Is it perspective or do we screw up more than others transfer wise?

[IBK]

Andrey Arshavin, Sébastien Squillaci, Gervinho, André Santos, Park Chu-young and Marouane Chamakh. To name but some. I know we like to laugh at Torres, but have we made more mistakes than others signing players, and if so, why?

[GP]

Yep, I reckon we're the only club who sign players that don't work out.

[IBK]

Yep, I reckon we're the only club who sign players that don't work out.

Not the point. I know I am centred on AFC but I would honestly like to know objectively how we measure up...or whether we are bleating over nothing when it comes to our overpaid failures.

[Injury Time]

Andrey Arshavin, Sébastien Squillaci, Gervinho, André Santos, Park Chu-young and Marouane Chamakh. To name but some. I know we like to laugh at Torres, but have we made more mistakes than others signing players, and if so, why?

Liverpool /thread

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Liverpool /thread

Well..... quite.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

We've signed a fair few duffers but that's a natural consequence of going for bargains as the standard option. Other clubs end up with players that contribute just as little eventually though, it happens to all clubs. Look at Malouda, contributed to Chelsea at times (09/10) but now is their Arshavin essentially.

[IBK]

We've signed a fair few duffers but that's a natural consequence of going for bargains as the standard option. Other clubs end up with players that contribute just as little eventually though, it happens to all clubs. Look at Malouda, contributed to Chelsea at times (09/10) but now is their Arshavin essentially.


Gervinho £10,600,000
Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain £12,000,000
Joel Campbell £950,000
Park Chu-Young £3,000,000
André Santos £6,200,000
Mikel Arteta £10,000,000
Per Mertesacker £10,000,000

Some fairly chunky fees in there?

[IBK]

Well..... quite.

:lol:

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Gervinho £10,600,000
Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain £12,000,000
Joel Campbell £950,000
Park Chu-Young £3,000,000
André Santos £6,200,000
Mikel Arteta £10,000,000
Per Mertesacker £10,000,000

Some fairly chunky fees in there?

Not really, I mean, not in football terms.

[IBK]

Not really, I mean, not in football terms.

I'd love to know how much Swansea's squad cost. Anyone know how much Newcastle have paid for their Frenchies?

[McNamara That Ghost...]

As well as Swansea have done, ultimately, they're midtable (not a criticism). And Newcastle are much further down than that.

[IBK]

As well as Swansea have done, ultimately, they're midtable (not a criticism). And Newcastle are much further down than that.

Agreed - but given that AW is obsessed with value for money, are we getting it?

[Xhaka Can’t]

Agreed - but given that AW is obsessed with value for money, are we getting it?

Not when you factor in wages.

[Özil's Panoramic View]

We just might be ahead of the pack, especially when we narrow it down to our stature, where we're said to one of the supposed 'big' clubs.

Not sure any other 'big' club has so many of its players out on loan simply because they turned out to be massive slags who the club can never sell for one reason or the other.

We have a player named Park whom, personally, I can't recall ever seeing in action for us. Did we manage to sell him? :shrug:

[IBK]

Not when you factor in wages.

Agreed - Wenger's blind spot!

[IBK]

We just might be ahead of the pack, especially when we narrow it down to our stature, where we're said to one of the supposed 'big' clubs.

Not sure any other 'big' club has so many of its players out on loan simply because they turned out to be massive slags who the club can never sell for one reason or the other.

We have a player named Park whom, personally, I can't recall ever seeing in action for us. Did we manage to sell him? :shrug:

Reckon it might be the reason why they are on loan. Other clubs seem to sign or develop project players and loan them out. We seem to sign players intended for the first team and then have no choice but to loan them to try to cut losses when they fail.

[Özil's Panoramic View]

Gervinho £10,600,000
Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain £12,000,000
Joel Campbell £950,000
Park Chu-Young £3,000,000
André Santos £6,200,000
Mikel Arteta £10,000,000
Per Mertesacker £10,000,000

Some fairly chunky fees in there?

Some may disagree with the "chunky" bit because some of those figures are peanuts in modern football terms. But I'm inclined to agree with you based on what we got for those monies.

Frankly, most of those shouldn't be here even if they were for free.

[IBK]

Some may disagree with the "chunky" bit because some of those figures are peanuts in modern football terms! But I'm inclined to agree based on what we got for those monies.

Frankly, most of those shouldn't be here even if they were for free.

"Chunky" referred to what we tend to pay...

[Özil's Panoramic View]

"Chunky" referred to what we tend to pay...

Oh sorry, left off the 'with you' after the '...agree ...' there.

[LDG]

Wenget plays the odds. Everything he does is based on percentages and risk. From injuries, to squad depth, to player positions and tatics.

Its the same with transfer fee versus player potential. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but he has unwittingly lowered the level of quality in doing so.

[IBK]

Oh sorry, left off the 'with you' after the '...agree ...' there.

Ha ha - understood. Its interesting how low our transfers are compared to other EPL teams with CL aspirations.

[IBK]

Wenget plays the odds. Everything he does is based on percentages and risk. From injuries, to squad depth, to player positions and tatics.

Its the same with transfer fee versus player potential. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but he has unwittingly lowered the level of quality in doing so.

Wonder if he's losing his nerve though - now he is tapping second tier 'established' players, and fucking up badly with his punts...

[The Emirates Gallactico]

Not when you factor in wages.

Yep when you factor in wages we're pretty way down in terms of value for money I suspect which makes some of the board/Wenger claims of financial prudence ridiculous. We have the fourth highest wage bill in the country, not that far off Man United's and when you note down the difference in performance on the pitch then you realise just the sheer scale of wastage there is on the books. I'm not sure if one exists already but someone really needs to compile a joint Transfer Fee + Wage chart for easy comparison.

I'd also add in the likes of Diaby, Denilson, Djourou & Bendtner as other waste who are essentially getting paid to do nothing.

With regards to the original question, in terms of whether Wenger getting it wrong more often then not when it comes to player transfers, it's really hard to say as EVERY manager has their share of duds. Even Ferguson: Kleberson, Djemba Djemba, Veron, Bebe, Miller (lol new Keane) etc etc. It's impossible to determine accurately in terms of number of duds without actually carrying out some significant transfer analysis of the past twenty years which I can't be bothered to do.

However the problem with our duds compared to say duds at quite a few other clubs is that we foolishly give them lavish contracts which makes them harder to get rid of once they arrive. Furthermore Wenger often persists with his dud signings a lot longer than other managers. For example I could never see Ferguson persisting with Denilison for as long as Wenger did, likewise Santos & Arshavin would have been out of the door a lot faster under him once their incompetence and unfitness for PL level football was established. These two things combined make our duds more noticeable I believe which may give the impression that we have a lot more duds compared to others.

[Kano]

Gervinho £10,600,000
Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain £12,000,000
Joel Campbell £950,000
Park Chu-Young £3,000,000
André Santos £6,200,000
Mikel Arteta £10,000,000
Per Mertesacker £10,000,000

Some fairly chunky fees in there?
bit silly to throw in oxlade and arteta as money wasted. ox is far too early to write off and most fans saw arteta as a decent enough player last term. he's far from alone this year in having his problems.

[Power n Glory]

Wonder if he's losing his nerve though - now he is tapping second tier 'established' players, and fucking up badly with his punts...

I think he is. He has bought players that just aren't suitable to our style of play. Some aren't that bad and have some uses. Bendy, Giroud, Chamakh....unless we're playing a counter attacking style with fast wingers, these guys were never going to flourish.

It used to be a case of players needing a full year to get used to the league and pace but now that's just not true.

[Cripps_orig]

Harsh to put Mert in there. Arteta has been shit since he joined

[Marc Overmars]

Every club has their share of hits and misses but the quality of our team has steadily declined, which suggests either the signings are plain not good enough or the manager is unable to get the best out of the team.

Either way, we've wasted a lot for a club who prides itself on being economic.

[Özil's Panoramic View]

Harsh to put Mert in there. Arteta has been shit since he joined

Agreed on the Arteta bit. Really a pointless player who should have finished his days at some pub team.

Mert is also a bit shitte too tbh, tall and lanky but can't jumb higher than any Spanish midget, neither can he outpace a caterpillar.

[selassie]

Wenget plays the odds. Everything he does is based on percentages and risk. From injuries, to squad depth, to player positions and tatics.

Its the same with transfer fee versus player potential. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but he has unwittingly lowered the level of quality in doing so.

Yep, this.

:gp:

[fakeyank]

IF we are considered to be a top club, then we buy a lot of shit players who we depend on. Utd has bought a fair share of garbage but they always have someone to cover up their arses and minimize the shit show. We sell our best and buy absolute junk, so our junk stinks more, since its always out in the open.

[Marc Overmars]

IF we are considered to be a top club, then we buy a lot of shit players who we depend on. Utd has bought a fair share of garbage but they always have someone to cover up their arses and minimize the shit show. since its always out in the open.

They also don't hoard the duds they sign as well.

[Boss]

Not when you factor in wages.

We have the fourth highest wage bill in the country.

We have never finished lower than fourth and will probably finish fourth again. Think most of you don't really understand what 'value for money' means.

If you include transfer fees in this argument, we come out a long way on top.

The fans may be getting ripped off (1300 for a season ticket to watch a club that hasn't won anything in eight years - lol) but the club's financial side is, as always, very well maintained relative to our performances on the pitch.

As for transfers, it's a lot more difficult to unearth 'gems' when you're playing around in the bargain bin of the market, but all clubs make mistakes. Chelsea have spent 100M this year to get knocked out of the CL in the group stages and are a mere two points ahead of us, Man Citeh have ended up with a far weaker team despite adding 4-5 players during the summer and we all know about Liverpool.

[Kano]

For the stupid then, can you expand on what value for money means in this case please?

[Xhaka Can’t]

I defy anyone to look at the players on our books, including the dross on loan, and tell me that represents value for money. We obtained outstanding vfm in the past. Those days are gone.

Even relative to others we obtain poor vfm from our wage bill.

[Marc Overmars]

We're not like City and Chelsea, we can't waste money without facing the consequences of our actions. Having a large stable of players who are either frozen out or on loan means we have money tied up which could be put to more effective use, that's the consequence we have to live with.

[Power n Glory]

It's really hard to believe that our scouts can't find talent and value in the market these days. I was just watching Yaya Toure and thinking how we had the inside lane for this guy and didn't move for him. It's a shocker. In fact, I'm reading that he had a trail with us! No idea why we didn't work hard enough to get deal done for the kid. Or maybe we didn't want to kill Diaby?

We also could have signed him whilst at Olympiacos. We didn't. He moved to Monaco, Wenger's former club but we didn't move for him and he went to Barca for around £7m. Maybe Wenger thought he'd kill Diaby!

That's an example of one player. There are others we've missed that have the talent but wouldn't have cost a fortune as well. The Prem is littered with such players so I don't agree with this idea that we can't find hidden gems. Wenger and scouts just aren't moving for them.

[GP]

He was refused a work permit.

[selassie]

We have the fourth highest wage bill in the country.

We have never finished lower than fourth and will probably finish fourth again. Think most of you don't really understand what 'value for money' means.

If you include transfer fees in this argument, we come out a long way on top.

The fans may be getting ripped off (1300 for a season ticket to watch a club that hasn't won anything in eight years - lol) but the club's financial side is, as always, very well maintained relative to our performances on the pitch.

As for transfers, it's a lot more difficult to unearth 'gems' when you're playing around in the bargain bin of the market, but all clubs make mistakes. Chelsea have spent 100M this year to get knocked out of the CL in the group stages and are a mere two points ahead of us, Man Citeh have ended up with a far weaker team despite adding 4-5 players during the summer and we all know about Liverpool.

Arshavin 80K per week surplus to requirements, Squillaci, Chamakh, Djourou & Bendtner all 50k per week surplus to requirements, that is not value for money, that's approx 300K per week wasted on players who don't play. What makes it even worse is that no other club wants to touch these players because of their ridiculous salaries, we can't even loan some of these duds out.

Relatively speaking we are where we are due to the calibre of player we have and the wages we pay them, sure I agree with this. However...the point here is that we could and should have put our wages to better use.

Additionally, why do we have to unearth gems? We're told repeatedly the club is in great shape financially, we clearly have funds to spend so why don't we target the 15-20mill market more? I accept that we can't spend like Chelsea or City but I would rather we spent 20mill and 100k per week on a top quality player than buy 2 10mill 50k per week risk buys.

I personally feel there is one man stopping us from spending up to 20mill on a player and that is because of some "crazy" principle he has.

[Kano]

We have the fourth highest wage bill in the country.

We have never finished lower than fourth and will probably finish fourth again. Think most of you don't really understand what 'value for money' means.

If you include transfer fees in this argument, we come out a long way on top.

The fans may be getting ripped off (1300 for a season ticket to watch a club that hasn't won anything in eight years - lol) but the club's financial side is, as always, very well maintained relative to our performances on the pitch.

As for transfers, it's a lot more difficult to unearth 'gems' when you're playing around in the bargain bin of the market, but all clubs make mistakes. Chelsea have spent 100M this year to get knocked out of the CL in the group stages and are a mere two points ahead of us, Man Citeh have ended up with a far weaker team despite adding 4-5 players during the summer and we all know about Liverpool.
PREMIER LEAGUE WAGE BILLS 2010-11

Chelsea - £191m (up from £174m in 2009-10)
Manchester City - £174m (£133m)
Manchester United - £153m (£132m)
Liverpool - £135m (£121m)
Arsenal - £124m (£111m)

looks like we are on course.

value for money right?

[Power n Glory]

He was refused a work permit.

Didn't stop us from signing Vela, Ryo, Campbell and Wellington Silva who had similar work permit issues and we could have dipped back in for him whilst in Greece or France but we didn't.

[The Emirates Gallactico]

We have the fourth highest wage bill in the country.

We have never finished lower than fourth and will probably finish fourth again. Think most of you don't really understand what 'value for money' means.

If you include transfer fees in this argument, we come out a long way on top.

The fans may be getting ripped off (1300 for a season ticket to watch a club that hasn't won anything in eight years - lol) but the club's financial side is, as always, very well maintained relative to our performances on the pitch.

As for transfers, it's a lot more difficult to unearth 'gems' when you're playing around in the bargain bin of the market, but all clubs make mistakes. Chelsea have spent 100M this year to get knocked out of the CL in the group stages and are a mere two points ahead of us, Man Citeh have ended up with a far weaker team despite adding 4-5 players during the summer and we all know about Liverpool.

It's not as simple as pointing to final position on a table and equating final position with wages spent as defining value for money Teggers you simpleton.

You have to look at actual figures and differences in wages in comparison to points earned to consider whether we're getting value for money.

This is from two seasons ago. These are out of date now as it's been established thanks to some bumper contracts we've offered our wage bill is now hitting the 150 million mark. It's the best I can find though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-accounts-profit-debt


What would be a more accurate comparison for "value for money" is if someone compiled a table (*cough Letters*) dividing Total Wages by Points acquired last season so we can a "Wages spent per point gained" figure. Because it's clear that Spurs who seem to be spending roughly 33 million less than us on wages per season yet they finished only one point behind us last year are significantly better than us in extracting value for money. Likewise even Man United who spend about 28~ million more than us yet finish roughly 15 - 20 points better every season are clearly getting better returns on their investment.

Plus you have to also consider real effects and not just maths. How can we realistically claim to be extracting value for money when we have so much dross on large contracts who are unable to be shifted out of the club sucking millions out of the club every season, yet we're unable to keep our top players because we can't match their wage demands that other top clubs are able to.

Furthermore if we didn't have such a ridiculous bloated wage structure we perhaps would be so compelled to sell our best players every summer just to make a profit. All this wastage in wages affects our ability in the transfer market when it comes to recruiting players.


It's really hard to believe that our scouts can't find talent and value in the market these days. I was just watching Yaya Toure and thinking how we had the inside lane for this guy and didn't move for him. It's a shocker. In fact, I'm reading that he had a trail with us! No idea why we didn't work hard enough to get deal done for the kid. Or maybe we didn't want to kill Diaby?

We also could have signed him whilst at Olympiacos. We didn't. He moved to Monaco, Wenger's former club but we didn't move for him and he went to Barca for around £7m. Maybe Wenger thought he'd kill Diaby!

That's an example of one player. There are others we've missed that have the talent but wouldn't have cost a fortune as well. The Prem is littered with such players so I don't agree with this idea that we can't find hidden gems. Wenger and scouts just aren't moving for them.

True, though as GP points out I do think we tried getting him whilst he had a trial here but couldn't because of Work Permit issues. Though we probably could have got him when he went to Olympiacos.

Still like I've said about other top players that Wenger has claimed to have "just missed out" on, I don't think he would seem as good as he is now if he joined us, with our inability to structure and organise a defence and our lack of some basic footballing principles. Essentially he would have been "Arsenalised" to some extent.

[Kano]

it's a stupid argument. he trialled and didn't perform very well but arsenal still wanted him.


"He was here as a young boy but we cannot get players in here if they are not internationals. He had no work permit and was too young. We tried to wait until when he was in Belgium, we tried to get him a European passport.

"He was not patient enough and left for Metalurh Donetsk, that is the club where he went."

shit happens. sure, our buying policy hasn't been up to scratch but what is the point of banging on about players who we could've signed at the time who none of us acknowledged as being of much use? hindsight makes it too easy.

you do know we could've also got ronaldo and zlatan right?

[Syn]

What would be a more accurate comparison for "value for money" is if someone compiled a table (*cough Letters*) dividing Total Wages by Points acquired last season so we can a "Wages spent per point gained" figure.

Jesus fuck. Assuming a linear relationship is pretty silly.

TEG is generally right (the real one, not the weirdo). And I’ve explained this on here before but this isn’t really the forum for perspective, logic and sound reasoning. We get value for money to the extent that we generally finish around where we’re supposed to. And it’s also rather convenient to leave out the fact that we’re actually making money in the transfer market. Talk of profits through player sales, for your average club that might spend £20m or so, we’re talking about a swing of around £35-40m or 30% of our wage bill. Overall we are no more wasteful relative to the league but what highlights the problem is that the variance in ‘value for money’ across players.

We are doing well with some players that could be higher paid if we operate in a similar way to some other clubs (i.e. paying your first-team players a lot, lot more than what you pay your squaddies) but - and what drives the bias is that - we have players that could be paid a lot less and it’s clear to see that, whereas it’s not so clear to see at other clubs. Another source of bias is looking at the genius Wenger delivered at the start where he did get us results far and above what would be expected with our expenditure, but in looking at our performance relative to the league, that’s not now important. Looking purely at end results year after year, it’s clear that we generally do as well as we’re supposed to, but that’s not to say there aren’t clear ways we can improve - and I think a good manager would get us to do better. And what we're all looking for is - instead of buying 2 players at £10m, to get 1 player of £20m, assuming the squad numbers are healthy.

[Power n Glory]

it's a stupid argument. he trialled and didn't perform very well but arsenal still wanted him.



shit happens. sure, our buying policy hasn't been up to scratch but what is the point of banging on about players who we could've signed at the time who none of us acknowledged as being of much use? hindsight makes it too easy.

you do know we could've also got ronaldo and zlatan right?

It's one example of many players and whole point relates to this false argument of there being no value in the market. As said, we could have bid again before he moved to Barca but we didn't. Maybe Wenger and the scouts didn't believe in his talent or that we had better players and this is where we have a problem.

We're worse off now squad wise with £120m in the bank but Wenger and the Board are using the same sort of excuses. How can we not find value in the market when so many clubs around us are able to? I used Yaya Toure as one example.

Edit - A lot of fans were talking about Yaya Toure whilst in Greece and France. I wouldn't say it's hindsight. He was building a rep before Barca.

[Kano]

It's one example of many players and whole point relates to this false argument of there being no value in the market. As said, we could have bid again before he moved to Barca but we didn't. Maybe Wenger and the scouts didn't believe in his talent or that we had better players and this is where we have a problem.

We're worse off now squad wise with £120m in the bank but Wenger and the Board are using the same sort of excuses. How can we not find value in the market when so many clubs around us are able to? I used Yaya Toure as one example.
of course there is value in the market. the only person who says otherwise is wenger and really, anyone who listens to his words and takes them as the truth or a serious argument needs their head checked.

maybe toure didn't want to turn back, as proved by him not waiting around for a euro passport and wanted to forge his own path? until you have it from toure, you're just making things up.

toure is a poor example.

we have plenty of others we HAVE bought we are better ones.

[Power n Glory]

of course there is value in the market. the only person who says otherwise is wenger and really, anyone who listens to his words and takes them as the truth or a serious argument needs their head checked.

maybe toure didn't want to turn back, as proved by him not waiting around for a euro passport and wanted to forge his own path? until you have it from toure, you're just making things up.

toure is a poor example.

we have plenty of others we HAVE bought we are better ones.

There are plenty of people on here who make that argument. We've already had it on this thread and there have been plenty of others that blame Chelsea and Man City's billions.

Okay, let's say Toure is a bad example, but what exactly am I making up? I'm just pointing out our reluctance to move for a player that we could have used and especially at a time when we had players like Denilson and Diaby in the squad. It's not as if there was no need for a strong powerful midfielder at a time when the press kept saying we were soft in the middle.

It's the same pattern now even though we're richer but with less talent on the field.

[The Emirates Gallactico]

Jesus fuck. Assuming a linear relationship is pretty silly.

TEG is generally right (the real one, not the weirdo). And I’ve explained this on here before but this isn’t really the forum for perspective, logic and sound reasoning. We get value for money to the extent that we generally finish around where we’re supposed to. And it’s also rather convenient to leave out the fact that we’re actually making money in the transfer market. Talk of profits through player sales, for your average club that might spend £20m or so, we’re talking about a swing of around £35-40m or 30% of our wage bill. Overall we are no more wasteful relative to the league but what highlights the problem is that the variance in ‘value for money’ across players.

We are doing well with some players that could be higher paid if we operate in a similar way to some other clubs (i.e. paying your first-team players a lot, lot more than what you pay your squaddies) but - and what drives the bias is that - we have players that could be paid a lot less and it’s clear to see that, whereas it’s not so clear to see at other clubs. Another source of bias is looking at the genius Wenger delivered at the start where he did get us results far and above what would be expected with our expenditure, but in looking at our performance relative to the league, that’s not now important. Looking purely at end results year after year, it’s clear that we generally do as well as we’re supposed to, but that’s not to say there aren’t clear ways we can improve - and I think a good manager would get us to do better. And what we're all looking for is - instead of buying 2 players at £10m, to get 1 player of £20m, assuming the squad numbers are healthy.

:lol: True you're right. On reflection it probably wouldn't be a pure linear relationship, but more a diminishing returns graph with spending more and more getting you less gains in performance.

However diminishing returns or not, I still don't believe it reflects any more kindly on us - a one point difference vs 30 million more spent in wages against Spurs isn't going to get alleviated considering diminishing returns.

I did allude to profit from player sales in my previous post in stating that we perhaps would be able to spend more on transfers if we able to reduce the wastage in our wage structure. Hence as I mentioned in my very first post on this thread someone needs to generate a combined wages and transfers table for better comparison. Yes you're correct in pointing out that we "choose" to spend more on wages than transfers, however this "choice" may be driven by the need to maintain a profit and the inability to spend because of our wage bill. If we had 30 million free from having a lower wage bill from having less dead-weights like Denilson, Bendtner, Santos etc etc you may see us become more eager to spend more in the transfer window.

Ultimately though waste is waste be it in the form of transfers or wages. That part is impossible to dress up - and we have significant waste on our books, the majority from wages but there's also a part from transfers (Santos, Gervinho etc etc). This costs us tens of millions a year which could be better spent elsewhere on actually improving the team.

This situation may get better with the new Emirates deal and the increase in TV revenue but I rather suspect that a lot of this revenue will get absorbed by the increasing and out of control wage increases that we are seeing in this game resulting in another false dawn for the club.

In short, are we the worst at spending? Clearly not when you look at the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea, Man City etc etc. But at the same time we can not claim to be a role model of financial prudence which the board and some fans like to promote at times when our recent profits have been wholly driven by top player sales and external property sales which aren't sustainable in the long term. In particular when the aforementioned player sales continually lead to ever worse performances on the pitch and a steady decline of the club.

[Nayan]

From football365.com ('Why it might not work out at Bayern). Point being even a once potential replacement for wenger / savior has a dodgy transfer record.

The Pressure of Money
Since Guardiola's appointment at the Allianz Arena was announced, there has been talk of that rarest of footballing treasures: the transfer war chest. The Daily Mail reported that this figure was £240million, but one suspects that this may be wildly inaccurate and instead relates to the valued equity of the club stated by President Uli Hoeness during the latest shareholders' meeting. However, whatever the case, reports of bids for Luis Suarez will do nothing but fan the flames.

Unfortunately, I believe the purchase of players to be Pep's largest weakness. Whilst he may not have been the sole decision-maker on transfers whilst at Barcelona, the following (all during his four years in charge) do not read prettily: Alexander Hleb (£15m), Martin Caceres (£15m), Dmytro Chygrynskiy (£22m), Zlatan Ibrahimovic (£60m and sold two years later for a third of the price), Keirrison (£12m), Adriano (£9m). Even the £53m spent on Cesc Fabregas and Alexis Sanchez has not been truly vindicated as yet, with both players struggling to truly identify their role within the Barca system. That's nearly £200m of unconvincing recruits.

[Kano]

i'm pretty sure bayerns youth set up with provide a healthy enough buffer and don't most euro clubs operate in a way where the manager doesn't buy the players, rather a 'football director' with the coach told to get on with whoever comes in?

[Power n Glory]

From football365.com ('Why it might not work out at Bayern). Point being even a once potential replacement for wenger / savior has a dodgy transfer record.

The Pressure of Money
Since Guardiola's appointment at the Allianz Arena was announced, there has been talk of that rarest of footballing treasures: the transfer war chest. The Daily Mail reported that this figure was £240million, but one suspects that this may be wildly inaccurate and instead relates to the valued equity of the club stated by President Uli Hoeness during the latest shareholders' meeting. However, whatever the case, reports of bids for Luis Suarez will do nothing but fan the flames.

Unfortunately, I believe the purchase of players to be Pep's largest weakness. Whilst he may not have been the sole decision-maker on transfers whilst at Barcelona, the following (all during his four years in charge) do not read prettily: Alexander Hleb (£15m), Martin Caceres (£15m), Dmytro Chygrynskiy (£22m), Zlatan Ibrahimovic (£60m and sold two years later for a third of the price), Keirrison (£12m), Adriano (£9m). Even the £53m spent on Cesc Fabregas and Alexis Sanchez has not been truly vindicated as yet, with both players struggling to truly identify their role within the Barca system. That's nearly £200m of unconvincing recruits.

It's a good observation if we're going to talk about wasting money. That's a lot blown by Pep. Answers the original thread question anyway. We'd be dead in the water if Wenger got things that wrong in the transfer market.

[Nayan]

Andrey Arshavin, Sébastien Squillaci, Gervinho, André Santos, Park Chu-young and Marouane Chamakh. To name but some. I know we like to laugh at Torres, but have we made more mistakes than others signing players, and if so, why?

Everyone was having a daisy over arshavin early on and there is no doubt that bringing him in that January was a major part of shoring up CL football that season.
Santos looked good at first.
Ditto Chamakh who was getting rave reviews for understudying RVP who was banjaxed early in the morroccan's arsenal career. You can say they did contribute something and it was bad luck they didnt work out, or that they were badly used and grew demotivated. We dont know whether having to play in the same team as diaby, denilson and eboue (as well as out of posiiton) demotiovated Arshavin and ultimately led to RVP leaving to go to a proper club.

The rest are uniformly shit indeed. Point being however its easy to be a bit revisionist.

Anyway moving on Ramsey has been a damp squib, Jury still out on Walcott. Cazorla and Podoslki inconsistent.

However, Arteta has been a canny purchase and for all his slowness, mertesecker has dont more good than bad. the OX is young but we are rightly optimistic there too.

[The Emirates Gallactico]

Everyone was having a daisy over arshavin early on and there is no doubt that bringing him in that January was a major part of shoring up CL football that season.
Santos looked good at first.
Ditto Chamakh who was getting rave reviews for understudying RVP who was banjaxed early in the morroccan's arsenal career.

Santos looked good at the start because he was following on from the back of the 8 -2 shellacking and Armand Traore's terrible performances.

There were warning signs about Chamkah from the very start on GW from what I recall. He always had a reluctance and fear to take responsibility and try and actually shoot. This was masked amongst some hard work and just overall great team performances but once the losses started piling up his flaws were exposed.


However on reflection you're right on Arshavin. Despite the past couple of years of being invisible it was worth shelling out the 15 million plus 80 K/4 year deal simply just so we could remain in the CL that year which he was largely responsible for.

[LDG]

Probably one for another topic, but I've never gotten why we have gone for the "big man" up top as our cover striker, and arguably now, first choice striker.

Bender, Chamahk, Giroud....I just don't get it. We never really cross the ball (properly) to play to those stregths, and we don't often play it long to bring them into the game anyway.

I got the Adebayor thing, as the lanky twat could use his gangly judas feet in a weird way, and had pace, so caused all kinds of problems for defences.

When we play with a big man, their main stregnths are just null and void....though luckily Giroud seems to have more guile about him than Bender and Backpack.

Meh.

We need to find a powerhouse striker who can play quickly with their feet, IMHO.

[Nayan]

Probably one for another topic, but I've never gotten why we have gone for the "big man" up top as our cover striker, and arguably now, first choice striker.

Bender, Chamahk, Giroud....I just don't get it. We never really cross the ball (properly) to play to those stregths, and we don't often play it long to bring them into the game anyway.

I got the Adebayor thing, as the lanky twat could use his gangly judas feet in a weird way, and had pace, so caused all kinds of problems for defences.

When we play with a big man, their main stregnths are just null and void....though luckily Giroud seems to have more guile about him than Bender and Backpack.

Meh.

We need to find a powerhouse striker who can play quickly with their feet, IMHO.

"
* After 'wide' players Santi Cazorla and Theo Walcott failed to attempt a single cross v Sunderland, they attemped 25 (four successful) v Aston Villa on Saturday.
* They were successful with a phenomenal 38 of their 42 attempted long balls v Villa with Santi Cazorla successful with all eight of his long balls. "

Giroud, rather like Bendter before him often gets into the right place at the right time even if his finishing is also wayward. He isnt pacey but he does offfer a target and we do get to use our wingers as wingers (ie there is a point to croissing the ball).
Worthy of note - Giroud's first season in the prem, and at the vanguard of a shit arsenal team is on course to eclipse the PL debut seson of Didier Drogba - who also followed from a good season in France but walked into a bankrolled Chelsea that steamrollered its way to the title.

Giroud is actually quite good.

[LDG]

"
* After 'wide' players Santi Cazorla and Theo Walcott failed to attempt a single cross v Sunderland, they attemped 25 (four successful) v Aston Villa on Saturday.
* They were successful with a phenomenal 38 of their 42 attempted long balls v Villa with Santi Cazorla successful with all eight of his long balls. "

Giroud, rather like Bendter before him often gets into the right place at the right time even if his finishing is also wayward. He isnt pacey but he does offfer a target and we do get to use our wingers as wingers (ie there is a point to croissing the ball).
Worthy of note - Giroud's first season in the prem, and at the vanguard of a shit arsenal team is on course to eclipse the PL debut seson of Didier Drogba - who also followed from a good season in France but walked into a bankrolled Chelsea that steamrollered its way to the title.

Giroud is actually quite good.

Don't get me wrong. I like Giroud. I think he's a tidy, intellegent (and sexy) player.

I don't think we play to his strengths though.

[IBK]

IF we are considered to be a top club, then we buy a lot of shit players who we depend on. Utd has bought a fair share of garbage but they always have someone to cover up their arses and minimize the shit show. We sell our best and buy absolute junk, so our junk stinks more, since its always out in the open.

Kind of sums it up for me - whatever the reality, maybe our transfers get so scrutinised because we are dependent on their immediate success - and then (IMO) by not concentrating on their strong points and trying to make them all rounders Wenget takes away their self belief. Other teams screw up - but have the depth of squad to hide it.

But it can't be right that we are spending money wisely with so many failed players unsalable because they get paid too much. A few more Chamack/West Ham examples, and we won't even be able to loan out to EPL clubs, FFS!

And for those arguing that our habitual league place reflects directly our wage spend - don"t forget that we are supposed to have a manager whose reputation is built on development, not competitive investment. Doesn't add up for me.

[Nayan]

I thin they bet they could get away with bargain bin players and youth talent coming through while they broke the back of the stadium debt. They miscalculated on various fronts
1) that anyone could throw as much money at the league as city and chelsea did (they expected player prices and salaries to collapse)
2) that theeir players would be good enough to compete
3) that their wage structure would be able to keep their squad together and not see their best talent drained away by higher wages on offer elsewhere.

Even if some talent left to win trophies, thats all bullshit. They left becasue others paid more money. Our desire to pay well for the lower levels of the pyramid is out of whack with what it takes to retain/recruit top talent. Ironically we now have a huge wage bill with very poor value for money.
Paying diaby, almunia and denilson huge wages didnt make them better players. It meant they went from 'shit' to 'overpriced shit.'

[mastermind84]

We have the fourth highest wage bill in the country, not that far off Man United's and when you note down the difference in performance on the pitch then you realise just the sheer scale of wastage there is on the books.
while I agree with a lot of your post, this part is untrue.

ManU's actual wage bill is closer to Chelsea's and City's than Arsenal. They just hide money through sponsorship deals and offshore accounts.


Didn't stop us from signing Vela, Ryo, Campbell and Wellington Silva who had similar work permit issues and we could have dipped back in for him whilst in Greece or France but we didn't.
he didnt want to wait and sign for Arsenal.

[AKBapologist]

Not when you factor in wages.

Where would you expect someone with historically, the 4th highest wages to finish in the league over the last few years?

[Nayan]

normally there is a link between what you spend in wages+transfers and the quality/depth of your squad.

However paying almunia, bendter, diaby higher wages didnt make them better players. It made them overpaid mediocre players.

Right now we are not punching our weight

[IBK]

Where would you expect someone with historically, the 4th highest wages to finish in the league over the last few years?

I think you forget that our manager, the best paid in the world? Is paid for achieving CL football with fewer resources than anyone else. On this basis he is failing then.

[Nayan]

same wage bill as utd, and certainly less wage+transfer spend than spurs.

Utd challenge for the league and win trophies. Arsenal do not.

And if spurs can finish ahead of us with less resources he has indeed failed, comparatively speaking.
If his objective target is simply to qualify for next years group stage then that wouldrevising, on the grounds that spurs wouldve done it with a smaller spend

[Xhaka Can’t]

The league is only one of four competitions we enter. Basing vfm on league performance and ignoring all other comps, you could say we are getting what we've paid for.

However it is not that simple, we have failed across the board in the other competitions and we shell out hundreds of thousands per week on players nobody wants.

That is bad vfm.