Football FanCast columnist Davis Lowe wonders if the rigid wage structure at both Spurs and Arsenal is holding them back.

Having spent a great part of my life in the US, I know all about the realities of overpaid Sportsmen. When Alex Rodriguez left Tom Hicks Texas Rangers for the Yankees, the 10yr contract he signed was worth a reported $275m. A-Rod is the Wayne Rooney of baseball and his presence at the Yankees will generally assure them of them playoffs each season, not to mention the huge funds from shirt sales and his merchandise in the club shops. The deal though excessive will more than pay for itself in time.

It is all about weighing up the pros and cons of such a deal and what their arrival will bring to their respective club.

If Spurs honestly believe that Samuel Eto'o can fire them into the Champions League, for the first time in their history; then why not pay him £100k+ a week? Surely the riches of the most lucrative competition, coupled with the other endorsements and club shop sales, will more than cover the outlay.

Why did Arsenal drag their heels and fail to meet Mathieu Flamini wage demands? Wenger must know the value of a player to his current team, which went so close to title and Euro success, and how it will be such an arduous task to replace him. What I find stupid about this whole affair is that had Flamini been a free agent elsewhere, then the club would have happily paid top dollar as the player wouldn't have commanded a fee. They did it with Sol Campbell so why not Flamini? Is it because the player has come through their own system that they are not worthy of the same deal.

Spurs and Arsenal are two of the biggest clubs in England and if both were put up for sale tomorrow, there would be no shortage of takers. Both are well run organisations that both make comfortable profits and are among the top 10 richest in Europe - I wonder if they are the only clubs within it, that have a wage structure?

Spurs don't seem to have any inhibitions when it comes to spending and will happily pay the going rate for a transfer fee. Like their great rivals they have a rigid wage structure, why commendable and sensible in some eyes, holds the football club back in my opinion. Spurs have always been on catch-up and desperate to bring success to the club but I really feel that they have had to move into the second tier of the market as they are unable to meet the demands of the higher end player. I'm not for a minute suggesting that they should bankrupt the club and pay everyone £100k a week but a balance certainly needs to be reached. If Ramos feels that Eto'o or Villa will take them to the next level then why not pay them? If Spurs are desperate to keep Berbatov at the club, then why not offer him a deal he can't refuse - I can't see the likes of Jenas or Lennon going to the Chairman seeking parity. It is the same with this Flamini deal. Why would other Arsenal players complain at his high wages when they know he is on a Bosman - it is not as if they can't run their own deals down?

Arsenal has been extremely fortunate over the years that they had a manager like Arsene Wenger who has been able to be successful in the market under constraints. He has formulated a wonderful core of talent that was seemingly on the brink of a title and possible Champions League success. They have the foundation to build a period of dominance but are short of maybe two or three top drawer players who will be able to add that extra quality and much needed experience. I personally fail to see why the club would feel concerned about freeing up funds for players and I believe that they are in danger of missing their best chance they have ever had to dominate English football.

So do you feel that Spurs and Arsenal's wage structure is preventing the respective clubs progress? Do you think your club is right in this day and age to be careful? Should both clubs throw caution to the wind in order to give themselves a chance to succeed?