Is it time for Arsene Wenger to go?

MementoMori · 08-12-2009 8:23pm

In terms of what Arsene has spent - in terms of the cost of the current squad, I reckon it cost somewhere in the region of £90m to assemble, which by a "Big Four" is an utter pittance.

However in terms of the Premier League, Arsenal have outspent most of the other teams in the league and they do have a fairly tasty wage bill as well.

The only sides who have spent more in the PL are Chelsea, Utd, City, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal. Everyone else in the league has spent less and spend less on wages.

Anyone who thinks that Arsenal should get rid of Arsene is jsut talking the crazy talk imo. Like Utd I can see whoever follows the present incumbent having a very tough time maintaining the current level of success.

leninbenjamin · 08-12-2009 8:56pm

MementoMori wrote: »

However in terms of the Premier League, Arsenal have outspent most of the other teams in the league and they do have a fairly tasty wage bill as well.

Don't fully understand this comment? You meaning total expenditure including wages? Or transfer expenditure without taking transfer income into account? Or transfer spending over the history of the Premier League?

MementoMori · 08-12-2009 9:22pm

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Don't fully understand this comment? You meaning total expenditure including wages? Or transfer expenditure without taking transfer income into account? Or transfer spending over the history of the Premier League?

Wasn't the clearest comment all right.

Basically I meant that currently Arsenal's squad is the 7th most expensive in the league combined with the fact that they have the 4th highest wage bill.

I was kinda saying that by the standards of mid-table and lower teams they have spent significant money i.e their level of spending has been ahead of all of the other teams outside the "top four" plus Spurs/City/Villa. By the same token this was a bit of a pittance in terms of big four action.

Was partly to do with a comment I read earlier on another thread which suggested Arsenal came about 15th/16th in terms of spending in the league.

OPENROAD · 08-12-2009 9:32pm

MementoMori wrote: »

Wasn't the clearest comment all right.

Basically I meant that currently Arsenal's squad is the 7th most expensive in the league combined with the fact that they have the 4th highest wage bill.

I was kinda saying that by the standards of mid-table and lower teams they have spent significant money i.e their level of spending has been ahead of all of the other teams outside the "top four" plus Spurs/City/Villa. By the same token this was a bit of a pittance in terms of big four action.

Was partly to do with a comment I read earlier on another thread which suggested Arsenal came about 15th/16th in terms of spending in the league.

Have Arsenal spend more than Spurs/Villa? What period are you taking into account?

starbelgrade · 08-12-2009 9:45pm

My only problem with Wenger is that he relies far too much on foreign players - you could say the same about Chelsea, but they have more of them with more quality. The backbone of United's squad are from the UK or Ireland, so for them, playing in the Premier League is the ultimate dream & thrashing out a scrappy win on a wet & cold December Wednesday means as much to them as facing the likes of Liverpool on a "super Sunday". And it's those results that win you league titles.

L'prof · 08-12-2009 9:54pm

starbelgrade wrote: »

My only problem with Wenger is that he relies far too much on foreign players - you could say the same about Chelsea, but they have more of them with more quality. The backbone of United's squad are from the UK or Ireland, so for them, playing in the Premier League is the ultimate dream & thrashing out a scrappy win on a wet & cold December Wednesday means as much to them as facing the likes of Liverpool on a "super Sunday". And it's those results that win you league titles.

What choice has he had? Spend a fortune on English players? Promote them from the youths? Neither of them has been an option for different reasons. Finally we're starting to see some genuinely talented homegrown youths coming through and we have Wenger to thank for this.

starbelgrade · 08-12-2009 10:07pm

jasonorr wrote: »

What choice has he had? Spend a fortune on English players? Promote them from the youths? Neither of them has been an option for different reasons. Finally we're starting to see some genuinely talented homegrown youths coming through and we have Wenger to thank for this.

It's great for Arsenal to finally see the youth players coming through, but look at this season - 2 signings, both of 'em foreign.

L'prof · 08-12-2009 10:12pm

starbelgrade wrote: »

It's great for Arsenal to finally see the youth players coming through, but look at this season - 2 signings, both of 'em foreign.

1 transfer this season but like I said, they'd have to massively overspend to have gotten an English defender of Vermaelens quality, experience and age.

leninbenjamin · 08-12-2009 10:12pm

MementoMori wrote: »

Wasn't the clearest comment all right.

Basically I meant that currently Arsenal's squad is the 7th most expensive in the league combined with the fact that they have the 4th highest wage bill.

I was kinda saying that by the standards of mid-table and lower teams they have spent significant money i.e their level of spending has been ahead of all of the other teams outside the "top four" plus Spurs/City/Villa. By the same token this was a bit of a pittance in terms of big four action.

Was partly to do with a comment I read earlier on another thread which suggested Arsenal came about 15th/16th in terms of spending in the league.

I can see why you would think that, but the facts are a bit different. If you look at just the purchases side of things, Arsenal are 9th (including Newcastle). Slimmist of majorities. Arsenal have managed to sustain as high a position as they are in the league with a midtable spend on transfers.

However, it's the net spend that means everything, as that is what determines the sustainability of the practices.

there's a breakdown of the last 5 years.
http://transferleague.co.uk/

Arsenal are at the bottom.

Now wages does affect that of course, however not by as much as people realise. The annual wage figures at the club are slightly skewed by the fact Arsenal have one of the most egalitarian wage policies in the Premier League. Now maybe I'm wrong, but I've always understood about Arsenal that significantly more is spent on youth and fringe players than is necessary because of Wenger's footballing philosophies. I'd hazard if you were to actually breakdown Arsenal's starting 11 vs the other clubs in the league there wouldn't be as much of a gap. But I don't have figures, so i guess I could be way off in my assumptions...

Redzer7 · 08-12-2009 10:27pm

Arsene Wenger to go :pac: Absolutely not.

MementoMori · 08-12-2009 10:52pm

OPENROAD wrote: »

Have Arsenal spend more than Spurs/Villa? What period are you taking into account?

Spurs current squad has cost twice what Arsenal's squad cost.

Was talking about current cost of the squads i.e how much the squads that are playing this season cost to assemble.

By my reckoning

Chelsea's current squad cost around £240m
City's current squad cost around £227m
Utd's current squad cost around £205m
Spurs current squad cost around £180m
Liverpool's current squad cost around £140m
Villa's current squad cost around £120m
Arsenal's current squad cost around £90m

All of this is subjective enough but I usually base my figures off BBC/Times/Gaurdian. Trying to find transfer prices for teams further down the table tends to be trickier as they tend to receive a lot less media attention.

Compared to the other top of the table sides Arsenal have spent very little however compared to sides like Hull £20m and Stoke £30m they have spent a lot.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I can see why you would think that, but the facts are a bit different. If you look at just the purchases side of things, Arsenal are 9th (including Newcastle). Slimmist of majorities. Arsenal have managed to sustain as high a position as they are in the league with a midtable spend on transfers.

However, it's the net spend that means everything, as that is what determines the sustainability of the practices.

there's a breakdown of the last 5 years.
http://transferleague.co.uk/

Arsenal are at the bottom.

Now wages does affect that of course, however not by as much as people realise. The annual wage figures at the club are slightly skewed by the fact Arsenal have one of the most egalitarian wage policies in the Premier League. Now maybe I'm wrong, but I've always understood about Arsenal that significantly more is spent on youth and fringe players than is necessary because of Wenger's footballing philosophies. I'd hazard if you were to actually breakdown Arsenal's starting 11 vs the other clubs in the league there wouldn't be as much of a gap. But I don't have figures, so i guess I could be way off in my assumptions...

Don't count Newcaste as a PL team anymore

and anyway I'm pretty sure that there current squad cost less than £90m to assemble.

Also I don't think you can say just looking at the purchase side of things.

Personally don't really trust that transferleague.co.uk site as I've seen it being pretty poor in terms of tracking Liverpool's spending.

Also don't think you can say that only net spend matters. Take the net spend and the cost figures together and you will get a better picture than just taking the net spend figure.

On the wages side of things I don't really think how the wages are distributed is hugely relevant. Last figures I saw Arsenal had the 4th highest wage bill - these were historical figures going back a year so I would expect City and possibly Spurs to be jumping ahead of them. Liverpool were in 5th and had spent £20m less than Arsenal which is a fairly large gap.

leninbenjamin · 09-12-2009 1:47pm

MementoMori wrote: »

Also don't think you can say that only net spend matters. Take the net spend and the cost figures together and you will get a better picture than just taking the net spend figure.

What other costs? Wages? The training grounds? The stadium? The net is what matters. The sustainability of a clubs practices are bound to the net. It may not give the full picture as to what's going on at a club, but it gives a very good insight.

For example, if you're spending more than you earn from transfers that means you need more capital investment. Now whether that comes from internally or not doesn't make much of a difference, it's not a sustainable practice and thus it's a drain on the clubs finances.

On the other hand, if you earn more than you spend you've essentially freed up capital that you can put into other parts of the club, like Arsene did with the youth system and the stadium. an average of €5 million a season, €50 million over 10, enough to the down payment on a stadium. This other investment will of course mean total costs rise, but that's simply the side effect of growth.

Look at Everton, Villa, both needed outside investment to finance their growth. Arsenal didn't. The sustainable transfer policy has ensured the club has lived within it means. So, the net spend is very important. Without Wenger's frugal spending Arsenal might well be just another Premiership club languishing in mid-table, whoring themselves to the oil dollars of the east.

MementoMori wrote: »

On the wages side of things I don't really think how the wages are distributed is hugely relevant. Last figures I saw Arsenal had the 4th highest wage bill - these were historical figures going back a year so I would expect City and possibly Spurs to be jumping ahead of them. Liverpool were in 5th and had spent £20m less than Arsenal which is a fairly large gap.

Well, to give you an illustration of my point, Liverpool's two highest earners, Gerrard and Torres are paid 20-40 thousand more per week than the highest earner at Arsenal (depending on what figures you believe). Arsenal's highest earner (either Arshavin or Cesc, not sure, they seem to be around the same) earns roughly the same as Carragher.

Actually here's an example, with estimates of the top 50 earners in football from this time last year. Liverpool had 4 players in the list, yet Arsenal had only 1. That's fairly at odds with the gross wage figures spent by the clubs that we see published for the same year.

Pepe LeFrits · 09-12-2009 2:56pm

As I recall Arsenal's wage figures were disproportionately high because they included figures that the others didn't... so they didn't represent a true picture of the comparitive spending.

MementoMori · 09-12-2009 4:26pm

leninbenjamin wrote: »

What other costs? Wages? The training grounds? The stadium? The net is what matters. The sustainability of a clubs practices are bound to the net. It may not give the full picture as to what's going on at a club, but it gives a very good insight.

Sorry I didn't phrase that superbly well basically I meant that when judging the state of a squad looking at the net spend and the actual cost of assembling the squad gives a better idea than just looking at the net spend. For example if you just look at Utd's net spend this summer, you're clearly not getting the full picture of the cost of their squad, given the Ronaldo deal. Similarly if you only look at Liverpool's net spend for the last 18 months you are not getting the fact that money has been spent, just not recently.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

For example, if you're spending more than you earn from transfers that means you need more capital investment. Now whether that comes from internally or not doesn't make much of a difference, it's not a sustainable practice and thus it's a drain on the clubs finances.

This is incorrect. The difference can be made up from the club's operating profits (the revenue earned from matches/TV rights/merchandising/prize money). A club like Utd which has a very successful merchandising operation can use this to generate sizable funds to pay for transfer. Saying that if you have a negative net spend on transfers mean a club has to generate new capital is wide of the mark.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Look at Everton, Villa, both needed outside investment to finance their growth. Arsenal didn't. The sustainable transfer policy has ensured the club has lived within it means. So, the net spend is very important. Without Wenger's frugal spending Arsenal might well be just another Premiership club languishing in mid-table, whoring themselves to the oil dollars of the east.

Villa and Everton are two clubs on radically different sides of the spectrum in terms of their sources of financing. Basically with Villa you have a multi-billionare owner who has massive funds to invest in the club. From what little I know of Villa any of the money he has invested is his own personal funds and from all accounts there is no required return on investment/strings attached to these. Basically Villa is Randy's own personal plaything and there is a limitless pot of money there, with the commercial side of things not a huge priority i.e. the switch to the Acorns charity on the shirts to free as opposed to having a sponsor. I would imagine that if MON feels that additional funds are needed then once he can make a convincing case to Lehrer they will be forthcoming. It's also highly unlikely that this is borrowed money so Villa don't need to worry about paying off interest. One could argue that Villa along with Chelsea and City are in the best position in the league financially in terms of ownership/financing. However there is a caveat to this in that long-term (10-20 years) there can be said to be at the whim of one owner.

Everton on the other hand seem to be at the end of their tether (especially with the Kirkby development dead in the water) Not sure if it's 100% true butI do remember hearing about Kenwright remortgaging his house to fund some transfer.

Also I wouldn't get too high and mighty on the whole

leninbenjamin wrote: »

whoring themselves to the oil dollars of the east.

given the rumours about Usmanov and his links to dodgy money in the east too. While the club has been very prudently run by Arsene, there does look to be the potential for boardroom trouble ahead.

Anyway this is getting a fair bit OT so I will reiterate - anyone who thinks getting rid of Wenger would be a good idea, is away with the fairies.

leninbenjamin · 10-12-2009 12:18am

MementoMori wrote: »

This is incorrect. The difference can be made up from the club's operating profits (the revenue earned from matches/TV rights/merchandising/prize money). A club like Utd which has a very successful merchandising operation can use this to generate sizable funds to pay for transfer. Saying that if you have a negative net spend on transfers mean a club has to generate new capital is wide of the mark.

True, but again United isn't a particularly good example as their operating profit (not including the servicing the Glazer debt of course) is way above the average. Most mid sized clubs operating profits aren't worth talking about and instead they source their transfer deficit from borrowings and are essentially gambling on their own ability to repay in the future. Chelsea before Ambramovich, Leeds, Newcastle, Portsmouth, West Ham are just some examples of where this can lead.

MementoMori wrote: »

Villa and Everton are two clubs on radically different sides of the spectrum in terms of their sources of financing.

I know, but the commonality is that both require substantial outside investment to fund their future growth. They are in different stages of the same process; Villa already have Lerner on board investing his personal wealth while Everton are still actively seeking investors.

MementoMori wrote: »

Also I wouldn't get too high and mighty...

You obviously haven't experienced the general feeling within the club towards Usmanov then

. At least we're not hailing him as a saviour like the fans of certain clubs do with their own dodgy characters...

*cough*chelsea*cough*

MementoMori wrote: »

Anyway this is getting a fair bit OT so I will reiterate - anyone who thinks getting rid of Wenger would be a good idea, is away with the fairies.

damn straight.

OPENROAD · 10-12-2009 12:27am

MementoMori wrote: »

This is incorrect. The difference can be made up from the club's operating profits (the revenue earned from matches/TV rights/merchandising/prize money). A club like Utd which has a very successful merchandising operation can use this to generate sizable funds to pay for transfer. Saying that if you have a negative net spend on transfers mean a club has to generate new capital is wide of the mark.

Over the last five years or so, have utd financed their transfers solely from income generated from transfers out and the above income streams?

FearDark · 10-12-2009 12:33am

Who is keeping this thread going?! I dont know an Arsenal supporter who would even THINK about Wenger leaving...

leninbenjamin · 10-12-2009 12:38am

FearDark wrote: »

Who is keeping this thread going?! I dont know an Arsenal supporter who would even THINK about Wenger leaving...

ah yeah, that convo died out ages ago! We're just talking about the financials of the club at the moment really...

Spiritoftheseventies · 10-12-2009 11:27am

Yes Houghton made a good point last night that If Arsenal had a bit more money to spend he had no doubt they would win the league. But it was all invested in the stadium as far as i know.

premierstone · 10-12-2009 11:28am

FearDark wrote: »

Who is keeping this thread going?! I dont know an Arsenal supporter who would even THINK about Wenger leaving...

Its now just been used as a thread to prove that infact 12% of people who have access to the internet are thick!

G1032 · 10-12-2009 12:32pm

Hi all
Just been granted access so this is first post.
Wenger to go?? No way. It would spell disaster for Asrenal if that happened. Who would replace him??

CHD · 10-12-2009 12:37pm

ronaldochokes wrote: »

Hi all
Just been granted access so this is first post.
Wenger to go?? No way. It would spell disaster for Asrenal if that happened. Who would replace him??

Tony Adams

MementoMori · 10-12-2009 12:41pm

OPENROAD wrote: »

Over the last five years or so, have utd financed their transfers solely from income generated from transfers out and the above income streams?

Don't know enough about Utd's finances to give an answer. At a guess I'd say a large part of would come from this. (Ronaldo's sale alone goes a fair way towards balancing the transfer spend) I'd imagine a lot/most of the debt on the club would actually be as a result of the actual purchase of the club.
Anyway this is getting wildly OT so I'd say ask in the Utd thread where you are more likely to get a detailed answer.

Joeyjoejoe43 · 10-12-2009 1:34pm

Where's the "Op's a muppet" choice in the poll?

G1032 · 10-12-2009 1:55pm

CHD wrote: »

Tony Adams

Hmmmm. Rumours are he's going over to manage some MLS team.

Qwerty27 · 10-12-2009 2:02pm

Adams will never make it as a top class manager.....period at Portsmouth showed this, his holier than thou attitude is not whats needed at a top flight club. Think Wenger may need a better assistant, maybe point out a few glaring issues that he thens to look over of otherwise ignore. No offence to Pat Rice, a great and loyal servant, both as player and coach, but maybe need a fresh voice and face behind the scenes and on the training ground

CHD · 10-12-2009 3:02pm

ronaldochokes wrote: »

Hmmmm. Rumours are he's going over to manage some MLS team.

God bless them

Spiritoftheseventies · 13-12-2009 7:28pm

ronaldochokes wrote: »

Hmmmm. Rumours are he's going over to manage some MLS team.

Adams Reminds me a bit of that chap Del Preston from Waynes World two

OPENROAD · 13-12-2009 7:29pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

Adams Reminds me a bit of that chap Del Preston from Waynes World two

Reminds me of Jimmy Nail

Spiritoftheseventies · 13-12-2009 7:31pm

OPENROAD wrote: »

Reminds me of Jimmy Nail

who del Preston?

OPENROAD · 13-12-2009 7:36pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

who del Preston?

Tony Adams

Spiritoftheseventies · 13-12-2009 7:37pm

OPENROAD wrote: »

Tony Adams

Jimmy Nail is a georgie isn't he?

OPENROAD · 13-12-2009 7:40pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

Jimmy Nail is a georgie isn't he?

yup a Geordie singer/actor

Spiritoftheseventies · 13-12-2009 7:44pm

So I dont get the adams connection. Where i do with Del Preston character.

cson · 13-12-2009 7:45pm

Can someone lock this thread to ****? :rolleyes:

OPENROAD · 13-12-2009 7:47pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

So I dont get the adams connection. Where i do with Del Preston character.

Looks like him imo

Spiritoftheseventies · 13-12-2009 7:48pm

OPENROAD wrote: »

Looks like him imo

was going more with the accent. Should have cleared that up . Would make a good opening line for his team talk
I once had to kill a man with his own shoe

Redzer7 · 13-12-2009 10:55pm

Lock this thread now?

tony1kenobi · 13-12-2009 11:02pm

Redzer7 wrote: »

Lock this thread now?

Oh no....where will not Arsenal supporters post next time we draw with someone?

13-12-2009 11:03pm

What if Wenger wins nothing again this year? and next year?

Spiritoftheseventies · 13-12-2009 11:11pm

Redzer7 wrote: »

Lock this thread now?

Not as if anyone is being too harsh on Wenger here at all. Dont see the problem keeping it open.

Redzer7 · 13-12-2009 11:17pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

What if Wenger wins nothing again this year? and next year?

In Wenger we trust

, Well most of us :rolleyes:.

Redzer7 · 13-12-2009 11:28pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

Not as if anyone is being too harsh on Wenger here at all. Dont see the problem keeping it open.

Says the one complaining that the Liverpool/Rafa thread is still open, No it isn't time for Wenger to go so close thread.

greendom · 13-12-2009 11:39pm

Redzer7 wrote: »

Says the one complaining that the Liverpool/Rafa thread is still open, No it isn't time for Wenger to go so close thread.

We all know how football management works; this kind of speculation goes with the job. You can only close the thread when he finally does go

Spiritoftheseventies · 14-12-2009 8:42am

Redzer7 wrote: »

Says the one complaining that the Liverpool/Rafa thread is still open, No it isn't time for Wenger to go so close thread.

Compare and contrast. that thread is 130+ pages long. Wasn't asking for it to be closed. Just renamed. This thread is 27 pages long. Bit of a difference there.

L'prof · 19-04-2010 12:40am

Someone was looking for this...still no

pokerface_me · 20-05-2010 10:52pm

Nay

Thought i'd drag this up again considering my amazing predictions, which were Arsenal winning nothing again, buying nobody of significance and Cesc will ask to leave at the end of the season, i said all this last May and here we are. The cracks are bigging to widen and with your top player adamant to leave where do you all stand on Mr Wenger now.

By the way 90% of you said these things wouldn't happen, its all to predictable with Arsenal under Wenger, would you like next seasons outlook now so you can run to the bookies.

Paparazzo · 20-05-2010 11:45pm

pokerface_me wrote: »

Thought i'd drag this up again considering my amazing predictions, which were Arsenal winning nothing again, buying nobody of significance and Cesc will ask to leave at the end of the season, i said all this last May and here we are. The cracks are bigging to widen and with your top player adamant to leave where do you all stand on Mr Wenger now.

By the way 90% of you said these things wouldn't happen, its all to predictable with Arsenal under Wenger, would you like next seasons outlook now so you can run to the bookies.

There'll be a trophy ceremony tomorrow in the Merrion Hotel at 7pm, make sure you have your tux and speech ready

Gangsta · 20-05-2010 11:48pm

pokerface_me wrote: »

Thought i'd drag this up again considering my amazing predictions, which were Arsenal winning nothing again, buying nobody of significance and Cesc will ask to leave at the end of the season, i said all this last May and here we are. The cracks are bigging to widen and with your top player adamant to leave where do you all stand on Mr Wenger now.

By the way 90% of you said these things wouldn't happen, its all to predictable with Arsenal under Wenger, would you like next seasons outlook now so you can run to the bookies.

I think it's time for you to go

Daemos · 20-05-2010 11:50pm

To be honest, Wenger has been saying for years that he's preparing Arsenal for the future

My question is, when is that future going to be, or has it already come and gone with a whimper?

Is it time for Arsene Wenger to go?

Comments