Ramsey Mishandled?

August 23, 2018

Both Danny Welbeck and Aaron Ramsey are in the final year of their contracts; neither of them has indicated a willingness to stay nor have they responded to the improved deals on offer. It is rumoured that Ramsey has said he will sign in AFC double his , already inflated, wages (this is a man who lives in the most expensive house in Wales!)


We have been here before and not so long ago. Alexis Sanchez forced his way out of Arsenal by refusing to sign a massively improved contract. Sold in January, his agent managed to persuade MU to give Sanchez a purported £380k a week, plus £71k per game appearance, plus £1m a season signing-on fee!! No wonder he left AFC. Brilliant business for the player but not for either club.

And then there was Ozil. Great player but worth over £300k a week? He and his agent hung on until AFC where forced into a corner, especially after losing Sanchez.

What did AFC and our new negotiating team learn from this? Well, it seems sweet FA.

Had they been sold in summer, Ramsey would have attracted offers above €35m, Welbeck as an established International, around €20m. Can the club afford to let them run down their contracts and leave for free next summer or swapped for an inferior player in January? €50+m would allow us to buy the new, young CB we are crying out for. It would not have been Sokratis we signed but (perhaps) a player of Varane quality, maybe even Godin (though he is a bit old).


And while we are on strange (read incomprehensible) decisions, why did they give Elneny an improved contract? Is it worth paying him a few mill a year just to get a few games in the Europa? I like Elneny wish him well but he is limited in his ability whereas Xhaka (who also got a new contract) has clear potential to become a fine player.

So what do you think? Do AFC give in to player power or get tough and sell players who do not sign contracts which are running down?

Not a simple decision.

written by Big Raddy

Big Decisions

February 28, 2017

This morning post is lifted from yesterdays comments ….

The point about contracts is an interesting one as there are quite a few players other than Özil and Sanchez who are in the same position as those 2 (contracts due to run out soon).


This is according to research by Arseblog so may not be 100%.

I think wether Wenger stays or goes there are some big decisions to be made at Arsenal. If he does go I think it would be interesting to see who’s contracts get renewed. I’m not sure if it’s a positive or a negative that he stays with regards to contract renewals. Whilst Özil has said he would prefer Wenger to stay, there may be some others who think otherwise. There is also the fact that Wenger has an attachment to these players and therefore he may renew contracts of players who a lot of us believe are no longer good enough to represent the club. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can see things that maybe the current manager will turn a blind eye to. Having someone new could result in quite a few of these players leaving the club.

Either way, it’s a massive window for Arsenal’s future.

written by FGG


April 21, 2010

Written by dandan

I was brought up to believe in the free market, that the laws of supply and demand would regulate prices and a product was worth what someone would pay for it. Which is why the cost of oil and gold to name but two, are going through the roof in these uncertain times

Since time immemorial it has also been said, that the labourer is worthy of his hire, meaning that someone should always be paid the rate for the job.

But can we honestly say that footballers meet any of these criteria?

Is there a point when morally supply and demand outstrip the rate for the job?

It is reasonable to suppose that in the Premier League (where the average salary is £28k a week), that a run of the mill player earning say 25k who can be easily replaced if injured, is probably overpaid, whereas it is far more difficult to argue that a player like Rooney, Torres or Fabergas is overpaid when judged by the same criterion, i.e. ease of replacement.

The morality of such largesse must though be questionable. Should anyone be allowed to negotiate such contracts, maximising his or her income, irrespective of the clubs actual success, literally holding them to ransom, knowing those contracts are in all but the very wealthiest of clubs, redundant before they are even signed.

The players are secure in the knowledge that should they really want a move the clubs are generally powerless to stop them, unable to afford having such an expensive asset unsettled, uninterested and a disruptive influence in the dressing room. Or should all salaries, include a standard basic, appearance money and agreed bonuses providing they meet the criteria set out below? If so where would image rights appear in this?

Isn’t it also time UEFA stopped mouthing threats and actually set some rules to create an even playing field across Europe and give all clubs an equal chance?

Limit all clubs’ wage bills to a percentage of turnover.

Stop the rich owners from exceeding these limits and demand debt-ridden clubs reduce their debts, banning any activity that further increases that debt until they meet the criteria laid down.

Make all leagues share the TV revenue fairly and proportionately as in the Premier League.

Do UEFA have the power or the will to tackle the problems head on or will they hide behind the good old restraint of trade clause as an excuse to do nothing? Are they terrified that the really big clubs will take their ball and form a true European league, as the Premier League did to the football league, when the cash cow that was pay to view appeared on the horizon.