I recently saw a presentation here in Chicago where a journalist presented the idea that the highest wages = success. (http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/...on-kuper-says-he-could-do-alex-fergusons-job/) As you can see in that article (though it was based on info from a decade ago before wages really got out of control), there is a solid correlation between what is paid to players and the results. (The relationship, sans Newcastle, is summed up here as well- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7423254.stm) And today, we found out that Arsenal have only one of the top fifty earners in the world. (http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opi...ayne-Bridge-and-Ronaldinho-article324875.html) I just can't help but wonder, given the unlimited finances available to Chelsea and the continued reckless spending of United, and the statistical relationship of wages to success if we might be expecting too much from our boys.
i think it's reasonable to expect to compete for silverware(s) especially with somebody like wenger in charge. i think this year, specifically, we showed that we had the team to threaten chelsea/manchester united, especially had wenger been willing to make some unpleasant choices earlier. i do think that, unlike teams with the sugar daddy code, we have to expect (and respect) that there will be competitive cycles and re-tooling/rebuilding time where we are "down" and really fighting for 4th place (and CL spot). and i would enjoy the "success" more if we achieve it this way.
I'm sorry, but that theory seems extremely flawed. He says that wages are the biggest factor, and that he could do Ferguson's job. But he fails to explain why ManU has won the League three times in a row while having a wage bill far below Chelsea's. If his theory is correct, Chelsea's 30% larger wage bill should have them winning the league every year. The guy is full of shit.
we have a 60,000 seat stadium, and a few loans... one, I think, should be taken care of in a few years (like 1-2 years)... and another that is manageable... plus the flats at Highbury... dominating England and being a self sufficient financial power for many years>>>>having this short barren patch its frustrating right now, but we are moving in the right direction... just be patient...
tend to agree with you antifan. i'd almost guarantee there are better players out there on the same or less wages than we pay some of ours.
Well, if that writer's theory is correct, all we have to do is pay our guys more and they'll be more successful.
Maybe I should go in on Monday and tell my boss that all he has to do to make us a better company is pay us more than the other agencies.
yup. everyone is so short-sighted. and to be fair, it is not like we haven't been in the contention for silverware each season. but as long as we don't win anything, we'll always have the critics. and when we do win a trophy, i can just see the outcries from the media not giving us the recognition.
I think the argument is that the best players get paid the most, and therefore the team had the most success. I'm not saying the theory is bullleproof, I'm just wondering if Arsenal are fighting an uphill battle.
However, given the day that I experienced at work today, and the wealthy, successful people that I encountered..... I have yet to see any proof, that common sense can be bought... by wealth, or success. Fortunately, the people that I know..........defy that rule.
You better hope your boss isn't reading this and realizes that all he or she needs to do is go out and hire more talented/expensive workers to replace you.
Normally he doesn't do this, but Zani is worried. Manchester are doing what they have been doing, drop enough points for other contenders to win the title. They will only win it if no one else does it. Chelsea are inconsistent in beating minor opponents. Guess who else is out there to win it this year............. That back to back ass whooping could be a blessing after all. No pain is forever, huh! Your laugh will come last. Zani can cross a neck high water without soaking his balls, assuming he has some!
One player in the list (Arshavin) and he's tied at the bottom. There's good reason: Wenger has a balanced wage policy to preserve esprit de corps. There aren't any poor Gunners but there's no resentment in the locker room over how much more certain others are making.
Ah, I am quite certain that my boss knows that I am neither talented or expensive. It's a good thing that I just know more than the others.
Fink Tank have a similar theory where they have correlated £s to points earned. There is a solid correlation, as you might expect. But they take it further and by correcting for wage bill, they find managers who are over performing versus expectation.
As a scientist, this kind of thing really makes me cringe. So many policies have been enforced because of "correlations." There are other explanations for such a correlation, but it stands to reason, that the best players in the world will usually command the highest salaries and, on average, this is certainly true. However, footballers are not a commodity--they are unique entities. Moreover, teams are just that--TEAMS. The whole is not simply the sum of it's parts. AW is trying to put together a team of players that are stars because they play for Arsenal. Doing it this way is much cheaper since the players are less valued by other clubs. It can be frustrating at times, but there's always Chelsea and Citeh to support should any get tired of it.
What do you mean by that? I didn't quite follow you. Also, (not directed at anyone directly) obviously there isn't a perfect positive correlation between wages and results, but arguing that there isn't a strong relationship is disingenuous.
Basically by trying to remove the wage effect, they look to see who is making best use of what they have. i.e. the manager effect Wenger doesn't necessarily do well on that because our payroll is relativley high.
That's quite a jump. I think our players are valued more by other clubs given that they are typically cheaper and used to getting relatively small wages. That makes our players cheaper and easier to entice.
I haven't read everyone's response, but the problem is that people take from this "strong correlation" that spending more will yield more results. This is not necessarily true. The classic example is the French paradox. On average, they smoke more, eat more saturated fat, and drink a lot of wine yet are much more healthy than Americans--yet, an individual American with the same diet/habbits is not healthier than an equivalent Frenchman. You have to look at the smaller things that make a club successful and how everything combines. It's funny how the author says he can do Fergies job, but this experiment was done already at Chelsea. Mourinho left, and four have been in his position since with at least the amount of money he had, yet none has been as successful.
Yes, that's why I said it's not a perfect positive correlation. Nothing is that simplistic. However, I would give it a high weight because, as you have pointed out, many of the other things are smaller things. At the end of the day: good players command good salaries and the accumulation of good players equals a higher chance of success in the long run. Chemistry, coaching, and other things matter, but you can't discount that relationship.
You took the words right out of my mouth- the best players get paid the most, and therefore the highest wages often lead to the best players and best results. Correlation ain't causation, but the evidence supporting the above is based on some solid ground, I think.
Generally speaking a better quality squad will be paid better than a lower quality squad. So squad wage levels are a way to gauge relative squad strengths and compare squad expectations to actual performances. The correlation is quite telling - there are exceptions of course but the general relationship is quite clear. Of course there are some distortions because a player is given a contract for more than one year usually and will be earning at that level for a time after success has been accrued. Examples are Portsmouth having a wage level peaking when they won the FA Cup but (too) slowly declining since then. Chelsea have certainly underperformed in recent seasons if you consider the HUGE difference in wage levels between them and second placed Man U. It is clear that Chelsea and now City are having to pay their targeted players more to attract them ahead of bigger clubs. And Prem teams generally have more money than most other foreign teams so comparing squad wages between countries and correlating it to squad strength gets more tenuous imo. The big problem with wages is that they keep on increasing on an individual level. Players get rises but all too rarely will they get pay cuts. So once a player is on a wage level they remain there or higher unless they come to the end of their career or are frozen out of their current club and are desperate to move on. It is player wage inflation that is unsustainable that is causing clubs financial problems. Arsenal (and Liverpool) may struggle to compete with certain teams with higher wages but they must balance the need to remain financially viable with the demand of fans to remain competitive. Portsmouth and Leeds are scary examples of clubs spending too much.