You realise Mkhitaryan also reportadly cost 100m when you factor in wages/fees?
Costa was on 180k, which is about 50m over 5 years. It could be his agent played hard ball and wanted a huge fee like Raiola got for Mkhitaryan.
Itās not like Arsenal was a mid-table team in 2013. Arsenal spend money, at least, before 2006. But because transfer fees are so inflated nowadays it seems like nothing.
Who are these teams who have been āinvesting in assets for the last twenty yearsā? Manchester United andā¦?
2 Likes
but that IS the way you assess value because thats what accountants would do. You cant disregard it because you dont like it. 
every single other club tbh.
Only Manchester United have been consistently spending heavily for the last 20 years and event they had a period where there spending decreased. Nobody else has.
Tbf there is more to it than just adding all together. Contract length, resell value, contract extensions, etc etc. Itās mostly just Wenger saying that you need to account for 100m (which he isnāt wrong with), just in case, but thatās not ultimately the final value of such a deal.
of course. However if you follow the conversation i was merely pointing out that wages should be included, not excluded.
But they shouldnāt because ultimately itās spread X amount of years where weāll continue to increase and generate record levels of revenue that will allow us to not only pay players more but spend more money too.
The value of a player is how much the club ask for him. All the other feed and stuff will be offset over a period of however many years that wonāt actually put a dent in the clubs pockets. So long as weāre not spending 300k a week and spending Ā£100m on a single player than itās going to be affordable for us.
And if Wenger wants to talk about Costa costing Ā£100m well heās been pivotal in two titles in three seasons which represents a pretty healthy investment.
1 Like
I saw it, no worries. Ultimately theyāll have a lot of different ways to determine these things anyway and without knowing the exact context I donāt really know where such a comment from Wenger really fits unless heās just willfully simplifying things to make a point. Iām not a big fan of such statements but oh well. itās Wenger.
@SRCJJ They should. Even if itās spread over X years, if said player gets injured on day 1 and doesnāt play for the next 5 years itās still transfer fee + wages paid. Itās just the amount you have to account for in case everything goes wrong. Itās the same with Ibra who was a free agent but will still cost an insane amount of money over the duration of his contract.
I donāt think 20 years is relevent, but the last 5-7 years is. And United, Chelsea, City LIverpool have all outspent us in that time. Even spending before then meant they could sell players for inflated fees because their value increased as the prizes became richer. So Chelsea could buy KDB, Lukaku, Schurle, Mata, Oscar and make profit on them to fund further purchases.
yeah tbh Chelsea have been at it for 14 years.
What exactly does stop Arsenal from buying players and selling them for profit though? Apart from our star players Vermaelen has been the only one that was moved on for half decent money. The rest has been running down contracts (out on loan) or sold off for cheap.
2 Likes
Wenger.
2 Likes
This spending argument is garbage. Wenger has had 3 full seasons to build a team with money since it was announced we signed a deal with Puma. Weāre seeing the results.
That would be Ken Batesā¦another odious spunk bubble of a man, who was the first to put up fencing at grounds and advocated having electric fencing attached to the topā¦
What the Uzbek slug did isnāt anything to do with ethics, try reading up on him.
2 Likes
Iāve read up enough of Usmanov and Iād still rather him than Stan, most of football is rife with with corruption anyways. He might be a criminal etc but how many Chelsea fans care about the criminal thatās winning them trophies left right and centre ?
Yeah sorry that was a mistake I added that 20 years in there twice. We havenāt spent for 20 years is what I meant. United has been investing for 20 years, Chelsea like 14 years now, Liverpool had been outspending us, and City for almost 10 years now
Weāve invested in youth who have so far either been just bad or mediocre and our wage structure had us spending so much money on mediocre players because we are waiting for them to come good. We are paying for their promise and most teams are buying Suarez or KDB types for big money.
Youāre talking shite mate. What do you mean weāve havenāt spend for 20 years? That since 1997. What do you mean weāve invested in youth, weāve signed buckets of over 23 aged players.
I think he means if you look at our net spend from 97-2017 itās like 250 million quid with the bulk of that being from 2013 onwards.
1 Like