56
57

Maybe Wenger is not a good economist (self.soccer)

FootbaII が 投稿

Any time people are talking about Wenger's frugality, it comes up that he has an Economy degree. But I was thinking more about it and I came to the conclusion that Wenger doesn't act like a good economist. I'm curious to see what others think.

A good economist would say that hoarding cash is wrong. And that one should use that cash to buy assets that generate more income or that appreciate in value. Cash loses value due to inflation. And as we've seen in past 20 years or so, football world has a very very high inflation rate. Your 100M war chest, which was going to buy you 3-4 very good players few years back, can now only buy you 2 very good players. In the business world, investors consider "not utilizing cash to increase company value" a big no-no.

So, a football club should try to spend its cash to acquire assets (football players) who have the potential to dramatically increase their own value (i.e., they're young and with great potential) and the value of the club (by winning titles and making the club look attractive to new fans and re-energizing the existing fan base). Bargain bin purchases are much less likely to have dramatic increase in player value and are much less likely to increase the value of the club.

A good economist would also say that transfers should be negotiated early and from the point of strength. Not from the point of desperation. Leaving obvious gaps in the team and performing poorly in first few EPL games will put your club in a very weak negotiating position. Moreover, lack of time to find replacement will make the selling club unwilling to sell their players at reasonable fees.

A good economist will say that football transfer is not a poker game. In poker, you can just fold to stop/limit a loss. In football, for the buyer, losing a transfer can leave gaps in the team and demoralize fans and current players. Especially when there are not many alternative high quality players you can buy. In poker, the other team may get really poor cards and may be automatically destined to lose. In football, in most cases, the other team (seller) can just reject a transfer and go back to where things were. There's no major downside for them unless they're financially struggling (which happens very rarely) or the player is desperate to join the buying club (like Cesc to Barca; but that also happens rarely, especially if the buying club isn't setting the world on fire with successes anyway).

And finally, a good economist will say that fair prices are determined by supply and demand. If transfers of very good players happen in the 40-60M range, then that's the current fair price. No seller is going to sell you those players for 20-30M just because you aren't used to the new realities of the market.

全 63 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]HacksawJimDGN 30ポイント31ポイント  (5子コメント)

It is interesting. The most Arsenal have ever sold a player for is £29.8m (Fabregas). For a team that values bringing young players through you would think they would have a higher resell value. Obviously they prefer to keep their best players but still.

[–]mangotictacs 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

Adebayor and Kolo were sold for a combined 40m in 2009, which was (and, amazingly, would still be considered as) a gigantic fee. Transfer inflation really took off after that though, and the proceeding major sales were RvP, Nasri and Cesc, all of which were at a discount for a various reason. Since RvP in 2012, they've not made a major sale at all.

I can imagine the patience of Ozil and Alexis being tested next summer though. Both have just a year on their contract after this season, and there would be plenty of suitors.

I've never really thought Wenger or Arsenal to be great negotiators during a sale anyway, just adept in football terms at making good players look great (and hence automatically commanding higher fees, not through any sales' prowess).

[–]Chelsearenome 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

Adebayor and Kolo were sold for a combined 40m in 2009, which was (and, amazingly, would still be considered as) a gigantic fee.

20 million per player? No, it wasn't and no, it wouldn't.

[–]ArsenalChicago-Gooner 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

In 2009, 25 million for Adebayor and 15 million for a 30+ year old center back was considered a hefty fee for clubs without billionaire Russian owners financing them.

[–]ChelseaL14M1994 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Kolo was 28 in 2009, he's 35 now.

[–]Tottenham HotspurFanAtticFebOven 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's to do with their pretty poor contract management giving the players and bidding clubs too much price leverage

[–]Bath CityDrCrazyFishMan1 35ポイント36ポイント  (2子コメント)

I like your username

[–]Arsenal90s_camp 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

He behaves like an accountant. I'm not demeaning him - it needs to be done (to a certain extent at least).

[–]FootbaII[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I agree. Not trying to insult Wenger. But an accountant won't think about investments, value creation, etc. Theyll just focus on the bottom line. That's what Wenger seems to do.

[–]Arsenal90s_camp 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I respectfully disagree due to the following:

Investments: Training Center Investment (before he came Arsenal were training at a local university). The Emirates is THE investment of investments (he stayed on during this CRITICAL period when he had all the major clubs coming after him). There is further investment in the youth Hale training center.

Value: Anelka, Overmars, Viera, Fabregas, etc. etc. I mean Barcelona have basically paid for a quarter of the Emirates debt. In addition, he tends to sell right at the moment when the players are on the verge of decline.

Tl;dr - he is investing for the long term - which requires some bean counting in the short term.

[–]MónacoSkyzo76 14ポイント15ポイント  (2子コメント)

Maybe there is more going on at Arsenal than what we know and what we hear. There was a video here detailling a little the financial situation at Arsenal but left so much more interrogation.

[–]Liverpooldrunkenbrawler 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Absolutely, we don't have insight into precisely what Wenger's or any other manager's position is when it comes to economy and transfers. They don't just make decisions on their own. They are working for an organisation that has certain criteria that the manager tries to achieve.

[–]Arsenalneonmantis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They don't just make decisions on their own.

Arsenal is unlike any other major club at this point. Wenger has extraordinary power and influence. One of the explanations for our lack of spending is that we miss someone like David Dein who could persuade Wenger to spend and Wenger's job is absolutely, 100% safe with the board. At other clubs there are chairman, scouts, owners, directors of football, and transfer committees that are highly influential, we have no such thing. Wenger is King at Arsenal.

[–]NoFearMatthewIsHere 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

Maybe Wenger is a more risk-adverse economist/manager who values efficiency more than anything. As we all know, in economics, efficiency is most desirable. In this context, by efficiency, I mean achieving admirable results with minimal spending, which is what he's been doing for many years. Now I'm not an Arsenal fan but that's still extremely respectable. If you're talking about Wenger as an economist, I think he's excellent. The club went from needing to pay back for the new stadium to one of the more wealthily clubs in his tenure, that's impressive.

[–]Arsenalneonmantis 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The club went from needing to pay back for the new stadium to one of the more wealthily clubs in his tenure, that's impressive.

Before Wenger arrived Arsenal were comparable to clubs like Everton, Leeds, and Villa. Now we're one of the biggest clubs in the world. The Emirates was Wenger's vision and it generates more income on a match day than any stadium in the world, although the jump in TV money has reduced the impact of that.

[–]Atlanta SilverbacksIncaahhh -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Efficiency is not the most desirable in economics. As long as the end result is right, corporations and governments could take an inefficient path.

[–]Radomiak Radomb4b 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, he can risk losing his cash - and getting nothing.

Now he is secure - and if something goes wrong - still has a ton of cash in bank.

Probably the club owners want it that way.

[–]Manchester Uniteddickbag63 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

I would think the "war chest" is actually an investment fund, used to invest in a portfolio of markets. It doesn't just sit there.

[–]Wikki TouristsDHav123 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is almost definitely the case. I like OP's perspective but the fact is that Wenger and co obviously have their money working for them but just not in a way that's fully transparent to fans.

[–]Italyronburgendy15 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or the gigantic cash reserve they supposedly have. But I don't think much of that goes into transfer fees at all, rather for the debt they still have left over from building the Emirates Stadium.

[–]FootbaII[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I would say if they use that money to invest elsewhere, then it's not liquid and they won't say that we have a war chest of 100M or 200M or whatever it is now. So my guess is that it's not invested elsewhere and it's just earning some short or medium term interest. But we'll never know.

[–]Francet6005 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sounds like you do a lot of guessing.

[–]ArsenalHappyMeerkat 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not Arsenal who says we have a war chest more the fans and media

[–]Arsenalneonmantis 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sadly not my friend. Gazidis said a couple of years back that with the new commercial deals that we'd be able to compete with the biggest clubs in the world. I can't find the quote but someone more resourceful could.

[–]Chelseaodewar37 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

I've never really thought about transfers like that but I enjoyed the first few paragraphs. I'd maybe liken players to stocks, as they often fall and rise at great rates from nowhere. Player values are very volatile.

[–]West Ham Unitedjayayseekay 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

You're totally right in that individual player values are volatile - they rise and fall dramatically with form and favour. As an aggregate however, player values are increasing much quicker than money in the back will earn interest. From an economics perspective, however much cash Arsenal have kept in the bank for 2 years, would be much more valuable now if it was invested into players. Top level players are of relatively limited supply and are the commodities in the system, so as finances inflate so do their respective worths and subsequently prices. The 0.5-2% interest that Arsenal have been earning on that bank balance could have been a 10%, 20%, maybe even 50% gain had it been invested into commodities (players).

[–]Chelseaodewar37 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh I complete agree in the cash compared to player value and that they should have invested, football inflation as you say has completely shifted the market for what a player was worth even 3 seasons ago. If the rumours of arsenal having between 100-200 million sitting available it's possible to argue Arsenal have lost potentially tens of millions in commodities purely from football inflation, not even including Arsenals great track record of increasing players' values anyway.

[–]FootbaII[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly! Thank you for saying it more eloquently than me :)

[–]West Ham Unitedjayayseekay 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not at all mate, great post. I'm not used to having to think on a Friday afternoon

[–]Karmacise 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

This was a good economic analysis but I think it, and a lot of other criticisms, miss the mark. They're directed at Wenger under the assumption that it is all his fault. We say he's 'frugal' but really I just don't think he's given enough money to do what he needs. Arsenal's owner is essentially Stan Kroenke. Now, I don't know much about what goes on with Arsenal but I know a bit about about Kroenke. Full disclosure, I hate the man for taking my NFL team away from my home town. This is a man where all he really does is manage sports teams, and none of them are super successful. He married into his billions, and he views sports teams as a way of making money. I can guarantee he's taking money out of Arsenal rather than putting it in. That's why they can't compete in the transfer market. Pure speculation, but i'd guess that Kroenke and Wenger sat down when he took over the club and had a conversation about money for transfers. Wenger probably had a figure and Kroenke whittled him down. It probably seemed like a good number to Wenger at the time, but he didn't foresee this amount of inflation. That's why he's complaining. It also wouldn't surprise me if he was using some of Arsenal's profit to help grease the wheels of the Rams moving. The thing to note is that Stan Kroenke doesn't care if Arsenal are winning, all of his other teams are average at best. It's a business to him, and I'm not sure how good he even is at the business.

[–]Barcelonaxyanide14 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Spot on, I absolutely agree with you. Kroenke is notorious for putting profit as his top priority...one of the reasons I stopped being an Avalanche fan.

[–]Arsenalnotthatcreativearewe 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Arsenal has a board, which presumably means they have a Chief Financial Officer alongside the Chief Executive Officer (Ivan Gazidis, if he already isn't the CFO). Arsene for all his talents, is most likely not the dominant financial voice at Arsenal, though he probably has a big say.

[–]Arsenalneonmantis 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Arsene for all his talents, is most likely not the dominant financial voice at Arsenal, though he probably has a big say.

By all accounts he is in charge of everything related to football matters. No other manager at a major club has the power that Wenger does. Fergie at Utd was the same and I expect Mourinho, Guardiola and a few others demand control over certain aspects but Wenger stands alone in terms of influence.

[–]Toronto FCfloatate 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which says a lot about how valuable DD was at Arsenal

[–]Arsenalnotthatcreativearewe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Football matters does not equal financial matters. The financial investment of the club lies at the hands of the owners which means ultimately they control the flow of money in the club. If Wenger makes financial decisions that the owners and the board don't agree with they're not going to permit it. While I agree that Wenger has a huge influence over the finances of the club its a bit of a myth that he's somehow in charge of the club. He's not an investor and ultimately the power lies with the investors.

[–]KristianHK 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I believe he like Ferguson is just too prideful to pay that much for talent especially with the "Premier League tax." which is currently putting english teams in a horrible position when fighting for the biggest talents.

I'm sure if he asked the board to double his transfer budget to win the league they wouldn't hesitate for 2 seconds.

[–]Arsenalneonmantis 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sure if he asked the board to double his transfer budget to win the league they wouldn't hesitate for 2 seconds.

He's not spent last years transfer budget or all of this seasons. No need to ask the board to double it. The board is not the problem with us spending money. Wenger is 100% responsible for it, although you could argue the club should put more pressure on him.

[–]AZ Alkmaarwouterkw 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was thinking just this some time ago, but you worded it really well! +1

[–]velsor 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I feel like Arsenal's situation is a perfect example of why clubs need a sporting director or director of football. Arsenal often waits for the transfer window to almost close before panicking and buying their players because Wenger simply doesn't have the time to scout players, contact their clubs and start negotiation while the season is still going.

If they're gonna insist on buying quality players for cheap then they absolutely need a sporting director who can devote 100% of his time to do just that.

Of course they have other problems than just this but I think a sporting director would greatly help them.

[–]Arsenalneonmantis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If they're gonna insist on buying quality players for cheap then they absolutely need a sporting director who can devote 100% of his time to do just that.

Wenger has made his career buying players for cheap and turning them into quality players. Our training facility was entirely paid for by signing Anelka for £500,000 and selling him two years later for £22m.

You can claim that was a long time ago but so I'll give you a more recent example, Hector Bellerin. He was a decent winger but Barcelona never rated him particularly highly and didn't try too hard to keep him. We signed him, converted him into a right back which he had never played before, and now we could sell him for £30m.

[–]CelticNintendo_67 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Or maybe he doesn't like risking tens of millions on overpriced players.

[–]ArsenalOswinOswald4 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

much better to have gaping holes in your squad....

[–]CelticNintendo_67 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

You'll be less annoyed when you spend £30 million on Mustafi and still think you've not spent enough.

[–]the-good-samaritan 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

100m in the bank earns you interest.. So 100m from 2009 is close to double that in nominal value due to interest additions..

say what you may, but Wenger has been the best manager with money for a prolonged period of time..

His bad signings have also been comparatively cheap.. and he gets the occasional bargain or two..

Would he have ever paid the sort of fees for Benteke or Carroll? No..

The other side of the argument also holds that as a reason of this he has been unable to buy many more talented players, and also that he has had to sell his class players as he has a wage budget that he doesn't exceed..

All in all, he is a manager who tries to go after value, and has over a very long period of time, succeeded in sticking to that..

What with their new stadium a few years back and their ambitions and the fact he has had to sell a large number of key players every season.. don't forget he has kept Arsenal in Europe every season, in the top 4 each year..

That is the reason Arsenal are well sound financially today coz Wenger didn't do crazy stuffs, and they are in a position now to spend millions every year without having much to worry.. but with his history, it's a definite that Wenger won't spend for the sake..

Sanchez and Ozil were great value signings and are definitely worth a lot more than what they were bought for..

In the same manner, if Wenger sees a value signing available in the market, he's gonna go after that..

It's not what keeps majority of the fans happy, true.. but what it does is that it ensures the club would still function perfectly in case things go downhill even for a while..

Wenger is a gem of a manager and Arsenal are lucky to have him.. He frustrates at times I admit, but one would rather have him at the club as there aren't very many better managers for the club..

[–]FootbaII[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Financial markets have had very low interest rates since 2009. There's no way 100M in 2009 will become 200M in 2016 just from interest. On the other hand, in football world, 100M invested in top young players (And nobody would call Benteke or Caroll top players anyway) in 2009 would have created a lot of value for any club. And most of those top players would have dramatically increased their values too.

Maybe one way to look at Wenger is that he's a Value investor, not a Growth investor. However, considering where the football market was going and will be going in near future, this is (and will continue to be) a better opportunity for Growth investing, not Value investing.

[–]Queens Park Rangersredditcyborg 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

While I agree with you on the whole, I thought I'd look at some of the top rated players from 2009 (using sofifa.com)

While you're right in that several players like Rooney, Ronaldo, Ibrahimovic would have earnt you money if you bought them in 2009, there are also several in the top 20 that would have lost you money

See: Kaka, Casillas (Arguably not even in his prime yet at 28), Fernando Torres, Julio Cesar (again only 29) etc.

I mean, even if we say - on the whole, players would go up in value, (perhaps unless they are goalkeepers), even the best players in the world at the time, like David Villa (barca at the time), was regarded as one of the best strikers in the world with Torres/Rooney etc., and valued at £42.5m. Just 4 years later after going to Atletico Madrid, he was valued at £8.5m

On the whole, I think that there are much safer investments than football players, if we're going to picture them as such - and therefore surely Wenger would be wise not investing in players, from a financial standpoint of the players (Not considering that they would give the club more money by winning trophies, league position, sponsorship etc.)

[–]Borussia DortmundSri92 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

True that football players are high risk investment but isn't that support the point of OP though about Arsene being a value investor? I think that football clubs that are actually looking to make good investments often gamble on mid range prospects like Porto' s James , Udinese's Alexis , sociedad's Griezmann , Palermo's dybala etc so that even if they don't develop as expet they could still end up with decent resale value. Arsene always make his investment in either very proven player like Madrid's ozil, Barca's Sanchez or very cheap young players who offer good value for money.

[–]Queens Park Rangersredditcyborg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The point I got from OP was that Wenger would be better off investing his money in top/promising talent rather than storing it in other investments and/or keeping the money in the bank.

I think the issue is that while on the surface it looks as though he is making investments that as you say are "good value for money", according to sites like this which seem to show the actual transfers, he seems to have lost £179m and only made £407m back in sales from the £587m that he is spent, all the while often not replacing big names like Fabregas, Van Persie, or even those like Sagna, Nasri and Clichy with arguably anyone on their level.

I think perhaps the biggest frustration would therefore be summarised in that he is obviously trying to replace a £30-40m valued player with several worth £10m to balance the books, but somewhat expectedly, the £10m players rarely, if ever live up to the value of the original player and as is evidenced, hardly ever increase or even keep their original value.

Examples: Selling Van Persie for £22m, while replacing him with Podolski, Bendtner, Giroud, Gervinho, all for about £10-15m each and Park Chu Young for £5m, with none of them ever really making the same mark as Van Persie or reaching his levels, and then letting Bendtner, Podolski, and Park Chu Young go on free transfers, losing £3m on Gervinho (not accounting for the inflation of transfer fees over his spell at the club, reastically got half what they paid for him), and then whatever happens to Giroud.

As a result, Arsenal basically Lost their Captain/Best Striker for the +£22M they gained, but - the 35M on players, and the £13M extra that they still have on Giroud.

They basically went from having Van Persie banging in 37 goals in 48 appearences, and paid £26M to swap him for Giroud. (Obviously Hindsight is 20/20).

Essentially, what it looks like is that Arsenal actually are pulling of the Tottenham/Bale thing, where perhaps, like fans would have wanted, instead of buying several players to fill the role of a sale, Wenger should have replaced his world class player with another world class player at the time, and even if he had spent up to £50m, more than double the price of Van Persie, he would have been better off financially, regardless of that new players sell on fee (which could have been higher if they were world class)

[–]Leeds Unitedconcretepigeon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No Wenger's the greatest business mind football's ever seen and is going to be Arsenal's CFO when he quits as manager.

[–]Real Madridinno_func 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Every group of economists follows a different school of thought, though.

[–]jussuh_ent 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He manages a club keep them winning (competing at the highest level) and also make a profit. he have done a great job for the Past 12 yrs competing and beating out teams that spend 2 times or 3 times the amount he spends ...Arsenal have been the most consistent team in the EPL ...arsenal lose a game the world comes to an end, while all other teams spending ridiculous amounts of money on average players..the Boss is aware that reinforcements are needed and as he states hes in the market we still have 14 days to go...not gonna be held at ransom for average players...Keep up the Good work Wenger ...there will never be another Manager like you ...stick to your believes and maintain the integrity of your team..

[–]LiverpoolLogicknot- 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In any market, the most important thing is comparing marginal benefit and marginal cost. Sure, Wenger can go out there and pay 60m for Lacazette but how much better does he really make Arsenal.

Obviously, both Manchester teams have spent a lot on the transfer market and I would say that on paper, they are most likely to finish #1 and #2 in the league. Does spending £100m to add Lacazette and Koulibaly really make Arsenal better than City or United?

Who else are Arsenal really competing against? Leicester is likely to finish 6th to 8th. Tottenham is likely to finish below Arsenal. Liverpool isn't likely to make top 4 with their current roster. I would say their biggest competitor is probably Chelsea so in reality spending £100m just makes Arsenal most likely to finish 2nd to 4th rather than 3rd to 5th. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself is that worth it (especially with changes to CL) which is why I don't blame Wenger at all for being frugal.

[–]Manchester CityRektSquared 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can buy footballing assets. Youth prospects

[–]Arsenaln3tm4n 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've always looked at Wenger and the ownership of Arsenal more like a Value Investor like Warren Buffet, rather than any sort of economist. Bear with me here as I try to explain.

Wenger may have an degree in economics, but there are a lot of economists who are not very good investors. He strikes me as a person who, though he has learned a lot from the hypotheticals of Economics (and there is still a lot of it), he acts more as a value investor who has minimal debt (much like Buffet), a high war chest (just like Buffet's float from his company's insurance operations) to jump on a great deal in an instant, and a willingness to not make every deal unless there is only upside (Buffet famously used baseball as a metaphor - "In investments, there’s no such thing as a called strike. You can stand there at the plate and the pitcher can throw the ball right down the middle, and if it’s General Motors at $47 and you don’t know enough to decide General Motors at $47, you let it go right on by and no one’s going to call a strike. The only way you can have a strike is to swing and miss.")

So no, Wenger is not a good economist, but he is a great investor, and the team's financials show that. Of course, that doesn't always translate to trophies on the field or great soccer, but no one can question that they aren't always competitive and usually play an attractive game.

[–]ArsenalIngenium21 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

man there is so much /r/badeconomics in this thread, i'm tempted to write an R1.

  1. Arsenal are not hoarding cash. As far as their assets and their value are concerned, they have around 5% in liquid cash. This is fairly standard practice when dealing with your portfolio. You need an emergency fund. And an emergency fund that keeps you afloat for 6 months in case of a major event, like say a job loss, is ideal. Most of Arsenal's war chest is an emergency fund.

  2. As a whole football players are not good assets. A good asset from a personal standpoint might be a house (that you can afford), as the value for that house will either increase or stay the same, as long as you're keeping up with maintenance. In Arsenal's case, a Stadium is a good asset. As that stadium is bound to last the next 100 or so years (just like Highbury). A player, is like a car. You may need a car to get around, but the moment you drive that car off the lot, it's bound to lose its value. especially within the next 6 to 9 years. Players are a necessity, but they are not a good asset.

  3. "A good economist would also say that transfers should be negotiated early and from the point of strength." There is just so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin. Negotiations will take as long as they have to. They could last a day, a month, or even years. The fact of the matter is that if your statement was true, we would only need a transfer window of two weeks. Secondly, in any negotiation, a "position of strength" is fluid. When you purchase a candy bar, most shopkeepers are going to laugh you out of the store if you try to haggle with them. But why? I mean you have money, that's a position of strength isn't it? well they also have a position of strength, they also have money, and they know someone else is going to come along and buy that candy bar. All you're doing is not getting that candy bar because you wanted to save a penny.

  4. You may not think the transfer market is a poker game, but in many ways it is. History has shown plenty of teams poaching a player from an ongoing negotiation. See Mata.

  5. "a good economist will say that fair prices are determined by supply and demand. " The biggest giveaway that tells me when someone who is stating bad economics is when they bring the one thing they learned in high school economics. Supply and Demand, especially in high profile markets like this one are only a small part of the equation. To use the housing metaphor once again. Your real estate agent shows you a house with foundation issues, water damage, termites, and rotting structures. But the real estate agent says "well all these other brand new houses in the neighborhood cost 40M, so that's what this one is worth as well". So if you honestly believe that Arsenal should spend 40M on some magical striker that isn't tied to a 4 or 5 year contract. Then I've got some land in Florida i'd like to sell you.

[–]mangotictacs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good post, sums up various thoughts that many (myself included) have had about Wenger for years.

Inflation in the PL means that there's no such thing as a 'ridiculous fee' anymore; everything is forgotten within a year or two, when the next bumper cash influx means the previously overpriced fee is a mere footnote. What's far more important is securing the player you want. A 5m premium on Lallana or 30m extra on Pogba is just miniscule when compared to overall revenues of today, and even more so when compared to revenues just two/three years down the line.

[–]Arsenalnotthatcreativearewe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What is your authority on this? How are you able to judge what qualifies as a good economist or a bad economist? Do you as well have a degree? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just want to know what qualifies you to make these claims.

[–]Englandmbrw12 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Arsene got rekt

[–]hdah24 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

/r/gunners

[–]Ipswich Townjong123 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe but it's a good post so glad he posted it here.