- Dec 9, 2006
- 31,279
- 21,788
I wonder how Ozil feels about this as he picks up his massive salary.
He probably gives not a single shit.
I wonder how Ozil feels about this as he picks up his massive salary.
It's gonna be us and them in the Euorpa final isnt it ?? ??
I sure hope so and I know which manager I’d rather have in the dug out of such a final.
I'm sure they'd have to get rid of Ozil first to free up some wages.
Can't imagine then renewing Aubameyeng's contract, sign Willian AND sign Coutinho, that's something like £700k in wages a week on those 3 players, add Ozil £1m a week lol nah never gonna happen.
Nor should he. I don't want to defend Ozil but it's 100% Arsenal's management's fault. Even not playing Ozil is their fault. By all accounts, he shows up to train and is available to play but is never called on.He probably gives not a single shit.
They are businesses. I'm not defending 55 redundancies but there are some simple facts that have to be considered.Things like this make me hate football a little bit, to be honest. I felt the same when we furloughed our staff originally. The amount of money in football is ludicrous enough as it is without the very top clubs playing the victim at a time like this. Embarrassing.
They are businesses. I'm not defending 55 redundancies but there are some simple facts that have to be considered.
The continued success of a football club - however that is defined - is dependent upon the amount of resources that the club can invest in the on-field 'product'. If they fail to do that, the 'success' will diminish and it will inevitably be followed by the dissatisfaction of and (ultimately) desertion by supporters. Which will lead to further diminishing finances, leading to diminishing success, and the cycle will continue.
I don't believe that clubs 'play the victim'. Neither do I believe that the Goons are happy about doing this. I have little sympathy for them because the payment of excessive wages to at least one staff member has led to it: it's (in hindsight) mismanagement. But i do believe that they are doing what they consider to be necessary to ensure the continued prosperity of the club; and it's no different from what any other business in any other industry would do in similar circumstances. I agreed with our decision to furlough staff (and disagreed when we changed that policy) and I'll bet that the Arse - and their 55 former employees - wish that they ignored any negative publicity and had done so too.
The amount of money in football is only 'ludicrous' when you compare what footballers are paid to what you and I make. When you compare it to other global 'entertainment' industries, it's small potatoes.
Willian and Coutinho are hardly formidable signings. Mind, surely their priority should be defense and midfield. Going forward they've been pretty good for some time now...About to sign Willian & Countinho.
Their attack looks formidable now...
Movie stars. Rock stars. Some baseball players have ten year contracts that pay them more than $400 million. It's quite a long list if you look into it.Who else in 'entertainment' gets paid more than footballers to the extent that their pay is peanuts in comparison?
The last paragraph of the article says: "Arsenal for most of their history became distinguished, and admired, as a club who did things the right way. This is anything but."A good article,
Why Arsenal’s staff redundancies are simply indefensible
The club have announced 55 jobs will be cut, blaming the current financial climate, at the same time as they pursue summer transfer targets set to earn vast wageswww.independent.co.uk
If tottenham were to do this I would be fuming. Clubs are things that were created by communities and still are largely supported by communities and run for those communities. OK, this, unfortunatly, is not how clubs are run. They are run like a play-thing of the rich but we can't let our clubs forget who they serve and where they are from. If there was genuine need to sack people, you can sympathise but there is no need whatso ever. It's clearly making a statement on what it perceives as important, and that doesn't include the livelihoods and well being of people who make the club the club.
hahahahaha point. But it just digs the point in.The last paragraph of the article says: "Arsenal for most of their history became distinguished, and admired, as a club who did things the right way. This is anything but."
While I completely agree with the sentiment, would somebody have any idea about the bit that I've italicised? While I'm obviously biased, I can't remember a single reason why they might have been considered "distinguished, and admired, as a club who did things the right way".