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.
Pancho wrote:well if you are going to add a rule onto transfer fees for incoming players..then surely the same applies for the fees for players leaving ..i.e david healy sold for 1.4m in 2000...o luke chadwick sold in 2003 for 2m ..or paul ince sold in 1995 for 7m
Yes, obviously. The only difference being that one of the problems of being a big club (by whatever definition) is that you normally have to pay in full for a player when you buy them but get staged payments when you sell them. You would need to know the staging to accurately account it and I don't think it is realistic for anyone to be able to get that info. Occasionally larger English clubs stage pay for players as well but not often. I know our payment for Reyes was staged but obviously we never met some of those stages as he had already gone (too cold, bless him).
My real point here, and I am sure you can see what I am saying, is that it is almost impossible to accurately account the cost/spend activities of any of the clubs without knowing the full details. Whilst your data gives a general guideline it is far fom accurate. I know we've beaten this point to death before but the sold Becks bought Rooney comments don't add up purely for the generalisation of them. I can see the logic of your point on that matter but I would now hope you can see why I argued it strongly.
So, that leaves us with the burning question. "What is the best way to measure the relative successes of the four clubs"? I don't know how it is best done but I could only suggest "money spent divided by trophies won".
I have no idea who would come out on top but I suppose even that would depend upon how long a time period you used! Over history as a whole I suspect it would be Liverpool as they have won more trophies than any other English club (I think).
after this yrs cahrity sheild United are now only 2 behind liverpool in the total trophy count....as ffor your comments about staged payments..well do you honeslty think we paid 18m for carrick up front or rooney or anderson or nani..and the 28m we paid for Rio was actually discounted to 24m because we paid leeds more up front and quicker when they were in thier financial mess...
I've no idea but it illustrates my point perfectly. Unless you know the dates and amounts you can't account it.
The only thing I can say is that 18 for carrick is way too much as is 28/24 for ferdinand. I'm not disputing that they are good players, I'm just saying that they were overpriced because of their passport.
I knew that United were closing on Liverpool for trophy count but I also know that until very recently Liverpool have not been big payers. United have probably been doing so for a few years more than them. There will obviously be exceptions that you could quote but in general terms they have not bought big.
SPUDMASHER wrote:I've no idea but it illustrates my point perfectly. Unless you know the dates and amounts you can't account it.
The only thing I can say is that 18 for carrick is way too much as is 28/24 for ferdinand. I'm not disputing that they are good players, I'm just saying that they were overpriced because of their passport.
I knew that United were closing on Liverpool for trophy count but I also know that until very recently Liverpool have not been big payers. United have probably been doing so for a few years more than them. There will obviously be exceptions that you could quote but in general terms they have not bought big.
well as for salaries..the laatest Deliotte review ( find it yourself jan 2008) illustrated that as a % of club turnover United are below 50% ..arsenal are above 60% and chelsea are approx 250% ...so we pay alot , but we earn a lot ..so why not?
SPUDMASHER wrote:I've no idea but it illustrates my point perfectly. Unless you know the dates and amounts you can't account it.
The only thing I can say is that 18 for carrick is way too much as is 28/24 for ferdinand. I'm not disputing that they are good players, I'm just saying that they were overpriced because of their passport.
I knew that United were closing on Liverpool for trophy count but I also know that until very recently Liverpool have not been big payers. United have probably been doing so for a few years more than them. There will obviously be exceptions that you could quote but in general terms they have not bought big.
well as for salaries..the laatest Deliotte review ( find it yourself jan 2008) illustrated that as a % of club turnover United are below 50% ..arsenal are above 60% and chelsea are approx 250% ...so we pay alot , but we earn a lot ..so why not?
Well, the only reason I would say why not is that it helps create a false market. Chelsea are by far the biggest offenders here and I know that Manure are holy by comparison but it is these over inflated transfer fees that contribute towards the situation we face today. Any half-decent player can now only be afforded by the very top clubs and the gulf in money/status/quality between the top 5/6 and the rest ever increasing.
We now have situations whereby clubs one level below the premiership are facing administration! That can't be healthy for football as a whole. The lower leagues are suffering whilst the 'big-boys' make even more money.
I would like to see a system whereby a player leaves a big club (lets use robbie keane as an example even though he is shit and not at a big club) a payment has to be made retrospectively down the line to his previous clubs that have had a hand in his development.
You see some sell on clauses that are a greed but I think they should be mandatory and based on length of service calculated as a percentage of the fee. It would promote loyalty as well because clubs would want to keep players as long as possible to get a bigger chunk of the cash. Imagine if scunthorpe (I think) had received a cut of all of Keegans moves, or similarly Arsenal of Anelkas!
the how would that benefit lower league clubs that take players from united..say Mcshane, or bardsly , or timms or the other 11 that were moved on from the reserves in the alst 12months ..we accumulated about 13m ..for them ..if we work on you scheme evrey time they moved on we would get a slice of the pie?
Pancho wrote:the how would that benefit lower league clubs that take players from united..say Mcshane, or bardsly , or timms or the other 11 that were moved on from the reserves in the alst 12months ..we accumulated about 13m ..for them ..if we work on you scheme evrey time they moved on we would get a slice of the pie?
Yes but there an awful lot more that move up each year. Theo from Soton,
Rooney from Everton, Wrighty and Johnson from Palace.
It would see wealth being distributed more even if some was going to the big boys. At least they wouldn't always be getting it all.
Imagine if Real Madrid bid £80m for rooney tomorrow. Who would get the lions share of that today, Manure. Under other schemes Everton would further benefit from their investment too. That would help them to keep in touch with bigger/better placed clubs. It would be even better had rooney gone to Manure from, say, Hartlepool!
so in essence what you are saying is that bigger clubs , for this example lets say United..should help little clubs ...first of all why? I realise the intentions ..but United fans and sponsor have paid for the club its players..we develop dozens of young lads evrey season who dont make it ..they go to lower league clubs ..some to bigger clubs..but the players get career..the clubs get a United trained player..win win ...not to mention the football foundation whcih benefits by several million from United to sustain lower league and struggling clubs..ie Blythe spartans, and kidderminster in the las 12months...
United do plenty ..if it was all greed and self interest ( and I agree to a certain extent )then United would have taken the opportunity to break from the collective TV deal and done a real madrid ...but that would have weakend the PL ..
we develop dozens of young lads evrey season who dont make it ..they go to lower league clubs ..some to bigger clubs..but the players get career..the clubs get a United trained player..win win
That's my point exactly. If that player goes on to make it big elsewhere then United would get a small share for their efforts and could finance the development of another player with that money.
good luck to them .. I am in favour of their principles ..honest football , no sponsorship , cheap to get in , stand sing drink ..all the things not allowed in the disneyfication of the PL these days...
Pancho wrote:good luck to them .. I am in favour of their principles ..honest football , no sponsorship , cheap to get in , stand sing drink ..all the things not allowed in the disneyfication of the PL these days...
So why didn't you break off and follow them like most of the othere man u fans.
