The Arsenal exodus: Why Nasri & Clichy could be a sign of things to come

The Emirates faithful face a summer of discontent with Arsene Wenger set to stand by his policy of refusing to overpay for talent whilst a diffident board continues to indulge him.

If Arsenal worshippers thought the wheels had come off following the calamitous end to the club’s sixth consecutive trophyless season, they might regard that now as merely the warm-up to the main act.

The summer recess, widely regarded as a golden opportunity to right the wrongs of previous transfer windows, has provided even further ammunition for those who feel Arsene Wenger’s youth project has veered so far off track it may never recover.

Three of the first names on the team sheet have either gone or are manoeuvring to go after making it clear they view Arsenal as a stepping stone rather than a footballing Everest. Gael Clichy has jumped into the arms of the better resourced and arguably more ambitious Manchester City, Cesc Fabregas aches to return to Barcelona and, most alarmingly of all, Samir Nasri is fluttering his eyelashes at a handful of Europe’s marquee clubs.

A window that had been billed as the most important in Wenger’s 15-year reign and one in which he could address the glaring deficiencies in his squad has left him scrambling around frantically for plasters to stick on the gaping wounds in his squad.

Yet it is not only pessimists who believe the unseemly haste for the exit door this summer could be opening the floodgates for twitchy players and busy agents. Robin van Persie and Theo Walcott have two years to run on their current contracts and are due to begin talks on new deals, while question marks will surface about the future of Jack Wilshere should Arsenal fall short again next season.

So, why has it come to this? Why has arguably the greatest manager of one of England’s most distinguished clubs found himself struggling to hang on to players who effectively owe their careers to him?

The answer is hardly a simple one yet effectively boils down to a combination of economics and ideology. Sources close to the inner workings of the club believe the blame should be equally shared between Wenger, who, by his own admission, has all the power he could want to run the team, and a complacent board who have been overly reliant on the Frenchman’s expertise at achieving Champions League football on a budget dwarfed by his rivals.

Arsenal’s self-sustainable business model is a paradox in that it is the envy of clubs home and abroad, drew record pre-tax profits of £56m in their last full set of accounts yet renders them uncompetitive in comparison with the cream of Europe.

A common misconception is that it is transfer fees that are the biggest drain on a club’s resources. Not so. At Arsenal, salaries are nearly three times more costly. However, Chelsea, the two Manchester clubs and Liverpool all have higher wage bills than Arsenal and are able to offer the kind of salaries that the north Londoners, who maintain wages at around 50 per cent of turnover, are either unwilling or unable to.

Strict wage structures are laudable – Daniel Levy maintains an even tighter rein on the purse strings at Tottenham - especially in the crazy world of football economics. There are plenty who believe Nasri should be more than content with a £90,000-a-week, five-year contract offer from Arsenal, which nearly doubles his current pay packet.

It is hardly Wenger’s fault that Nasri is the beneficiary of an inflated market in which he can negotiate £3m a year more at a club bankrolled by a Russian oligarch or an Arab sheikh.

Nevertheless, it would be inaccurate to paint Arsenal as the unfortunate victims of an industry which pays no heed to sensible book-keeping and has required Uefa’s new financial fair play rules to clamp down on its worst excesses.

As one boardroom source points out: “If we paid [Abou] Diaby £30,000-a-week rather than £60,000-a-week, then we might be able to give Nasri what he feels he deserves.” Wenger’s willingness in handing out such generous contracts to Diaby and others, like Manuel Almunia, on £50,000-a-week, and Denilson, who is also on £60,000-a-week, has skewed the wage bill in favour of players who have failed to cut the mustard at the expense of those who have.

Furthermore, there are strong doubts within the club whether a single player among the 16 who went out on loan last season will eventually become a regular first-teamer, which, according to the source, “means a third of the wage bill are unproductive”.

Supporters who pay through the nose for the most expensive season ticket in world football – prices range from £985 to £1995 for the rank-and-file - have also been hit with a 6.5% rise this summer that will pour £4.5m more into the club’s bank account.

A £45m transfer kitty – including fees and first-year wages – that was already available to Wenger will sail comfortably past the £100m mark should Fabregas, valued at £45m, and Nasri, who Arsenal believe is worth £20m, follow £7m Clichy and get the moves they desire.

Even if one of Fabregas or Nasri stays (not even the most optimistic Gooner believes they both will), pleas of poverty from the Emirates high command appear increasingly ridiculous.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Arsenal can dig deep when they need to. Thierry Henry earned more than £200,000-a-week in his final season at Arsenal after signing a lucrative new contract, and that was five years ago when the Gunners’ finances were severely drained by moving into Emirates Stadium.

When Fabregas first began agitating for a move two years ago, his pay was back-dated for two years in recognition of his status and he was rewarded with a bumper £110,000-a-week contract that made him the best paid player at the club.

It will not stop the notoriously cautious Wenger from refusing to overpay for players who he believes do not represent value for money, even in a market warped by the mind-boggling fees paid for Fernando Torres, Andy Carroll, Phil Jones and Jordan Henderson.

Although Wenger has not yet completed the signing of a senior player in the window, he has moves in place to sign centre-backs Gary Cahill and Christopher Samba, Sunderland goalkeeper Craig Gordon and Southampton wonderkid Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain. A £10.6m move for Lille’s Gervinho was agreed in mid-June and should be completed later this week. Some of the deals might go down to the wire as Arsenal refuse to be beaten on price.

On the one hand, there is a manager who refuses to be ripped off in the transfer market and is wedded to a philosophy of sourcing and nurturing raw talent.

On the other is a diffident board who, according to one observer, are “sailing merrily along enjoying executive perks”, while the club’s shirt sponsorship and kit deals are losing the club around £30m a year compared to Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea.

The big picture is complicated by the silence and lack of direction from billionaire majority shareholder Stan Kroenke and the refusal of the board to play ball with the second main stakeholder Alisher Usmanov, estimated to be Russia’s third richest person and wealthier even than Roman Abramovich. “Usmanov would be willing to write out a £100m interest-free cheque and hand it over tomorrow but the club won’t even acknowledge or speak to him,” added the source.

All the while, Wenger appears to be losing control over those in whom he placed so much faith. He is no longer in charge of his own – or his club’s – destiny.