Lol indeed, shows how Wenger has done a ridiculously good job - and that doesn't even include the 40-50 million a season wage difference IIRC.
Utd don't spend and haven't outspent Arsenal on wages by that much, Chelsea and City do but thats in large part down to the way they got players and players thinking they can get more.
No one seems to mention it, Chelsea and City get done for fee's because as a big price signing they automatically think they deserve 120k+ a week.
Arsenal are at the other end of the spectrum, they sign someone for 8mil and the player doesn't think that means they are entitled to a 120k a week wage to start off with. Also think about this, would Arsenal have been able to get Fabregas on a free, if we hadn't spent our way into being the second best team in the country, also winning the odd league? Would you honestly think that Fabregas offered a contract at 16 today would choose Arsenal over City or Chelsea, or Utd, no.
It was our place, cemented by being a high wage spender and a top 2 team that let us sign guys like Fabregas. If we were like Villa, had spent less and were less successful it would have cost us a heck of a lot more to put together the same team.
End of the day, ignore transfer fee's, look at wages, up till 3 years ago we were only dwarfed by Chelsea, before what 6-7 years ago only Utd were ahead and not that much.
We spent a LOT in wages, more than most to establish ourselves as a top 2 team, which enabled us to play the cheaper, less spendy top of the league team to Utd's expensive buying top of the league team. As said if we were Villa then we'd pay more to get the same players and higher wages, as while Arshavin took a pay cut to join an established CL team and a supposed title contender(all derived from our reputation when we very much outspent Chelsea and City ) would he have done so to join Villa, not even a chance.
THink about Ronaldo, because we didn't get into fights over players like him, we didn't often get stung for large fee's, the best players or who were seen as the best players went to Utd for the biggest fee, and by being the other top team, we got the next best players, for way cheaper because Utd had already spent their money. If Utd played a bidding war with us against players we wanted, we'd have spent a lot more, but thats the role we went with, and it was successful, not lately though as theres too many clubs going for the second best players now so we've been letting others fight for them and have been buying from WAY down the list for FAR to long.
Arsenal have benefited immeasurably over the years thanks to the spending we did earlier. SO have Utd, they spent very heavily years ago and lately haven't been that bad. Considering they are top of the league and have been screwed with a very expensive Rio, Carrick, Berbatov, Anderson etc, they've still not spent more than Spurs but their reputation and established top tier team from being by far the biggest spenders before is what allows them to do so.
So it seems arsenal have signed gervinho. Is he really the kind of player they a) need, and b) who is gonna help them move to a level where they can win things? I don't think so.
I could be wrong but for me arsenal need to invest in at least one decent centre back, a left back, a goalkeeper, and a strong defensive central midfielder. They may stay top 4 but they definitely don't look like they are making the changes required to actually challenge for titles.
No, sounds like a bench replacement. Eduardo for Chamakh, Bendtner for Gervinho, yay, it really helps the team to spend more on new guys who sit on the bench for higher wages than the old guys, we've been doing this for years now.