• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

The Great Squad Cost Thread

Squad cost?


  • Total voters
    58

Mark Tobias

Mr. Agreeable
Consider any team. They all have players that are under priced like Hazard because he was bought some years ago or Ramsey because he was bought for a small fee. And most EPL teams are over paying for players these days too e.g. Lukaku, Lacazette, etc.

So squad cost is not exact and could average out as much +\- £50m because of these anomalies.

But so what? City at £900m +\- £50m are going to be a lot better than Arsenal £400m -/+ £50m or Liverpool £437m-/+£50m. And have a much greater probability of winning the league.
Makes huge difference when we've got Wilshere, Ramsey, Bellerin, Iwobi et al all having cost nothing. How msn if their first team players did they get for peanuts?
 

A_G

Rice Rice Baby 🎼🎵
A-M CL Draft Campeón 🏆
But so what? City at £900m +\- £50m are going to be a lot better than Arsenal £400m -/+ £50m or Liverpool £437m-/+£50m. And have a much greater probability of winning the league.
Look at City's central defenders:
£30m Otamendi
£42m Mangala
£6m Kompany
£50m on Stones.

Do Otamendi and Mangala's fees reflect their quality? Even on Stones, they've paid big for potential + homegrown premium. I'm not denying that City have a more talented squad, what I'm arguing is that the disparity between them and Arsenal isn't as great as the squad cost would indicate. Certainly not to the point where you go into games against them thinking there's no chance.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Makes huge difference when we've got Wilshere, Ramsey, Bellerin, Iwobi et al all having cost nothing. How msn if their first team players did they get for peanuts?
But for that argument to be meaningful those players have got to be having a big impact . . .are they?

Ramsey and Wilshere are probably the best but they've have had little or no impact on our league campaign for years due to persistent injuries.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Look at City's central defenders:
£30m Otamendi
£42m Mangala
£6m Kompany
£50m on Stones.

Do Otamendi and Mangala's fees reflect their quality? Even on Stones, they've paid big for potential + homegrown premium. I'm not denying that City have a more talented squad, what I'm arguing is that the disparity between them and Arsenal isn't as great as the squad cost would indicate. Certainly not to the point where you go into games against them thinking there's no chance.
You've always got a chance because of the luck element in games.

If you'd prefer to use current player valuations you can, City are decidedly lower and Sp**s much higher because of the Kane/Alli fluke.

City £713m
United £667m
Sp**s £635m
Chelsea £626m
Liverpool £493m
Arsenal £443m

This could be well be how they finish this year.
 

BBF

Real name: Ragip Xh...

Country: Netherlands
People on here genuinely believe that players are better than others simply by virtue of their transfer fee.

Which is moronic because their wages like any other business would suggest how capable they are in their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_G

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
Look at City's central defenders:
£30m Otamendi
£42m Mangala
£6m Kompany
£50m on Stones.

Do Otamendi and Mangala's fees reflect their quality? Even on Stones, they've paid big for potential + homegrown premium. I'm not denying that City have a more talented squad, what I'm arguing is that the disparity between them and Arsenal isn't as great as the squad cost would indicate. Certainly not to the point where you go into games against them thinking there's no chance.
The other point is even if you can't see the explaination for yourself, the evidence that it works is absolutely overwhelming.

It can't be chance that the richest three clubs have won 13 of the last 14 seasons, if you include this year. And the next 3 clubs haven't won once.

And Sp**s/Liverpool have changed their manager numerous times.
 

BBF

Real name: Ragip Xh...

Country: Netherlands
Interesting to see that we're behind 2 clubs who have a smaller wage bill than us, and behind the current title holders who have a wage bill exceeding ours by only 400k. Real value for money there.

Also interesting to see the team with the highest wage bill last season finished 6th, whilst Arsenal finished behind two other clubs with a lower wage bill than us.

If we go back a season, the team with the 2nd highest wage bill finished 10th, whilst the league winners were 15th in the wage bill table.

But yeah, none of that fits the narrative despite it actually being a better indication of performance.
 

Mark Tobias

Mr. Agreeable
But for that argument to be meaningful those players have got to be having a big impact . . .are they?

Ramsey and Wilshere are probably the best but they've have had little or no impact on our league campaign for years due to persistent injuries.
So now players have to have an impact for their value to be high? Pogba having a 90m impact?
 

A_G

Rice Rice Baby 🎼🎵
A-M CL Draft Campeón 🏆
You've always got a chance because of the luck element in games.
If you'd prefer to use current player valuations you can, City are decidedly lower and Sp**s much higher because of the Kane/Alli fluke.
I see now why we disagree on this. You reduce to everything to luck and chance, as if tactics, coaching etc. has no bearing on the game.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
I see now why we disagree on this. You reduce to everything to luck and chance, as if tactics, coaching etc. has no bearing on the game.
Ha ha. Now you're making stuff up.

Love football books, read loads of them, How soccer explains the world, Inverting the Pyramid, Soccernomics, The numbers Game etc

The numbers game had a profound effect on how I view the game, some BS of course but made me think about the role of money, luck and managers.

My guess from reading the book would be 'where you finish in the league' could be 60% down to skill or player quality/money maybe more, 20% luck because it's a low scoring sport with humans officiating and 20% management skills. Everyone can come up with their own breakdown of course.

The management skills therefore only come into play when two teams have similar squad costs. Which would fit. If management were influencing the game like 60%, then Pep at Bournmouth could finish higher than a lesser management at City. But that would never happen.
 

FinnGooner

Established Member
So basically it is impossible for Wenger to fail. Now that Sp**s have overtaken us with lower squad cost, we're still apparently performing on par because they have a higher squad value. If, hypothetically, Everton overtakes us next season, it will be because a bunch of their players are outperforming their cost. The Everton squad value will then increase because of this while our squad value will of course decrease due to subpar performances by players. Not too shabby.

But I'm sure if Wenger wins the Europa League it'll be hailed as a glorious achievement even though we have the highest squad cost out of the remaining teams in the competition. But conveniently Atlético Madrid has higher squad value...
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
So basically it is impossible for Wenger to fail. Now that Sp**s have overtaken us with lower squad cost, we're still apparently performing on par because they have a higher squad value. If, hypothetically, Everton overtakes us next season, it will be because a bunch of their players are outperforming their cost. The Everton squad value will then increase because of this while our squad value will of course decrease due to subpar performances by players. Not too shabby.

But I'm sure if Wenger wins the Europa League it'll be hailed as a glorious achievement even though we have the highest squad cost out of the remaining teams in the competition. But conveniently Atlético Madrid has higher squad value...
Except Kane cost Sp**s nothing and is probably worth over a £100m. Which punches a hole in that argument. How often does that happen? Do Everton have someone like that?

Still maintain that a board should sack a manager in relation to the amount of money they put in. So Man U sacked LVG for finishing 4th and 5th when they invested the most money in the league. That's a poor performance.

For 20 years Wenger was below 4th on squad cost and finished continually in the top 4. That's excellent.

Last year he missed out on 4th by 1 point. This year he's 6th with the club having invested the 5 the most money in the league. It's not good and if the board sack him you could understand it. It's a results based business and he's highly paid.

One final point, it's not easy comparing squad cost across different leagues abroad. Bayern get their pick of the best young players in Germany. They have a squad cost well below United or Chelsea but may well have a better team.
 

IslingtonBornandbred

Active Member
Except Kane cost Sp**s nothing and is probably worth over a £100m. Which punches a hole in that argument. How often does that happen? Do Everton have someone like that?

Still maintain that a board should sack a manager in relation to the amount of money they put in. So Man U sacked LVG for finishing 4th and 5th when they invested the most money in the league. That's a poor performance.

For 20 years Wenger was below 4th on squad cost and finished continually in the top 4. That's excellent.

Last year he missed out on 4th by 1 point. This year he's 6th with the club having invested the 5 the most money in the league. It's not good and if the board sack him you could understand it. It's a results based business and he's highly paid.

One final point, it's not easy comparing squad cost across different leagues abroad. Bayern get their pick of the best young players in Germany. They have a squad cost well below United or Chelsea but may well have a better team.

I'm not interested in getting involved in this debate because I genuinely can't be bothered, but I can't remember what we spent in comparison to other teams between 97-2006ish. Are you sure that's over 20 years? It's a moot point I guess but in the years we finished either 1st or 2nd which was between 1997-2006 I can't claim to know if we spent more or less than any other top team. I just think the "for 20 years part Wenger was below 4th on squat cost" can't be right because I can't remember three teams outspending us in that period but even so, like the Kane example, Wenger picked up the likes of Henry, Vieira, Campbell, Toure, Cole for relatively small amounts compared to what their peak valuation would have been.

And like I said I'm personally more interested in kicking the ball in the net and stopping other people kicking the ball in the net. I'm doing my UEFA B license later this year and this subject is generally on the complete opposite end of the spectrum to what the majority of coaches are focused on. If this team was a case study example on the course, they'd be focused on: How can I get this team more defensively compact? How can I improve the way the defence defend crosses? Can we have more purpose to our attacks whilst positioning ourselves to deal with counter attacks? These are all things that they'd look to improve and consider before even mentioning transfers or squad cost. Honestly, if someone mentioned squad cost on one of those courses, you'd be completing disrespecting the professional and everyone in the room.
 

Vinci

The Sultan of Unai

Country: Netherlands
Except Kane cost Sp**s nothing and is probably worth over a £100m. Which punches a hole in that argument. How often does that happen? Do Everton have someone like that?

Still maintain that a board should sack a manager in relation to the amount of money they put in. So Man U sacked LVG for finishing 4th and 5th when they invested the most money in the league. That's a poor performance.

For 20 years Wenger was below 4th on squad cost and finished continually in the top 4. That's excellent.

Last year he missed out on 4th by 1 point. This year he's 6th with the club having invested the 5 the most money in the league. It's not good and if the board sack him you could understand it. It's a results based business and he's highly paid.

One final point, it's not easy comparing squad cost across different leagues abroad. Bayern get their pick of the best young players in Germany. They have a squad cost well below United or Chelsea but may well have a better team.
There is some truth in squad cost, especially over a longer period of time, but it's a bit too simplistic. I'm a big fan of data, though. Think a combination of different things can be very insightful into how a manger is doing. If the numbers aren't good it's much more fair to get rid of a manager than just going by sentiment and pressure from the outside as happens a lot in football.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
I'm not interested in getting involved in this debate because I genuinely can't be bothered, but I can't remember what we spent in comparison to other teams between 97-2006ish. Are you sure that's over 20 years? It's a moot point I guess but in the years we finished either 1st or 2nd which was between 1997-2006 I can't claim to know if we spent more or less than any other top team. I just think the "for 20 years part Wenger was below 4th on squat cost" can't be right because I can't remember three teams outspending us in that period but even so, like the Kane example, Wenger picked up the likes of Henry, Vieira, Campbell, Toure, Cole for relatively small amounts compared to what their peak valuation would have been.

And like I said I'm personally more interested in kicking the ball in the net and stopping other people kicking the ball in the net. I'm doing my UEFA B license later this year and this subject is generally on the complete opposite end of the spectrum to what the majority of coaches are focused on. If this team was a case study example on the course, they'd be focused on: How can I get this team more defensively compact? How can I improve the way the defence defend crosses? Can we have more purpose to our attacks whilst positioning ourselves to deal with counter attacks? These are all things that they'd look to improve and consider before even mentioning transfers or squad cost. Honestly, if someone mentioned squad cost on one of those courses, you'd be completing disrespecting the professional and everyone in the room.
Wenger's spend against other teams over the twenty years of staying in the top 4 is in this BBC article. And as you'll see we've spent way below United, Chelsea, City and Liverpool.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39231549

Squad cost and coaching have nothing to do with each other. One is about how much the board are willing to spend on assembling a team, and coaching is about the manager preparing that team for matches.
Why anyone would mention squad cost on a coaching course is beyond me.
 

Latest posts+

Top Bottom