I still like what Uli Hoeness said about Bayern's view of their fans and their season ticket prices: "We could charge more than €130 (£104). Let's say we charged €380 (£300). We'd get €2.5m (£2m) more in income, but what's €2.5m to us?" "In a transfer discussion you argue about the sum for five minutes. But the difference between €130 and €380 is huge for the fans." "We do not think fans are like cows, who you milk. Football has got to be for everybody." "That's the biggest difference between us and England." German clubs are in a different position to ours though, so he might just have been creating good PR for the club. Their supporters actually have significant input, which has kept their pricing a lot more reasonable across the board.
Its not just Arsenal to be honest. Any club that moans at Chelsea for spending money they didn't "earn" can shut the **** up. How do football clubs "earn" their money? Its all because people are interested in football. They get paid billions for writing a word on a wall and letting a guy with a camera come into their stadium and put it on TV so fans can watch the games at home. You could argue that people watch football and are interested in it because of the performances the players put in etc, but really most people are fickle and will just follow whoever is winning ****. The hardcore fans are easily in the minority by a long ****ing way. According to Arsenal fans, Chelsea are boring as **** to watch. So why has our fanbase increased ten fold since Roman came? Because we win ****. Would you say United becoming a PLC and getting all that money from the stock market constituted "earning" that money? Or bringing out 4 new jerseys a season and having them made dirt cheap in Chinese sweatshops? Is that "earning" their money? Until FFP, outside investment was a valid part of turnover just as much as anything else, sponsorships etc. Its a business. And its all turnover, not earnings. Except for prize money, that is directly linked to performances on the pitch and is earned.
The main difference I suppose is that clubs like Arsenal and Utd had a history of winning things and adapted to the modern economic demands of the game by diversifying their revenue streams in fairly creative ways. Chelsea and City were average clubs who went decades between winning major trophies and would never have found themselves in the position they are now but for the massive cash leg up from one rich investor. It's an arbitrary way to success. Roman amrabovich was interested in buying Spurs at one point, if he had of them Chelsea would likely still be a 5th 6th placed club wth he odd league cup final appearance a lot like Spurs are now.
Chelsea were on the verge of bankruptcy, so they might've done a Leeds. Didn't happen though, so I'm not sure what the point in speculating is.
There you go. Arsenal and Man Utd were winning everything, two other clubs came along and were put in a position where they could stop Arsenal and United winning everything, all the time, and therefore United and Arsenal fans were pissed. You just nailed it.
But....Chelsea and City's rise has brought about a more competitive premier league, making it far more interesting as a spectacle which has in turn generated greater revenue for all clubs in the premier league through greater exposure, tv rights etc. The alternative is to say basically because a few status quo clubs got success first they should remain there forever?? This is essentially what has happened in Spain where it is almost impossible for a club to break up the big 2, and if they do, their best players gets taken like Atletico (and Dortmund in Germany to a lesser extent). Going into a season where 5-6 teams can challenge for the title has to be better than the 2 teams as it was in the 10 years before Roman came in.
It also fails to acknowledge that this system has been in place forever. Blackburn in the premier league era, Liverpool with the family that were bank rolling them during their heady days...all the way back to pretty much when football began. Different scales but same principle. People love football and there will always be and always have been 'rich owners'.
Chavbus and ££££ spending has made the league better (competitive wise), but the downside is the cost of players to English clubs have risen by a huge margin, so the likes of smaller clubs like Liverpool dont stand a chance of winning the league as they dont have the cash to spend on big name player or be able to pay the wages to keep any that do shine at the club.
So it wasn't United constantly breaking transfer records during Fergie's reign then?!? Italian and Spanish clubs have also pretty much cornered the market in huge transfer fees in the last 30 years. And...surely it's a good thing Liverpool don't win the league??
If you earn the money you can spend it as you like, £££££ and Chavbus dont, thats the only thing fans of other team dont like
I have no problem with the sugar-daddy clubs. I'd have no problem if Spurs was bought by a sugar-daddy. Why? For me, it's a very simple choice between (a) staying "independent" but never having any realistic chance of winning either the league or the CL, or (b) being bought out by someone willing to spend £billions and us being able to compete for honours and glory. At the moment, we have the possibility of getting top 4, because only United, £ity and Chelsea have an endless pool of cash. We, Arsenal, and 'Pool are in that next tier down, scrabbling over 4th spot. But all it will take is another one of these three big clubs to be bought out by a sugar-daddy, and the doors on the top 4 will be closed, until other sugar-daddies come along (which is the way things are headed, any way). It's an inevitable development, and I'd rather we jump the gun, now. Joe Lewis doesn't appear to be willing to invest his own cash into the club to buy us the success we deserve, and it wouldn't upset me if he decided to sell to someone who is.
I agree with this, but in the Prem, only United, £ity and Chelsea have a realistic chance of winning the title (or CL) in any particular year.
If you wanted to talk history you could even go back very far and say Arsenal shouldn't even be in the football league since the didn't "earn" their place, but "bought" their place in the football league.
By that rationale, somebody Gould just randomly bung Stoke or West Brom £ 1bn simply to make the league more 'competitive' ? If you really want to introduce a leg up for the mid table clubs, then instead of the sugar daddies stepping in to pump them, wouldn't it be better to introduce an NFL style draft, where the lowest place clubs get first picks in the transfer market ? I know it's frought wth logistical issues as it would have to world worldwide, but in principal would you support something like that or a transfer cap on the top placed teams ?
