Looks Like We have 45 million to spend? Who will you Buy?

[digger]

No, Diggers right. Whatever the kitty is includes the contract of the deals. It's the way Arsenal report then. So this also applies to renegotiations.

Wouldn't that mean we only spent like £5mill on Arshavin?

Wasn't it a £15mill deal and he's gotta be on 70k a week?

Dunno but this cant be rite, can it?

No, the transfer was around £15M but he's wages also come out of the budget. I think the term 'Transfer kitty' is branded around by the press.

Put it this way. Say AA23's on 90K a week. 3 year deal (£14,040,00 in total)
So out of the budget went £29.04M

Exactly. Arshavin is on £60k per week (he was quite publicly annoyed by he amount of tax he was paying so that amount is common knowledge), so it's about £10m in pay. His transfer "fee" was £15m.

I have heard it mentioned that Adebayor's sale (£25m) financed the Arshavin transfer (they knew Adebayor was being sold months in advance).

[Bergkamp-Genius]

No, Diggers right. Whatever the kitty is includes the contract of the deals. It's the way Arsenal report then. So this also applies to renegotiations.

Do you not see how little sense that makes...if you put money aside and call it the transfer kitty..why would you then take wages and renegotiations out of that money, it's nonsensical, the wages and re-negs come from and are budgetted in to the club yearly income/turnover, the same as it is everywhere else, if you wanted to be anal and seperate them into there own kitty, you would just call them the wages and re-neg kitty , not the transfer kitty.

The manager and the board have tried to perpetuate this baloney along with lots of other mis-information in an attempt to cover up and confuse the fans as to how little we actually spend..no one else does it because no one else feels the need to lie to their fans about how little they are spending and why..

Don't ask me why it is this way but it is. I think it was Wenger that said it. It was something like "Even if I have £15 Million (reported amount at the time) I wouldn't be able to buy a player of world class quality. The amount would have to factor in a players wage"

Maybe it's spin as £45M sounds a massive warchest. But not when you factor in wages and renewals.
Could you see Arsene having £45M to spend soley on transfers? I could on the other had see it if this factored in wages and renewals.

Oh it's definitely spin or bullshit what ever you want to call it and all delivered to confuse..Thats the whole point i'm making..

And yes i could see Arsene having 45m to spend if he wanted it and asked for it, i just can't see him wanting it or asking for it..and the only way he will spend that kind of money is if he sells players worth more than that to balance what he has spent, thats how he likes doing things regardless of how much is available and i don't see that changing..

I just spoke about this thread to my mate here at work. (Mouser)
Liverpool do the same. It's a budget figure*.

*If of course this is true.

If wages and re negs came from the transfer kitty then what on earth is that £90-100m coming out of our income each year, marked wages, i know we like to take care of the groundstaff but thats just f*cking ridiculous or maybe the club don't realise they are paying the players twice, once out of the set aside transfer kitty and once out of the clubs general expenses

It's all smoke and mirrors mate, designed to confuse..regardless of who else is trying to confuse their fans with the same nonsense... how much you spend on a transfer is how much it cost to sign the player, his wages come out of yearly expenses as does the managers wages as does everyone else who works for the clubs wages, trying to make the fans think they are spending more on players by adding the whole contracts wages on to the transfer figure is nothing more than bullshit...for instance what happens if we sell a player signed on a four year contract after one year do we pay up his whole contract because we have budgetted it on to his transfer fee..of course not, because his wages come out of the yearly expenses and are budgetted in to that not the transfer fee....

[Boomer]

No, Diggers right. Whatever the kitty is includes the contract of the deals. It's the way Arsenal report then. So this also applies to renegotiations.

Wouldn't that mean we only spent like £5mill on Arshavin?

Wasn't it a £15mill deal and he's gotta be on 70k a week?

Dunno but this cant be rite, can it?

No, the transfer was around £15M but he's wages also come out of the budget. I think the term 'Transfer kitty' is branded around by the press.

Put it this way. Say AA23's on 90K a week. 3 year deal (£14,040,00 in total)
So out of the budget went £29.04M

Exactly. Arshavin is on £60k per week (he was quite publicly annoyed by he amount of tax he was paying so that amount is common knowledge), so it's about £10m in pay. His transfer "fee" was £15m.

I have heard it mentioned that Adebayor's sale (£25m) financed the Arshavin transfer (they knew Adebayor was being sold months in advance).

Which is why people struggle to understand where the combind fees for Adebayor and Kolo went (£25M + £15M =£40M). (?)
Well I also heard the same about Ashavins deal but it was not a 'done' deal in advance but for once I think Wenger speculated!
Honestly, I think he knew he could get X amount for Adebayor and a few million either side wouldn't hurt.
The rest of the £40, now £15 remaining. Well that went on Thomas Vemaelen (£10). Some other members of the squad were released as well. (Rui Fonte & Bischoff so there wages pick up the difference.

Yet many fans think we sold and got £40M and only spent £10M so where's the £30. As we've been saying it's not a kitty but a budget which includes the new players wages.

[Boomer]

Do you not see how little sense that makes...if you put money aside and call it the transfer kitty..why would you then take wages and renegotiations out of that money, it's nonsensical, the wages and re-negs come from and are budgetted in to the club yearly income/turnover, the same as it is everywhere else, if you wanted to be anal and seperate them into there own kitty, you would just call them the wages and re-neg kitty , not the transfer kitty.

The manager and the board have tried to perpetuate this baloney along with lots of other mis-information in an attempt to cover up and confuse the fans as to how little we actually spend..no one else does it because no one else feels the need to lie to their fans about how little they are spending and why..

Don't ask me why it is this way but it is. I think it was Wenger that said it. It was something like "Even if I have £15 Million (reported amount at the time) I wouldn't be able to buy a player of world class quality. The amount would have to factor in a players wage"

Maybe it's spin as £45M sounds a massive warchest. But not when you factor in wages and renewals.
Could you see Arsene having £45M to spend soley on transfers? I could on the other had see it if this factored in wages and renewals.

Oh it's definitely spin or bullshit what ever you want to call it and all delivered to confuse..Thats the whole point i'm making..

And yes i could see Arsene having 45m to spend if he wanted it and asked for it, i just can't see him wanting it or asking for it..and the only way he will spend that kind of money is if he sells players worth more than that to balance what he has spent, thats how he likes doing things regardless of how much is available and i don't see that changing..

I just spoke about this thread to my mate here at work. (Mouser)
Liverpool do the same. It's a budget figure*.

*If of course this is true.

If wages and re negs came from the transfer kitty then what on earth is that £90-100m coming out of our income each year, marked wages, i know we like to take care of the groundstaff but thats just f*cking ridiculous or maybe the club don't realise they are paying the players twice, once out of the set aside transfer kitty and once out of the clubs general expenses

It's all smoke and mirrors mate, designed to confuse..regardless of who else is trying to confuse their fans with the same nonsense... how much you spend on a transfer is how much it cost to sign the player, his wages come out of yearly expenses as does the managers wages as does everyone else who works for the clubs wages, trying to make the fans think they are spending more on players by adding the whole contracts wages on to the transfer figure is nothing more than bullshit...for instance what happens if we sell a player signed on a four year contract after one year do we pay up his whole contract because we have budgetted it on to his transfer fee..of course not, because his wages come out of the yearly expenses and are budgetted in to that not the transfer fee....

There is no such thing as a kitty it's a budget.
So yes the players wages and transfers (i think aswell) are factored into the budget. yes Transfer fee's and wages on the reports are displayed sepparetly.
Make's sence knowing that Ashavin will cost a total of £30M over however many seasons. Once the deals done it's all been factored and taken into account.

[Jason_arsenal2010]

I agree it has to be a budget something like you get 40-70 Million or something each year for wages and 20-30 million for transfers fees and wenger has to buy a player who fits into the transfer and wage budget. We are probably the only bif four clubs who operates inside the budget. Chelsea have no budget so they dont count.
We do spend a lot of money in youth wages I remember Ivan Gazidis saying that we have increased our wages bill by something like 8 million just by renewing contracts of 16-17 players this year.
What I think wenger doesn't use from his transfer budget must be added on to his wages budget

[treygoony]

Lucio for CB!

[Bergkamp-Genius]

No, Diggers right. Whatever the kitty is includes the contract of the deals. It's the way Arsenal report then. So this also applies to renegotiations.

Wouldn't that mean we only spent like £5mill on Arshavin?

Wasn't it a £15mill deal and he's gotta be on 70k a week?

Dunno but this cant be rite, can it?

No, the transfer was around £15M but he's wages also come out of the budget. I think the term 'Transfer kitty' is branded around by the press.

Put it this way. Say AA23's on 90K a week. 3 year deal (£14,040,00 in total)
So out of the budget went £29.04M

Exactly. Arshavin is on £60k per week (he was quite publicly annoyed by he amount of tax he was paying so that amount is common knowledge), so it's about £10m in pay. His transfer "fee" was £15m.

I have heard it mentioned that Adebayor's sale (£25m) financed the Arshavin transfer (they knew Adebayor was being sold months in advance).

Months after AA signed, the manager was still saying Ade was going nowhere... also if Ades fee financed AA's 10m wages what happened to the 80k a week we were paying Ade on his new four year contract, by your reasoning we must have already paid him the 12m for the last three years of his contract, even though he left the club, because supposedly his 4 year contract re-neg was budgetted from the transfer kitty the year he signed his 4yr re-neg, as opposed to coming out of the yearly expenses each year, which would be far more logical don't you think

[Jason_arsenal2010]

Lucio for CB!

kept drogba in check in the cl game but already 31 so dont think it will happen

[Jason_arsenal2010]

No, Diggers right. Whatever the kitty is includes the contract of the deals. It's the way Arsenal report then. So this also applies to renegotiations.

Wouldn't that mean we only spent like £5mill on Arshavin?

Wasn't it a £15mill deal and he's gotta be on 70k a week?

Dunno but this cant be rite, can it?

No, the transfer was around £15M but he's wages also come out of the budget. I think the term 'Transfer kitty' is branded around by the press.

Put it this way. Say AA23's on 90K a week. 3 year deal (£14,040,00 in total)
So out of the budget went £29.04M

Exactly. Arshavin is on £60k per week (he was quite publicly annoyed by he amount of tax he was paying so that amount is common knowledge), so it's about £10m in pay. His transfer "fee" was £15m.

I have heard it mentioned that Adebayor's sale (£25m) financed the Arshavin transfer (they knew Adebayor was being sold months in advance).

Months after AA signed, the manager was still saying Ade was going nowhere... also if Ades fee financed AA's 10m wages what happened to the 80k a week we were paying Ade on his new four year contract, by your reasoning we must have already paid him the 12m for the last three years of his contract, even though he left the club, because supposedly his 4 year contract re-neg was budgetted from the transfer kitty the year he signed his 4yr re-neg, as opposed to coming out of the yearly expenses each year, which would be far more logical don't you think

It always about budgets I think

[Boomer]

No, Diggers right. Whatever the kitty is includes the contract of the deals. It's the way Arsenal report then. So this also applies to renegotiations.

Wouldn't that mean we only spent like £5mill on Arshavin?

Wasn't it a £15mill deal and he's gotta be on 70k a week?

Dunno but this cant be rite, can it?

No, the transfer was around £15M but he's wages also come out of the budget. I think the term 'Transfer kitty' is branded around by the press.

Put it this way. Say AA23's on 90K a week. 3 year deal (£14,040,00 in total)
So out of the budget went £29.04M

Exactly. Arshavin is on £60k per week (he was quite publicly annoyed by he amount of tax he was paying so that amount is common knowledge), so it's about £10m in pay. His transfer "fee" was £15m.

I have heard it mentioned that Adebayor's sale (£25m) financed the Arshavin transfer (they knew Adebayor was being sold months in advance).

Months after AA signed, the manager was still saying Ade was going nowhere... also if Ades fee financed AA's 10m wages what happened to the 80k a week we were paying Ade on his new four year contract, by your reasoning we must have already paid him the 12m for the last three years of his contract, even though he left the club, because supposedly his 4 year contract re-neg was budgetted from the transfer kitty the year he signed his 4yr re-neg, as opposed to coming out of the yearly expenses each year, which would be far more logical don't you think

No, it simply means we have more money then we originally budgeted for.
BTW Arsene Lied to us about Ade!

[Exiled-Gooner]

Here's 2 C/B.....



No,seriously it will all depend on what is Wenger is willing to spend and not whose is available!!!

[mrgnu1958]

those 2 would get 1 inch each and fecking enjoy it

[Bergkamp-Genius]

Don't ask me why it is this way but it is. I think it was Wenger that said it. It was something like "Even if I have £15 Million (reported amount at the time) I wouldn't be able to buy a player of world class quality. The amount would have to factor in a players wage"

Maybe it's spin as £45M sounds a massive warchest. But not when you factor in wages and renewals.
Could you see Arsene having £45M to spend soley on transfers? I could on the other had see it if this factored in wages and renewals.

Oh it's definitely spin or bullshit what ever you want to call it and all delivered to confuse..Thats the whole point i'm making..

And yes i could see Arsene having 45m to spend if he wanted it and asked for it, i just can't see him wanting it or asking for it..and the only way he will spend that kind of money is if he sells players worth more than that to balance what he has spent, thats how he likes doing things regardless of how much is available and i don't see that changing..

I just spoke about this thread to my mate here at work. (Mouser)
Liverpool do the same. It's a budget figure*.

*If of course this is true.

If wages and re negs came from the transfer kitty then what on earth is that £90-100m coming out of our income each year, marked wages, i know we like to take care of the groundstaff but thats just f*cking ridiculous or maybe the club don't realise they are paying the players twice, once out of the set aside transfer kitty and once out of the clubs general expenses

It's all smoke and mirrors mate, designed to confuse..regardless of who else is trying to confuse their fans with the same nonsense... how much you spend on a transfer is how much it cost to sign the player, his wages come out of yearly expenses as does the managers wages as does everyone else who works for the clubs wages, trying to make the fans think they are spending more on players by adding the whole contracts wages on to the transfer figure is nothing more than bullshit...for instance what happens if we sell a player signed on a four year contract after one year do we pay up his whole contract because we have budgetted it on to his transfer fee..of course not, because his wages come out of the yearly expenses and are budgetted in to that not the transfer fee....

There is no such thing as a kitty it's a budget.
So yes the players wages and transfers (i think aswell) are factored into the budget. yes Transfer fee's and wages on the reports are displayed sepparetly.
Make's sence knowing that Ashavin will cost a total of £30M over however many seasons. Once the deals done it's all been factored and taken into account.

The transfer fee comes from how much money we want to spend on a player and we seperate cash for that purpose...anything else like wages and re-negs are factored in to our yearly expenses, you don't pay his contract in advance so you can't pretend it's part of the transfer fee that year, which is what you and others have been insinuating...making assumptions about how much a player will cost the club over the length of his contract is one thing but pretending that 25m was set aside when he signed, to pay his fee and his whole contract, is something the club have encouraged people like yourself to believe, to make out they are spending more money each year than they are to excuse there lack of real spending...

[Boomer]

(sighs)
Of course all the contract wage isn't paid upfront.
but It's factored in and it's a finance mechanism called 'forecast budgeting'.

Although it's not actually done this way but the full contract is effecively put aside.
Therefore you no longer have to worry about it.

Your right this is not part of the tranfer fee but factored into the whole deal (fee + total contract wages) come out of the 'budget', warchest etc...

If a player leaves before the end of his contract and is bought
1) We'll get the transfer fee which will top up the budget for future transfers.
2) Plus we'll have surplus cash in the form of wages which had been forecast for the rest of the players (now cancelled) contract.

For example AA23 get sold 2 years into his 60K a week 4 year contract for £15M.

Firstly, we get £15M. Whether in installments or not we'll eventually get £15M
Also we'll have an extra £6,240,000 a surplus from AA23's wages now not being paid due to the early transfer.
So that's £15M + £6.2 = a budget figure of £21.2M

[1989]

We need a big fuck-off babyeater of a CB, and a midfield hardman - enter Felipe Melo.

A keeper is a must as well.

Attack is sorted with Chamakh joining.