Mikel Arteta: Aston La Vista To The Title?

[Macho]

How about answer the question, why do our wages have to be included when everyone else is also paying their players wages? Or why even stop there, let's add tax and player agent fees too while we're at it?

I was going to say this bit but thought better of it. Including wages is just splitting more hairs and where does it end?

Salaries are closely guarded anyways and not readily available like transfer fees are.

 

[db10_therza]

Where we are now is a very different place. KSE are realising that they can take on the oil clubs suddenly. How or why is a mystery. But they’re doing it, and Arteta is almost an irrelevance to this game changing move by the owners.

Tbh I get a lot of the bitterness. I’ll die wondering what Arsène could have accomplished if he was given the backing we’re seeing now…

 

[db10_therza]

How about answer the question, why do our wages have to be included when everyone else is also paying their players wages? Or why even stop there, let's add tax and player agent fees too while we're at it?

People mention transfer fees because fees are the salient cost of acquiring a player. People like you are muddying the waters now with wanting to add wages to "give a bigger picture" because our performance at selling players is horrid.

Err - because not everyone pays the same wages? Because there’s been plenty of research done that shows wages have a higher correlation with success than transfer spend? Do you want me to go on?

 

[db10_therza]

If Arteta wins the title it means he's most likely become a much better coach than he currently is. That would be like 10% of the way of my grievances with him, only way I'll ever be Arteta In is if he publicly apologises for being a selfish arrogant piece of ****.

Sorry I replied to your last post before seeing this. I wouldn’t have bothered replying had I seen this. You’re the literal definition of an “agenda merchant”.

 

[Makingtrax]

Yeah, your proving my point. Your friend is emotionally invested in Everton for whatever reason. I bet he's spent loads of money watching them over the years that could probably have been spent more wisely and he knows they'll never win the league. He's a fan and he's emotionally invested. It's not logical behaviour, in the same way that most Arsenal fans aren't logical when it comes to determining success by squad cost or net spend. That's the point of being a fan, emotions and hope.

I'll leave it there as with your second paragraph it's pretty clear you want to drag this thread endlessly back to Arsène.

Lol. All fans are emotional, or they wouldn’t be fans. But emotion doesn’t have to cloud your understanding of reality. Money is most of football, the relationship between wealth and winning is well established. I think the only reason it’s spelt out in so much detail in this forum is that like climate change deniers and anti vaxxers there are numerous posters struggling with the concept. Fortunately for us KSE have had an epiphany.

 

[Riou]

Tbh I get a lot of the bitterness. I’ll die wondering what Arsène could have accomplished if he was given the backing we’re seeing now…

To be fair, Wenger does have 3 league titles and is the record FA cup winner...plus has a very unique unbeaten championship, and if we the right calls were made (Eto'o being flagged offside) he would have won us our deserved Champions League in 2006 too...so it's not like he didn't achieve anything here.

Arsène's legacy goes beyond his impressive honours list anyway...he will always be the soul of our football club, no matter how far into the future you go.

 

[CaseUteinberger]

I'm not interested in getting into another Wenger top 4 debate.

But I know who is and you are debating with him!

 

[Makingtrax]

I was going to say this bit but thought better of it. Including wages is just splitting more hairs and where does it end?

Salaries are closely guarded anyways and not readily available like transfer fees are.

@jones remember the arguments on here about Willian’s salary. It was a £100k a week minus the signing on fee and bonuses, which were spread over the lifetime of his contract, so that made payments of £200k a week. Some websites quoted a £200k salary some quoted £100k, including Hairspray. Massive difference.

 

[Blood on the Tracks]

Lol. All fans are emotional, or they wouldn’t be fans. But emotion doesn’t have to cloud your understanding of reality. Money is most of football, the relationship between wealth and winning is well established. I think the only reason it’s spelt out in so much detail in this forum is that like climate change deniers anti vaxxers there are numerous posters struggling with the concept. Fortunately for us KSE have had an epiphany.

Of course money plays a large factor. You're not going to be a long term top, top side unless you spend big money. That's true.

But just throwing cash around wildly isn't a guarantee of success, just look at Man Utd currently. By most metrics they should be challenging Man City for the title year in year out but they're miles off.

There's a narrative being formed that if Arsenal do well this season it'll be purely down to KSE and the money spent and Arteta is just being carried along by a rising tide and is at best a net neutral if not a negative.

It's how some of you guys can find a way to justify not giving him any credit even if we do well. You're locked into the position that he's crap and results or league position aren't going to change that. Just goes to show you're as prone to confirmation bias and emotional thinking as the rest of us are. You are a fan so that's natural behaviour

 

[ArsenesCoatMaker]

How about answer the question, why do our wages have to be included when everyone else is also paying their players wages? Or why even stop there, let's add tax and player agent fees too while we're at it?

People mention transfer fees because fees are the salient cost of acquiring a player. People like you are muddying the waters now with wanting to add wages to "give a bigger picture" because our performance at selling players is horrid.

Because wages are a huge cost and part of acquiring football players.

Ronaldo costs United £33m per season including fee and wages over course of contract (£66m total for 2 years)
Varane costs United £26m per season including fee and wages over course of contract (£104m total for 4 years)
Ben White costs Arsenal £16m per season including fee and wages over course of contract (£80m total for 5 years)

But according to your logic United paid less for Ronaldo and Varane than we paid for Ben White. It's a nonsensical argument. And that's without going into agent fees in transfers

Someone like yourself only looking at fees would say 'Halaand is a bargain for £54m - that's what Arsenal paid for Ben White)

Except Halaand will cost Man City £250m including agent fees, fee to his parents and wages

 

[jones]

Err - because not everyone pays the same wages? Because there’s been plenty of research done that shows wages have a higher correlation with success than transfer spend? Do you want me to go on?

Ah well if there's been plenty of research done why not just send it to the FA and tell them no bother playing the matches every weekend, the results are already here.

Wages are obviously relevant in getting a team to perform same as transfer fees are. Referring to wages instead however wouldn't give you a good idea either as seen with Sp**s finishing ahead of us for the last few seasons, Leicester and West Ham above us the year before, United below a bunch of teams paying a fraction etc

Only transfer fees however are constantly attacked by certain man as being inaccurate however. Do I need to spell out why that is?

 

[Macho]

@jones remember the arguments on here about Willian’s salary. It was a £100k a week minus the signing on fee and bonuses, which were spread over the lifetime of his contract, so that made payments of £200k a week. Some websites quoted a £200k salary some quoted £100k, including Hairspray. Massive difference.

Was exactly my point, Willian's salary was all over the place on here depending on which side of the argument you were on. We've largely taken Nketiah's 100k salary as gospel as well despite nothing really confirming that.

 

[db10_therza]

Was exactly my point, Willian's salary was all over the place on here depending on which side of the argument you were on. We've largely taken Nketiah's 100k salary as gospel as well despite nothing really confirming that.

You guys are right in that we shouldn’t look at individual wages coz fook knows what they are. But you can look at total player wages from audited accounts…

 

[jones]

Because wages are a huge cost and part of acquiring football players.

Ronaldo costs United £33m per season including fee and wages over course of contract (£66m total for 2 years)
Varane costs United £26m per season including fee and wages over course of contract (£104m total for 4 years)
Ben White costs Arsenal £16m per season including fee and wages over course of contract (£80m total for 5 years)

But according to your logic United paid less for Ronaldo and Varane than we paid for Ben White. It's a nonsensical argument. And that's without going into agent fees in transfers

Someone like yourself only looking at fees would say 'Halaand is a bargain for £54m - that's what Arsenal paid for Ben White)

Except Halaand will cost Man City £250m including agent fees, fee to his parents and wages

I'm not sure how long you've been watching football but all of this isn't exactly news. No I did not think Ronaldo or Varane cost the club overall less than White costs us.

The question is what's the point of laying all of this out? Does the fact Ben White's wages are lower than Cristiano's make it any less true that we've spent record transfer fees for years now? You keep talking about people ignoring wages when you barely acknowledge the fact we've been spending absurd fees for players in recent years.

 

[samspade]

How about answer the question, why do our wages have to be included when everyone else is also paying their players wages?

I can’t believe I’m answering this. Because different clubs pay different wages, genius. Some rosters are good value for wage some aren’t. Wages make up about 50% of revenues for football clubs so it’s clear to anyone who isn’t a ***** or disingenuous that it’s extremely relevant.

Or why even stop there, let's add tax and player agent fees too while we're at it?

I believe player wages are quoted before tax and the players pay it not the club so tax is irrelevant and the figures are easily accessed and interpreted. Vat is relevant to domestic transfer fees so, by all means, include that as well, takes whites fee up to 95m.

People mention transfer fees because fees are the salient cost of acquiring a player.

This just means nothing. You said fees are mentioned because they are relevant which of course they are, it’s not an argument that other costs are not relevant.

People like you are muddying the waters now with wanting to add wages to "give a bigger picture"

Stop projecting your agenda driven motives on others. If @Makingtrax wants to carry out an assessment of how we’ve spent our money it’s reasonable for any thinking person to ask that he recognises that player wages are a significant part of the costs. Or would you prefer we write off the Willian transfer as a ‘free’.

because our performance at selling players is horrid.

The conversations have been about gross spend not net spend, so this doesn’t make any sense as a motive to muddy the waters. If people want to have a conversation about net spend, I’m happy for them to have it. People spend hours and hours here debating this topic, I’d have hoped that people were able to construct more sophisticated arguments by now tbh. Imo if we don’t at least make an attempt to have this conversation a little better there’s no point doing it at all.

Trax has mentioned Chelsea, Chelsea’s wage bill is 177m our is 107m. Baffles me how anyone could suggest this doesn’t deserve mentioning.

One of the stupidest, most incoherent things I’ve ever read on AM, what a waste of time.

 

[samspade]

I was going to say this bit but thought better of it. Including wages is just splitting more hairs and where does it end?

Salaries are closely guarded anyways and not readily available like transfer fees are.

Can’t believe you approved of that utter dross tbh. People want to keep forcing us to have this conversation, spend hundreds of hours on it, pathetic they can’t do better than solely gross spend imo.

Pointless even having the conversation if we can’t at least discuss wages.

 

[Macho]

Can’t believe you approved of that utter dross tbh. People want to keep forcing us to have this conversation, spend hundreds of hours on it, pathetic they can’t do better than solely gross spend imo.

Pointless even having the conversation if we can’t at least discuss wages.

My approval means nothing but I am sorry to disappoint Mr Sam.

 

[Mrs Bergkamp]

@Nacho @Trilly @Blood on the Tracks @Kav @Rimaal @Sebastes @El Duderino @Mrs Bergkamp @Rex Bezos @jones @Heskey @Penn_ @Hunta @OnlyOne @DanDare @Taylor Gang Gunners @field442

Is this true? (Sorry for the "flip-flops" I forgot to include and yes I'm aware of the dusted tag too).

Lol. I wouldn't even try to hound a person out for having a different opinion. If Arteta proves me wrong and Arsenal succeed, then I'll be happy. If he fails, I'll criticise. The world will still keep spinning whatever happens

 

[jones]

This just means nothing. You said fees are mentioned because they are relevant which of course they are

Your first response to the fee table was "no use to man or beast" if wages aren't included. Didn't take long for this 180.

Stop projecting your agenda driven motives on others. If @Makingtrax wants to carry out an assessment of how we’ve spent our money it’s reasonable for any thinking person to ask that he recognises that player wages are a significant part of the costs. Or would you prefer we write off the Willian transfer as a ‘free’.

No I wouldn't, but in terms of how the club spends its money it's not an outrageous decision to look at fees. United spend ****loads in fees *and* wages yet few here would want us to emulate them because their return is ****.

We spend outrageous fees, just because wages are somewhat reasonable doesn't mean the club gets a pass for its **** return on investment. You can't cry poverty because of (reportedly) low wages when you spend like Real Madrid on fees.

Since no one here is following Arsenal for accouting reasons this whole fee vs wage debate eventually boils down to one thing, is our performance adequate compared to our financial outlay. People pointing to the record transfer fees think it isn't. When you refer to our low wage bill you're insinuating that we can't compete with those above us because we don't pay as much as they do, when in fact the only reason our wage bill right now is so low is because the club decided to trim it.

The club decided to throw out several high earners and the club decided to buy youngsters on low wages. Seeing as our wage bill is reportedly a lot lower than it used to be it's not even like the club couldn't have replaced the outgoing players with more readymade players. And seeing how we're paying through the nose for players who weren't absolutely necessary like White or Vieira and even tried paying more than that for Raphinha, it's not like the club has had its hands tied.

Also learn some manners, I get headaches reading the garbage you put out every day and I'm yet to call you the ****ing imbecile you are. You started your post talking about 'rosters' ffs.

 

[Xln]

Next time you see Xhaka on your telly, do us all a favour and instead of smashing your telly just smash up your laptop and phone instead.

Useless boy.

Doritos losing his hairs over AM