The Wage Bill

[Rich]

...would appear to be the major "problem" that NUFC currently has, financially, if reports and previous findings are to be believed.

 

Apparently last summer we added £10M onto the annual expenditure on wages (Mort's words), which was already said to be fairly obscene when compared to the club's turnover. So far this summer we'll only be seeing Carr, Ramage and Troisi leaving for definite, which probably won't make much difference at all to things. Then on top of that you might expect to see Emre, Ameobi and N'Zogbia follow them out of the door. People might add Smith and Duff to that list, but I'd personally be surprised to see either of them go. Rozehnal and Cacapa are another two, Diatta as well... but then who comes in to replace them!? I personally can't see the wages doing anything other than increasing still if we want high quality players.

 

Now there's murmurs about Owen needing to take a wage-cut in his new deal, Taylor not being offered the money he thinks he deserves, but we apparently still managed to offer Modric a higher basic wage than Tottenham could muster.

 

Is it more media bollocks, or is the wage bill having a massive affect on recruitment plans and re-signing plans as pertains to the players already on our books? What about the players we are going to try and sign? Is this why we're after younger players? (Less wages?) Anybody have any thoughts or know any more than I do (not hard when it comes to this sort of stuff, admittedly)?

 

It's an issue that has obviously been carried over from the previous regime, then apparently made worse last summer, but I suppose it's the nature of the beast when you aren't in Europe or challenging for honours, if you still want a squad that can be competitive in the Premiership (imagine where we'd be without the likes of Owen, Viduka and Martins on our wage bill this season alone).

 

I know this could be quite an expansive topic, but it's an interesting one with a fair few layers to it. Would people rather see Ashley take on a crazy wage-bill in order to see us have a proper crack at things, or is he right if he's trying to get it cut down to a more acceptable level? Do we have any chance of success if we're reducing wages?

 

Does anyone know the percentages involved for the likes of Chelsea? Do they pay out more than they bring in?

 

Funny old game.

[stozo]

Too many players not earning the big wages they are on - Emre being the perfect example.

[Shak]

I know that Chelsea's wage bill vs turnover was an absolute joke a couple of years ago, not sure what it's like now but you would imagine it's still fairly obscene.

 

Our problem has been that we pay well over the odds for players that really aren't that much better than average. There's no problem with paying massive wages for guys like Owen who you would expect could make it back for the club both with his commercial value and performances on the pitch. It's paying massive wages to players like Emre, Duff and people like that that causes a problem.

 

I would bet that that is what we're trying to put a stop to.

[Mick]

I've got no problem if we have to pay high wages to players but a lot of them don't give good value for money and that's the problem, not how much they earn.

 

Emre, Smith, Carr are/were three perfect examples of the type of playerr we can't afford to have at the club as they are just a drain and offer very little in return.

[SUPERTOON]

Emre Smith and Duff will be on at least 55k get rid of them 3 and we go a huge way to solving some of the problems

 

 

 

[Rich]

After doing a bit of digging around, it would appear that it's a problem that all the top clubs in the Premiership are having to contend with... bar everyone's favourites... Spurs.

 

As much as it pains me to say it, the way Spurs have been run since ENIC bought out Sugar looks to have been fairly immaculate. Granted, they missed the boat on qualifying for the Champions' League on the last day a few years back but if they keep up their current progression and they either expand their stadium or move somewhere else they could become a very, very big hitter. They haven't taken many big risks so far, it would appear, but it's a long-term strategy that could be realised if they can increase the size of their stadium. An extra 10 or 20 thousand fans in for every league match will be a massive boost to their coffers and money that can go straight into transfer budgets and wages - and they're already spending a fair whack as it is.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling that the people here are using Spurs more than anyone as a model for how to run a football club?

 

Probably not great for immediate appeasal of the fanbase as regards big signings and big wages, but potentially very sensible in the long-run?

[buzza]

I think everyone is waiting for Ashley to spend megabucks in signings and to get any player at "any cost", BUT  the reality looks very different;

He has set up a professional team to run NUFC and each "department" has it's own responsibilities. It seems like we will be run like any other business and with applied business accumen and that will obviously effect transfer dealings...

If a business is to work properly you have to invest in it and sometimes take calculated risks, i think we WILL buy 3 top class signings and a couple of other squad signings, i also think we are 0n the right track with dennis wise and company scouting out new young (and cheap!) talent to even out any bad transfer buys on the senior side. If we are to splash out big I would have thought it would be solely on prem league experience or experienced foreign internationals i.e. low risk, high return buys.

I think Ashley will be looking to reach 6th place next season and consolidate form there with a 3 year plan to reach champions league (see keegan's realism), if we do reach 6th place next year we can be assured of more money to spend but it will be spread over a longer period rather than a mountain of cash at the beginning.

With regard to the wage bill I am in agreement if they think that wages have to be reigned in, I honestly beleive there is no-one who is performing well enough/is fit over period  to merit a wage rise or increase (see Owen), as for youngsters who should be tied down (Taylor), they will be on very low wages at the moment so an increase is called for but we shouldn't be held to ransom. We should operate on a policy that is good wages but not a pisss-take. If we want to act like and get results like a large successful company we will have to pay the correct wages.

To attract players this summer we will most likely have to offer wages that are higher than our main rivals due to location and lack of europe...

We are going in the right direction i think for the first time in over four years!!!

[Baggio]

Haven't we got the 4th highest wage bill in the league?

[fredbob]

After doing a bit of digging around, it would appear that it's a problem that all the top clubs in the Premiership are having to contend with... bar everyone's favourites... Spurs.

 

As much as it pains me to say it, the way Spurs have been run since ENIC bought out Sugar looks to have been fairly immaculate. Granted, they missed the boat on qualifying for the Champions' League on the last day a few years back but if they keep up their current progression and they either expand their stadium or move somewhere else they could become a very, very big hitter. They haven't taken many big risks so far, it would appear, but it's a long-term strategy that could be realised if they can increase the size of their stadium. An extra 10 or 20 thousand fans in for every league match will be a massive boost to their coffers and money that can go straight into transfer budgets and wages - and they're already spending a fair whack as it is.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling that the people here are using Spurs more than anyone as a model for how to run a football club?

 

Probably not great for immediate appeasal of the fanbase as regards big signings and big wages, but potentially very sensible in the long-run?

 

Aye- them and arsenal are run pretty perfectly to be honest -  i get the feeling though that the Spurs are all self financed and thats theres little financial input from ENIC and Joe Lewis i think that Ashley is looking to do the same.

[Mick]

We need a quality boost in our team which will add to the wage bill but we can cut out a lot of waste by getting rid of the shit that were carrying and we've got more than our fair share of those.

 

I don't think we would do any worse if we got rid of Rozehnal, Cacapa, Diatta, Emre, Duff, Smith and Ameobi.  I don't know what deal we struck when farming out Rozenhal but I wouldn't be surprised if we were still paying some of his wages.  We already know Carr and Ramage are off so we've saved those wages already and we should be able to get better with the money we paid those. 

[Baggio]

After doing a bit of digging around, it would appear that it's a problem that all the top clubs in the Premiership are having to contend with... bar everyone's favourites... Spurs.

 

As much as it pains me to say it, the way Spurs have been run since ENIC bought out Sugar looks to have been fairly immaculate. Granted, they missed the boat on qualifying for the Champions' League on the last day a few years back but if they keep up their current progression and they either expand their stadium or move somewhere else they could become a very, very big hitter. They haven't taken many big risks so far, it would appear, but it's a long-term strategy that could be realised if they can increase the size of their stadium. An extra 10 or 20 thousand fans in for every league match will be a massive boost to their coffers and money that can go straight into transfer budgets and wages - and they're already spending a fair whack as it is.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling that the people here are using Spurs more than anyone as a model for how to run a football club?

 

Probably not great for immediate appeasal of the fanbase as regards big signings and big wages, but potentially very sensible in the long-run?

 

 

An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with shite like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge.

 

I posted that in February 2007 on toontastic.

[Baggio]

I can see Viduka being a big drain on the wage system, as is Duff, Smith, Emre, Carr, Butt, Owen, Martins and Geremi.

 

 

 

[James]

I was always under the impression that we got Martins on a very reasonable wage packet as he was only on £5000 a week at Inter.

[Guest shearer_united]

I think for future transfers is for the club to try and lure great football players (talent) without the need to really convince them with a high-wage offer.

 

 

[Baggio]

I was always under the impression that we got Martins on a very reasonable wage packet as he was only on £5000 a week at Inter.

 

He's on around the £50,000 a week mark at a guess.

[James]

Going by the two senior players for every position (and three keepers) and then a pool of low maintenence youngsters the squad next season should be (This is my opinion based on Keegan's team selections and 4-5 player comments, players in no particular order):

 

GK1 - Given

GK2 - Harper

GK3 - Forster, Krul, Soderberg (all on very small deals, so we can get away with these three fighting it out)

 

RB1 - Beye

RB2 - New signing

 

LB1 - Enrique

LB2 - New signing

 

CB1 - Faye

CB2 - New signing

CB3 - Taylor

CB4 - Cacapa

 

RW1 - Milner

RW2 - New signing

 

LW1 - Duff

LW2 - New Signing

 

CM1 - Barton

CM2 - Butt

CM3 - Geremi

CM4 - New signing

 

CF1 - Owen

CF2 - Martins

CF3 - Viduka

CF4 - New Signing

 

Youngster Pool - Goalkeeper trio, Edgar, Carroll, Lua Lua, Donaldson, Kadar, Tozer, Zamblera, Baheng and other new recruits.

 

Out in the cold - Carr, Ramage, Diatta, N'Zogbia, Emre, Smith, Rozehnal. Estimated wages saved = £225k p/w

 

Of the blank positons, I believe that right back and one of the three midfield slots could be filled by a low risk, low maintenance youngster. Taking into account extra money spent on new youngsters that leaves £200k p/w.

 

To improve on what we have got, the remaining five slots could be filled by the following types of players:

 

A Dunne-type = £40k

A Modric-type = £50K

A SWP-type = £60K

A Deco-type = £80K

 

With five slots to fill, Keegan could only keep the wage bill about level with five Dunne's, yet I do not think that he would be happy with that, and I don't think the board would be either, they'd want to be signing some Modrics, while Keegan himself will want a SWP or a Deco thrown in for good measure.

 

Then assumming we want to keep the wage bill as it is, Keegan is going to need to sacrifice players that I reckon he'd want to keep. Who though? Viduka's injury makes him unsellable, plus it would be harder to then find two strikers. People on here will say Duff, but with a LW shortage, I reckon KK will want to see if he can turn things around for Duff with a decent pre-season. I think it will be Cacapa who bites the bullet if we sign a CB that Keegan wants. The return there however wont be brilliant, so i can understand why the board may be looking at Owen's contract and be keen to get rid.

[James]

I was always under the impression that we got Martins on a very reasonable wage packet as he was only on £5000 a week at Inter.

 

He's on around the £50,000 a week mark at a guess.

 

I heard £30,000. The press alleged at the time that the wages were why we stumped for him - because we could offer six times Martins' wage without breaking the bank.

[Rich]

I can see Viduka being a big drain on the wage system, as is Duff, Smith, Emre, Carr, Butt, Owen, Martins and Geremi.

 

 

Viduka is the second-highest paid player at the club. I'd imagine he's on something like £70k a week.

 

I'd be willing to bet that Given gets paid a fucking shedload, for a goalkeeper, as well.

[Rich]

After doing a bit of digging around, it would appear that it's a problem that all the top clubs in the Premiership are having to contend with... bar everyone's favourites... Spurs.

 

As much as it pains me to say it, the way Spurs have been run since ENIC bought out Sugar looks to have been fairly immaculate. Granted, they missed the boat on qualifying for the Champions' League on the last day a few years back but if they keep up their current progression and they either expand their stadium or move somewhere else they could become a very, very big hitter. They haven't taken many big risks so far, it would appear, but it's a long-term strategy that could be realised if they can increase the size of their stadium. An extra 10 or 20 thousand fans in for every league match will be a massive boost to their coffers and money that can go straight into transfer budgets and wages - and they're already spending a fair whack as it is.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling that the people here are using Spurs more than anyone as a model for how to run a football club?

 

Probably not great for immediate appeasal of the fanbase as regards big signings and big wages, but potentially very sensible in the long-run?

 

 

An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with shite like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge.

 

I posted that in February 2007 on toontastic.

 

I think it's something a lot of people have been aware of, but not best pleased to post, simply because of the fact that it's them.

 

There's also a lot of fans who won't stand for taking their approach, because it "lacks ambition", and of course the vast majority of us love to see the club spending big sums on well-known players.

 

This club was rotten - and still is to a good extent - by all accounts, and it's going to take a lot longer than one season to sort it all out.

 

I get as carried away as anyone at times, but if Ashley and Mort are genuinely saying the wage bill is too high, too obscene, and if it is up to anywhere near the rumoured 80% mark as far as the ratio with turnover goes, then surely we're best off taking a similar approach to that which you suggested all that time ago? I know it's not going to be an instant fix, but Keegan has already shown what he can achieve with this current set of players.

 

Bomb out the overpaid and underachieving - Emre, Duff, Smith and Carr would probably top most people's lists as far as that goes - and replace them with the sort of players you mention, who are up and coming and will command less wages while still offering us more than those four mentioned have done all season, and surely we'll see further progress on the field?

 

I know it's hardly a glamourous route to take, but it might be the most sensible/sustainable one. I think a lot of people are expecting Ashley to do an "Abramovich" simply because he has the money to do it... but it's a fucking massively risky strategy, especially now when a Chelsea already exist. It was different when they did it, they were the first and nobody could compete... but doesn't Abramovich even have an outline for getting them to be self-sustainable by 2010 or something?

 

Football clubs cannot be bottomless pits of money, it would seem, even for billionaires.

[Rich]

By the way, Baggio, is this why you're not exactly enamoured with us signing the likes of Campbell, Dunne, Riise, etc.?

 

I can see the logic, if that's the case.

[fredbob]

After doing a bit of digging around, it would appear that it's a problem that all the top clubs in the Premiership are having to contend with... bar everyone's favourites... Spurs.

 

As much as it pains me to say it, the way Spurs have been run since ENIC bought out Sugar looks to have been fairly immaculate. Granted, they missed the boat on qualifying for the Champions' League on the last day a few years back but if they keep up their current progression and they either expand their stadium or move somewhere else they could become a very, very big hitter. They haven't taken many big risks so far, it would appear, but it's a long-term strategy that could be realised if they can increase the size of their stadium. An extra 10 or 20 thousand fans in for every league match will be a massive boost to their coffers and money that can go straight into transfer budgets and wages - and they're already spending a fair whack as it is.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling that the people here are using Spurs more than anyone as a model for how to run a football club?

 

Probably not great for immediate appeasal of the fanbase as regards big signings and big wages, but potentially very sensible in the long-run?

 

 

An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge.

 

I posted that in February 2007 on toontastic.

 

I think it's something a lot of people have been aware of, but not best pleased to post, simply because of the fact that it's them.

 

There's also a lot of fans who won't stand for taking their approach, because it "lacks ambition", and of course the vast majority of us love to see the club spending big sums on well-known players.

 

This club was rotten - and still is to a good extent - by all accounts, and it's going to take a lot longer than one season to sort it all out.

 

I get as carried away as anyone at times, but if Ashley and Mort are genuinely saying the wage bill is too high, too obscene, and if it is up to anywhere near the rumoured 80% mark as far as the ratio with turnover goes, then surely we're best off taking a similar approach to that which you suggested all that time ago? I know it's not going to be an instant fix, but Keegan has already shown what he can achieve with this current set of players.

 

Bomb out the overpaid and underachieving - Emre, Duff, Smith and Carr would probably top most people's lists as far as that goes - and replace them with the sort of players you mention, who are up and coming and will command less wages while still offering us more than those four mentioned have done all season, and surely we'll see further progress on the field?

 

I know it's hardly a glamourous route to take, but it might be the most sensible/sustainable one. I think a lot of people are expecting Ashley to do an "Abramovich" simply because he has the money to do it... but it's a f****** massively risky strategy, especially now when a Chelsea already exist. It was different when they did it, they were the first and nobody could compete... but doesn't Abramovich even have an outline for getting them to be self-sustainable by 2010 or something?

 

Football clubs cannot be bottomless pits of money, it would seem, even for billionaires.

 

Absolutely spot on in my opinion, in todays games it no longer seems to be the policy of buying "los galaticos", as its extremely unsustainable especially without success which seems to be the case right now - Chelsea are one of a few clubs wo are in a position to be able to do that but even now they are actively looking to phase out the reliance on Romans money. you look at Man U, Spurs and Arsenall approach nowadays iand even in the past and you can see that Man U were the most succesfful when they brought players through and reached a peak, same with Arsenal. In fact Man U went through a lean period whereby they spent the heaviest they've ever done and ended up going through a bad dry spell which goes to show the improtance in investing a youth talent - hell even nufc were the most successfull when we tried to buy youth in SBR era.

 

 

[Rich]

It leads to another avenue this, though, which may go some distance to explain all the stuff we've seen going on this week between Keegan and the board.

 

If I was Keegan, I'd probably be pressing and pressing for money, I'd probably be wanting to sign Thierry Henry and players of proven quality like that, even if the wages were very high, because I'd know that I've got 3 years, maybe less, to make a real impact - to finally be the one to break the "curse". It must be a massive pressure on him and obviously he'll want as much support as possible. I don't think NE5 is far wrong when he's speculating about the potential problems between KK's philosophy and the philosophy of the owner/chairman, it's plausible at the very least.

 

However, to counter-argument myself a bit, surely Keegan was made aware of all the plans when he signed on the dotted line? He must have had everything outlined to him by Mort and Ashley before he committed to the club again? You would assume that IF they do want to reduce the wage bill first and foremost, he would have known about it prior to now?

 

But then you wonder, when he's saying he doesn't know what his budget is going to be for this summer...

 

This is what I mean though, when I get narked about press speculation - they only ever give it from the side that suits them (usually the bad side), when there are so many other possibilities as to why things are said and why things happen. Nobody knows really, bar the men directly involved.

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

Another problem with paying over the odds with wages is if a player doesn't work out at the club, it's a bugger getting them off the books as you need to find another club willing to pay their wages. I'm hoping the fact that Alan Smith hasn't been playing regularly makes him want to leave to get games (that's supposedly why he was willing to leave Man U). Hopefully he does and that may make him more willing to take a pay cut.

[Baggio]

By the way, Baggio, is this why you're not exactly enamoured with us signing the likes of Campbell, Dunne, Riise, etc.?

 

I can see the logic, if that's the case.

 

I just don't see how signing players who are at their peak/on their way down is the way forward, it seems Keegan see's this way as pushing on now but the problem is that all of these players around this age will need to all be replaced again in 3 years or so, the club can't afford to go out and buy the best part of a new team every 3 years, on top of that players of this age will want the bigger wages because as far as they're concerned they've learned what there is and now they're the finished article.

 

I made this post yesterday so I won't bother typing it out again...

 

The difference being Wenger set out a long term view of what he could achieve at Arsenal, Keegan on the other hand would be happy to spend big money on players at their peak because he's only interested in the next 3 years and isn't interested that the squad he'd leave us with would resemble Bolton's 'dads army' a few years back.

 

If you look at man Utd for example, they've spent big money in the past but a large part of their success was because Fergie put together a talented group of youngsters and let them grow as a team together - Giggs, Beckham, Scholes, Butt and the Neville's all came through the youth system to form part of their first team for the best part of a decade, Fergie also spent big money on Roy Keane, Rio Ferdinand and Andy Cole who were all 24 or under when they signed.

 

Time has gone by and most of them have needed replacing, he's set about building another team which is built around Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, Anderson, Nani, Evra and Vidic, all players signed when they were 24 or under because he wants them to grow as a team together, not only that but if you've got a quality player like Evra at left back you don't have to worry about spending big money on a left back for the next 8 years unless he goes down hill dramatically, the same way they didn't need to spend big money on a right back for a decade when they had Neville, or on a left wing when they had Giggs, it meant they could spend big on filling the places they needed as there wasn't as many to fill.

 

That seems to be what this club wants to do and the reason they went to the trouble of setting up our scouting network, I don't mean they just want to sign young lads for a few hundred thousand and see how they develop, I'm talking about the likes of Modric who is not only quality now but could of been a part of our first team for the next 10 years, that is the quality (and age) of player the chairman spoke of the other day as what they're looking for, if the club could bring in 4 or 5 players of his age and quality then we could be sorted in those positions for the next 10 years, not only that we would benefit from them growing as a unit together.

 

Comments from Keegan suggests he's got other idea's, the likes of Henry, Cambell, Riise, Bridge and Dunne seem to be the sort of players he's after going from the rumour mill, turning his nose up at possible young South Americans is a stupid thing to do too, I'd take the Modric's, Veloso, Gomis, Nelson, Lennon etc over Keegan's big four rejects anyday.

 

This is what we need to do, we need to build a stable of quality players under the age of 25 that we can build the team around and add to here and there over the next 5-10 years, I'd take Dunne btw because we're crying out for some leadership at the back, I'd also take Deco if we could get him for around the £8 million mark because I think we could get another 3 or 4 years out of him and for me he was excellent in both games against Man Utd, apart from that I think we've got enough experience in and around the squad without going out and buying 5 or 6 more players in their late 20's/early 30's.

[Guest f***thepress]

With the coming recession add in other factors such as Man utds enormous debt , Ferguson retiring , players moving on from both Chelski , Man U and Arsenal to pastures new..etc and it becomes clear that a new economic model for clubs needs to be adopted, one which places a primacy on youth and only spends big on nailed on certainties , as opposed to "potential"..too many clubs are saddled with huge debts ( dont expect Chelski to be self financing any time soon!).Fortunately , thanks to Ashley we are now debt free , this puts us in a good position to capitalise on the new reality...something we wont do if we merely have a mad Abramovich style spending spree...