Come to think of it it may have been 2009, it was the season we got to the semi's of the champions league and lost to Ronaldo anyway. Course it didn't last the whole year but that doesn't mean it wasn't impressive.
Thing is I no longer believe that a lack of money is the reason why we have failed to win. We have had the opportunities but have just not taken them because of one reason or another.
I agree, it's not just money. That hasn't helped, but there are other factors. I think we've missed out on a few players because of our protracted negotiations, I wish Dein were still at the club, with him we secured players like Overmars, Bergkamp, Henry, Vieria etc, basically some of the best players ever to come to our club. I also think as a result of having a relatively thin squad, injuries to key players have cost us really dearly, once confidence goes in our team, we really seem to suffer. I also think we've lacked a leader who can grab the team by the scruff of the neck and command games. The losses to Spurs, the 4-4 at Newcastle, the loss at Blackburn - they are all games that we should have taken 3pts from and ones where a steady head and leader on the pitch could secured the right result.
You could also argue that Wenger has worked wonders by having no money and ensuring that Arsenal have been playing Champions League football over the last six years.
I don't know to what extent Joe Lewis and ENIC fund Spurs - but I'm not sure that they have balanced the books in the same way that Arsenal have. I think quoting exact figures is a speculative game. We still have debt to pay off, and whilst the board have said that we have funds to buy a £30m player if needed. I'm not sure that it would make financial sense to have done so. That said, I feel the frustration of missing out on top players, because we either can't or won't spend out the required amount for them.
Ignoring the massive difference in wage bills, to the tune of about £100m pa and transferleague.com's omission of various moves from Spurs: Spurs' net spend over the past 5 seasons: £52.4m Chelsea's net spend over the past 5 seasons: £148.7m Close, Jayram. Real close.
Spurs make a profit virtually every year and the only current debt is stadium related. Joe Lewis doesn't contribute to the club financially.
What relevance does that have if the transfers are balanced by sales? Net spend is the only significant figure and you'd still be wrong if it was gross spending. Torres, Luis and Mata cost nearly £100m between them. But Spurs don't spend a lot on transfers, as I've shown. An average of less than £10m a season is more comparable with Sunderland than Chelsea, as is our wage bill. Whilst I'd agree that your board and manager appear to be erring on the side of caution in the transfer market, the figures that you're basing this argument on are false. Arsenal's wage bill does appear to be a slightly odd issue, though. Where's it all going?
Arsenal spend an average of 55% of their total revenue on wages, which is comparable with other champions league teams.
That's great Piskie, but it avoids the question, rather than answering it. If Arsenal's top players aren't being paid the same as those at Liverpool or Man Utd, for example, then why is the wage bill so high? Where is that money going? The obvious answer would be that the youth players are offered large contracts in order to attract them from clubs like Barcelona. I have no idea if that's true or not, but unless you're dramatically overpaying squad players, it seems like the most likely explanation.
You edited your reply after I'd posted my response. It's also inaccurate, missing out this summer's spending and doesn't explain the relevance of a club's gross spending. You have two clubs. One sells a player for £20m and buys two players for £5m each. The other doesn't make any transfers. In your thinking, the second club is somehow £10m better of than the first, whereas the opposite is actually true, all other factors being equal.
I agree with all of that, but your use of gross spending on transfers is simply misleading and undermines your point. You have to wonder how much of that £160m in cash that the club are supposedly hoarding is earmarked for paying off the remainder of the debt or possibly reinvestment in property, for example.
I know that Wenger has stated that he has always had money to spend, but it doesn't ring true to me. I have a feeling that he's been sold the story that a public admittance of restricted spending could damage Arsenal's image and finances, so he's gone along with company policy.
Because he hasn't spent without making sales, despite there being some quite obvious holes in the squad that needed filling, for a start. Assuming that he could see the problems with your current squad, as he bought a left-back and a centre-half, did he not think that spending a little more than £15m or so might have produced better results? I'm not judging Mertesacker or Santos, but does anyone think that of all the defenders in the world that were available, they were Wenger's first choices?
I would go along with this too. If the club came out and said that we can't afford a £30m player, it would be a PR disaster. I think Wenger has been a very shrewd and pragmatic custodian of our club over the last 6 years especially. And we've managed to qualify for the champions league every year within these challenging times. and against the backdrop of two or three clubs throwing obscene amounts of cash around. That in itself is an achievement that deserves a lot of credit.
But Arsenal have also had to pay for a big stadium, not just the interest. I believe that paying off the debt early incurs a penalty, so perhaps the best idea for the club right now is to sit on the money until the debt is paid?
