Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Looked it up and spurs only spend £5m net a season on average, which doesn't sound unreasonable. Liverpool spend £14m.

    (Original post by Derrick1509)
    I would assume the money is coming from the new TV deals? Although I expected them to save that money for their stadium to be honest.*




    None of their players have made me go " wow, I wish we had signed him" so I'm not too bothered to be honest ( as long as we buy quality players of course)
















    Posted from TSR Mobile




    Spurs net spend in EPL history=185m
    Arsenal net spend in EPL history=28m

    When you consider that Spurs have been in the CL once to our 16, have much lower stadium/commercial revenue and have never managed to finish above us under Wenger, that's a scandalously poor record from Spurs. And its obvious that their billionaire owner has injected the money as a sugardaddy-lite whereas ours wouldnt even pay for a new lightbulb for us. Liverpool are even worse, which is why they have no right to have a go at Chelsea/City.

    Spurs cant afford to build their stadium tbh. Where are they going to get 400m odd from? We only managed it because Wenger can build a CL team for 67p but they would go into freefall if they go forward with it. Not that they could fill 60k anyway...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Spurs net spend in EPL history=185m
    Arsenal net spend in EPL history=28m

    When you consider that Spurs have been in the CL once to our 16, have much lower stadium/commercial revenue and have never managed to finish above us under Wenger, that's a scandalously poor record from Spurs. And its obvious that their billionaire owner has injected the money as a sugardaddy-lite whereas ours wouldnt even pay for a new lightbulb for us. Liverpool are even worse, which is why they have no right to have a go at Chelsea/City.

    Spurs cant afford to build their stadium tbh. Where are they going to get 400m odd from? We only managed it because Wenger can build a CL team for 67p but they would go into freefall if they go forward with it. Not that they could fill 60k anyway...
    What's the wage bill of Arsenal compared to Spurs throughout that period?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    What's the wage bill of Arsenal compared to Spurs throughout that period?
    Significantly higher, was about 40m higher last season although we've shaved about 25m off ours already this summer. But this is more of a operational cost rather than transfer fees which are more like investments. Ultimately, its impossible to avoid paying market rate wages whereas smart clubs can be competitive with small transfer budgets. No club can really sustain a league position without having a similar wage bill and Arsenal have been 3/4th in the wage bill table since 2004, which isnt unreasonable.

    Still Arsenal have exclusively spent out of revenue, whereas Spurs have, and continue to be, funded externally from their revenue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    What's the wage bill of Arsenal compared to Spurs throughout that period?
    There's about a £40 million difference per year
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    We're doomed if we don't buy a striker. As good Giroud is and will be, good luck to us.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Significantly higher, was about 40m higher last season although we've shaved about 25m off ours already this summer. But this is more of a operational cost rather than transfer fees which are more like investments. Ultimately, its impossible to avoid paying market rate wages whereas smart clubs can be competitive with small transfer budgets. No club can really sustain a league position without having a similar wage bill and Arsenal have been 3/4th in the wage bill table since 2004, which isnt unreasonable.

    Still Arsenal have exclusively spent out of revenue, whereas Spurs have, and continue to be, funded externally from their revenue.
    So since the inception of the premier league, Arsenal have outspent Spurs on wage expenses probably every season? And by a fair margin? Especially when 40mil more is relative to Spurs' last year 100mil budget (i.e. 40% more).

    Not sure why you think there's a difference between money spent on transfers and money spent on wages. To the club, they are both outgoings and an expense to both. Smart clubs can save money either by spending well on transfers or wages. Frankly Arsenal have been poor with their spend on wages but I'll leave it at that.

    Being 3rd/4th in the wage league ranking is just an easy way to pretend there isn't much of a gap - Arsenal vastly outspend most of the league on wages. 60-75% of the league clubs spend less than half of what Arsenal spend in wages.

    Tbfh, again you make a distinction when in reality there is very little. You talk about revenues but what you mean is certain streams such as stadium revenue, sponsors, tv rights, commercial deals etc. In reality a source such as an owner who puts money into the club, is still (by accounting methods) still income for the club and a revenue source. It's the owner's money to spend and it belongs to the club to spend anyway. Why is having one rich benefactor different to have 60,000 small benefactors who pay ridiculous prices for tickets? Because they are 'fans'? Who's to say the rich individual who owns the club isn't a fan?

    End of the day success of a club mainly come down to two factors:
    1) Which club has the most resources?
    2) Which clubs can make the best of the resources they have available?

    Just be glad that Arsenal fall within a small percentage towards the top in limb 1) above. At the moment I'd say that Spurs are doing better at 2).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    .
    Not sure why you think there's a difference between money spent on transfers and money spent on wages. To the club, they are both outgoings and an expense to both. Smart clubs can save money either by spending well on transfers or wages. Frankly Arsenal have been poor with their spend on wages but I'll leave it at that.

    Being 3rd/4th in the wage league ranking is just an easy way to pretend there isn't much of a gap - Arsenal vastly outspend most of the league on wages. 60-75% of the league clubs spend less than half of what Arsenal spend in wages.

    Tbfh, again you make a distinction when in reality there is very little. You talk about revenues but what you mean is certain streams such as stadium revenue, sponsors, tv rights, commercial deals etc. In reality a source such as an owner who puts money into the club, is still (by accounting methods) still income for the club and a revenue source. It's the owner's money to spend and it belongs to the club to spend anyway. Why is having one rich benefactor different to have 60,000 small benefactors who pay ridiculous prices for tickets? Because they are 'fans'? Who's to say the rich individual who owns the club isn't a fan?

    End of the day success of a club mainly come down to two factors:
    1) Which club has the most resources?
    2) Which clubs can make the best of the resources they have available?

    Just be glad that Arsenal fall within a small percentage towards the top in limb 1) above. At the moment I'd say that Spurs are doing better at 2).
    Of course a pound spend on wages is as bad as a pound spend on a transfer fee, but that misses the point entirely.
    There's absolutely no way for a club to permanently avoid paying market wages to its players. Tottenham got Gareth Bale for peanuts but are in the process of offering him 150k a week for instance. Wenger might be able to bring Fabregas/RVP/Vieira/+20 others in for peanuts as well but they will all invariably end up on huge wages, there is simply no way to avoid that. But there is a way to be smart with your transfer outlays. There is a huge gap between BVB and the teams below them in the Bundesliga in their wage bills for example, as I say no club can escape a wage bill proportional to the quality of its squad.

    So your choice is getting good players cheaply before eventually paying them top wages, or pay top transfer fees and immediately pay top wages. Arsenal have done the former whereas Spurs have spent nearly x7 as much on transfers for much worse players. We pay higher market wages because we got better players. This is obvious. So comparing wage bills is not particularly insightful unless a club is paying its players above their market rate. That's not to say we havent been inefficient with our wage bill but with 25m already cleared up and more to come, I'd say our wage bill is currently very reasonable and efficient.

    If you cant, or wont, see the difference between sugar-daddy revenue and traditional revenue then fair enough. Most people can see perfectly well that it takes decades of good management to build up a fanbase/commercial links and that high revenue are a reward to a club. Its a virtuous cycle, whereas a sugar-daddy is money for absolutely nothing. If you can look at PSG/Monaco and say ''that's perfectly reasonable, fair and healthy for football'' then I'd say you've just become desensitized to something truly ghastly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Those videos are good, bit of banter. The tour diaries are always pretty good.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    Of course a pound spend on wages is as bad as a pound spend on a transfer fee, but that misses the point entirely.
    There's absolutely no way for a club to permanently avoid paying market wages to its players. Tottenham got Gareth Bale for peanuts but are in the process of offering him 150k a week for instance. Wenger might be able to bring Fabregas/RVP/Vieira/+20 others in for peanuts as well but they will all invariably end up on huge wages, there is simply no way to avoid that. But there is a way to be smart with your transfer outlays. There is a huge gap between BVB and the teams below them in the Bundesliga in their wage bills for example, as I say no club can escape a wage bill proportional to the quality of its squad.

    So your choice is getting good players cheaply before eventually paying them top wages, or pay top transfer fees and immediately pay top wages. Arsenal have done the former whereas Spurs have spent nearly x7 as much on transfers for much worse players. We pay higher market wages because we got better players. This is obvious. So comparing wage bills is not particularly insightful unless a club is paying its players above their market rate. That's not to say we havent been inefficient with our wage bill but with 25m already cleared up and more to come, I'd say our wage bill is currently very reasonable and efficient.

    If you cant, or wont, see the difference between sugar-daddy revenue and traditional revenue then fair enough. Most people can see perfectly well that it takes decades of good management to build up a fanbase/commercial links and that high revenue are a reward to a club. Its a virtuous cycle, whereas a sugar-daddy is money for absolutely nothing. If you can look at PSG/Monaco and say ''that's perfectly reasonable, fair and healthy for football'' then I'd say you've just become desensitized to something truly ghastly.
    There are plenty of ways to not pay insane wages tbfh.
    1) Find loyal players who aren't money grabbing (see players like Giggs, Scholes etc for Man Utd)
    2) Tie players in to long term contracts with lower wages and resist the urge to just give them pay rises
    3) Learn to offer contracts at the right time - if you offer a new contract when they will be available on a free soon or just have a month of star performances, you will end up giving more in wages
    4) Offer shorter length contracts to older players (e.g. Arsenal's 30+ year old players only getting 1 year deals)
    5) Put a strict wage structure in place and stick to it
    6) Offer players game time/ability to play in Europe/win trophies etc as a stick rather than just throwing money at them

    I'm sure there are plenty of other ways too but in reality plenty of clubs make mistakes in giving new contracts.
    Why do you think spending 10mil on transfer fees for a player who then turns out poor is any worse than giving a player like Diaby/Denilson etc contracts worth 60k a week (over 3mil a year) for 4-5 years (i.e. a liability of over 10mil)?

    Of course there will be some significant outlay on wages but the fact that Arsenal ended up with a bloated wage bill of 140mil a year - which was then cut by 25mil a year shows that it is no better or worse to spend 10-20mil in transfer fees than it is to poorly manage your wage spend.

    Tbfh it's currently a bit of a rich argument to say that Arsenal's squad is better (or much better) than Spurs' squad to justify having a wage bill which is 40% (or 40mil) bigger.

    With both wages and transfer fee it comes down to a matter of risk. You pay a large transfer fee, you're more likely taking on a player who is proven at a certain level and of a certain quality whom his current club wants to retain (see C.Ronaldo for example) but what is equal is giving a player like Messi wages of 200k+ a week. You know his proven worth and quality so you give him huge wages to mitigate the risk of having to find a replacement who could be as good as him.

    I'm not arguing one is more important than the other but your argument seems to centre around spend on transfer fees. The reality is that you can control both transfer spend and wage spend to large degrees and spending more in either respect lowers the risk of failure in a player.

    Tbh revenues to a large degree come from success. Arsenal's success in the past means there is a delayed lag in which fans support the club and in turn as the profile of the club is bigger, the rewards from commercial deals grows too. If Arsenal went through a sustained period of poor form (e.g. no CL football or relegated etc) then the revenues would drop significantly. Frankly all this model does is continue promote those who managed to get ahead once as their increased financial strength means others find it harder to catch up to them. All a sugar daddy does is either level the playing field or in some cases, pushes them through the field to the top. Neither is more justified or fair than the other - an equal wage bill/spend/revenue for all clubs would be a fair process but life isn't fair and nothing is equal for all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2892/...z?ICID=HP_BN_1

    The Gunners have made a fresh attempt to sign the Uruguayan striker this summer, by offering Liverpool £35m up front supplemented by a potential £7m in add-ons
    This is coming from goal.com, so not exactly the most realiable source. This essentially means Arsenal are willing to pay £42m for him. We all know how good he is, but does he really justify £42m considering his reputation?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sám)
    http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2892/...z?ICID=HP_BN_1



    This is coming from goal.com, so not exactly the most realiable source. This essentially means Arsenal are willing to pay £42m for him. We all know how good he is, but does he really justify £42m considering his reputation?
    Footballing quality he's definitely worth that
    Its all the other problems associated with him
    I don't know if we should get him, as he'll leave us in a season or two to go abroad anyway

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by printergirl)
    Footballing quality he's definitely worth that
    Its all the other problems associated with him
    I don't know if we should get him, as he'll leave us in a season or two to go abroad anyway

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    not a fan of this deal at all..

    Your right, he seems dead set on madrid/abroad - so the only way I can see him agreeing to it, is to use arsenal as a stepping stone (with the CL) to get into another club..
    Plus hes out for the first 6 games.. and his attitude issues.. etc. etc.

    The only reason I actually want it to go through is because he is pretty much all there is left - there are no other top top strikers around to get anymore
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't joe lewis backing spurs???
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sám)
    http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2892/...z?ICID=HP_BN_1



    This is coming from goal.com, so not exactly the most realiable source. This essentially means Arsenal are willing to pay £42m for him. We all know how good he is, but does he really justify £42m considering his reputation?
    Geoff arsenal was first to break news of a £40m bid for Suarez, its being reported on the Daily Mail, ESPN and Mirror also.

    At the end of the day Suarez will drastically improve our team he's consistently delivered goals in a poor Liverpool side. Imagine what he could do at Arsenal with better players and coaching.

    The currency of football is goals and as long as his goals lead Arsenal to victory no one will care about his reputation. Just like at Liverpool they took his all of his **** because he scored lots of goals, it only now that they realise that he could be leaving they start criticising him
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    As has been said, I don't think Liverpool will sell him, not to Arsenal this window. He's the kind of player who will still deliver for them on the pitch, and he's on a decent length contract so they hold the cards. I would imagine they would flog him for less abroad than sell him to Arsenal. If Liverpool want back in the top 4 they need to hop Arsenal, that isn't going to happen by selling them world class players. If Bale goes, Liverpool will be sniffing around that 4th spot. If they can make it with Suarez's goals even for one season they have recouped 3/4 of his transfer fee, almost making it worthwhile letting his contract run down. It surely would be dependant on a replacement too, and the strikers market is pretty much empty, selling him would consign them to 6th place at best.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Spurs Won't lose bale, not this summer atleast.

    Dont believe the nonsense Marca are coming out with
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    When you put Suarez at £42 million into context with recent big striker deals, he's worth it. To name a few, Carroll at £35m, Torres at £50m, Falcao at £50m and Cavan at £55m. Surely Suarez is in that category.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rhw)
    I'm quite a fan of Giroud but I still think we need a striker. If Giroud gets injured we can't afford having our backup strikers doing things like this:



    After laughing at that, my eyes slowly began to tear up
    I just watched that gif so many times and I still don't understand how it is humanly possible for a first touch to be that bad.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Apparently Spurs deal for Soldado broke down, not just because they haven't met his 30m euro release clause, but also because they tried to offer it in 5 different instalments.

    Wouldn't surprise me if this is true as they really don't have as much money as everyone believes. Only way they're buying 30m players is if, i don't know, maybe if they had quite a good player they could sell for quite a lot of money? I wonder who?!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glousck)
    Apparently Spurs deal for Soldado broke down, not just because they haven't met his 30m euro release clause, but also because they tried to offer it in 5 different instalments.

    Wouldn't surprise me if this is true as they really don't have as much money as everyone believes. Only way they're buying 30m players is if, i don't know, maybe if they had quite a good player they could sell for quite a lot of money? I wonder who?!
    I agree, the only way they can afford 30+ is if they sold their only best player (Bale) which is highly unlikely.

    But if they sold Sandro + Eskotto...
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: August 26, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.