I'm having trouble reading through this thread, but I have a legitimate question for anybody who knows the answer and for COYS if that answer is what I think it is. (Apologies if this has been addressed. As I said, I'm having trouble getting through this.) Isn't there a discrepancy in the way Arsenal and most (all?) other teams report their wage bill? I seem to recall that Arsenal's reported wage bill includes all staff, whereas most (all?) teams report only playing staff. If so, that would obviously put a dent in COYS ppp argument.
Even if that's not the case, the argument is still incredibly stupid. Arsenal isn't able to pay 50m quid more in wages simply because it's a behemoth. Arsenal have made a conscious decision to make money on transfers to subsidize the club's wages, whereas Tottenham pay less in wages so as to spend ludicrous amounts on transfers for players like Scott Parker and Clint Dempsey. We do better not because we pay more in wages, but because we do a much better job of identifying talent, and have to spend more money to retain players like that. Further, Arsenal's management has pulled off the unmatched task of building a new stadium through private financing while staying in the Champions League, and utilized that revenue to further allow for an increased wage bill. That's while Tottenham can't seem to manage to hire architects to draw pretty pictures of a stadium. It's ridiculous to argue about comparative wage bills when Arsenal have managed to afford an increased wage bill through years of success on the pitch and careful management. And if Spurs could afford such a wage bill, who's to say they wouldn't give Darren Bent and Peter Crouch 10m a year each?
'Tottenham shit club. Shit firm.'-From one of Coys' heroes. Not only that, he dodges questions and a little something called facts. He still hasn't answered my question damn it!
Stick around for another month or two, read every post the Pook has ever made on our forum. Look back on some of the comments that you have made on our forum.... ....and you'll see why a different opinion can be either welcomed, or treated with contempt.
Now we got that one sorted....I would like to know if Yoonie looks just like his avatar, and/or, if there is any family connection to our old mate Blue'NGooner.
The funny thing is that I've had almost exactly the same conversation with a Spurs supporter this week
Not dodging anything, I've received about 100 replies, repost your question and I'll gladly answer it.
i'll give a partial answer from memory for tonerl, arsenal DO add every employee at the club to the given wage bill. others don't, some i think also do. there is still a difference in arsenal's favour anyway, as many of the employees arsenal have added aren't on enough money to make a bit dent in the difference. the massive transfer spend difference very probably doesn't cover the difference in wages over the years (i'm almost certain it doesn't), but, as i pointed out much earlier, this isn't arsenal's fault for raising their revenue. it's more to do with spurs not raising their own revenue with all that extra with all that money they spent on transfers instead and letting what was a comparatively much smaller gap turn into quite a large one.
If that includes Gazidis, Arsene, the board's salaries, Dick Law, Bould, and others, that figure could easily be 10 million.
congrats guys...unbelievable run-in and the table does not lie. we didn't choke - you just refused to lose and took 4th away from us.