Arsenal's wage structure

[Azeem Khaja]

In my opinion, Arsène Wenger is the one, using his specialist degree in Economics, that has set up this wage structure, which in the current market is antiquated and needs urgent reviewing, thanks to nothing clubs in stature like chelsea, and man city along with man u, have totally corrupted the minds and hearts of players with shockingly high wages.

Arsène's wage structure has done a lot of good, going back to the late 90s; a top quality training ground, then coined this idea of moving in to a bigger stadium i.e. bigger revenue. If you may recall, the not so clever Board panicked and laughed off his idea. But key backing of Mr Dein and here we have an opera house. Because this came at a huge price, he used his qualification to the highest level of caution. Having an excellent scouting network, key acquisitions were made at a bargain price and by the end stage of dismantling and offloading the Invincibles, he had a decent bunch of players assembled.

Nothing players, like Cesc, RvP, Flamini, Ade, ect. who were still learning the sport were put on the forefront and had the potential to take the set up which Arsène put faith in, worked extremely hard to give this a shape that could have won trophies had they been a bit more patient, mentally stable and strong but sadly, the greed, the homesick feeling, those disloyal players pulled him down back into the real world. By this time and with the wage structure he adhered to, huge chunk of stadium loan was paid off. He has kept the youth set up going and opted to acquire establish and experienced professionals following the wounds inflicted by those nothing players who were transformed into world class performers.

Because we have not won anything since Emirates' move, people rightly question the wage structure and Arsène's ongoing exercise of caution. If you look over the span of his role as the manager, he has done no other manager could ever think of or has the intellect to do at one of the biggest clubs.

When our CEO boasts of a healthier financial state, it is time I guess for Wenger to be a bit more brave by acquiring finished products and get tough with under-performers by showing them the door; which I reckon Fergie is up there and praise him for that.

In conclusion, all the good work Arsène has done, (without laurels for 7 years, of course), I honestly believe, with the FFP kicking in, a decent platform is set for our next manager to step in and use his football management experience for trophies pretty much every season.

 

[yuvken]

these wage threads get a bit pointless.

These threads just wind up with everyone pointing and complaining at a problem without the acknowledgement of the effort to move in the right direction or that they didn't have the hindsight we do now.

Which "threads" are "these"? :roll: What is the right direction? based on what?

this situation is so black and white that we're all just saying the same thing.
We want the over earning, under contributing out, so do the club who also want to change the structure, it's just a matter of how quickly it's possible.

So you actually think everybody is in total agreement on the subject of wage structure? I think you're way off, excuse my French. And I think such discussions, when some thought is put into them, help reveal some deep currents and complex issues concerning the matter. Hate to disappoint you, but the simple answers and "black and white" situations are not settling all the issues around this subject (though some aspects may be described thus).

 

[Azeem Khaja]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/9782420/Arsenal-manager-Arsène-Wenger-defends-his-socialist-wage-plan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... -plan.html</a>

Think the above link fits in well in this topic, taken from another topic, 'Has AW taken as far as he can'...

I do not agree with him on paying squad players wages as high as 60K, wish I was lucky as Squillaci, Chamakh, Park, Denilson, Bendtner, and the likes.

Like I mentioned in my post above, he needs to review his wage structure and tweak a little bit. Seeing the above getting paid for doing nothing would surely annoy me if I had been a player putting in a average to decent shift week in and out. Theo has the right to ask and get paid at least closer to the highest earner at the club.

 

[yuvken]

Call it an educated guess. Unless they signed for less money don't see how it can be a change in our wage structure.

Too simple. Rumors have it that Ramsey didn't get a raise at all. And I doubt you yourself would do any different concerning the others.

Wilshere was on a long term contract,

I said it before elsewhere, worth repeating: if it was only possible, I'd have Jack resign his contract every single month, and keep him with 5 remaining years till he's 35.

as were Jenkinson and Chamberlain who we signed last year.

Both are in a different category than the one the were in last year - with Jenks it's not even comparable.

Gibbs really required a new contract as he had 2 years left

Good to see you approve of that, at least.

The players definitely either increased their wage or increased the contract length, probably both, yet for 4 of them there has been absolutely no change in their status as players... Chamberlain is still .. Jenkinson is still .. Wilshere has spent .. Ramsey has played less games this year

Not true or not relevant. Anyway, as I said earlier: is this renewal at all relevant to this topic? why does it even touch on the "egalitarian" issue? this was more on securing our long term core. Nothing about their terms was presented (and I can't see why complain about what we do know).

what happens when these young players become older better players and actually need new contracts. Be surprised to see if they'll sign an extension for the same wage that they signed for when they were 19.

That may be a relevant question - but why think they won't be offered what they are worth? Jack got a serious raise, and will probably get much more as he keeps developing. As for the rest - well, I just don't see how all this is "flat wage structure is killing us" related. Is it?

 

[yuvken]

Arsène's wage structure has done a lot of good... a top quality training ground...a bigger stadium i.e. bigger revenue. ... offloading the Invincibles, he had a decent bunch of players assembled. Nothing players, like Cesc, RvP, Flamini, Ade, ... By this time and with the wage structure he adhered to, huge chunk of stadium loan was paid off.
He ... opted to acquire establish and experienced professionals following the wounds inflicted by those nothing players who were transformed into world class performers.

Because we have not won anything since Emirates' move, people rightly question the wage structure and Arsène's ongoing exercise of caution.

If I read you correctly, you are saying that part of the move for "the project" was also an egalitarian pay system, build a commune of playing and paying; and thus save money. Which brings me to ask: do you assume that the wage structure - it's "flatness" was actually designed to save money? it's not about "friction", or better morale, or other stuff mentioned in the advantage list in the beginning of this discussion? (I'd like to know as I have a bureaucratic obligation here ).
It's a fair question, as most assume we could afford top players if we cut on paying the dross ones (some actually do the math - cut a, b and c and buy x).

 

[and1rew]

Too simple. Rumors have it that Ramsey didn't get a raise at all. And I doubt you yourself would do any different concerning the others.

As I said before either he signed for improved terms or increased the contract length. Either way it was unjustified given the guy's form and contract length. It is a fact that no one on a long term contract signs for worse terms you have to accept that.

I said it before elsewhere, worth repeating: if it was only possible, I'd have Jack resign his contract.

Both are in a different category than the one the were in last year - with Jenks it's not even comparable.

Or you could wait until the end of the season to see how your young midfielder who is already on a 4 year deal who has spent 14 months out adjusts to the game again before renewing his contract unnecessarily.

Sorry but how are Chamberlain and Jenkinson in completely different categories? Just because they played better doesn't mean they are in a different category. Chamberlain is still not a starter and neither is Jenkinson. There has been no change. Where they signed as reserve players? No they were prospects and first team back ups and they are still exactly that.

Not true or not relevant. Anyway, as I said earlier: is this renewal at all relevant to this topic? why does it even touch on the "egalitarian" issue? this was more on securing our long term core. Nothing about their terms was presented (and I can't see why complain about what we do know).

They were already secure! Two of them signed only last year and two were on long term contracts! They were going nowhere and their status had not changed. Secondly you only hope they will be our long term core - but we also hoped that of Fabregas, Song, Diaby and Djourou and these are a less talented crop.

That may be a relevant question - but why think they won't be offered what they are worth? Jack got a serious raise, and will probably get much more as he keeps developing. As for the rest - well, I just don't see how all this is "flat wage structure is killing us" related. Is it?

Well them being offered what they are worth wouldn't be an egalitarian structure then would it? If Wilshere or Chamberlain continue on this salary trajectory they'll be earning 200K+ by the time they're 30. Good luck trying to match that throughout the squad. The basic premise is that players earn similar despite the status in the squad. Although the young British players are benefiting from it, it is them who will arguably lose it if the come good on their potential.

 

[yuvken]

Duh, not that I think any of this is really relevant to this discussion -
Jack: wait for- what? Utd to offer him something? get the doubt into his head? make him realize he's world class before he's made up his mind to lead this team to glory/commit his future to us? repeat, in short, all the past mistakes (at least as people were describing them)?
Ox - was a 17 year old talent/promise, big question marks. No, hasn't yet set the world alight, but if you don't think by now he's about to become one hell of a player, you see things very different from me. That moves him from "talented kid" to WC (or just about) player in the making (not same category, surely? money wise?)

Jenks - I don't believe I need to say this but: he was a joke last year, to put it simply. I actually doubted he'll ever make it here. And now many people think he should play, not the among-the-top-5-RBs-in the world player that's ahead of him (yeah, ok, he's in a dip). Surely, blatantly a different category.

About the signing of the 5: it is about a different matter, about declaring who the core is, about stability, unity, whatever. Why is it about the flat wage structure?
Only way you could be on to something here is if it is somehow related to "overpaying dross; underpaying stars". By signing the 5 we did not renew anyone "dross" (Ramsey? behave.), and there's no indication or solid case for overpaying anyone. Just a policy of having the core of the team signed for long term (even if the risk of signing "too early" was serious, why is it related to this topic? it's thin). And on "underpaying stars" you have nothing but an assumption that "we signed them high now, and won't be able to sustain it later" - thus they'll be disappointed, or leave anyway, or something. Even supposing this was all true - why relevant now? cos we did right by them in the first place? and then - how do you prove this is actually not a part of coming out of the flat line policy (if we take what you yourself are saying, it looks like that...)
Sorry, but I can't see your points.

 

[and1rew]

Duh, not that I think any of this is really relevant to this discussion -
Jack: wait for- what? Utd to offer him something? get the doubt into his head? make him realize he's world class before he's made up his mind to lead this team to glory/commit his future to us? repeat, in short, all the past mistakes (at least as people were describing them)?

So it's a straight choice between signing the guy in November or him leaving is it? He didn't commit any future to us as he had 4 years left as it was! If he wants to leave we are in no stronger position than before, the only difference is we have to pay more for the privilege. Signing a player up 2 months after a 14 month lay off is ridiculous.

Ox - was a 17 year old talent/promise, big question marks. No, hasn't yet set the world alight, but if you don't think by now he's about to become one hell of a player, you see things very different from me. That moves him from "talented kid" to WC (or just about) player in the making (not same category, surely? money wise?)

We paid 12 million for him! Of course Wenger thought he could be world class and I'm sure he paid Chamberlain as such. So now talented kid and close to WC player in the making are different categories? Are you actually reading what you write?

Jenks - I don't believe I need to say this but: he was a joke last year, to put it simply. I actually doubted he'll ever make it here. And now many people think he should play, not the among-the-top-5-RBs-in the world player that's ahead of him (yeah, ok, he's in a dip). Surely, blatantly a different category.

What you thought of him is irrelevant. Wenger signed him to be our back up RB last year and he is still our back up RB. Only now is he fulfilling what Wenger saw in him. Do you honestly think Wenger signed him knowing he would be that ****, paid him accordingly and now renewed his contract because Jenkinson is not as **** as Wenger thought? Wenger thought he was good enough to be our back up RB and unfortunately at that time he was wrong. That now he is doing what he is supposed to do does not make him worthy of a new contract.

About the signing of the 5: it is about a different matter, about declaring who the core is, about stability, unity, whatever. Why is it about the flat wage structure?
Only way you could be on to something here is if it is somehow related to "overpaying dross; underpaying stars". By signing the 5 we did not renew anyone "dross" (Ramsey? behave.), and there's no indication or solid case for overpaying anyone. Just a policy of having the core of the team signed for long term (even if the risk of signing "too early" was serious, why is it related to this topic? it's thin). And on "underpaying stars" you have nothing but an assumption that "we signed them high now, and won't be able to sustain it later" - thus they'll be disappointed, or leave anyway, or something. Even supposing this was all true - why relevant now? cause we did right by them in the first place? and then - how do you prove this is actually not a part of coming out of the flat line policy (if we take what you yourself are saying, it looks like that...)
Sorry, but I can't see your points.

They are overpaid. Bar maybe Man City none of those players could command those wages elsewhere. This is exactly the same as the Class of '08 except it has a British passport. My original point was that there looks to be no change in our wage structure as we were giving promising youngsters new contracts unnecessarily, the key reason in why we struggle to sell the likes of Denilson, Bendtner, Djourou and Vela. If Jenkinson, Ramsey or even Chamberlain doesn't make it we end up with a player who was simply being paid the mean wage simply because Wenger thinks it's fairer, who we can't shift.

 

[yuvken]

Signing a player up 2 months after a 14 month lay off is ridiculous.

No, it's not. It's what we should have done exactly. And it still works against your logic (strengthens the changing the structure process theory).

talented kid and close to WC player in the making are different categories? Are you actually reading what you write?

I write it, don't I? He was a Gnabry last year. Cool, exciting, but you never know if he'll really make the grade. Some would say that actually passing that first hurdle is the most significant step from "theoretically nice" to "real". But I don't insist so much on Ox - the essential difference really is not that big.

What you thought of him is irrelevant. Wenger signed him to be our back up RB last year and he is still our back up RB. Only now is he fulfilling what Wenger saw in him. Do you honestly think Wenger signed him knowing he would be that ****, paid him accordingly and now renewed his contract because Jenkinson is not as **** as Wenger thought? Wenger thought he was good enough to be our back up RB and unfortunately at that time he was wrong. That now he is doing what he is supposed to do does not make him worthy of a new contract.

You really are making an effort, aren't you? well, it really doesn't help: fact remains that between last year and now this player turned from utter s*** to an England player. What Wenger thought, what I thought - much talk. It was not even debatable - everyone thought so last year, everyone does this year. Including yourself, if I'm allowed to guess. That does not make him change category? what does? that you decide categories are only "first team" or "squad"? Our topic is wage structure. Categories are wage categories. Jenks was worth 5k a week last year (if). He is a player this year. That does make him worthy of a contract, no gymnastics would help you here. Last year's mistakes? sure, I thought so last year too. Relevance? that we should have actually smiled at the beautiful accident of Jenko becoming what he was supposedly paid for already (was he, BTW? if rumors were right he was paid close to nothing), and ignore the vast improvement in his play, and the opportunity to put him in a group we wish to sign for the future? why?

They are overpaid. Bar maybe Man City none of those players could command those wages elsewhere. This is exactly the same as the Class of '08 except it has a British passport. My original point was that there looks to be no change in our wage structure as we were giving promising youngsters new contracts unnecessarily, the key reason in why we struggle to sell the likes of Denilson, Bendtner, Djourou and Vela. If Jenkinson, Ramsey or even Chamberlain doesn't make it we end up with a player who was simply being paid the mean wage simply because Wenger thinks it's fairer, who we can't shift.

OK, this sounds better. So your point is in fact what I suggested earlier: we overpay dross (I'm referring to the initial list). Fine - I don't agree with you here, but it is legitimate (and I agree with you at least in that we do have dross on our books, and we do overpay them, and it is a problem, and we do need to watch out). I just don't think the "5" is relevant to any of that: none is dross, and for all I know none is really overpaid, and not one of them was a mistake/un calculated risk in signing, even given our recent lessons about being stuck with the overpaid.
This was all a bit of a diversion from topic, I still think. It looks like we disagree on basic things in this off topic discussion, but actually on topic I don't think we do - not by much anyway.

 

[glaveror]

(Perhaps a good idea to list them, for reference and clarity - I'll try to edit/update as we go on):

Advantages (suggested)

Better squad morale

Smaller budget

Rotation is easier


Disadvantages

Dross inflated pay

Difficult to get rid of dross

Regulars underpaid

Players leaving/hard to keep elite

Manager doesn't fit the bill

Unfair/not reflecting true desert
(Fairness as a special angle for reg's underpaid/dross overpaid)

In all honesty I think that this list ends any possible debate about our wage structure because it's clear that negatives outweigh positives by far.
The idea behind it is almost noble but unfortunately there are too many factors and variables needed for it to work.
If we're to keep current structure I'm afraid we'll be left vulnerable to our best players leaving tempted by offers of bigger pay.

 

[Kanonier]

It is absolutely clear that with our current wage structure we cannot compete for the best talent in the market against the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United, Barcelona, Real Madrid, and PSG. It is ridiculous that we have the third highest wages in the EPL and our squad is average in comparison to our competition. Additionally, we spend millions in the transfer market each year but we go after average players instead of making 1-2 world class signings. Thus, our wage structure and transfer policy is an absolute failure and is holding us back from achieving anything. As it is, we stand no chance of winning anything for a long time and the club as a whole is regressing. If we fail to make key signings this month, we will get kicked out of the Champions League, we stand no chance in the FA Cup (even if we beat Swansea) and there is no chance in hell we can challenge the Manchester clubs. If Arsène Wenger and the board allow this, we will follow the same destiny of Liverpool and will become a mediocre club.

 

[Anzac]

I'm going to agree with And1rew on this one.

IMO the wage structure is flawed,
the club had admitted to wanting to address the issue so as to be able to pay our top players closer to market values based upon our self sustaining revenues.
They have indicated that this will take 3-4 years to achieve which coincides with BOTH the expiry of current contracts And the increase in projected revenues.

However they have NOT said that they will pay any LESS to squad / developing players, and nor have they said they will change our policy regarding transfer policy or payments within our self generated finances.
If so then the only change could well be to see the increased finances used to raise the ceiling of our wage budget, rather than be used in improving our market activity.

Secondly the renewal of 'the 5' may not only be a PR stunt re our future core etc, but also a means to not only put some not so subtle pressure on Walcott to sign & be a part of this new future project.
It may well signify a further commitment by both AW & the club to a full scale commitment of our future direction to the youth project as strongly as it ever has been, with AW publically declaring/endorsing 'the 5' as our future core - something I do not recall being done so significantly or publically with the prior group.
As it stands IMO the talk of revenues being brought forward is NOT for the purpose of player transfers, but moreso to improve our wages with any new contracts.

I also think that the timing of this was not needed and in fact has a negative impact on supporters - there is little to be gained NOW as opposed to seeing these players earn these improved contracts on merit in the summer. IIRC this will be Ox's 3rd contract since he joined less than 2 full seasons ago.

As for supposedly tying the players down I call BS. We've sold both Fabregas and Song with 3 seasons remaining on contract = all the contract provides is better resale value rather than keeping them at the club.

That said IMO without market wages for top players IMO the policy/philosophy will always be doomed to failure. The first group failed because despite the intent they felt no long term affinity to the club once they reached starting player status.
AW is hoping that this new British core will prove to be different.

IMO the status quo is set to remain beyond the increased revenues.
The BoD & AW will NOT make any significant changes to our business model until such time as they are forced to do so by a change in ownership priorities.

As a last point I'd also say that the talk re AW's economics degree is a red herring as it is only applied at a strategic level of business philosophy to make policy decisions, and that the almost criminal waste in wages each season undermines any NEED to generate profits. To this extent ANY statement by AW regarding any NEED to generate profit is little more than another excuse to cover the ineptness of our business model, and the glaring failure of the BoD to directly address the issues they have directly or indirectly created as a result of their decisions.

They may be multi-millionairs but I wouldn't trust any of them with my money, let alone to run a corner store.

 

[yuvken]

In all honesty I think that this list ends any possible debate about our wage structure because it's clear that negatives outweigh positives by far.
The idea behind it is almost noble but unfortunately there are too many factors and variables needed for it to work.
If we're to keep current structure I'm afraid we'll be left vulnerable to our best players leaving tempted by offers of bigger pay.

No, it doesn't -
a. this is not an ultimate, objective list, but only a suggested list, as in raising topics for debate. Nothing conclusive about any of them.
b. Nothing at all is suggested about the value of each item. If. e.g. team morale is worth 100, and each of the negatives is only worth 10 (and less than 100 in total), then it's worth it, so to speak. The list is only a frame, in other words - it does touch on content, but it leaves it open for analysis/interpretation.

There's still work to be done to prove the mentioned claim - that's basically what we're doing (or refute it, obviously).

BTW - is the idea noble? I'm not sure those who worked their asses off to become stars (or simply those who believe they are entitled to the fruits of their talent) think it is noble. They might contend it is corrupt from the core.

 

[yuvken]

IMO the wage structure is flawed,
the club had admitted to wanting to address the issue so as to be able to pay our top players closer to market values based upon our self sustaining revenues.

However they have NOT said that they will pay any LESS to squad / developing players, and nor have they said they will change our policy regarding transfer policy or payments within our self generated finances.
If so then the only change could well be to see the increased finances used to raise the ceiling of our wage budget, rather than be used in improving our market activity.

If they keep the wage based on true revenue, and pay the stars more - they change the current "flat/socialistic" policy. What else is there to say? they said they want to doit, they seem to be going there, you say so yourself - what are you complaining about? that the absolute amount paid to lower level players will not be reduced, but only relatively? that we're not getting a bigger chunk of future revenue dedicated for transfers? maybe yes, maybe no - off topic. As you are "with Andrew" on this, I gave him all the off-topicness leeway for one thread. The subject is: "our flat wage structure". Please stay on course. Yes, I do allow you to keep *****in' about us not getting more money for transfers. I secretly enjoy it (and agree with it) but don't stretch it too much.

Secondly the renewal of 'the 5'

Interesting views, off topic.

That said IMO without market wages for top players IMO the policy/philosophy will always be doomed to failure. The first group failed because despite the intent they felt no long term affinity to the club once they reached starting player status.
AW is hoping that this new British core will prove to be different.

OK, but we agreed (you did, didn't you?) that we want, and are striving to change that - we are going to break the ceiling and change the structure (a-la Gazidis, at least. Not sure about AW's recent quotes).

]IMO the status quo is set to remain beyond the increased revenues.
The BoD & AW will NOT make any significant changes to our business model until such time as they are forced to do so by a change in ownership priorities.

Wait: status quo will remain? no changes to "business model"? They're paying the stars more (relatively) or not? wage structure remains as flat - or not? socialist or market value (I keep drawing the lines as I'm training to be
a stadium maintenance helper )

AW's economics degree is a red herring

It is, and we don't want red herrings, right?
BTW, it might just be relevant, as it probably touches on why opt for such a choice (the flat business). But we'll leave it for now.

 

[evoh_1]

So arsenal want to change the structure right?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/9541112/Arsenal-chief-executive-Ivan-Gazidis-on-why-he-expects-manager-Arsène-Wenger-to-lead-the-club-into-a-new-era.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... w-era.html</a>

"Can we compete at top salary levels? Yes we can, but we have an ethos at the club – the way Arsène expresses it is that it is not about individual players, it is what happens between them." - Great so let the good times roll

"We have a wage structure which we think works for us, it's not fixed in stone – we adapt it over time. There are no absolute hard and fast rules."

So this strucutre works for us so its seems the club is happy with how we go about wage packets and doesn't mind the arbitrage of paying players wages when they leave the club on loan to an inferior side.

Lets be clear Arsène has set up this wage sturucture recently as in post 2007 before that David dein handled all of these matters. No suprise that we have gone down the pan as Arsène's reach from the training ground to the bank balance has just gone too far and had nothing to do with his previous success stories.

 

[mo50]

Until we start signing good quality players, the 5-10m punts we continually take on mediocre players in their early to mid 20's will just end up being the next batch of leeches. Once we clear Arshavin, Squilaci and Fabianski this summer, We'll still have Chamakh for 2 more years, Gervinho for 2 more years, Santos for 2 more years, not to mention the returnees that come back on loan.

We'll never fully clear them out. Having one or two is par for the course, but when you've got half a dozen or more senior players that contribute **** all year in year out there is a massive problem. What needs to happen is that we first of all need to get our signings spot on.

5 years ago I would've trusted Wenger to sign an obscure LB from Zimbabwe and turn him into a world beater. That's not the case any more. If we keep signing poor players, they'll eventually become our next batch of useless. So from now on, we should be extra careful with our signings. Either sign top class footballers or forget it. No more stop gaps and no more "squad players".

 

[dpt49]

Until we start signing good quality players, the 5-10m punts we continually take on mediocre players in their early to mid 20's will just end up being the next batch of leeches. Once we clear Arshavin, Squilaci and Fabianski this summer, We'll still have Chamakh for 2 more years, Gervinho for 2 more years, Santos for 2 more years, not to mention the returnees that come back on loan.

We'll never fully clear them out. Having one or two is par for the course, but when you've got half a dozen or more senior players that contribute **** all year in year out there is a massive problem. What needs to happen is that we first of all need to get our signings spot on.

5 years ago I would've trusted Wenger to sign an obscure LB from Zimbabwe and turn him into a world beater. That's not the case any more. If we keep signing poor players, they'll eventually become our next batch of useless. So from now on, we should be extra careful with our signings. Either sign top class footballers or forget it. No more stop gaps and no more "squad players".

Exactly.
For what we paid garbage like Squillaci, Denilson, Park and Chamakh we could have had a world class player.

There is absolutely no argument against the fact that one world class footballer is better than four players that earn around 200k a week and can't even get on the bench.

That 200k a week would have been better spent on two decent players, like the ones we desperately need, but always miss out on, through our indecisiveness and reluctance to pay the going price.
Players like, Mata, Hazard, Alonso and players that we sold like RVP, Song or Cesc.

I would rather have 3/4 world class players, like we used to, than ten players that can't even get on the bench, like we have now.

 

[FinnGooner]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/9782420/Arsenal-manager-Arsène-Wenger-defends-his-socialist-wage-plan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think the above link fits in well in this topic, taken from another topic, 'Has AW taken as far as he can'...

I do not agree with him on paying squad players wages as high as 60K, wish I was lucky as Squillaci, Chamakh, Park, Denilson, Bendtner, and the likes.

Like I mentioned in my post above, he needs to review his wage structure and tweak a little bit. Seeing the above getting paid for doing nothing would surely annoy me if I had been a player putting in a average to decent shift week in and out. Theo has the right to ask and get paid at least closer to the highest earner at the club.

I'm sick of this holier-than-thou attitude of Gazidis and Wenger.

"We are responsible in our use of money and we make profit"
"Our wage structure is more ethical than those of others'"

At the same time Wenger is one of the best payed managers in the world while the fans pay highest ticket prices! Why is it that we are willing to compete in manager wages but refuse to pay top money for top players?

How on earth does Wenger have the nerve to come out and brag about the wage structure when we are constantly struggling to get rid of our over-payed dross while at the same time our best players leave to rival clubs for better pay!

The hypocrisy of the management of this club is very annoying!

 

[bingobob]

The main problem I see with our wage structure in the lack of opportunity. Lets take the football context out of it and look at a banking context. I am a young up and coming banker, I am confident and have belief in my ability and Barclays and HSBC want to take me on. Barclays say, BingoBob, the sky is the limit you do well you could bank 4,5,6 maybe 7m a season but to begin with your starting salary will only be 100k but do well and you will climb. HSBC say BingoBob we are gonna start you on 500k (wahay! I think) but the maximum you can earn is only 2m that is our limit. Well obviously I am gonna take the 500k to get the experience and get the financial safety net 500k brings over 100k. So I join HSBC I fulfill my potential I really like the job but feel that those around me are happy doing the bare minimum taking the 500k while Im busting my balls getting the 2m. I remember Barclays offered me a potentially higher salary if I do well. Being a rational person, I know I have done well and I decide I want more money so I contact Barclays and after a while I leave for more money as I am confident that I can make more.

I dont see what we are doing as being any different. There is a glass ceiling,you work your socks off but can only get so much. In contrast other clubs, Man Utd, are saying look we will give you a lower salary but if you work and are good enough well look at Rooney, Ferdinand, RVP that could be the bracket you are on. Do you take the risk that you might not make it or do you go for the higher starting wage at Arsenal knowing if you do not make it you will be comfortable and if you do make it you can transfer across and be rewarded for your progress?

 

[yuvken]

Does anyone think loyalty comes into this in any way? like the flat thing helps the young, somehow cultivates some emotion for the club, and then they might stay for less than maximal pay (they can presumably get elsewhere)? does anyone think such a thought exists with the people at the helm? (the 5 story is allowed if you guys want. It would be relevant here ).
I'll take BBB's story as "no such thing as loyalty, it's not even a consideration in any level". Are there other views at all?