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

You have quite clearly been slating both clubs, why other than for negative reasoning would you create this thread?

You need investment to gain success, end of subject.

 

Let's award the premiership title on net spends rather than most points.

And ban foreign owners and investment, that way only united and arsenal can win the league.

A two-team league with the winners decided on net spending.

We want the winners of the premiership to be the same forever and ever

 

Your random figure speculation is about as sound as your whole argument on this.

Using official inflation figures for the UK, £50m in 1992 the year Danny Fizman joined the Arsenal board, would be worth £87.61m today.

Whereas the £700m pumped into City would have been like Danny Fizman investing £399.5m into Arsenal back in 1992

Like I've said, to try and compare the two situations is completely incredulous.

 

Apparently the 50m Fiszman used to sign the players we had back then on to new contracts, was not really an investment or a donation, but a loan.

City fans often use the Fiszman argument as a stick to beat Arsenal fans up over their supposed "hypocrisy".

The reality is, is that we are as different from City and Chelsea as chalk and cheese.

We spend the money we rake in year after year through player sales, gate receipts, TV money, commercial deals and retail and haven't been bankrolled by some Oligarch.

 

I think the price of players in 92 compared to 2014 has to be taken into account too.

 

The term 'clutching at straws' comes to mind.

 

the highest spending teams (transfers and wages) tend to dominate or at least do very well and always have done...Huddersfield and arsenal in the 20s and 30s...liverpool 70s and 80s...united 90s/00's

even in short bursts it can make a difference ... forest in the late 70s and early 80s.

Arsenal spent very little on transfers in the late 90s because he had great french connections (no pun intended) but when looking at the fight for CL football Arsenal have maintained 4th while vastly outspending Villa, Spurs, Newcastle and everton (the teams that have been close to them in recent years) when transfers and wages are considered. But arsenal can afford so other clubs have no right to whine on about it.

Arsenal can afford it by having a big ground city and chelsea can afford it by having rich owners.

Arsenal paid £43m approx for a player this season...they can afford to so where's the problem? Chelsea and city can afford what they are spending at the moment so what they spend is there business.

If you want an even playing field then there should be
a) a wage limit...each club can only have a wage bill including bonuses of £75m...every gift (cars etc.) from club sponsors are included in these costs
b) All gate receipts equally shared between the clubs playing each match
c) all tv revenue equally shared throughout the football leagues
d) a transfer limit of £40 per window on a rolling basis so if you don't spent it this window in the next you get an £80m limit and clubs can sell their transfer limit so they can raise money without having to sell their best players.

none of this will ever happen... so moaning about the richest clubs distorting the market seems a bit pointless to me

 

If we compare everton as a relatively similar sized club to City,their turnover when Dannyboy was parting with his cash was £13million and has risen to £90million last year
So in real football money terms,he put in the equivalent of £350 million
Is that a fair comparison?

I'm quite happy to state that City would never have come close to winning the league or even competing in the CL without Sheikh Mansour and have no issues with us classed as buying the league
I just think the balance in these arguments needs addressing as the slagging off Chelsea and City get is fundamentally unfair in the way it's generally perceived

 

You're figures are speculative at best and wildly laughable at worst.

If you think Danny Fizman put in the equivalent of £350 million into Arsenal you are living in cloud cuckoo land

 

What part of he put in 4 times City and evertons turnover do you fail to comprehend?

 

The simple introduction of a salary cap would end a number of the issues that many have, if you limit total salary costs per club then it stops any one club having 20 of the worlds best players, so will in turn limit transfer spend.
No club could afford (by rule) to have 20 internationals all on £200k a week, the only ones who would reject this would be fans of the 'rich' clubs and football agents...

 

Read Tony Adams autobiography, he confirms how much Fiszman put in.

 

There's none so blind as those that will not see

 

Nope, we've got a foreign owner, so that rules us out.

 

Rule amendment. If both clubs have a foreign owner, the title will be decided on a net spend/corporate responsibily algorithim

 

It's clear who isn't comprehending this concept.

We're not talking about City and Everton's turnover compared to Arsenal's ability to remain solvent. Fizman's loan was paid back by the club's ability to manage their financial affairs.

Also your figures are complete BS, you somehow seemed to think that £50m was equivalent to £500m by today's standards, then you claim it equates to £350m based on the relative turnover of Everton. When according to official figures based on inflation it is £87.61m ...... notwitstanding the increase in transfer fees, which clubs like city have skewed out of all proportion.

If you want to talk about turnover and you want to try and make this comparable to Arsenal, then tell me how City could wouldn't have gone bust if they had to pay back that massive investment considering they were posting losses of nearly £200m a couple of years ago ?

 

Actually when it comes to spending on transfers, Spurs have consistently outspent Arsenal since the PL began.

In the last 5 years alone spurs have spent

£310,900,000 ​

compared to Arsenal's ​

£188,275,000. And whilst Spurs like to talk about Net spend, they've actually spent a net of £8m more than Arsenal in that time.




​

 

If you're wondering why the comment above is all spaced out, it's because the bloody number keys on my crappy old laptop don't work so I have to copy and paste the figures from the relevant websites

The result looks bit like Paulpowers figures, all over the place

 

Not difficult to sort. Lazy, like your argument about net v gross. I'm sure everyone else can see that losing players is relevant here.

 

I'll have to employ you as my personal secretary