Arsenal Thread - 2022/23

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

Because hypothetically if you spend a billion in year 1-5, then you can use the existing squad base to sell and net incomings with outgoings in the forthcoming years. Then you can claim a 0 net spend despite sitting on a billion pounds squad.

Someone make this make sense please?

 

[horlock_was_super]

Someone make this make sense please?

I think it’s just the usual -

“City money bad so we’re allowed to make up bollocks about how we come by ours and get creative explaining it.”

 

[blueparrot]

Because hypothetically if you spend a billion in year 1-5, then you can use the existing squad base to sell and net incomings with outgoings in the forthcoming years. Then you can claim a 0 net spend despite sitting on a billion pounds squad.

Alternatively and not hypothetically you can buy 2 squad players for about 28 million and sell them to Arsenal a few years later for about £80 mill. Then buy Haaland for £51 and Alvarez for £20 mill thats good for less than zero net spend too.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

To be fair, those arguing about organic growth do tend to mean no owner investment.

It’s just a ridiculous concept that football itself (and those clubs that bang on about organic growth) made impossible for anyone else to follow if they wanted to be successful.

In that case United must be undergoing "organic shrinkage."

 

[meltonblue]

In that case United must be undergoing "organic shrinkage."

And long may it continue :)

 

[GunnerGer]

The concept of FFP is fine but it has been abused by certain clubs. You can't take FFP seriously when clubs like Barca, Real, MUFC, and Juventus build up billions of pounds of debt which their owners never pay back. The whole foundation of MUFC is built on huge loans from US banks but the money owed has not been reduced in ten years.
The press say United's wealth is "organic growth" but there is absolutely nothing organic about their business model. The Glazers have invested nothing in the infrastructure or the local community. They don't even pay any taxes in the UK and hide their wealth in the Cayman Islands. But apparently they are the "good guys." It is absurd.

Yep, correct, that's why I said I don't know the best way to implement it. I'm all for new investors, investing money to make the club they own better. It's more about protecting clubs against investors that might do something to put those clubs in trouble.

As a Rangers fan I've experienced it myself. Had 1 owner that decided to use EBT's to pay a lot of his employees when he was advised they were a legal loophole, that resulted in HMRC chasing us for tens of millions down the line. This meant he sold the club for £1 to an even dodgier owner, that tried to fund the club using future season ticket income and didn't pay any PAYE which then forced us into Adminstration then liquidation.

Obviously these are totally different situations to Billionaires taking over club and investing properly, im just using it as an example of how clubs are at the whims of owners and its not always a fairy tale.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Horrible snidey/whinging/cheating cunts.

 

[hammocity]

Alternatively and not hypothetically you can buy 2 squad players for about 28 million and sell them to Arsenal a few years later for about £80 mill. Then buy Haaland for £51 and Alvarez for £20 mill thats good for less than zero net spend too.

Alvarez was only £14m!

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Hypothetically. Would you rather Arsenal had owners who spent their own money on players to improve the team or owners that put it in their own bank accounts despite the wailing and nashing of teeth from the teams supporters.

This hole - how far you going?

 

[halfcenturyup]

In that case United must be undergoing "organic shrinkage."

I have suffered from that the last few years.

 

[blueparrot]

Alvarez was only £14m!

Even better, I just got it off Transferrmarkt it says 21.4 mill euros.

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

Were ahead of schedule in our development. We are still a very young team with more room for improvement. We will get better organically as Saka, Saliba, Martinelli, Odegaard, ect continue to level up, as well as future signings. However because we are ahead of schedule in the rebuild, some Arsenal fans still say things like 'happy with top 4', and thats great and all, but that cant be the mentality of the club and manager. And based on Arteta's behavior, it isnt.

Where will 'playing nice' get us? I fully support Arteta's antics as his behavior is indicative of a manager who not only doesn't likes to lose, but doesn't like to not win.

The fact Arteta is getting all this negative press is evidence he and Arsenal are being taken more seriously. I still remember the later Wenger years, where he lost his competitive edge - can you split Wengers tenure at Arsenal from 97-08 to 08-18, with the later years being an era were rival managers praised him but never took him seriously as a threat. In the early era he and Ferguson hated each other with a passion.

Arteta is building a new Arsenal. One that cant/wont be pushed over, an Arsenal that aims to fear no one, and for this reason Arteta is going to clash with rival managers a lot more.

Don’t get too upbeat my friend !
I quite like the look of Odegaard and Martinelli,
they would look good in blue .I’m thinking we use all our oil money and snatch those two in the Summer.
Especially,after we knock you out of the cup and win the league.
That should turn their heads slightly !
However,you can keep Saka and Saliba.
Plus, let’s wait and see re Arteta, he did after all, bottle it at the end of last season when the Champions league was within touching distance.

 

[moomba]

Were ahead of schedule in our development. We are still a very young team with more room for improvement. We will get better organically as Saka, Saliba, Martinelli, Odegaard, ect continue to level up, as well as future signings. However because we are ahead of schedule in the rebuild, some Arsenal fans still say things like 'happy with top 4', and thats great and all, but that cant be the mentality of the club and manager. And based on Arteta's behavior, it isnt.

Where will 'playing nice' get us? I fully support Arteta's antics as his behavior is indicative of a manager who not only doesn't likes to lose, but doesn't like to not win.

The fact Arteta is getting all this negative press is evidence he and Arsenal are being taken more seriously. I still remember the later Wenger years, where he lost his competitive edge - can you split Wengers tenure at Arsenal from 97-08 to 08-18, with the later years being an era were rival managers praised him but never took him seriously as a threat. In the early era he and Ferguson hated each other with a passion.

Arteta is building a new Arsenal. One that cant/wont be pushed over, an Arsenal that aims to fear no one, and for this reason Arteta is going to clash with rival managers a lot more.

I'm not sure you can rely on getting better organically. You do have a young, talented squad but development doesn't always go upwards.

The best thing for Arsenal is to keep adding, challenging the existing squad to maintain or increase standards. It will be hard as they start to even more, start to feel they belong at this level and maybe don't have to fight to stay there. Your better players will be targeted by other clubs and that can cause problems too.

I thunk you're on the right track, and have a good manager who I don't think will let standards slip too much. But the hardest part of his job is still to come.

 

[hammocity]

Tarquins about to pay around 85m for Mudryk, that will put them on a net spend of 525m over the past 5 years putting them in second place just 20m behind the Rags. City are 10th on 213m but we’ll be the ones who the media say we are ruining football, cunts.

 

[GunnerGer]

Tarquins about to pay around 85m for Mudryk, that will put them on a net spend of 525m over the past 5 years putting them in second place just 20m behind the Rags. City are 10th on 213m but we’ll be the ones who the media say we are ruining football, cunts.

I don't really understand the Net Spend argument. Surely it's got to be taken in context overall with how the club is run? We made a £45m loss last season, most of which can be accounted by having no European football for the first time in 20 years or so. We cut the wage bill and let players go to allow us more wiggle room to spend a bit more.

 

[hammocity]

I don't really understand the Net Spend argument. Surely it's got to be taken in context overall with how the club is run? We made a £45m loss last season, most of which can be accounted by having no European football for the first time in 20 years or so. We cut the wage bill and let players go to allow us more wiggle room to spend a bit more.

We have won a lot of prize money and copped for the most TV revenue in that period, you’ve let players go for sure, 80m for that donkey Pepe and others who you have lost considerable money. The point is your spending nearly as much as the Rags but along with the Chavs and Dippers you won’t be criticised whereas all we hear about is how we outspend everyone even now and we are ruining the game. I bet you won’t get the same shit we get off the media, it’s a fucking joke.

 

[GunnerGer]

We have won a lot of prize money and copped for the most TV revenue in that period, you’ve let players go for sure, 80m for that donkey Pepe and others who you have lost considerable money. The point is your spending nearly as much as the Rags but along with the Chavs and Dippers you won’t be criticised whereas all we hear about is how we outspend everyone even now and we are ruining the game. I bet you won’t get the same shit we get off the media, it’s a fucking joke.

Hopefully you get more ex players in the media to help with that then.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I don't really understand the Net Spend argument. Surely it's got to be taken in context overall with how the club is run? We made a £45m loss last season, most of which can be accounted by having no European football for the first time in 20 years or so. We cut the wage bill and let players go to allow us more wiggle room to spend a bit more.

There’s nothing wrong with spending money; net spend or gross.

It’s the way that City are criticised by every single media outlet, other clubs and other fans for it and no other cunting club get a mention about it, or if they do, it’s a positive spin.

It’s all ‘Oil Money’ ‘ruining football’ ‘obscene’ ‘I just don’t know why they’re doing it’ ‘when they’ve got the money they’ve got they can afford anyone’…

Klopp coming out with how ‘we can’t compete with City’s spending’ (when they earn the same as we do!).

Clubs writing and putting their names to letters to the Premier League and the Court of Arbitration for Sport to get us banned, fined or have bans and fines upheld when we have done ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL WRONG!

Arsenal outspend us, what do Arsenal get from the media? Stuff like ‘Arsenal mean business now’.

 

[hammocity]

Hopefully you get more ex players in the media to help with that then.

Na, amongst others we get your boring old fart Alan Smith as cocom who always supports our opponents.

 

[LesBleuMiserable]

We have won a lot of prize money and copped for the most TV revenue in that period, you’ve let players go for sure, 80m for that donkey Pepe and others who you have lost considerable money. The point is your spending nearly as much as the Rags but along with the Chavs and Dippers you won’t be criticised whereas all we hear about is how we outspend everyone even now and we are ruining the game. I bet you won’t get the same shit we get off the media, it’s a fucking joke.

Their owners are not mozlems so no they are immune, Alan Davies has said nought bought dem yankees not needing to piss off to the Nevada desert or stick to playing with their kind