Are Chelsea and City onfield success just side effects of a false economy?

You couldn't afford me

 

If you say so Miss Moneyspuddie

 

Well you can't afford a decent laptop so I'm guessing a living wage would be beyond you?

 

It was a decent laptop, just that the number keys no longer work

It doesn't matter though, I can get you to do the donkey work from now on

 

You're mistaking gross v net. Even after player sales Spurs have spent £8m more than Arsenal.

Your gross spend in the same period is almost £122m more

 

Am I, how so?

You have been busy with your research. Your laptop obviously gets google ok

I am not saying Arsenal aren't well run, probably the best run club in the Prem. All I am doing is countering some of your anti Spurs bollocks, which you put a lot of effort into.

 

I did say transfers and wages....arsenals wages completely oustripped all clubs other than chelsea united and city....you were spending apprx £35 - 40m more on wages than spurs....I aint moaning about it as it dont bother me...clubs pay what they can afford to and as long as they aint breaking the rules then so be it.

 

Firstly, what a good op , some good posts here.

From an outsiders view, i think have to cut through all the anti-club bo****ks and get down to the facts. The 50 mill invested into Arsenal was a significant amount in relative terms by any clubs standards
You cant compare it using inflation to 87 or 90 mill....or what ever the quoted figures were.You have to take into account that players wages, TV income, Transfer fees, Overall income etc have risen by far more than the cost of inflation, so relatively, that 50mill would equate to 10 x that in todays market.

I dont doubt that man Utd, Liverpoool, Forrest & even Blackburn have brought the title at certain times over the past 30 years, but as Tony Adams points out. that cash allowed Arsenal to compete and get the "big players" in, so it certainly is hypocritical for a gunner to criticise another club of overspending. I certainly dont remember hearing any complaints when "The invincibles" were playing.

50 mill is nothing now and if we (QPR) only received that from our current owners, it would make no difference to our "project" (god i hate that term)

Anyway, as stated before, clubs spent what they can afford. i personally have no problem with that, and if they all "do a Leeds" then their is only one person to blame.

Facts are, if you dont spend money, you wont win a thing..harsh reality. I've heard many Gooners complaining about Wenger not spending over the past 5 years or so. Now they have a very top class player in Ozil it seems foolish to complain about Man City, Chelsea or others.

just my opinion from outside the prem. Maybe i've read it wrong

good luck guys

 

Transfers have outstripped inflation massively.

£50m then got you Bergkamp £7m, keane £4m, etc

Bergkamp would be £50m now, a young keane £35m etc.

And wages too. Bergkamp and keane would have been on 20k a week, now 200k

 

There's no way that Arsenal would be paying a modern day Bergkamp 200k per week

The clubs who have skewed the transfer market like City and Chelsea, maybe ? But not at Arsenal

 

Because you thought I had 'Lazily' ignored the net spend, even though I quite clearly made it clear in my original post. You then seem to have missed it again.

So for third time, on transfer spending and taking into account players sales over the last five years Spurs have still spent more than Arsenal, so completely counters the claim that we have 'massively outspent' clubs like yours.

 

It's precisely because of abnormally inflated amount of money that was pumped into Chelsea and City that the whole financial landscape has been so skewed, so that now you have values that don't reflect anything like inflation. But the point on this is that when Fizman loaned Arsenal £50m it was in line with the relative value of the club in that day, otherwise Arsenal would never have been able to afford to pay it back - and unlike City and Chelsea who weren't loaned the money, but gifted it .

You can't use that figure to apply an equation in relation to the artificial financial doping that clubs like City and Chelsea have engineered and then retrospectively apply it to a the football landscape in the mid nineties to try and claim that it would have been like pumping £500m into Arsenal.

The figures just don't stack up.

 

The £50 million was 2 1/2 times your turnover
How could that possibly be in line with the relative value of your club?

 

1. Because value isn't just linked to turnover. Player assets, commercial revenue and physical assets form part of that overall value.

2. It was a loan and we were able to afford to pay it back and loans are usually secured against the value of assets in most cases.


Like I said, if you want to try and compare that situation to City then tell me how you could have paid back £700m when you were posting losses of £200m ?

You would have had to sell your assets, your players. You couldn't sell your stadium because you don't own that. You didn't have to pay it back because you would never have been able to. City benefited from a massive windfall which totally transformed your club in a very artifical way.

 

Actually, I'm being generous to City here. The latest figures show that since Sheikh Mansour took over in 2008, he has sunk at least £1billion into City.

 

And they occupy a stadium that was heavily subsidised by us, taxpayers....

 

Everything that Chelsea and Man City have won since their sugar daddies came knocking is tainted by financial doping. Any team could have done it with the grotesque amounts of money they have had injected into their classless, money-worshipping clubs.

 

Get a spine you pathetic imbeciles. If a sheikh came calling, you idiots wouldn't turn him down, so don't bitch about others doing what we'd do if the opportunity presented itself. ****ing morons.


Money buys success, success = good, ergo, money = good.



Greed is good.

 

My only concern is for sustainability, trophies/success is actually a long way down the list for me.
I've been going to Arsenal for 35 years, I want to go for another 35 years, I want my grandkids to go and their grandkids to go, various owners down the years have successfully safeguarded the clubs future and for that I'm grateful, financial mismangement has cost dearly the likes of Leeds, Luton, Portsmouth and a host of other clubs.

Personally I don't want any huge investment, I'm much happier with us doing things the way we do.

Strange you feel this makes me a '****ing moron', but I make no apology for my views...

 

It's the hypocrites who bash other teams for having foreign investment but want the same who get on my nerves. I want sustainability, as you said, i wish to go for another 35+ years.

And besides, i'm sure opposition fans have already brought this up, didn't we get a £50 million windfall in the 90's?