And, we're off.....2016/17

[sawtooth]

Arsenal finished 2nd at the end of the 2015/16 season , spent £86 mil net and then finished 5th

Chelsea finished 10th at the end of the 2015/16 season - spent £36 mil net then won the league

So Arsenal spent more than Chelsea yet went backwards - how does that work when you believe it's all about the money , surely after spending more than Chelsea you should improve more yet Arsenal went backwards ! Maybe you need to stop looking at others to blame and start on your own front door and look at your own club - far too long have just deemed getting into top 4 as success when it should just be a stepping stone - the lack of improvement over the years is now the reason why Arsenal have gone backwards

Because you conveniently didn't take into account the accumulation of money spent in previous transfer windows. It's a known and indisputable fact that Chelsea, City and Utd have spent substantially more than Arsenal over the past 10 years or more.

To make it really easy to understand, If club A spends £200M this Summer and club B spends £40M , then in January club A spends only £36M but club B spends £86M who should be doing better?

 

[sawtooth]

Fair comment for those Liverpool fans (and other teams too) that seem obsessed with all things Arsenal. it suddenly seems Klopp getting CL football is progress and so not winning the league (or ever looking like doing so) is now progress. Wasn't that what Wenger delivered every year until this and then managed to win a trophy this season as a consolation. Is that even right? IS winning silverware now seen as a consolation prize to CL qualification?

Perhaps worrying about their own team first would be an answer and does seem to be some Arsenal knocking for the sake of it. Wenger has the cash. He has the green light to spend, lets see what he does with it and how they fare. As for not being in the CL it didn't seem to worry Chelsea or United too much in the longer term did it?

He has more cash Homer but still has to work within a budget. We still can't spend like other clubs.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

He has more cash Homer but still has to work within a budget. We still can't spend like other clubs.

But in relative terms it's a huge kitty for him to spend, certainly compared to the constraints he's had before. If I was going to be objective as an outsider with no PL affinity, the issue I see is attracting the very top player to the club, especially this season with no CL lure. That isn't to say he won't make very good signings. It's just to say they are never going to get a Griezmann etc. and so while others are getting the very best, it then makes the gulf in quality bigger and bigger. That's a problem everyone outside Chelsea, City and United will face and bridging that gap is the biggest obstacle to being a PL contender. That isn't going to change

 

[sawtooth]

But in relative terms it's a huge kitty for him to spend, certainly compared to the constraints he's had before. If I was going to be objective as an outsider with no PL affinity, the issue I see is attracting the very top player to the club, especially this season with no CL lure. That isn't to say he won't make very good signings. It's just to say they are never going to get a Griezmann etc. and so while others are getting the very best, it then makes the gulf in quality bigger and bigger. That's a problem everyone outside Chelsea, City and United will face and bridging that gap is the biggest obstacle to being a PL contender. That isn't going to change

Trust me, Griezmann would quite happily sign for Arsenal if we paid £100M and gave him £350K a week. We can't ( and wouldn't) do that.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Trust me, Griezmann would quite happily sign for Arsenal if we paid £100M and gave him £350K a week. We can't ( and wouldn't) do that.

Do you really think that Griezmann isn't also interested in winning big trophies as opposed to just being about money ? Or is it just a coincidence that the players also join clubs looking to win as well

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Trust me, Griezmann would quite happily sign for Arsenal if we paid £100M and gave him £350K a week. We can't ( and wouldn't) do that.

And there's the rub. Others will and so you'll not get these very top end players and therefore the gulf between you and others outside the top three spenders (City, United and Chelsea) will increase and so you and the others will effectively start at a handicap before a balls kicked

 

[sawtooth]

Do you really think that Griezmann isn't also interested in winning big trophies as opposed to just being about money ? Or is it just a coincidence that the players also join clubs looking to win as well

I'd argue that Greizmann is just as likely to win 'big trophies' staying at Athletico so we will see what he goes for and what his new package will be. I predict that it's substantially more than what Athletico can pay him.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I'd argue that Greizmann is just as likely to win 'big trophies' staying at Athletico so we will see what he goes for and what his new package will be. I predict that it's substantially more than what Athletico can pay him.

When a player moves to a successful club a better package will come with it - that's what The rewards are for a club that win trophies - playing for a Man Utd or City or Chelsea will give him a big global exposure and the chance to win the Prem and CL - something he wouldn't get at Arsenal , wages offered are irrelevant

 

[Dan2501]

Trust me, Griezmann would quite happily sign for Arsenal if we paid £100M and gave him £350K a week. We can't ( and wouldn't) do that.

You can. Wenger just refuses to. You have no debts, stadium is paid for, had Champions League revenue for the last 10 years and a billionaire owner. The issue is with Wenger, not with Arsenal.

 

[Fish]

When a player moves to a successful club a better package will come with it - that's what The rewards are for a club that win trophies - playing for a Man Utd or City or Chelsea will give him a big global exposure and the chance to win the Prem and CL - something he wouldn't get at Arsenal , wages offered are irrelevant

and that package is usually comfortably offset by the commercial revenue that player can bring to the club and if his contribution is significant that the club wins more or any silverware or titles or generally improves there position, again his package is more than subsidised then by the revenue from those successes, it's simple business practices and economics.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

When a player moves to a successful club a better package will come with it - that's what The rewards are for a club that win trophies - playing for a Man Utd or City or Chelsea will give him a big global exposure and the chance to win the Prem and CL - something he wouldn't get at Arsenal , wages offered are irrelevant

Is that why Liverpool aren't' signing top players either then. You can't offer them a PL or CL win? DOes that mean it's a top three closed shop then? I could see a Spurs getting a big name (perhaps like Zlatan and entering the Autumn of their career) who will then kick them on again but they in particular need to retain what they have first and foremost as well as developing and getting bigger players in

 

[Fish]

Real Madrid coming for de Gea, will they get their man?

£60m offer refused, no doubt testing the water!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Real Madrid coming for de Gea, will they get their man?

Maybe if they complete the paperwork properly this time!

 

[Fish]

Is that why Liverpool aren't' signing top players either then. You can't offer them a PL or CL win? DOes that mean it's a top three closed shop then? I could see a Spurs getting a big name (perhaps like Zlatan and entering the Autumn of their career) who will then kick them on again but they in particular need to retain what they have first and foremost as well as developing and getting bigger players in

I think anyone can get a big name if they really want to, it's just whether it's viable at that time or in the clubs best interest, at that time.

Middlesbrough attracted a few top Brazilians, didn't they? Not everyone is destined for a big city or London.

 

[ger147]

Real Madrid coming for de Gea, will they get their man?

£60m offer refused, no doubt testing the water!

I think he will go in this window but I wouldn't be surprised if Man Utd are holding out for something nearer the £100m mark. That might sound ridiculous but the fees for ordinary players are astronomical these days and De Gea is without doubt one of the very best keepers in the world with the best years of his career ahead of him.

Man Utd won't be selling him cheap to one of their European rivals.

 

[Papas1982]

I think anyone can get a big name if they really want to, it's just whether it's viable at that time or in the clubs best interest, at that time.

Middlesbrough attracted a few top Brazilians, didn't they? Not everyone is destined for a big city or London.

I think the boro situation is a lot like the one in china now. Predominantly people after a pay check and no real care for anything else.

Even chelsea and city with all their new found wealth had to do it in stages. Overpaying slightly for the top scraps (duff, bridge, swp) etc and then making a second move once the improvements were clear for all to see.

Arsenal have maybe a season or two to show they mean business or they will drop back. Their appeal is nowhere near as great as utds, and with a board or manager at least less likely to spend. The players needed to go for fourth again may well already be out of reach.

 

[One Planer]

Is that why Liverpool aren't' signing top players either then

Like Suarez and Coutinho you mean?

Liverpool are still big draw for players and pay the wages. Liverpool are very much a team in transition but I feel they will be more of a top 4 club over the coming years than Arsenal.

 

[sawtooth]

I think the boro situation is a lot like the one in china now. Predominantly people after a pay check and no real care for anything else.

Even chelsea and city with all their new found wealth had to do it in stages. Overpaying slightly for the top scraps (duff, bridge, swp) etc and then making a second move once the improvements were clear for all to see.

Arsenal have maybe a season or two to show they mean business or they will drop back. Their appeal is nowhere near as great as utds, and with a board or manager at least less likely to spend. The players needed to go for fourth again may well already be out of reach.

There's players out there but not necessarily superstars and household names. Maybe this lad Henry that we look to be signing for £8.5M will turn out to be a real player. We bought Holding for only £2M and I stand by what I said at the time that he will turn out to be a better player than Stones. Problem buying lower budget players sometimes is that they often need a bit of time for settling and improvement and may never make the grade.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Like Suarez and Coutinho you mean?

Liverpool are still big draw for players and pay the wages. Liverpool are very much a team in transition but I feel they will be more of a top 4 club over the coming years than Arsenal.

Benteke?

I disagree that they are a top draw for big players. IF they have a good season in the PL and finish top four again and get further than last 16 of CL then I'd agree they are making progress. That would definitely be a lure for good players. For now though I feel (and purely a personal opinion) they are still in flux and so the massive players may see that as a negative.

Taking Liverpool and Arsenal out of the argument, it's important for the PL to still get the top players in. It makes for good viewing for the neutral armchair football fan (and to a degree justifies paying the monthly ransom to Sky - thats a different argument though) and its important surely to help our own younger players develop by playing with the best out there

 

[ColchesterFC]

Because you conveniently didn't take into account the accumulation of money spent in previous transfer windows. It's a known and indisputable fact that Chelsea, City and Utd have spent substantially more than Arsenal over the past 10 years or more.

So let's look at some figures then. In the last 5 years Arsenal's nett spend on transfers has been £205,890,000. In that same period Chelsea's nett spend has been £186,809,000. The two Manchester clubs are above them in this respect with £402.5 million nett for City and £352 million nett for United.

No doubt your defence will be the amount of money spent by Chelsea in the years before that. So let's debunk that one as well. The players from the Chelsea squad from 2012/13 that are still there now are Cahill, Luiz (who has left and returned), Terry, Chalobah, Ake, Azpilicueta, Moses and Hazard. Arsenal still have Szczesny (out on loan), Gibbs, Bellerin, Koscielny, Mertesacker, Jenkinson (out on loan), Monreal, Coquelin, Ramsey, Cazorla, Wislhsere (out on loan), Giroud, Walcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain.

Chelsea have 8 players that have been there since 2012/13. Arsenal have 14. So Chelsea have refreshed more of their squad since 2012/13 than Arsenal but have spent almost £20 million less nett doing it than Arsenal. Maybe the difference is bringing in players such as Willian, Matic, Kante, Costa and Courtois rather than Mustafi, Xhaka, Elneny, and Perez.

And you can't use the wages arguement with Kante being on £110k a week at Chelsea and Ozil, Sanchez and Cech being on over £100k a week at Arsenal. Arsenal also still have over £200 million in cash in the bank.