Arsenal's Financial Situation

Arsenal news and interviews
Discuss anything Arsenal related, players, tactics etc.

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby LMAO » Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:32 pm

Özim wrote:Kroenke is the worst kind of owner, one that has zero interest, this does t usually work well and thus far it clearly hasn’t.

You need owners who show some sort of interest rate in the sport and in the club.

The lack of investment is really poor given our downward spiral over the years, even the bigger signing have been deals that hinder us in the future as they’ve been spread over several years.

Consequently this summer we’re having to try and sell players to buy some and it’s not working well as players who don’t perform from clubs on a downward spiral generally don’t attract a lot of interest.


If Kroenke had zero interest, then Wenger or Emery would still be here. Sanllehi too.

Kroenke is running the club in a sustainable way (i.e., Arsenal living off the funds it generates), much to the chagrin of Gooners everywhere when many would prefer him to bankroll us a little by gifting the club £100 million. It sucks because we can't get some deals across the line ahead of time, but it is what it is.
Image
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby Callum » Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:01 pm

LMAO wrote:
Özim wrote:Kroenke is the worst kind of owner, one that has zero interest, this does t usually work well and thus far it clearly hasn’t.

You need owners who show some sort of interest rate in the sport and in the club.

The lack of investment is really poor given our downward spiral over the years, even the bigger signing have been deals that hinder us in the future as they’ve been spread over several years.

Consequently this summer we’re having to try and sell players to buy some and it’s not working well as players who don’t perform from clubs on a downward spiral generally don’t attract a lot of interest.


If Kroenke had zero interest, then Wenger or Emery would still be here. Sanllehi too.

Kroenke is running the club in a sustainable way (i.e., Arsenal living off the funds it generates), much to the chagrin of Gooners everywhere when many would prefer him to bankroll us a little by gifting the club £100 million. It sucks because we can't get some deals across the line ahead of time, but it is what it is.

I've less of an issue with KSE not investing and more of an issue with them apparently not giving a shit and acting far too late when shit has been hitting the fan. They banked on Wenger keeping the club in the top four for years with minimal funds, which he did for a good while, but acted far too late when it was clear he was done and action needed to be taken. They put too much trust in Gazidis and then Raul, and again the slide under Emery happened for weeks longer than it should have done. They needed to act quicker and/ or appoint people to run the club who know what they're doing.

Thankfully it looks like they're getting better at that and I'm happy with the Vinai/ Edu/ Arteta triumvirate, but time will tell.
User avatar
Callum
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 35729
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:58 pm
Location: Kieran Tierney's back pocket

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby Özim » Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:02 pm

LMAO wrote:
Özim wrote:Kroenke is the worst kind of owner, one that has zero interest, this does t usually work well and thus far it clearly hasn’t.

You need owners who show some sort of interest rate in the sport and in the club.

The lack of investment is really poor given our downward spiral over the years, even the bigger signing have been deals that hinder us in the future as they’ve been spread over several years.

Consequently this summer we’re having to try and sell players to buy some and it’s not working well as players who don’t perform from clubs on a downward spiral generally don’t attract a lot of interest.


If Kroenke had zero interest, then Wenger or Emery would still be here. Sanllehi too.

Kroenke is running the club in a sustainable way (i.e., Arsenal living off the funds it generates), much to the chagrin of Gooners everywhere when many would prefer him to bankroll us a little by gifting the club £100 million. It sucks because we can't get some deals across the line ahead of time, but it is what it is.


The only reason they aren’t is because he was seeing his investment drop in value, he has zero interest in football and zero interest in us being successful, all he’s focussed on is profit and the value of the club. When does he ever come to a match? Other owners at least come and watch their teams, I’d take an Abrahmovic over him any time of the day, in fact I’d take an owner who actually shows interest and is passionate about football over him too, just hope that one day he sells us to someone more suitable.

This sustainable model nonsense has been proven to be exactly that, when Abrahmovic arrived people were waiting for him to lose interest and disappear, 15+ years later he’s still here, meanwhile we’ve dropped down the league and have been nowhere for 15 years.

If you want to see success off the pitch you need to succeed on it, this may take some investment but in the longer term you’ll increase the value of the club and get your money back and a lot more.
Özim
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 11:26 pm

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby theHotHead » Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:32 am

Zenith wrote:
theHotHead wrote:Ok Crimson, answer me this, last season it was widely said that we only had a transfer budget of about £40m and everyone was up in arms about it. We bought Luiz and Tierney and everyone thought that would be our lot then the club obliterated our supposed budget on club record on one player alone - Pepe.

We had a net spend of approx £100m, considering our budget was around £40m, where did that extra money come from ?

That's because, last year, Arsenal only paid a tiny fraction of Saliba's and Pépé's total transfer fees up front. The remaining funds—which accounts for roughly £50m of that £96m—will be paid in installments across the upcoming 5 years (starting this year) for each player. Last season's expenditures are 100% reflective of a club that has allocated a £40m-budget for that particular transfer window.

Zenith, thats how most transfers are conducted so we have been told. So that would be the case for transfers before last season too. The additional money, relative to the purchases still needed to be found, where did it come from?
User avatar
theHotHead
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 8291
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby theHotHead » Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:38 am

Angelito wrote:
theHotHead wrote:Liverpool and Spurs spend the money they earn in transfers the same as us. We are not in a unique situation at all.


While this is true, what derailed us was the lack of assertion and our inability to be opportune enough in the market in 13/14 and 15/16.

If we'd have bought Higuain in 13/14, or a striker who could share the workload with Giroud in 15/16, we'd probably be looking at two league titles.

Even if it had gone topsy-turvy from there on, it wouldn't have reached breaking point as it did in 17/18 because we'd have had two league titles in the last decade.

Unlike Liverpool, we've failed to be strategic in the market.

Think about it. Higuain was more or less still in demand until 2018. If we'd have bought him for €35m in 13/14 on top of Ozil, we could have sold him for a similar fee, or for around €20m, in 17/18.

For much of last decade, we took the poor man's approach to business 101. Instead of investing, we focused on saving.

With an ambitious owner, this wouldn't have been a problem. Or, with a board as well run as Bayern Munich's.

We've relied on player sales for pretty much the entire Premier League era. It's astonishing that a club the size and draw of Arsenal lags so much behind other clubs. With United, they're just poorly run. Liverpool and Spurs overachieved in the past 5-6 years. Arsenal have underachieved massively since 14/15 despite winning those FA Cups.

And I previously posted a comparison of our player sales over the past 15 or so years compared to the other top teams in the league and it made for dreadful reading. We have been abysmal selling players, often losing them for a pittance or giving them away for free.
User avatar
theHotHead
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 8291
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby theHotHead » Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:43 am

Özim wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
Özim wrote:Kroenke is the worst kind of owner, one that has zero interest, this does t usually work well and thus far it clearly hasn’t.

You need owners who show some sort of interest rate in the sport and in the club.

The lack of investment is really poor given our downward spiral over the years, even the bigger signing have been deals that hinder us in the future as they’ve been spread over several years.

Consequently this summer we’re having to try and sell players to buy some and it’s not working well as players who don’t perform from clubs on a downward spiral generally don’t attract a lot of interest.

How So ? How good was Liverpool's squad in 2010 compared to us and we have spent more than they have (net) ?

Liverpool squad:
Glen Johnson, Raul Meireles, Daniel Agger, Fabio Aurelio, Luis Suarez, Andy Carroll, Joe Cole, Milan Jovanovic, Sotirios Kyrgiakos, Maxi Rodrigues, Dirk Kuyt, Lucas, Jamie Carragher, David N'Gog, Pepe Reina, Jay spearing, Jonjo Shelvey, Martin Kelly, Martin Skrtl.

Arsenal squad:
Almunia, Diaby, Sagna, Fabregas, Koscielny, Rosicky, Nasri, RVP, Vela, Walcott, Denilson, Ramsey, Song, Squillaci, Wilshere, Djourou, Fabianski, Clichy, Arshavin, Eboue, Gibbs, Chamakh, Bendtner, Shezza.

Tell me which squad you think is better. The Arsenal squad is miles better than Liverpool's and we have spent more net than Liverpool from that point in 2010 until now. If our investment has been poor according to you what has Liverpool's been then, considering their starting point was worse than ours and they have spent less (net) than us over that time ?!!!!


There’s not much in it to be honest, both pretty lousy squads!

The point is Liverpool sold well so didn’t need their owners to pump huge amounts in (though their owners appear to have put money in even then), we sold terribly and spent terribly, this is partly due to having an owner who isn’t interested, but of course when we’ve needed the money after such a tough time he’s been nowhere to be seen, we’ve just had to spend future seasons transfers budgets and now sell to buy!

How was the absolute incompetence of Wenger and co Kroenke's fault?! It is not Kroenke's job to check the value for money of transfers.

Not much in the squads?? We cannot have a debate if you are going to be pigheaded and refuse to acknowledge fair points Ozim. Our squad was miles better than theirs. They had 4 top players (Carragher, Suarez, Reina and Gerrard), we had Sagna, Fabregas, Rosicky, Nasri, RVP and Arshavin (6) and our fringe players were miles better than theirs.
User avatar
theHotHead
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 8291
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby Santi » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:26 am

LMAO wrote:
Özim wrote:Kroenke is the worst kind of owner, one that has zero interest, this does t usually work well and thus far it clearly hasn’t.

You need owners who show some sort of interest rate in the sport and in the club.

The lack of investment is really poor given our downward spiral over the years, even the bigger signing have been deals that hinder us in the future as they’ve been spread over several years.

Consequently this summer we’re having to try and sell players to buy some and it’s not working well as players who don’t perform from clubs on a downward spiral generally don’t attract a lot of interest.


If Kroenke had zero interest, then Wenger or Emery would still be here. Sanllehi too.

Kroenke is running the club in a sustainable way (i.e., Arsenal living off the funds it generates), much to the chagrin of Gooners everywhere when many would prefer him to bankroll us a little by gifting the club £100 million. It sucks because we can't get some deals across the line ahead of time, but it is what it is.



Yeah exactly I don’t get the beef, why does everyone expect him to just throw money into us anyway? Most people liked the sustainability model rather than spunking mafia money like Chelsea, it’s just the shitter we got the more people got desperate for a sugar daddy to save us.

Now look at all the changes we’ve had over the past two years, some have worked, some have not, but no matter what this club is trying to put itself back into the mix and is now heading in the right direction hopefully, so I think Kroenke’s doing just fine. It’d be great if he would throw 50m a season for signings but then we’d also become reliant on him in that case and hope any future owner picks up the same mantle.

Yes it’s annoying to watch Chelsea blow us out the water on transfers but I’m satisfied that we’re run as a successful business as long as we head in the right direction on the pitch, if that stops then we may need to throw money at it to get back.
Image
#YoPierre
User avatar
Santi
Member of the Year 2017
Member of the Year 2017
 
Posts: 35817
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:11 am

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby CrimsonGunner11 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:09 am

Santi wrote:
LMAO wrote:
Özim wrote:Kroenke is the worst kind of owner, one that has zero interest, this does t usually work well and thus far it clearly hasn’t.

You need owners who show some sort of interest rate in the sport and in the club.

The lack of investment is really poor given our downward spiral over the years, even the bigger signing have been deals that hinder us in the future as they’ve been spread over several years.

Consequently this summer we’re having to try and sell players to buy some and it’s not working well as players who don’t perform from clubs on a downward spiral generally don’t attract a lot of interest.


If Kroenke had zero interest, then Wenger or Emery would still be here. Sanllehi too.

Kroenke is running the club in a sustainable way (i.e., Arsenal living off the funds it generates), much to the chagrin of Gooners everywhere when many would prefer him to bankroll us a little by gifting the club £100 million. It sucks because we can't get some deals across the line ahead of time, but it is what it is.



Yeah exactly I don’t get the beef, why does everyone expect him to just throw money into us anyway? Most people liked the sustainability model rather than spunking mafia money like Chelsea, it’s just the shitter we got the more people got desperate for a sugar daddy to save us.

Now look at all the changes we’ve had over the past two years, some have worked, some have not, but no matter what this club is trying to put itself back into the mix and is now heading in the right direction hopefully, so I think Kroenke’s doing just fine. It’d be great if he would throw 50m a season for signings but then we’d also become reliant on him in that case and hope any future owner picks up the same mantle.

Yes it’s annoying to watch Chelsea blow us out the water on transfers but I’m satisfied that we’re run as a successful business as long as we head in the right direction on the pitch, if that stops then we may need to throw money at it to get back.


In a way, you just answered your question, Santi :lol:

We may look like we’re headed in the right direction now but for a very long time we were not going in the right direction i.e. assuming your priority was to see us win a PL or CL trophy. Just like some others, I prefer our self sustaining model but I’ve always said that I prefer it only if others can conform to play by the same rules or we can make it work for ourselves. So far, neither have happened which is why I’m not against abandoning the self sustaining model. The way I see it is that the speed and consistency at which we achieve the highest honors for the club should always trump my views on how we obtain those honors even though I have my preference for certain methods that most likely won’t amount to anything of note anytime soon.
Leno
(Martinez/Macey)
Bellerin Saliba Sokratis Tierney
(Niles/Osei-Tutu) (Mustafi/Dinos) (Holding/Medley) (Kolasinac/Bola)
Xhaka(c)
(Luiz?/Chambers)
Guendouzi --- Ceballos
(Torreira/Elneny) --- (Ozil/Willock)
Pepe -------------------- Auba
(ESR/Mkhi) -------------------- (Nelson/Saka)
Lacazette
(Martinelli/Nketiah)


Last Updated: 9/19/19
User avatar
CrimsonGunner11
Predictions League 2011-12, 2016-17 Winner
Predictions League 2011-12, 2016-17 Winner
 
Posts: 18131
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:14 pm
Location: The Peach State

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby theHotHead » Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:22 am

The self sustainable model is not the problem, getting rid of the wrong players, buying the wrong players and having successive dufus managers HAS been the problem.
User avatar
theHotHead
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 8291
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby Zenith » Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:32 am

theHotHead wrote:
Zenith wrote:
theHotHead wrote:Ok Crimson, answer me this, last season it was widely said that we only had a transfer budget of about £40m and everyone was up in arms about it. We bought Luiz and Tierney and everyone thought that would be our lot then the club obliterated our supposed budget on club record on one player alone - Pepe.

We had a net spend of approx £100m, considering our budget was around £40m, where did that extra money come from ?

That's because, last year, Arsenal only paid a tiny fraction of Saliba's and Pépé's total transfer fees up front. The remaining funds—which accounts for roughly £50m of that £96m—will be paid in installments across the upcoming 5 years (starting this year) for each player. Last season's expenditures are 100% reflective of a club that has allocated a £40m-budget for that particular transfer window.

Zenith, 1. thats how most transfers are conducted so we have been told. So that would be the case for transfers before last season too. 2. The additional money, relative to the purchases still needed to be found, where did it come from?


1. That statement is incorrect: only a fraction of football transfers are being paid in installments. (Not to be confused with performance-related bonuses.)

2. The money does not need to be 'found' on short notice, hence the use of installments. These installments are funded through future transfer budgets.
Image
User avatar
Zenith
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 33020
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:48 pm
Location: Gallia Belgica, 5 hours away from The Grove

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby CrimsonGunner11 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:48 am

theHotHead wrote:The self sustainable model is not the problem, getting rid of the wrong players, buying the wrong players and having successive dufus managers HAS been the problem.


The self sustaining model can indeed work but its more demanding wrt the factors that need to come together in order for it to beat what everyone else is doing. It not only needs the manager to be flawless with every game day tactic, it also needs things such as flawless development of academy players, timely buying and selling of players, and strict monitoring of players fitness. It’s a model that requires all of these factors to work with a lower margin of error than the methods other clubs are using which simply needs money to be thrown into the mix by their owners to increase this margin.
Leno
(Martinez/Macey)
Bellerin Saliba Sokratis Tierney
(Niles/Osei-Tutu) (Mustafi/Dinos) (Holding/Medley) (Kolasinac/Bola)
Xhaka(c)
(Luiz?/Chambers)
Guendouzi --- Ceballos
(Torreira/Elneny) --- (Ozil/Willock)
Pepe -------------------- Auba
(ESR/Mkhi) -------------------- (Nelson/Saka)
Lacazette
(Martinelli/Nketiah)


Last Updated: 9/19/19
User avatar
CrimsonGunner11
Predictions League 2011-12, 2016-17 Winner
Predictions League 2011-12, 2016-17 Winner
 
Posts: 18131
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:14 pm
Location: The Peach State

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby Angelito » Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:57 pm

The self-sustainable model has only ever worked for Bayern. None of the biggies initially (like ManU) or serial winners like Barca, Real, City, or Chelsea rely on self-sustainability entirely. In the case of City and Chelsea, absolutely not.

We were self-sustainable for the longest period whilst still remaining successful. From 96/97 to until 16/17. Even today, we are self-sustainable but not as successful. It's akin to someone trying to remain moral and ethical in a world filled with shady deals. You can only go so far before becoming disenchanted.

It used to work before the business moguls arrived and started bankrolling clubs. It would still work if that weren't the case.

Today, we're 7th in the money league. Back in 2011, we were forth—only behind ManU, Real, and Barca. Bayern were fifth. Today, Bayern, City, and Chelsea have overtaken us. In terms of revenue, we are 10th with Liverpool and PSG ahead of us.

We played the poor man's game in investment this past decade. Times had changes. We didn't. Self-sustainability won't take us back to where we were from 1996 until 2009. That's a sad fact.
Image
User avatar
Angelito
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 28022
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: The Overlook Hotel

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby theHotHead » Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:41 am

Angelito, what about Athletico Madrid ?? They forever sell their best players but for the time Simeone has been there (since 2011) they have been competitive and have won almost everything in football.
User avatar
theHotHead
Bertie Mee
Bertie Mee
 
Posts: 8291
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby jayramfootball » Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:57 am

Angelito wrote:The self-sustainable model has only ever worked for Bayern. None of the biggies initially (like ManU) or serial winners like Barca, Real, City, or Chelsea rely on self-sustainability entirely. In the case of City and Chelsea, absolutely not.

We were self-sustainable for the longest period whilst still remaining successful. From 96/97 to until 16/17. Even today, we are self-sustainable but not as successful. It's akin to someone trying to remain moral and ethical in a world filled with shady deals. You can only go so far before becoming disenchanted.

It used to work before the business moguls arrived and started bankrolling clubs. It would still work if that weren't the case.

Today, we're 7th in the money league. Back in 2011, we were forth—only behind ManU, Real, and Barca. Bayern were fifth. Today, Bayern, City, and Chelsea have overtaken us. In terms of revenue, we are 10th with Liverpool and PSG ahead of us.

We played the poor man's game in investment this past decade. Times had changes. We didn't. Self-sustainability won't take us back to where we were from 1996 until 2009. That's a sad fact.


Now we know FFP was just a collection of empty words, the decision to curb net spending (to the point we were actually making profit on player trading) when we moved to the Emirates must go down as one of the worst decisions we've ever made... it set us back and clubs caught up and passed us. It was idealistic.
It contributed to the demise in the quality of our squad.

That said, we did not and do not have a sugar daddy owner. Personally, I would rather not win the league than buy the league. I don't consider Man City or Chelsea to be legitimate winners of the league. Sure they are in the history books, but they literally bought trophies. Don't want that.
No matter how bad it gets, at least we don't have to put up with Wenger anymore
User avatar
jayramfootball
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm
Location: Midlands UK

Re: Arsenal's Financial Situation

Postby EliteKiller » Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:01 am

EPL clubs finances are not as bad as the scare stories (the go to approach of modern media remember the headlines 726 million lost in TV revenue, well that was a massive misrepresentation. If the season had been abandoned without a ball being kicked post February, and the European Leagues had also not been concluded then the maximum loss might have been 726m ... now with all competitions completed the rebate to TV companies is expected to be under 300m and that will be deferred to next summer, it's highly likely TV companies will be given extra games and that in reality no rebate will ever be paid by the clubs.

We made 180m from broadcasting revenue in the last accounts, that may drop by just 20m not the 100m predicted just a few months ago ... overall our finances will be in much better shape than many had feared ... same goes for all EPL clubs which is why the transfer market is hotting up.
EliteKiller
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 4206
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Previous

Return to Arsenal Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PairyGrows, StockGooner, Yandex [Bot] and 13 guests