LMAO wrote:Angelito wrote:@ LMAO
3rd, 4th, 5th...
That's all I see. Not 1st or 2nd.I've said enough and don't have the motivation to add any more. It was part of the strategy to overpay our young guns so that they stuck with us and we didn't have to break the bank to buy world class players.
I don't even know where to start if you believe that we weren't hamstring during the transition years. Just compare the nett spending of United, City, Chelsea, or even Spurs...
We're the only club that has profited on transfers in the past 15 years.
We have profited. And all these years, either we've finished in UCL places or have won a trophy.
There's nothing much to add.
We're not Real Madrid.
That's exactly my point though. Based on the wage bill rankings, Wenger wasn't a miracle worker. Yes, he 'overachieved' half the time, but only in three seasons since the Emirates broke ground were we expected to finish outside a CL spot. Don't get me wrong, qualifying for twenty consecutive years is commendable, but it's not like he did it on a West Ham budget.
As for net spend, like I've said, Roma and Atletico have both turned a profit in the transfer market since the summer of 2013, yet both clubs are in a European semifinal. Atletico has also been to two CL finals and one more CL semifinal in that period. Hell, they even managed a La Liga in that period against the likes of Real and Barca, as well as staying within touching distance of Real and Barca most of those years.
That is working miracles by Simeone, especially when you consider that Atletico's wage bill is only half of Barca's and Real's (to keep in line with my argument and not get into net spend).
Since 2003-04, the team with the highest net spend per season has only won the PL 4/15 seasons, or 26.7% of the time. I will admit Wenger's finishing in the top 4 from 2003-2013 is a little more impressive considering our net spend was 7th during that period (only £2m behind Aston Villa though). Using net spend as a justification for Wenger's brilliance and our position in the net spend table begs the question of where was Aston Villa for most of those seasons? Their net spend position would indicate a regular top 6 finish, yet they only managed a top 6 finish in 4/10 seasons (with 6th being their highest finish). On the flip side, Aston Villa's wage bill placed them firmly in mid-table, which is where they finished the majority of the time.
In comparison, the team with the highest wage bill has won 5/14 times, or 35.7% (may be 6/15, or 40%, if City has the highest wage bill this season). Yes, it takes time to build a team, but imo that only strengthens the wage bill argument since you have to pay those players over a number of seasons, whereas you only have to buy them once. But as I said in
my original post, the wage bill is a stronger indicator—compared to net spend—of a club's ability to compete.
Also, you have to consider that our socialist wage structure hampered available transfer funds. Take crap like Bendtner, Squillaci, Djourou, Park, Fabianski, Gibbs, Denilson, Santos, and Chamakh off £50k-60k per week, put them on a wage reflective of their quality, and we would've had enough available to afford the likes of Hazard and Mata. It's not that we didn't have the necessary money, it's that it was used unwisely. Overpaying youngsters was one of the stupidest things Wenger and the board ever did; all it achieved was deadwood that no club would buy due to their salaries, leading to the running down of contracts and the players being sold below market value. Pay them what they're worth, and voila, transfer funds all of a sudden become available to upgrade positions with better players (still leading to a substantial wage bill, but without a sense of 'overachieving' when Wenger achieved what was expected).
TL;DR: Net spend is overrated. The wage bill is where it's at.Can someone provide a different perspective than mine on our finances during the transition years? Is there something I'm not seeing?
