Or shoot? Or the teams tactics? or the substitutions made and when they are made? Or the motivation of the players? them? Or of the excuses that are made for each cock-up or under-performance?

Again terrific points, but again like almost every other coach or manager Arsene Wenger will be made or unmade by the talent at his disposal. In 2004 and 2005 and 2006 even they were calling for Sir Alex Ferguson's head because he was signing players like David Bellion and Eric Djemba-Djemba and Kleberson and Liam Miller and Ben Foster and Tim Howard and Diego Forlan and Kieron Richardson. United clearly were cutting spending to some extent ahead perhaps of selling the club and Ferguson was thought to have lost the plaot for quite some time. Again all that changed was the quality of talent. Once that returned he's the greatest manger United will ever have - again. Has he done anything else differently? No. Just either bought better or paid his best players more to stay with him to win.

Or the giving of extended contracts to players that patently haven't earned

Agree fully about the problem, not so sure about its source. I caan't help but wonder if Cesc were on 110K a week and Nik Bendtner on 20K instead of the 80K and 50K they are on that we might be able to sign a higher quality and more proven class of transfer target when that suits our needs better.

Now while as you suggect the Board may not know enough about football to understand this reality ( I disagree to an extent) we know that both Arsene Wenger and Ivan Gazidis would know this. So again it is possible that maybe it is just the Board being very naive at this point about the business of building a football team. But again that hasn't stopped them from being anything but naive about cashing in beginning to cash in or wanting to cash in from the outcome of this.

As I've said on another thread in reply to your constant asking of could others do as well or better in the same circumstances: yes, I believe there are managers out there that could do better with the same resources, but my doubts lie in the Board's ability to identify and then appoint them. And that has nothing to do with finance and everything to do with their lack of football knowledge.

While I disagree with fundamentally with your final point. in that if in fact the Board are whatever their motives setting financial policies that make stregthening the team all but impossible I see no reason not to worry they would do so to any other manager they hire, your view raises a very worrisome conundrum about just how to move forward from here, even if I sahred your view.

[Arsenal 1991]

Martin, what is your evidence for these outrageous claims?

We have a good squad but a few quality players short in certain areas. If Arsene sold the deadwood then, if you are right, he would have more of this strict wage budget available. Also he thought he knew better and bought two defenders from france when he could have got ready made players from england. Also Lady Bracewell smith isn't on the board anymore, she was ousted.

If the board don't want to spend money why would they over pay players?

[USMartin]

What can we actually do about it though Martin? Something that's going to have a positive outcome? Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, we are powerless to effect the share-holders in any way at all. Even less so if they have the attitude you prescribe them with.

See you amy be correct but you mayn not be and it has to be worth a try at the very least.

I do think though that ultimately you are targetting the worng audince here anyway.

We need to find someone in the media who is genuinely a good objective journalist, perhaps an investigative jouralist who is curious enough to want to pursue our concerns.

QuartzGooner actually suggested as much but his approach was genuinely oversimplistic and condescending and conjured images of film noirs with journalists in their offices like detectives dragging on cigarettes and recalling all the dirt they had seen and done before Veronica Lake or gene Terney Saunters in to ask them to look for the missing husbandor boyfirend whose disappearance they almost certainly had something to do with.

Seriously our goal in whatever we do should be to make people in the media curious as to what we are doing and why and if we find the right journalist then maybe he won''t be contnet to wait until someone at the club wants to and is ready to talk to him on their terms.

I am not comparing this to the Watergate scandal so you know, but in fact when that first began all it was to nearly everybody here was "a third rate burglary" - the point being just because we don't know more now doesn't mean there is not more to know. We need to find a way to get someone who can look into that properly to do so.

[Arsenal 1991]

What can we actually do about it though Martin? Something that's going to have a positive outcome? Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, we are powerless to effect the share-holders in any way at all. Even less so if they have the attitude you prescribe them with.

See you amy be correct but you mayn not be and it has to be worth a try at the very least.

I do think though that ultimately you are targetting the worng audince here anyway.

We need to find someone in the media who is genuinely a good objective journalist, perhaps an investigative jouralist who is curious enough to want to pursue our concerns.

QuartzGooner actually suggested as much but his approach was genuinely oversimplistic and condescending and conjured images of film noirs with journalists in their offices like detectives dragging on cigarettes and recalling all the dirt they had seen and done before Veronica Lake or gene Terney Saunters in to ask them to look for the missing husbandor boyfirend whose disappearance they almost certainly had something to do with.

Seriously our goal in whatever we do should be to make people in the media curious as to what we are doing and why and if we find the right journalist then maybe he won''t be contnet to wait until someone at the club wants to and is ready to talk to him on their terms.

I am not comparing this to the Watergate scandal so you know, but in fact when that first began all it was to nearly everybody here was "a third rate burglary" - the point being just because we don't know more now doesn't mean there is not more to know. We need to find a way to get someone who can look into that properly to do so.

I can't believe you even have a plan.

[USMartin]

Martin, what is your evidence for these outrageous claims??

I will be happy to sned some on to you - I don't think people would want me to presnet it in full here(on this or any thread) not at this point anyway.

We have a good squad but a few quality players short in certain areas. If Arsene sold the deadwood then, if you are right, he would have more of this strict wage budget available. Also he thought he knew better and bought two defenders from france when he could have got ready made players from england. Also Lady Bracewell smith isn't on the board anymore, she was ousted.?

But Lady Bracewell-Smith was on the Board when all the key decisions in question were taken up by it, and there reports that have suggested her dismissal may have been because she wanted to cash in sooner than Dan Fiszman apparently was prepared to. I am not sure how much credence I can ascribe to those reports, but there is no doubt that that she was in fact on the Board for most of the most important - for better or worse - decisions in question.

If the board don't want to spend money why would they over pay players?

This is actually quite easy. Overpaying Nik Bendtner at 50K can save more money than underpaying Leo Messi at 875K a week. Extreme case maybe but the point is that if you overpaying a player who is underperforming it can still save money over underpaying a top performer given how much more you might still be paying that top performer.

So while Paying Nik Bendtner 50K and Cesc 80K a week is no different than paying Bendtner 20K and Cesc 100 K on our wage bill - 130K total in both cases, its knock-on effect is drastic. And that is it eliminates pursuing players seeking or earning wages in that 110K range. And that is what I believe eliminates a number of top players who were available in recent years and could have dramatically impacted out team for the netter from being at Arsenal now.

So overpaying at the bottom end of the wage structure not only can control the growth of the wage bill but it also eliminates increased transfer spending but without actually having to say no we will not make the money available for that increased spending. So it makes the team and club more profitable twice over.

Overspending at the local tailor shop in Islington will still cost less than underspending on Savile Row.