El indecido me molesta, si no me quiero, Transfer Thead 2016

At the level you're thinking about, the manager isn't much of a draw.

 

Lol, I hope that meeting with them is true. Would love Icardi

 

I think wenger is working on a major deal behind the scenes but I am not overly optimistic

 

Hopefully his major deal isn't an extension...for himself

 

I know you guys don't like tweets on here but just found it interesting based on the other rumors..

Arsènic ‏@Lexus7Sanchez 42m42 minutes ago
.@calciomercatoit, @Gazzetta_it and @SkySport are all reporting a meeting between Icardi's agent and Arsenal today. #afc

I did a lil youtube on Icardi and don't see what the fuss is all about. Dude just does tap ins (yes i know, youtube and all but it's all I can find). Who is Icardi comparable to and what is he good at? Would you rather him than Higuain?

 

Icardi would be a good option. 47 goals in 88 matches with Inter is nothing to sneeze at. He is only 23 and will get better. He is not as sexy as Higuain but as much I would like Pipita at AFC, I would not understand paying 94 M for a 29 yr old player with perhaps a couple of good years left.

 

Icardi is a poacher and nothing more.

Buy Higuain. Özil and Sanchez and Kos are deep in their primes.

I'm not writing him off
He hasn't been that good, injuries or not.

 

I agree one hundred Charlie. Unless, Wenger is doing a retirement last trophy move like Fergie as some have said. Icardi would make sense.

 

Buy the player that Wenger thinks is better for Arsenal. If Icardi can run in behind and also hold up the ball, he'll do well at Arsenal.

He's been good but not great. He's certainly competent, but can be dragged out of position.

 

If he is 66% of the player Eduardo was, I'll drive him to London myself.

 

Icardi is interesting ... He is capable of holding up ball...
I wouldn't be surprised if Icardi manager wife is simplying trying to secure better deal at inter
Icardi is in US in preseason tour with inter... Hmm

 

Agree with Prince that Icardi makes no sense.

Wenger would rather buy Higuain and try and win the league again before retiring.

 

He a good poacher but a poacher.

 

Don't disagree with any of that, but if Higuain costs more, and is five years older, and when Icardi apparently played on an Inter team with a dysfunctional midfield, then the analysis changes a little bit. If the two players were the same age, I'd agree with you. But Higuain is over five years older, and will likely only be good for three years. And he won't cost less than sixty million quid. I'd rather get a player who'll be around for a lot longer for 40.

 

He is also economically obtuse.

Arsenal's wage bill is only 5% less than United's and they have been the 3rd biggest spender in transfer fees. He just doesn't do "marginal gains"

 

Only a five percent difference in wages in 2015. Difference is typically closer to 15%. And Arsenal have finished an average of 8 points above United ever since they started spending more on transfer fees (since you're going off of Arsenal being the third biggest spender in transfer fees, I'll look at 2013 onwards, because that's when Arsenal started spending money).

Though part of that is obviously due to United's transfer policy being run by the Family Guy manatees.

 

Hmm...could Atletico be looking to get a replacement for Griezmann?



http://www.espnfc.us/story/2915080/...-or-three-players-for-napolis-gonzalo-higuain

 

This Napoli president seems so full of BS. I bet we aren't even in for Higuain. I think he's just trying to drum up interest and get someone to overpay.

 

I think you are right
60 mil plus players for Gonzo - come on

 

From which postal code?

 

Not picking on you, just using this as an excuse to talk about transfer policy costs vs. benefits.

Outline of CL payouts
Last year's EPL payouts
This year's EPL projected payouts under the new deal

It's a little hard to put these numbers into perspective at the moment given the volatility of the GBP. But the main takeaways are this:

Winning the CL this past season was worth around 94m euros (78m GBP) depending on which country you're from.
Finishing in the CL spots in the EPL last season was worth between 93-100m GBP.
Finishing in the CL spots in the EPl this season is estimated to be worth between 132-146m GBP. (In a sense, the Xhaka signing was "free".)

As we all know, the round of 16 appears to be our CL ceiling. Strictly speaking, making it one step further to the QF's is only worth an incremental 6m euros (4.9m GBP) in prize money. Having two more televised matches would also probably result in more tv market pool monies being earned, and there's also the additional match day revenue from having an additional home fixture. I can't calculate those, but I don't think it gets you anywhere near 25-30m euros.

Now, we've heard reports about how Leicester City sold tons more shirts and booked tons more stadium tours last season during their epic run. Same thing with Iceland this summer (shirt sales, tourism boost). But I don't know how much upside the top clubs like Arsenal really have in this regard.

Let's say we had done the double last season, winning the CL and the EPL. The difference in domestic payout would've been 1.2m GBP. The incremental CL prize money would've been at least 28m euros (23.2m GBP), not accounting for variance in tv money pool between England and Spain and incremental match day revenue from a couple more home games. Let's call it 26m GBP for argument's sake.

So, total incremental revenue for Arsenal last season from doing the double would've only been worth roughly 27.2m GBP. I think we can all agree that the squad needed substantially more than 27.2m GBP worth of signings to make that happen, and still does .

From a purely financial perspective, you can see how the law of diminishing returns quickly begins to manifest. And this is where the difference in perspective between the owners and management of the club and those of its supporters comes into focus.

Ask each group this question: What is the purpose of the Arsenal? I think Kroenke and Gazidis would answer "to achieve high levels of success both on the field and off of it." The supporter answer is far more direct: "to win trophies."

Neither side is wrong and both have a point.

Does it make sense to spend 200m GBP on transfers to gain an incremental 30m GBP worth of revenue? In the short-term, maybe. Over the longer-term that is unsustainable. I also believe there is limited upside to the commercial revenue given that we're already near the top of the class on shirt sponsorships, match-day revenue, etc.