M18CTID said:
newton heath said:
Sadly i can't help but feel they've got a right to be a bit self-righteous. They are one of few clubs who are run as it used to be, where success was dependent not on who had the richest owner but on the people running the club day in day out. Objectively that's a far more moral way for a sport to run.
I'm not sure if you're reference to Arsenal fans being hypocritical is about their chairman's investment those years ago but i've seen it on here so i'll talk about it anyway. In their defense the Fiszman £50m is hardly similar to the situation these days and really isn't being hypocritical.
The Arsenal fans stick by the club being run as a business and what Fiszman did was in keeping with that. There were still intentions to make profits, not posting continual losses like with the modern sugar daddies, the spending was not continual but an injection to hold club assets and to improve revenue through competition. Companies in every industry do, have done and will continue to do what Arsenal did with Fiszman however i can't think of an instance in which a business is run similar to you or Chelsea. So tbh it isn't being hypocritical at all.
Of course it's hypocritical. It's no different to what City are doing now - relying on investment from a rich benefactor to further the ambitions of the club - and you're showing a total ignorance of the medium/long-term strategy of our club which was always to invest heavily initially with the intention of growing the club and it's revenues to the point that we'll eventually be self-funding and not reliant on our owner.
Why do you think we've appointed Soriano? One of his tasks over the next few years will be to use his contacts to considerably increase the club's revenue through ever more lucrative sponsorship deals. Why do you think our owner is investing over £100 million in a new state-of-the-art training ground and academy complex? Do you seriously believe that these plans (with more to come) are those of someone who only believes in the short-term view of chucking money at numerous players while totally disregarding investment in the long-term well-being of the club?
I'll also point out that Arsenal were somewhat fortunate in that Fiszman's investment came at a time when the playing field was a damn sight more level than it is now and therefore his money went a lot further back then than an equivalent amount would today. Not only that, but they're also fortunate in that their London location allows them to get away with charging extortionate prices for season tickets (the most expensive season tickets in world football - yeah, that's really doing things the "right way" eh?) and corporate hospitality that numerous companies in the capital will be more than happy to pay - the kind of prices that they would have no chance of getting away with charging if they were located anywhere north of Watford. This in turn helps them balance the books a lot better than many decent sized northern clubs. There's no denying that they're a well-run club financially
but they're hugely advantaged by their geographical location, something that often gets overlooked.
If it was that easy to run a club in London why is it that only Arsenal and Spurs are genuinely big clubs while there are 8-10 clubs like that in the north? Both of those clubs come from traditionally working class areas. Tottenham is as much of a slum as Moss Side.West Ham probably have the third biggest traditional fanbase in London. They come from one of the poorest boroughs in the country.
The clubs from wealthy areas like Chelsea,Fulham or Wimbledon have much smaller grassroots fanbases because football traditionally doesn't live in those areas.
There are disadvantages to being in London as well. Loads of immigrants from around the UK and the rest of the world. These people support the clubs they grew up with. Building a stadium like ours cost 360 million quid. The Milennium in Cardiff cost 100.
It also makes me laugh when other fans have the brass neck to slag our fans for paying the highest prices in the world. What else are we going to do? The options are pay up or stop going. Plenty have had to stop going.
To an extent whats happened with Abramovich and Mansour has put pressure on our prices as they have inflated player wages. Yes, our owner is a money grabbing yank ****, but it amazes me some of you can't see why we have an issue with you and Chelsea.
For what its worth, Fiszman was a proper Arsenal fan. Nevertheless he didn't gift money to the club.He invested money in a team that had won a lot of trophies in recent years and needed a shot in the arm to stay at the top.
I'm not having a go at City. Just trying to point out that its all about perspective.
I have more time for you than I do for 40,000 people, who hadn't been to a football ground prior to 2004 , waving plastic flags at Stamford Bridge, but it does grate to hear that Gooners are shit fans because they:
a) make no noise at home
b) are gobby arrogant ***** away from home
c) pay high ticket prices to follow their team
This week I'm taking my kids to Arsenal v Coventry in the League Cup. £10 a ticket in the lower tier. On Saturday v Chelski the cheapest ticket in the ground costs £62. Can't afford to drag kids along for that. Both games will be 60,000 sell-outs though. Not bad for a trophyless feeder club on its way down supported by shit fans :-)
