• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Goon Thread - Officially Second In A One Horse Race

Neymar said:
city, utd, chelsa, Ar5ena1 all have numerous players being paid more than they would be worth if they were playing for us. do you think gareth bale would be worth his half million per week salary for us?

"paying more than they are worth" seems to be the precise strategy for top 4 finishes.
Click to expand...

I think that you have got the wrong end of the stick. I haven't mentioned us once. Players are worth what the market can bear, I think that what Arsenal are reportedly paying Walcott is right at the top end of his. I don't think that a club on the continent would pay him that much and the only way I could see him getting more in this country is if one of the richer clubs wanted to score stature points off Arsenal.

I'm pleased to see that you are agreeing that Arsenal's success is at least partly down to their high spending though.
 
milo said:
I think that you have got the wrong end of the stick. I haven't mentioned us once. Players are worth what the market can bear, I think that what Ar5ena1 are reportedly paying Walcott is right at the top end of his. I don't think that a club on the continent would pay him that much and the only way I could see him getting more in this country is if one of the richer clubs wanted to score stature points off Ar5ena1.

I'm pleased to see that you are agreeing that Ar5ena1's success is at least partly down to their high spending though.
Click to expand...

im only comparing them to ourselves to highlight that what "someone is worth" is relative. thats why ive also compared arsenal to the three teams above them too.

liverpool are supposedly paying milner similar wages to walcott.
 
Neymar said:
im only comparing them to ourselves to highlight that what "someone is worth" is relative. thats why ive also compared Ar5ena1 to the three teams above them too.

liverpool are supposedly paying milner similar wages to walcott.
Click to expand...

The difference being that Milner was on a free
 
as spurs fans we can talk all day long about finding value etc, but as long as there are teams that don't care about this, itll be hard for us to finish above them. from a business perspective, i can fully understand and sympathise with our club and why they would not want to offer the likes of milner and walcott 140k. but as a fan, i find it weird that our fans are taking pride in not being able to afford the top players when this is precisely the reason we almost never finish in the top 4.
 
Paying Walcott 140k a week will not get arsenal top 4, just like liverpool paying Milner the same won't. It really is that simple. Pay higher wages for the players who are worth it by all means, but not just anyone! Think what better players arsensl could be getting for that money, or allocating those funds to? Walcott could leave tomorrow and it wouldn't impact they're top 4 challenge (I think he is quite good by the way, but he doesn't get in to their best team)

Taking your argument that all you need to do is pay top 4 wages to get top 4, then west ham could let all their players contracts run down and then resign them on 150k a week, they'd be the highest wage paying club so they'd get champs league, right?

Think it's a bit more complicated than just paying any old tut 140k a week personally.
 
11800155_10153620258739101_5599691450467598296_n.jpg
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
Paying Walcott 140k a week will not get Ar5ena1 top 4, just like liverpool paying Milner the same won't. It really is that simple. Pay higher wages for the players who are worth it by all means, but not just anyone! Think what better players arsensl could be getting for that money, or allocating those funds to? Walcott could leave tomorrow and it wouldn't impact they're top 4 challenge (I think he is quite good by the way, but he doesn't get in to their best team)

Taking your argument that all you need to do is pay top 4 wages to get top 4, then west ham could let all their players contracts run down and then resign them on 150k a week, they'd be the highest wage paying club so they'd get champs league, right?

Think it's a bit more complicated than just paying any old tut 140k a week personally.
Click to expand...

no, but maybe if we paid the likes of modric, berba, bale, keane etc etc etc top 4 wages, we mightve kept them and finished in the top 4 a few more times.

who is the top english international midfielder/attacker (with a goal scoring rate of 1/3 for the past few seasons) in the prime of his career that arsenal can get instead of the 140k walcott? the homegrown ruling has artifically changed epl clubs' recruitment policy, and players like sterling, walcott and milner getting paid 100-200k is simply a sign of this.
 
Neymar said:
that goes hand in hand with being paid more. the more you pay your players, the more success you will have.

sterling is probably better than walcott, hence why he is on a lot more than 140k. they may already own walcott but he had 1 year left on his deal. why did Emirates Marketing Project supposedly offer milner in the region on 150k too? doesnt really matter that they "own" him. the fact is, the new home grown rule is a godsend for the top 20 or so england players. their wages are going through the roof because of it.

it is a slipperly slope (especially from a business perspective), but from a purely football point of view, it usually ends in (relative) success. leeds, portsmouth, Chel53a, Emirates Marketing Project are evidence of this. however, with the current board and wenger at Ar5ena1, i suspect that their long term finances are safe.


and thats why they keep finishing in the top 4 whilst we dont.
Click to expand...

Neymar said:
no, but maybe if we paid the likes of modric, berba, bale, keane etc etc etc top 4 wages, we mightve kept them and finished in the top 4 a few more times.

who is the top english international midfielder/attacker (with a goal scoring rate of 1/3 for the past few seasons) in the prime of his career that Ar5ena1 can get instead of the 140k walcott? the homegrown ruling has artifically changed epl clubs' recruitment policy, and players like sterling, walcott and milner getting paid 100-200k is simply a sign of this.
Click to expand...

Berbs, carrick, modric, bale would have all left regardless of wages, they wanted to challenge for honors at the top level, just like sagna, Ade, Nasri, Toure did when they left Arsenal, paying well over market value for wages on players doesn't matter, certainly didn't in arsenals case anyway, players want to play at the highest level they can.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
Berbs, carrick, modric, bale would have all left regardless of wages, they wanted to challenge for honors at the top level, just like sagna, Ade, Nasri, Toure did when they left Ar5ena1, paying well over market value for wages on players doesn't matter, certainly didn't in arsenals case anyway, players want to play at the highest level they can.
Click to expand...

yes, but had we been paying all those guys the wages the 3/4 teams above us could, dont you think we wouldve also been challenging for titles? and since those clubs above us pay "over maket rate", if we are to win things, we also need to be paying "over market value". however, im not saying that we should, because i dont think theres any reason enic should be made to subsidise the clubs finances just because the fans want more. but its weird how we are having a go at arsenal just because it now seems that they are potentially about to push on and give the likes of chelsea a run for their money.

if arsenal were not rivals with us, theyre the type of team that we should be supporting in the title race imo.
 
Neymar said:
yes, but had we been paying all those guys the wages the 3/4 teams above us could, dont you think we wouldve also been challenging for titles? and since those clubs above us pay "over maket rate", if we are to win things, we also need to be paying "over market value". however, im not saying that we should, because i dont think theres any reason enic should be made to subsidise the clubs finances just because the fans want more. but its weird how we are having a go at Ar5ena1 just because it now seems that they are potentially about to push on and give the likes of Chel53a a run for their money.

if Ar5ena1 were not rivals with us, theyre the type of team that we should be supporting in the title race imo.
Click to expand...

No!

Like i said they would have left anyway because we weren't challenging for titles, paying them twice as much in the same period they played for us would not have helped, it wouldn't have changed a thing, just made us more financially insecure! You just have to look at arsenal to see that, they were paying similar players twice as much as we were and they still left!

I'm not even against paying good players big wages, We, apparently, tabled a huge wage increase for bale, which I agreed with, however if we'd have done the same for Townsend this close season Id have been VERY worried, you can't pay squad players that much without getting in to trouble. (I like Townsend, just using him as an equiv role that Walcott has for arsenal).

I'm not sure come February (every single season) many arsenal fans would agree with you that they are the blueprint!
 
success in football and money go hand in hand. if we could've afforded to pay the likes of modric what they could earn elsewhere, im of the opinion that there wouldve been no doubt that we couldve kept a handful of those players that left. and they wouldnt of had to sprout some bs about liverpool being the club they supported as a wee kid.

Gazza Dazzla said:
you can't pay squad players that much without getting in to trouble. (I like Townsend, just using him as an equiv role that Walcott has for Ar5ena1).
Click to expand...

lets see how much "trouble" arsenal get into (and im assuming you mean financially).
 
Ok well I completely disagree with you on that.

As an immediate, up to do date example, sterlings agent said it didn't matter if Liverpool offered him 800k a week, he wanted to compete at a higher level. That's what Spurs and arsenal have dealt with for years, the only difference is arsenal have been paying almost twice the wages. So no, I dont think it makes much difference and I don't know what more proof you want, or how many more or different ways I can say it?
 
everyones entitled to their own opinions, and if yours is that sterling would not have signed an 800k a week deal a liverpool, then thats your prerogative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back