PISKIE's argument is, basically, this:- "Arsenal conned and cheated its way into the top flight and to honours and glory. But now that we've got over all of that - thanks to the passage of time - I don't want any other team to get the kind of assistance that Arsenal had, because that wouldn't be fair on Arsenal!" It's as laughable as it's pathetic!
Nobody is disputing that big clubs have had financial investment and financial support over the years. Whether it was Norris, walker, the glazers, Enic, etc. I just don't think it's ever been done on quite the scale that abramovich did (until the Arabs at City). Even joe Lewis at Spurs was trying to flog them for £1bn recently (not surprisingly there weren't any takers at that price)
That hole is getting just a little bit deeper each time you post. So HIAG how am I saying that arsenal 'cheated and conned' their way into the top flight and honours and trophies ? And where have I mentioned that 'we've got over that' due to the passage of time ? Prompt answers and no squirming please
So basically because Arsenal were only spending double the midtable clubs and far more than the relegation clubs it was okay? But not cause City and Chelsea are spending way more than Arsenal its unfair? Got it
You need to frame your argument in context for it to be understood. What time period are we taking about and are we taking about money that he clubs had made from their turnover or money that was invested from a rich benefactor ?
Arsenal have had both, so which is wrong? How do we compare the spending of Norris to that of Abramovich, anyway? The former bought a new ground and paid off the clergy in order to do so. Is that not extravagant spending?
I've already outlined some of the reasons why Norris' spending differed from the approach that abramovich took. In terms of value there is a huge disparity also. Norris was recorded as investing £125,000 into Arsenal, even taking inflation, wage increases and cost of living increases that still only compares to around £15m-£25m by today's standards. It's no small amount granted and it certainly helped Arsenal. But it's nowhere near in the scale of the £1bn that abramovich sunk into Chelsea's squad alone. That figure doesn't even take into account the £140m he paid for Chelsea or the £80m of debt heh wiped out.
So just to be clear, is your argument that the money spent is obscene or that its where the money comes from?
The finances don't scale properly, so comparisons are difficult, but he clearly invested a very large amount of money into the club. People were earning about £50 a year back then, so £125,000 for the ground alone is an enormous sum. That's not including the other payments he made, like supporting the club before the move when it was losing money every year. I'm not sure why scale even matters. Why is it wrong to spend hundreds of millions, but not tens of millions? Both owners threw tons of cash at their sides, so why is one wrong but the other right?
With chelsea, Is the 1 billion pound (gross) spend or is it that Chelsea got a giant investor in Roman Abramovic?
The £1bn appears to be gross. But even then Chelsea's net spend far outstrips their turnover, or at least it did until FFP put a stop to it. At one point Chelsea were posting operating losses of hundreds of millions each year.
I didn't say it was wrong, but you asked what the differnce was. In my book spending tens of millions as opposed to spending hundreds of millions has a huge difference ! Would you say there's any difference in spending £10m on a player as opposed to spending £100m on a player ?
You still haven't addressed the question with a simple answer but judging from what you have provided, i'm going to go with the Chelsea have spent an obscene amount of money rather than where the money is coming from. Am i correct?
The time difference makes it impossible to accurately compare the two investors, though. Both spent a ton of money. Claiming that one is a villain and the other was a hero seems totally biased. Pointing out that Chelsea spent far more money than they earned just makes the two more similar. Norris kept Arsenal afloat when the club was losing money every year.
Relatively, they have spent vastly more than has ever been done before (until City). It skewed the whole landscape of football to the point where the ruling body had to step in and introduce rules to stop it being repeated again.
I've never described Norris as a hero and I've never denied he invested a large sum into Arsenal. Whislt I agree it's difficult to gauge an accurate comparison of value of money. The difference (whatever method you use) is so huge that it barley even compares, thus rendering the comparison between Norris and abrovich largely irrelevant.
That's clearly not true. The ruling body changed the rules to protect their favourites. Real and Barca spend vast amounts all the time and they didn't give a crap. Then someone tried to do something similar and they suddenly took notice. So you agree that's it's virtually impossible to make an accurate comparison, but then go on to make one anyway? Norris even did what you're moaning about Chelsea and City doing, by overpaying players. He broke the rules to do so.
Real and Barca should have faced the same scrutiny, but you're right that they get away with it. The whole transfer ban 'enforced' on Barca was a sham. You're being disingenuous about the value comparison. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was difficult, but that given whatever method used. Abramovich's investment completely dwarfs Norris'. That is the salient point. As for Norris overpaying players, he was rightly chastised for it and then he was booted out of football for paying himself money from Arsenal's coffers and rightly so. I don't know why you think I'm defending him for that. I'm not.
If secretly breaking the leagues pay cap out of your own pocket to attract top talent isn’t buying success and damaging football at the same time then I don’t know what is. Obviously it cost Chelsea more to buy success than arsenal because players are much more expensive these days, even when inflation is accounted for. All clubs have bought success to some extent over their history and its part of how the game works. Arsenal (and United) fans are outraged when any team spends more than them, I understand the sentiment, but it’s more about bitterness than fair play or morals.
