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

What part of 'the money artificially propelled them to the summit' means that I thought the money itself was artificial ? Did you think I was talking about Monopoly money or Chocolate coins ?

If you'd read my first comment properly in the first place then you would have understood and I wouldn't have had to keep explaining it to you.

 

Arsenal nowhere near benefited from the level of investment that was afforded to City or Chelsea

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about what you believe I think and a lot of assumptions about the levels of financial investment that actually happened.

Historical facts will prove that you're making a pigs ear of this argument.

You deal with that

 

Of course they did. Back in the 1910s they benefited from a level of investment that other teams at that time could only dream about. It was a level of investment that enabled them to acquire a team to go on and win the title, as well as relocate to another area of London and establish the club that we all know today.

In the 90s, we saw a team with a similar level of investment go from a then second tier club to the league title. You called such an investment "small". You were clearly wrong - it wasn't small, in the period that it was made.

My point is that all teams have benefited from such investment. All major clubs at least.

It's happening now at City and indeed has happened at Chelsea. There is nothing artificial about it. For it's always happened. If it's artificial now, then it's always been artificial.

Historical facts back up my argument. Your two-bit attempt at turning those facts against me is ridiculous, and really quite sad. The difference between you and me is that I see it for what it actually is. You are trying to dress it up as something different based on nothing more than a time frame. There is no difference. It's always happened. And big clubs have become established as a result. And so today clubs will become established as a result.

If anything, I'd see it as a compliment. If it took another team x-amount of million to usurp us, then that would be a testament to how well we had done as a club. The difference between me and you is that you see it as a detriment. Rather than merely see it as something that as always happened, and thus, something that within the game is something that should be regarded as a challenge.

 

Even using the most generous figures possible taking into account inflation, wage to living costs and other variables involved in calculating the relative value of historical investment into Arsenal, the figures come nowhere near the sorts of investment made at Chelsea and City.

Henry Norris' reputed £125,000 investment in 1922 is the equivalent of £60m today.

Danny Fizman's £50m loan is worth £87m today and was paid back to him anyway, so it wasn't exactly a gift.

Again, the salient point here is that compared to over £1bn each invested into City and Chelsea whilst trying to compare this as having 'no difference' to the situation at Arsenal is completely incredulous.

 

We won the league in 89 so we were hardly a 'second tier' club.

Historical facts contradict your argument

 

Fizmans 50 m loan was 2 1/2 times your turnover in 1995
How can that possibly be only worth 87 m today

http://abehnisch.com/arsenal-profit-since-1996/

 

You obviously have no knowledge of football if you are saying Arsenal were a second tier club in the 1990's.Before the start of the Premier League,Arsenal were regarded as one of the "big 5"

 

You're so naive. £125,000 is equivialent to £60m today?

For a start, £125,000 in 1913 is equivalent to around £12m today in pure inflation terms.

But if we consider that in 1913 it cost £125,000 to move a club from South London to North London, and build a staduim, and in 2006, The Emirates cost £390m to build, do you see how ridiculous your figures sound?

You simply have no idea about ecomonics.

Put that £125,000 (for purely the stadium build (and then add the amount Norris spent on the team on top)), and compare it to what other teams had to spend at that time. Go on - tell me how that compares. I would guess you haven't a clue. You've no idea how much more £125,000k was that other teams had at that time. Was it 10 times as much? 20 times as much? 5 times as much? Go on, you tell me.

I'll tell you that the average spend of a club in 1913 was in the region of £8,000. I'll tell you that the average turnover of a club at that time was around £11,000. The amounts invested by Norris into Arsenal were over 10 times as much as the average turnover of the other clubs. So you tell me, that, in those comparitive terms, that wasn't a significant amount.

If you do, then you're an idiot.

The spending of City over a period of 5 years is around 5 times the average turnover of a top club for one season today. Now, unlike you, I won't say that that is an insignificant amount. For that isn't my argument. My argument is that significant investment has always happened in football. Arsenal are a testament to that. As are United - who were it not for significant investment wouldn't even exist today. It was for Liverpool in the 60s, who were it not for that investment, may not have even got out of the then second division and gone on to win numerous league titles. It was for Sunderland, regarded as the bank of England club, who went on to win 6 league titles. It was for Milan, as it was for Real, and indeed Barcelona.

So you continue to bury your head in the sand and say this kind of thing has never happened before. I'll jusd continue to stick to the facts. And once again say - if it's artificial for City and Chelsea to do what they're doing today, then it was artificial for Arsenal to do what they did yesteryear, as it was United, Liverpool, Milan, Barca, Real, in fact, all the clubs that we regard as major clubs today.

 

Shame this thread has descended into point scoring, disrespect and abuse.
For a while it attracted some excellent views from a number of posters, from different fan bases, and was an enjoyable read.

 

You clearly misunderstood my post. When I said second tier club, I was, of course, referring to Blackburn, not Arsenal. Read my post again, and this time try to understand it before coming back to me with a totally misguided point.

 

We've been over this already, read back through the thread. Turnover is not linked exclusively to value, it is based on player assets, physical assets, commercial revenue, debt and profitability etc. The link you provide explains why Arsenal can afford to manage that type of investment in a sustainable way, we don't take money out of the club to pay shareholders and we reinvest our profits. That's why we were able to pay Danny Fizman back his loan, which was made to David Dein in order to help him buy shares. It was essentially one shareholder helping out another, not an external cash injection by a rich benefactor.

If City or Chelsea were held to account to repay the Billion pounds they had received, they would go bust. They simply don't have the revenue or assets to raise that sort of capital and still survive. Remember it was only two years ago that City were posting 200m losses. This is why the situations are not in any way comparable. Arsenal have operated within their means and spent only what they can afford, we even managed to finance our stadium based on our operating model. We have not benefited from a rich sugar daddy because we do not need to

 

Again, I was referring to Blackburn as the second tier club. Not Arsenal.

 

If you were talking about Blackburn perhaps you should have mentioned so

 

Norris was quite clearly the first sugar daddy
That simply can't be disputed

 

With all due respect, you didn't actually refer to them by name so it didn't help the argument. I think so posters thought you were referring to Arsenal as that is the club we're currently discussing. Just saying.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...tion-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html

 

Just as a matter of interest, how long did it take you to pay back his loan? What was the year when that loan was paid back in full?

 

That's according to the Bank of England

Also, you can't compare the initial building of Highbury to the costs of the Emirates, two completely different stadiums in different economic circumstances.

And this is where your figures don't stack up. You cannot compare the historical investment into Arsenal and try to compare it to the investment into City and Chelsea. The two scenarios are like chalk and cheese. The relative investment and the context and circumstances of the clubs are wholly different.

Unless you still think I'm talking about Chocolate coins of course

 

Fair enough - but then I am in a discussion with Piskie, and I'd at least hope that all my previous comments (in regards to the discussion we're having) weren't merely forgotten (and/or dismissed). I did, quite clearly, in a previous post, mention Blackburn, and their spending the 90s, and how it specifically compares to the amount that Arsenal had benefited from investment at that (again) specific time. My apologies if people weren't able to distinguish between the two, and I also apologise if people think that they can get one over on me by thinking that I was labeling Arsenal a second tier club - something which I've never even insinuated was the case whenever I have referred to them in this thread.

Of maybe people just jump to an assumption in order to try and prove me wrong in any way they possibly can. In which case, the fault lies with them, not with me, and if that is the case, then I've nothing to apologise for.

 

Exactly! Which is why you should never use the base rate of interest to compare the amounts spent today with the amounts spent by clubs in the past.

That's what you have done. My point has been to show just how futile doing that actually is. So many variables have to be taken into account. You have said that £50m spent in the 90s is a (in your words) "small" amount. I am arguing otherwise.

 

Okay, so you want to use purely inflationary figures.

City's £1bn investment would have been like Fizman investing £570m

and you begin to see where your argument that there's 'no difference' between us and City fall to pieces