I was reading the article that matt law wrote about mount and there are two points that I would like to talk about.
a) he compares cole's renewal situation with mount's, in that it is not always right to lower the wage structure, since the best players demand high salaries
the point is that ashley cole, in 2006, was much more of a player than mount will ever be. He already had a very strong history with Arsenal, he had even won two leagues, being part of that epic 2004 team.
Cole was world class, Mount is not at that level.
In relation to it being necessary to have a high salary mass because it attracts the best players, once again, it's subjective, and the perfect example of this is United, which pays very high salaries to mediocre players and keeps them at the club and can't sell them because it's an obstacle, paying too much for what the players produced and deserve.