Exactly. Also what being conveniently avoided by those who claim Arsenal have 'bought their way' into the top 4, is spending to revenue ratio. So let's bust some myths here: (1) Arsenal have bought their way into the Top 4. - Arsenal have finished in the top 4 every season since 1995-96, this was at a time when we had players that we had bought for minimal transfer fees and on relatively low wages. Since then Arsenal have remained in the top 4 ever since. Up until we bought Ozil for £42m Arsenal had spent relatively little on transfer fees and our most expensive players in that time were Wiltord and Arshavin at £11m and £16m respectively. Since the move from Highbury, Arsenal had very little to spend on transfers and in fact had a policy of selling their most expensive players in order to balance the books, we still stayed in the top 4 during that time. (2) Arsenal's spend massive amounts on wages.- Up until 2005 we didn't and we were in the Top 4 consistently for a decade previous to that. Since 2005, wages across the Premier League have risen exponentially, it's no different for any of the top clubs and it's been fuelled by a combination of Sugar Daddy spending, Sky Money and agent/player power. If Arsenal hadn't spent those wages, then we would have gone backwards whilst City, Chelsea and Utd bought up the best players. The key point here though is wages to revenue ratio. Arsenal can now afford to spend big wages because we have earned the right to. We haven't been backed by a rich benefactor who has pumped this money into the club, we've earned it through our own revenue streams. (3) Arsenal have a huge net spend. - Check Arsenal's transfer net spend since 1995-96 (the first year of our unbroken top 4 stay) and we have spent vastly less than the other top 3 clubs and even less than Spurs and Liverpool, who have spent big on transfers and only made top 4 once or twice. If somebody is trying to accuse Arsenal of 'buying' their way into the top 4 (whilst false), then by the same measure you can say that Spurs have tried to buy their way into the top 4 and failed. Ultimately though it comes down to spending to revenue ratio. Both Arsenal and Spurs have balanced the books, it's clubs like Chelsea, City, Utd and Liverpool who have been spending more than they earn, and manage it through either loading debts against assets or getting Daddy to pay for it all.
It's not Daddy, it's the club owner. Owners spending beyond the natural income of the club has been happening since forever. The fact Arsenal don't spend money is as big a myth as those that perpetrate they play some sort of Cruyff type total football.
But never on the scale of Chelsea post Abramovich. It changed the whole landscape of football to the extent that anything previous is incomparable. And who said Arsenal don't spend money ? I said that we spend (and have done) in line with the money that we earn.
Is this another one of those things where you redefine everything to mean what you want it to mean and then refuse to explain any of it? I'll ignore point three, as I don't think that anyone has claimed that Arsenal have a huge net spend throughout the Premier League years. Point one contains various factual inaccuracies, like ignoring any players that cost more than Wiltord and underestimating his fee, too. The main thing is the wage bills though, which is addressed more in point two. Arsenal's wage bill has been consistently in the top tier, normally around third highest in the league. The claim that it had to drastically increase from 2005 onwards may be true, but it was doing so prior to that anyway. Arsenal's bill in 2003 was the second highest in the country, for example. Only Man Utd have consistently outspent you in this area. If you're claiming that Arsenal spend within the club's means and have a reasonable wages/revenue balance, then I'd agree with you. The idea that you haven't spent vast amounts of money to be where you are is demonstrably false, though.
Your claim was that Arsenal 'bought their way into the top 4'. I am saying that is incorrect as we have been there since 1995-96 when we were spending fairly average amounts on both transfers and wages. I also disagree with your statement as rather than 'buy' our way into it, we have 'earned' our place there through good football and sound financial management. The fact that we spend 'vast amounts' now is simply relative to our income and the wider landscape of the premier league. To you it might seem like vast amounts, to Arsenal it is well within our means
No, your claim was that Arsenal didn't buy their way into the top 4. I asked you to define what that meant. You spent large amounts on transfers and wages in your chosen start period, which seems to be completely arbitrary, by the way. Platt and Bergkamp were both very good players, but they cost about £12.5m, which was an enormous amount. Your wage bill was a similar amount for the entire squad and it was one of the highest in the division.
The start date is from the first season we started our unbroken run in the top 4, (1996) hence the point at which we achieved our position in the top 4 and stayed there. in 1996, our wage bill then was likely to be not much more than yours. As for transfers, Dennis Berkamp cost £7.5m, he was an absolute bargain considering what he achieved at Arsenal. We only paid roughly £1m more for him than you did for Les Ferdinand at around the same time, a couple of years later you spent £11m on Rebrov ! In the following couple of decades, we might have spent more on wages, but Spurs have spent more on transfers and we have achieved significantly more than Spurs in that period, whilst the combined spending on net transfers and wages has been largely on a par between the two clubs as this graphic shows (although it's nowhere near the amount Chelsea have spent: please log in to view this image
So in your first season you spent a massive amount of money and you didn't buy your way into the top 4? You don't even know what your wage bill was or how it compares to other clubs, yet you're still willing to make statements about it. As for Rebrov, that was 5 years later and fees had gone up dramatically in that time. Your wage bill virtually quadrupled, as an example of how finances changed. That graph is utterly ****e. It's unreadable and the figures appear to be completely made up, plus the years are utterly random. Where did you find it?
No we didn't spend massive amounts. In that season We spent £7.5m on Bergkamp and the following season £7m on Overmars, £3.5m on Vieira and £2.5m on Petit. They all turned out to be bargains ! Have you got a wage bill comparison for 1996 ? I'd be interested to see it. Rebrov was still a massive fee at £11m even in 99 (which wasn't 5 years later) and he was utter **** for Spurs. The graph is from http://www.sportingintelligence.com/ If you think it's ****e you need to dispute the figures with them.
You spent £7.5m on Bergkamp and £4.5m on Platt in the same season, then £20m the next season. Bergkamp broke the British transfer record. How the hell is that not spending a lot on a player?! Rebrov signed for Spurs in May 2000, which is five years after Bergkamp's 1995 transfer. This was nowhere near the record at this point. It was a large amount of money, though. The graph's objectively ****. It's supposed to be there to provide information and it utterly fails to do so. Someone's worked out there's some options on their database programme that they haven't used and thought it looked funky. It's tilted to the side, which makes it unreadable, half of the years are missing and it's divided into chunks of £150m for no apparent reason. Figures would be far better, as would sources for those figures.
You have to look at it in terms of what they achieved for the club. Ultimately £7.5m for Bergkamp was peanuts. Whereas £11m for Rebrov (even with the relative increases) was vastly more expensive in terms of what he offered. Have you got figures for relative wages bills for 1996 (and other seasons) I'm genuinely interested in the comparisons
Rubbish. Virtually nobody could afford to spend £7.5m on a player in 1995, which is why it was a record. You're attempting to change your claim from "we didn't spend a lot" to "we spent what we could afford" to "we spent well". You're merely showing the weakness of your initial claim, which is demonstrably false.
I'm not changing anything. It was money well spent, we could afford to do it and ultimately Bergkamp was a bargain, so it wasn't a huge amount. Have you got the comparative wage bills for 1996 ?
What the hell is this as an argument? Spurs have been trying to buy theeir way into the top four for ****ing years, if they weren't so **** at spending, they would have been there by now more than once. Arsenal have spent proportionally every season on sound financial basis. Teams that "buy their way in" spend way and above what the club can make back, hence the term, which is absolutely, and fundamentally untrue of Arsenal. That's why Mike Ashley said he wanted to follow the "Arsenal model", not the Tottenham/Chelsea one. Cheap prick
Back on topic... Odds on next Premier League manager to leave: Rodgers 7/2 Flores 6/1 Sherwood 7/1 Pellegrini 8/1 Advocaat 8/1 Ranieri 10/1 Bilic 10/1 Pulis 16/1 Neil 18/1 Martinez 20/1 Pochettino 20/1 Howe 22/1 Pardew 25/1 Monk 28/1 Hughes 33/1 Koeman 33/1 McClaren 33/1 Wenger 50/1 Mourinho 50/1 Van Gaal 50/1
Nonsense. We only spend what we make. You clearly don't know what you are talking about regarding our finances. We actually made a profit last year. We have a very wealthy owner, but he doesn't put a penny into the club. To compare us to Chelsea is laughable. Are you in the Village Idiots table, cause that post takes you straight there if not.
