It's not really fair to include this summers transfers when the season hasnt been played yet.
Mikel Arteta | Lego Pep watch
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
The point is with the resources he's had he should be achieving top 4 minimum this season.
The pressure was ramped up on Solskjaer when he signed Varane, Sancho and Ronaldo last summer. The same was true of Lampard at Chelsea when they spent big on Havertz and Werner.
As I say, I'd be content to see Arteta stay at Arsenal. But this kind of expectation is normal when you've spent as much as he has.
This season, I want to see improvement yeah. I want to hit 75 points and hopefully that should be enough for top 4.
But you are looking at Arsenal's spend in isolation, when Chelsea will spend £200M or so, Spurs will spend £150M+ you'd imagine, Utd likewise.
People talk about £300M over 3 seasons like its a big deal, when it's just the actual norm for a top 6 side.
Honestly I think last season was Arteta's opportunity to deliver. Arsenal had no European football, United were in crisis and Spurs had a horrible start to the season under Nuno.
£300m over 3 seasons is pretty much unprecedented for Arsenal, yet the pressure on Arteta (so far) has been a lot more lax than it was for either Wenger or Emery in recent years. I expect that pressure will build quickly if results don't come next season.
I would love to see the total spend of clubs including wages.
People are quick to point out our spend, which is a valid point to a degree.
But they also completely ignore the fact we are actively spending more on fees to sign players on lower wages to keep to a reasonable wage budget. It's the typical Varane vs White debate. Yes our fee was higher, but the overall package was far less.
Jesus is the one player recently we've signed who breaks that a bit. But people tend to ignore wages completely. A player on £100k for 5 years, compared to one on £250k for 5 years is £25m compared to £62.5m. Almost £40m difference there alone.
People are quick to point out our spend, which is a valid point to a degree.
But they also completely ignore the fact we are actively spending more on fees to sign players on lower wages to keep to a reasonable wage budget. It's the typical Varane vs White debate. Yes our fee was higher, but the overall package was far less.
Jesus is the one player recently we've signed who breaks that a bit. But people tend to ignore wages completely. A player on £100k for 5 years, compared to one on £250k for 5 years is £25m compared to £62.5m. Almost £40m difference there alone.
Arsenal's wage bill is relevant when compared to other major PL clubs and has some influence on their ability to compete in the top 4; in that sense we could call it reasonable. But in a broader context, Arsenal have one of the highest wage bills in the world; it is not a "reasonable" wage bil. Clubs of comparable standing in their own domestic leagues have considerably lower budgets. Yet I don't know that it's so obvious that these clubs have much worse squads than Arsenal's.
No point at all really comparing it with global teams. The premier league finances are in a world of their own.
Even then, i'd be interested to see come the end of this window what the comparison is globally. I'm sure Inter/AC/Atletico will be less but doubt it'll be by a huge amount.
Apparently for next season: (Annual)
Arsenal - £112m
Chelsea - £185m
Liverpool - £151m
City - £151m
United - £214m
Spurs - £115m
And this is considering we haven't sold anyone yet and have about 12 players to offload, so I expect that to balance out to £100m if we also make 1 or 2 more signings.
Arsenal - £112m
Chelsea - £185m
Liverpool - £151m
City - £151m
United - £214m
Spurs - £115m
And this is considering we haven't sold anyone yet and have about 12 players to offload, so I expect that to balance out to £100m if we also make 1 or 2 more signings.
That's obviously wrong, not even close.
I think it misses off any brand new signings as per this week. But what makes you say it's not even close? I looked at the Arsenal one in depth and it seemed about right, although there's a couple errors.
One quick check at financial reports published is enough to tell it's not even close. Liverpool, Chelsea, City, ManUtd are all close to or above 300 million.
Sportac or some shit like that are not sources.
Are you talking complete club wages or are you talking first team squad wages?
Because i'm talking first team squad wages obviously, not complete overheads etc, because that's the only thing relative to transfers.
But, out of interest then, what of the below stands out to you as being incorrect/missing (I haven't looked at United in depth):
https://www.capology.com/club/manchester-united/salaries/
If it is wrong fair enough, but I imagine the scale is still similar.
Who is making 150 million at Liverpool?
Who is making so much money at clubs apart from first team squad?
I have made plenty of posts on why these reported wages are not accurate and changes depending on the journalist reporting it, club that's being reported. Total wages reported in the official financial report is the only thing that's accurate and matters.
Youth players barely make any money, same with coaches. So they won't make big dent on wages. It's always first team footballers and few directors.
Yh i'm aware it doesn't add up unless the financial report includes other overheads outside of wages but sounds like it doesn't from what you said.
You seem to have done your research, so just asking out of that United link what stands out as being incorrect? I am also aware not every wage will be 100%, but considering I am comparing between clubs, I would imagine the scale is similar, even if the actual values are double or whatever.
Do you know what makes up the extra £100m from the United one I posted and the real value you mentioned?
Edit: So I just read the Man City report you are talking about.
It says the total wage cost for last season was £310m. But.. this was over 509 employees..
The first team squad last season was 24 players.
So.. if you're asking me, do I think it's impossible for the other £150m to be spread out over 485 people, whilst the average per person is high, no I don't think it's impossible.. it's a lot of people and they'll be some senior people who make a lot of money on that list.
So I stick to my original numbers roughly for the first team squad.
Last edited:
It's not what's correct, it's how the wages are reported. For example, the ManUtd ones are max possible wages for players, do they get that every week? It includes all possible bonuses.
I'll just use the same example, when Brandon Williams signed contract, wages was reported as Upto 65k, which means after all possible bonuses he will earn 65k.
When TAA signed his contract when he made first team, it was reported he will earn minimum 40k. So no matter what he will earn 40k and upto what number, no one knows.
Suddenly all these sites and fans used 65k for Williams and 40k for TAA which is just wrong.
When Salah signed for Liverpool his reported wages was less than what he was earning at Roma. Fans just lap it up.
That's why for me only thing that matters is total wage bill that's reported in financial report (for City even that doesn't matter).
Few journalists report max possible wages for few clubs and only base wage for other clubs. All these capology, sportac just copies.
One more example, look at Mane wages and how everyone believed he was on 100k at Liverpool because some random guy made it up on twitter or sportac pulled it out of their arse. Guardian reported he was on 150k per week when he signed new contract. Liverpool advertise saying how their contracts are heavily based on bonuses, when ManUtd and Liverpool finished in top 4 without winning anything, difference in both wages was around 8 million.
Football is like politics, journalists run their own propaganda.
EPL broadcast revenues are 2-3x higher than in other countries. Your comparison makes as much sense as saying a McDonald’s UK workers salary is unreasonable compared to a McDonalds Vietnam worker.
If we look at the spendings (transfer+ wages) then Spurs are closer to the bottom 3 of the PL than they are to the top 4. And in spite of that they still manage to get into the top 4 quite often. Wenger used to do this for Arsenal.
And of course suggesting you can’t have a squad of the same quality as Atletico or Inter despite spending more money -if not more- is a bit confusing, and not at all comparable to wages in Europe vs wages in South Asia.
Wenger was an anomaly who outperformed his spend for a good couple of decades. Unfortunately he couldn’t win the league so the fans hounded him out and now we start seasons expecting to finish 8th and consider 5th to be a massive achievement. It’s called progress mate.
Yh that's fair enough, I do imagine that has some part to play in numbers.
Equally though, I edited my post above. The Man City report says total was £310m, bit over 509 employees. The first team is 24 people. So, whilst I agree they'll be some bonus money for the first team, it's not that hard to believe £150m is spread over 485 people
Maybe but our change to a low wage bill has only happened really over the past 12 months so using older data doesn't show a lot.
If those 485 people are all on 100k per year doing various admin, project managing and other random jobs you're up to 48.5M. Top directors make 2M a year at PL clubs.
I may be mistaken but i think there is a Barcelona Mathematics issue somewhere.
The comparison makes sense because the market for football players is a global, not a local market.
And football players are employed to play in domestic leagues which differ greatly in wealth. Salary scales at richer organizations are usually higher than at poorer ones.
So Youve extended 'top class' status to Luke Shaw & Marcus Rashford but designated only Saka, Partey and Jesus as top class players at Arsenal.
Why is your bar lower? Why cant Tierney bea top class player is Luke Shaw is? Why cant Martinelli, ESR ad Odegaard be top class is Rashford is?
As for Ronaldo. His powers wane very year, this is a biological fact. He also isnt a presser & if one forward player doesn't press then none of them should even bother.
This kind of comparison is meaningless. It is not FM and there are so many factors in play. I am happy with this transfer window so far.
Thing with Arsenal, and in recent times United, is the mentality is still fragile amongst the team and fans.
All it takes is for one result to knock the confidence right out of them irrespective of the their good form previously.
All it takes is for one result to knock the confidence right out of them irrespective of the their good form previously.
Don't know about Utd. But with Arsenal, our form nosedived once Partey and Tierney went out injured. This might happen again, since we still don't have adequate backup to Partey. Zinchenko can provide cover to only one of them but they're both so injury prone that the situation may well arise, as it did this season, that both of them are out injured.
Saka? Don't think I mentioned him buddy. Tierney is a terrific player but never fit so a bit pointless considering him IMO. Martinelli, ESR and Odegaard can get mentioned when they have 20 goal seasons. I think there's a real outside chance that Martinelli gets to that point but the other 2 no chance!
Rashford's best none penalty goals PL season is 11, Fernandes is 10. Saka got 9 and ESR got 10 last season.
Oh alright, we'll ignore the CL and penalties because reasons
Why would you count penalties, they're not a goal the players creating most of the time. Top clubs don't count them when scouting. You're overrating Rashford and Bruno based on the pens they converted, they aren't that good.Oh alright, we'll ignore the CL and penalties because reasons
Alright buddy.
Very crazy logic
ESR and Odegaard may never have 20 goals seasons. But neither have Zidane, Iniesta, de Bruyne… the list goes on. That’s a really odd way to judge players.
Fabregas and Ozil never reached 20 goal seasons despite setting all kinds of records for assists and chances created. Guess they weren't that good after all. Giggs must have been pretty shite too 20+ years without ever reaching that milestone. Scholes was alright though he managed it once in his entire career.
Does this also include academy salaries and women's football?
I agree with ignoring penalties. After all, if you don't you end up signing the likes of Nicolas Pepe for hilariously inflated fees.Oh alright, we'll ignore the CL and penalties because reasons
This is insane logic. Bruno is one of the most creative midfielders in world football and Rashford and Martial drew a lot of the penalties we have won in that period.
Yes, you can say they created the penalties never mid scoring them.
No, it doesn't. SwissRamble gathers information from the documents communicated by the clubs to the regulators under the FFP rules (Uefa & domestic leagues). Women's football is a totally separate activity and most of the academy costs are not subject to FFP regulations.
It's not when you're comparing the output of a penalty taker versus a none penalty taker. One of the key differences last season seemed to be officials didn't give you as many penalties anyway so they may have wised up. As for Bruno.......
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date