The Great Squad Cost Thread

[Makingtrax]

Each of those underdog teams winning had things click together correct. They get brought up because they are all examples of club and footballing structures that are better than ours and that we could and should be learning from, not hand waving away as statistical anomalies at the poker table.

Underdog teams like Atletico that do well over a number of years probably are well managed. But what's your point?

They are behind Real and Barcelona by some distance and have only won the league once since 2004. This proves the theory that money can't even buy well run clubs like that titles.

There are three clubs in our league that can outspend all the rest by some way. Liverpool, Sp**s and Arsenal are behind them on spending.

Of those second tier club, Arsenal have won more trophies and have had better consistency over the last 2o years than the other two. What is there there you disagree with?

You've pointed out no 'logical fallacies'. In fact wtf is a logical fallacy you keep mentioning. If it's a fallacy it's likely to be illogical surely. **** me this forum. SMH

 

[Slartibartfast]

As I said earlier this is where if you use the economic argument to argue that Wenger is not a failure then by that same logic you can't call Wenger's period a sustained "success" either because we have been top 4 in squad cost and wages over pretty much that entire period. So people can't have it both ways.

I would call 20+ years of finishing in the top four and lifting three of the last four FA Cups to be far more sustained success than either Leicester City or Tottenham have had. As someone once said, you can't have it both ways. Even just going back the past 10 years, I'd much rather have Arsenal's record than that of either of those clubs you held up as shining examples of clubs who have somehow done better than Arsenal. How many times, combined, have those clubs participated in the Champions League? Yet Arsenal misses out one time -- by a single point and with a point total that would have resulted in a top four finish in any other Premier League season (and sometimes as high as 2nd) -- and suddenly that's a big failure.

The fact is that Arsenal has sustained success over just the past 10 years better than at least 88 of the other 91 teams in the Football Association. And if you want to toss the National and Isthmian leagues in there, they've sustained success better than 228 other clubs. And that's not counting the hundreds of little clubs at the 9th level and below. And if you go back to the beginning of Wenger's tenure, no other club in the English system has better sustained success.

 

[RoadrunnerReloaded]

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

You're not even thinking about what your saying. How can a team Like Leicester be Championship level/epl relegation fodder, then win the league and then go back to being relegation fodder and sacking their manager, if it's good club organisation?

The point was we can learn things from Leicester midtable-Champs-midtable finish. Namely how they found some excellent bargains and Ranieri got a lot of things exactly right their winning year. Then by all accounts on Foxes forums, Ranieri then changed many of things that got the players performing at that top level.

There's been many theories as to why that anomaly occurred, including all those penalties, 1-0 wins, referees buying into the dream, unusual underdog momentum. But one thing's for sure it was a very rare event and because of that it is much more likely that it was a fluke.

But more importantly you have absolutely no proof that Leicester did not win by chance and the evidence is more likely against you.

So you actually believe that Leicester won the league literally because of random chance? Pure luck? They basically just flipped a coin 38 times and it came up heads is your belief on why Leicester won?

Also just FYI, if you are making the assertion that Leicester won purely by random chance, then its on *you* to provide proof of your assertion. You have it backwards thinking others have to disprove your suggestion.

And your suggestion that such a club is better organised than ours, who have maintained an incredible level of high consistence for over 20 years, is frankly ridiculous.

Bit of a red herring and missing the point.

First problem is our club is totally different today than it was 20 years so you can't even compare Kroenke's Arsenal of 2017 wtih David Dein's Arsenal of 1997.

Then you miss the point I was making about looking at how well other clubs are run in certain areas and moving as an organization to address those issues. For instance our scouting has fallen so far behind the cutting edge curve that Grimandi is a laughingstock meanwhile Monaco, RBL, Dortmund, keep hoovering up bright young talent.

Then there is everything with our outdated wage structure, holding onto players too long, taking well over a decade to even acknowledge we had consistent injury problems, etc.

The two main questions more important than squad cost are:
Are we spending smart money? Are we maximizing the footballing resources we do have.

Its quite clear that other clubs have bypassed us in many ways like Dortmund, Monaco, RBL. Liverpool and Tottenham are looking like they could easily leap frog us as well if we don't get our act together over the next 5 years.

If you truly think we are managed as best we could be from top to bottom and the only problem is Kroenke not spending more money then bully for you. Evidence doesn't support that take though.

 

[James Bond]

So much arguing to defend Wenger via 'squad cost' yet Wenger himself doesnt even use it as an excuse anymore. (He never has really)

“What we learn from Leicester City is what I knew for a long time, which is that it’s not just only down to the amount of money you spend,” he said.

“It’s down to the quality of players you bring in and sometimes the opportunities are not always necessarily linked with the amount of money.
...

https://www.arsenal.com/news/news-a...can-learn-from-leicester-#4JcrWt2R6u5QeXsa.99

We need a manager who can make a team greater than the sum of its parts and really earn his wage. Wenger used to be that man and that is why hes been at the club this long, but to push on now we need more/someone different.

Finishing in and around 4th place consistently with the 4th most expensive squad in the league and the 4th highest wage bill isnt good enough.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

So much arguing to defend Wenger via 'squad cost' yet Wenger himself doesnt even use it as an excuse anymore. (He never has really)


https://www.arsenal.com/news/news-a...can-learn-from-leicester-#4JcrWt2R6u5QeXsa.99

We need a manager who can make a team greater than the sum of its parts and really earn his wage. Wenger used to be that man and that is why hes been at the club this long, but to push on now we need more/someone different.

Finishing in and around 4th place consistently with the 4th most expensive squad in the league and the 4th highest wage bill isnt good enough.

We can't spend as much money as the top 3 spenders. Of course Wenger is gonna say stuff like that. Same as Gazidis said we should focus on try to be more like Leicester instead of Munchen.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Its quite clear that other clubs have bypassed us in many ways like Dortmund, Monaco, RBL.

How have those clubs bypassed Arsenal?

Monaco was relegated in 2012 and spent two seasons in the second division. They've only been in the top three in France for a few years. Yes, they won the French title last season, but then they started selling off most of their best players. And they compete in Ligue 1, which is enormously less competitive from top to bottom than the Premier League. Plus, the only big money club they have to deal with is PSG. They would not have finished in the top four last year had they been competing in the Premier League. The schedule would have been too brutal.

Same thing with Dortmund. They only had Bayern as a big money opponent until Leipzig joined the party last season. They've finished 7th more recently than they won the league. And they seem to lose some of their best players to Bayern quite frequently.

Leipzig didn't even exist 10 years ago. Everything they've accomplished can be attributed to their unlimited resources. They're the most hated club in Germany aside from Bayern because of their ownership and spending. So they're not exactly a good example of a club who has done better than Arsenal on a budget.

 

[XDitto]

Monaco won 1 time since Paris got taken over by oil daddies 5 years ago.
Atletico broke the big two dominance in 13/14, and before that you have Valencia in 03/04 and 01/02.
Dortmund won 2 league title while Bayern won 9 since 2004.

"Poor boy" win rate: around 20%.

Despite "trends", you are not expected to go 12 year straight without winning once. Especially when you consider the fact that Arsenal is not THAT far behind the big boys, as compared with Monaco vs Paris, Atletico vs Real/Barca, or Dortmund vs Bayern

 

[Slartibartfast]

So much arguing to defend Wenger via 'squad cost' yet Wenger himself doesnt even use it as an excuse anymore. (He never has really)

Yet, a lot of the same people who say the enormous spending of other clubs is no excuse are also the ones who have howled about Arsenal's lack of spending and inability to keep up with the enormous spending of other clubs. Remember when Wenger "apologized" for not paying £20 million for Holding? Some prominent anti-Wenger posters on this very forum basically refused to acknowledge Kolasinac as a signing this summer because he was free.

In the quote you provided, Wenger said "sometimes the opportunities are not always necessarily linked with the amount of money." That's true. United got Ibrahimovic for free. Other big spending clubs have gotten bargains. Hell, City is signing a free transfer from Sporting Kansas City (Erik Palmer-Brown). But the core of those clubs were built with money. Big money gives you a big advantage. Yet Arsenal has finished ahead of United, Chelsea and City in recent years. They finished ahead of all three of them two years ago. So the one single thing on which you guys are basing you argument is simply that Arsenal hasn't won, specifically, the Premier League title.

But that's not easy because you have to beat out all three of the mega-spenders. Liverpool hasn't done it. Sp**s haven't done it. Leicester City did it in a Cinderella manner, then lost their glass slipper down a bottomless pit. And that was the one season you might legitimately consider a failure for Arsenal because they did finish ahead of the big spenders but not above Leicester. That was certainly a bigger failure than last year's 75-point total that just happened to coincide with a particularly strong year at the top.

 

[James Bond]

We can't spend as much money as the top 3 spenders. Of course Wenger is gonna say stuff like that. Same as Gazidis said we should focus on try to be more like Leicester instead of Munchen.

I dont get it. You think Wenger's philosophy his whole time here wasn't about getting value for money even before transfer fees exploded?

He has a body of work showing that he has always believed 'it isnt about money but the quality of players'. I mean the man has a degree in economics FFS you know he thinks like that.

While United spent 30M on Rio, Wenger signed Kolo for peanuts having signed Sol for nothing the year before.

30m for Veron and Wenger signed Fabregas for next to nothing. Wenger has ALWAYS played the value for money game before the oil money came.

If Wenger were still good at this moneyball/'value for money' approach nobody would have issue. Hell if Wenger were still able to pick up cheap talented French unknowns/youngsters (ie Kante, Dembele, Mbappe, etc) and we had to wait for them to come good as there could be light at the end of the tunnel most all be happy, but even that looks past him.

 

[James Bond]

Yet, a lot of the same people who say the enormous spending of other clubs is no excuse are also the ones who have howled about Arsenal's lack of spending and inability to keep up with the enormous spending of other clubs. Remember when Wenger "apologized" for not paying £20 million for Holding? Some prominent anti-Wenger posters on this very forum basically refused to acknowledge Kolasinac as a signing this summer because he was free.

In the quote you provided, Wenger said "sometimes the opportunities are not always necessarily linked with the amount of money." That's true. United got Ibrahimovic for free. Other big spending clubs have gotten bargains. Hell, City is signing a free transfer from Sporting Kansas City (Erik Palmer-Brown). But the core of those clubs were built with money. Big money gives you a big advantage. Yet Arsenal has finished ahead of United, Chelsea and City in recent years. They finished ahead of all three of them two years ago. So the one single thing on which you guys are basing you argument is simply that Arsenal hasn't won, specifically, the Premier League title.

But that's not easy because you have to beat out all three of the mega-spenders. Liverpool hasn't done it. Sp**s haven't done it. Leicester City did it in a Cinderella manner, then lost their glass slipper down a bottomless pit. And that was the one season you might legitimately consider a failure for Arsenal because they did finish ahead of the big spenders but not above Leicester. That was certainly a bigger failure than last year's 75-point total that just happened to coincide with a particularly strong year at the top.

No most hinge on the fact that we dont even really even compete for the PL title.

We have more than enough to give it a run every once in a while in the PL and Europe. That is the frustration. Wenger has signed every single player at the club. No DOF, no players from the previous manager, no large overhauls needed yet we usually are bottom of the pack behind the big spenders where Sp**s and Liverpool have pushed the eventual money club champions more recent than us and a relegation survivors have won it.

Then look to Eurpoe, the gap between Atletico and Madrid + Barca hasnt stopped Simeone from winning a title, losing another title by 3 point on the final matchday and making 2 CL finals and the financial gap between them and the big two in Spain is MUCH larger than that between ours and the City, United and Chelsea.

Same can be said with Monaco under Jardim wining the title in France vs big spenders PSG and getting to the semis in the CL. Or Dortmund under Klopp winning back to back league titles and making a CL final vs big spenders Bayern.

In all these cases managers and their squad were able to closed a money gap much larger than their big spending domestic rivals and again in all cases the gap in substantially larger than we have with our rivals.

Its isnt just the Cinderella story with LCFC. Wenger isnt doing enough with what he has.

 

[Makingtrax]

The point was we can learn things from Leicester midtable-Champs-midtable finish. Namely how they found some excellent bargains and Ranieri got a lot of things exactly right their winning year. Then by all accounts on Foxes forums, Ranieri then changed many of things that got the players performing at that top level.

Makes no sense to start looking at the model of a club that can win the league once in x life times.

 

[Batman]

Well, I think this goes back to the point I made earlier. When finances were very tight, Arsenal was forced to sell a few of their top players and take chances on young talent from clubs such as Southampton. Not all this talent worked out (and you can blame Wenger for that, although to be fair no manager gets it right all the time). What complicated things for Arsenal was that they signed some of these players to such lucrative contracts that they've had trouble moving them on and clearing out the squad. This has tied their hands both in terms of having room for new players and, more importantly (as we saw this summer), being able to fit in these spiraling salaries. Again, maybe you can blame Wenger for that, although I don't know the inner workings of the club and just who is ultimately responsible for deciding on salaries. But had Arsenal had the virtually unlimited resources of some of these other clubs, none of this would have been a problem. So it still goes back to the money.

As for Leicester and Tottenham, neither of those clubs has sustained success over any period of time. Arsenal has. Leicester went from relegation fodder to champions in one season. Then they dropped back to 12th and they're clearly a mid-table club. What they did was an aberration, not the result of some great plan. The manager that won the title didn't even make it through the next season.

Sp**s have won nothing of any consequence since the FA Cup in 1991. Before that you have to go back another 30 years for a league title. And they've been no closer to challenging for a title recently than has Arsenal. In fact, last season was the first time they've finished above Arsenal since Wenger took over more than two decades ago. And they still finished seven points behind Chelsea.

So basically you're just cherry-picking.

The difference being that your argument at least is not one that is so rigid as to not account for reality. What I'm saying is that the reason this "debate" rages on is because this particular person's entire argument is solely about money being why we can't challenge let alone win titles and yet when faced with the fact that teams with less money have done so in recent years they all of a sudden walk back the importance of squad cost. If I posit something as the sole reason for the club's lack of success and then dismiss any outliers that makes me a hypocrite.

Nobody here has ever said money makes no difference but to suggest it makes all the difference which is what this particular troll has done is why this thread exists. Ultimately it matters how you spend your money and how you manage the assets you can afford just as much as that you have money. That's how an Arsenal team with a wage bill double that of Sp**s can finish 11 points off of them in the league. We can talk about sustained success all day long but if you can afford to spend double another team's wage bill you should not be finishing behind them ever if squad cost is that important.

And even if you don't like Tottenham and Leicester as examples, look at Dortmund and Atletico. Both have had sustained success over the last 5-7 years due to a smart allocation of their extremely limited(relative to Real, Barca and Bayern as well as Chelsea, United, City and Us incidentally) resources and excellent on field management. Those 2 clubs have done better domestically and in Europe than ourselves, United and arguably City. This would be impossible if squad cost were the millstone that is suggested. The reality is that we can financially compete with our rivals in the league. The wage bill, bloated by contracts handed out to underperforming players by the manager is the handicap, not the actual level of resources. If Tottenham can go close on half the budget there is one man only to look at.

 

[Makingtrax]

Also just FYI, if you are making the assertion that Leicester won purely by random chance, then its on *you* to provide proof of your assertion. You have it backwards thinking others have to disprove your suggestion.

No. Read many articles on this and there seems to be no consensus or agreement on how this happened. There are theories of course. Most of these concern coincidence. Players like Vardy and Mahrez hitting top form, 3 times the normal number of penalties awarded, referees buying into the dream.

It's got nothing to do with coin tosses ffs.

But the least likely of all these theories is your assertion that it was done by design through good management. If your theory was correct then they would not have done so badly so quickly the following season, and the actual manager sacked. It's just common sense ffs.

 

[bingobob]

I think regardless of your view there is little disputing we are a tier below Psg, City, Madrid, United and Barcelona for expenditure. Now if you think squad cost is the main ingredient then we are where we are and that won't change. If you're like me and don't think at the level we are spending is the main ingredient then you're right to feel disappointed.

We haven't used our money right, we've held onto certain players too long, we've missed out on players who we wouldn't have in the past (Dembele, Griezmann)

I genuinely think there is marginal increase between the amounts we look at, 100m still buys some of the top 100-200 players in the world it may be less than 200m can buy but enough so that you're on a near level playing field and that's where a manager has to extract every piece of value they can from what they have.

 

[Makingtrax]

What I'm saying is that the reason this "debate" rages on is because this particular person's entire argument is solely about money being why we can't challenge let alone win titles and yet when faced with the fact that teams with less money have done so in recent years they all of a sudden walk back the importance of squad cost. If I posit something as the sole reason for the club's lack of success and then dismiss any outliers that makes me a hypocrite.

I think regardless of your view there is little disputing we are a tier below Psg, City, Madrid, United and Barcelona for expenditure. Now if you think squad cost is the main ingredient then we are where we are and that won't change. If you're like me and don't think at the level we are spending is the main ingredient then you're right to feel disappointed.

Since the big money arrived in football around 2004.

Dortmund have won twice but only have one rich team above them

Atletico have won once, but they have two rich teams above them.

Arsenal, Liverpool, Sp**s, haven't won at all, but they have three rich teams above them.

All bluster aside, yours, @RoadrunnerReloaded 's and @Batman's recent assertion that we should be challenging for this league and would do if it weren't for Wenger, is just not sound.

Money is the most important variable in football, and no matter how much posters try to rubbish that or me . . . the odds of us winning this league under any manager are not brilliant.

 

[Makingtrax]

No most hinge on the fact that we dont even really even compete for the PL title.

We have more than enough to give it a run every once in a while in the PL and Europe. That is the frustration. Wenger has signed every single player at the club. No DOF, no players from the previous manager, no large overhauls needed yet we usually are bottom of the pack behind the big spenders where Sp**s and Liverpool have pushed the eventual money club champions more recent than us and a relegation survivors have won it.

Then look to Eurpoe, the gap between Atletico and Madrid + Barca hasnt stopped Simeone from winning a title, losing another title by 3 point on the final matchday and making 2 CL finals and the financial gap between them and the big two in Spain is MUCH larger than that between ours and the City, United and Chelsea.

Same can be said with Monaco under Jardim wining the title in France vs big spenders PSG and getting to the semis in the CL. Or Dortmund under Klopp winning back to back league titles and making a CL final vs big spenders Bayern.

In all these cases managers and their squad were able to closed a money gap much larger than their big spending domestic rivals and again in all cases the gap in substantially larger than we have with our rivals.

Its isnt just the Cinderella story with LCFC. Wenger isnt doing enough with what he has.

You can't use the CL in the squad cost debate. All the English clubs have done fairly poorly in recent years and there's numerous theories and reasons why, see posts above.

But Atletico have only won the Spanish league once since 2004. That is not an advert for well managed clubs beating quality players bought with vast sums of money. It really isn't.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No most hinge on the fact that we dont even really even compete for the PL title.

We have more than enough to give it a run every once in a while in the PL and Europe. That is the frustration. Wenger has signed every single player at the club. No DOF, no players from the previous manager, no large overhauls needed yet we usually are bottom of the pack behind the big spenders where Sp**s and Liverpool have pushed the eventual money club champions more recent than us and a relegation survivors have won it.

Then look to Eurpoe, the gap between Atletico and Madrid + Barca hasnt stopped Simeone from winning a title, losing another title by 3 point on the final matchday and making 2 CL finals and the financial gap between them and the big two in Spain is MUCH larger than that between ours and the City, United and Chelsea.

Same can be said with Monaco under Jardim wining the title in France vs big spenders PSG and getting to the semis in the CL. Or Dortmund under Klopp winning back to back league titles and making a CL final vs big spenders Bayern.

In all these cases managers and their squad were able to closed a money gap much larger than their big spending domestic rivals and again in all cases the gap in substantially larger than we have with our rivals.

Its isnt just the Cinderella story with LCFC. Wenger isnt doing enough with what he has.

Well, if you'd rather have Arsenal be relegated, spend two years in the second division, come back and win a title then sell off most of the club's best players (Monaco) than have a team that's consistently among the league's best, then fine. I'd rather spend 20 years in the top four. I'm too old to suffer through relegation.

It's been six years since Klopp won those titles. Since then, Dortmund has just been hanging around the top four (except for the year they finished 7th). They did win a German Cup, but then Arsenal has won three FA Cups in the past four years. So no, they haven't been any better lately than Arsenal. And they've not been better while playing in an inferior league to the Premier League (much as I love Bundesliga myself).

Also, apparently you don't realize that Atletico Madrid has been one of the biggest spending clubs around. Until their transfer ban this summer, they had actually outspent Real Madrid three years in a row. They outspent Barcelona one of those years and weren't far behind in the other two. So Simeone has had plenty of financial muscle at his disposal. You don't think they got Griezmann and some of those guys for free did you?

Now, as for Sp**s and Liverpool. Do you know how many times those clubs have finished ahead of Arsenal in the 2010s decade? Sp**s once, Liverpool twice. So I'd hardly say those clubs have been doing better than Arsenal (it's not like either has a trophy of any consequence to show for it). In fact, Arsenal has finished ahead of at least one of the big-spenders in all but two seasons this decade. Sure, that hasn't translated into a league title, but Arsenal and City are the only clubs that have finished in the top five every season.

Now, if you want to say Wenger hasn't done enough with what he has (whatever that even means), then fine. Although I would argue that the club's yearly injury crisis has cost Arsenal at least a couple of pretty good chances of winning it. Is that Wenger's fault for buying injury prone players? Probably not. Although I certainly think something has been wrong in the training and fitness areas.

But overall it seems that you're ignoring the consistent quality of the teams just because the club hasn't won a certain trophy for awhile. And you're cherry picking accomplishments of other clubs who truthfully haven't been as good as Arsenal most of the time in order to try to make your argument.

 

[RoadrunnerReloaded]

All bluster aside, yours, @RoadrunnerReloaded 's and @Batman's recent assertion that we should be challenging for this league and would do if it weren't for Wenger, is just not sound.

I never made any such assertion. Nor do I believe such a simplistic idea in any way.

This is another strawman from you.

Seriously.

Stop making things up.

Stop putting words in people's mouths that they never said.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Ultimately it matters how you spend your money and how you manage the assets you can afford just as much as that you have money. That's how an Arsenal team with a wage bill double that of Sp**s can finish 11 points off of them in the league. We can talk about sustained success all day long but if you can afford to spend double another team's wage bill you should not be finishing behind them ever if squad cost is that important.

The thing is, though, that City, Chelsea and United haven't really managed their assets any better than Arsenal. But their financial resources have allowed them to overcome it by simply discarding players and buying others whenever they want. And by having the resources to overspend to get the players they want. I think that's the part you're missing. The money makes it easy for them. And it makes it easy for them to sustain a certain level of success over time, which really is the important thing. Sure, you're going to have a Leicester City (just as you had a Blackburn in the 90s). Pochettino has done a great job with Sp**s (I said when they hired him that they would be relevant because for the first time in a long time they had a good manager). But so far they've finished ahead of Arsenal just once and they still haven't actually won anything.

I don't think anybody is saying that all you have to do is tally up the spending and that will give you the final league table. But the resources to spend virtually at will gives those clubs a huge advantage.

And even if you don't like Tottenham and Leicester as examples, look at Dortmund and Atletico. Both have had sustained success over the last 5-7 years due to a smart allocation of their extremely limited(relative to Real, Barca and Bayern as well as Chelsea, United, City and Us incidentally) resources and excellent on field management. Those 2 clubs have done better domestically and in Europe than ourselves, United and arguably City. This would be impossible if squad cost were the millstone that is suggested. The reality is that we can financially compete with our rivals in the league. The wage bill, bloated by contracts handed out to underperforming players by the manager is the handicap, not the actual level of resources. If Tottenham can go close on half the budget there is one man only to look at.

Well, the truth is that Dortmund hasn't really challenged Bayern lately. And, as I pointed out in another post, Atletico Madrid actually outspent Real Madrid in all three of the seasons immediately prior to their transfer ban this summer. And their spending was pretty much on par with Barcelona (outspending them once in those same three years). Atletico has been a big-spending club (much bigger than Arsenal). So they're not really a good example of success on a shoestring.

 

[Ärsenik]

Also, apparently you don't realize that Atletico Madrid has been one of the biggest spending clubs around. Until their transfer ban this summer, they had actually outspent Real Madrid three years in a row. They outspent Barcelona one of those years and weren't far behind in the other two. So Simeone has had plenty of financial muscle at his disposal. You don't think they got Griezmann and some of those guys for free did you?
.

You forgot to mention that they were able to purchase players like Griezman because they made huge profits when selling other players (Aguero, Falcao, the Caveman,etc. ) The year the Frenchman came in, their balance was only -30 millions euros. Since Simeone arrived I don't even think that they have spent more than 80 millions euros (net).