Arsenal Thread 2013/14

[Prestwich_Blue]

Can anybody explain to me what is happening with Arsenal's finances? I thought they had paid off the new stadium, had sold almost all the property and had a huge 'war chest' to spend. Now they announce they only made a few million last financial year, and even then it was only because they sold RvP and ..... forgotten who!

Didn't they re-negotiate some deals (kit?), so maybe they have some new income just kicking in, but if they're still cash strapped it would explain a few things. Are they are still trying to mislead their fans about their financial situation's impact on the club?

the war chest that they were referring to was cash at hand which is still huge (around 150 million in the accounts published yesterday). It is different from profit/loss.

OK, thanks. Not sure I get it though - surely they would have had to have made the money (ie profit) to have it in cash? They suposedly had some cash last year but not that much so where did it come from? Can't say I'm going to loose sleep over it, but thought it odd! I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash at some point.

At a football club, cash flow isn't constant. So in May you get season ticket money, the bulk of your PL prize money and your CL prize money in three lump sums effectively. You probably get sponsorship income as well. You get some more PL money in August and January then obviously any match by match ticket sales, merchandise sales etc as they come in.

That money in May, is basically the fat you have to live off for the rest of the year. It pays your wages and other operating costs plus money for transfers. So the fact they've got £150m in May or June means very little in isolation. It's almost certainly not a "war chest".

 

[bleed.blue]

Can anybody explain to me what is happening with Arsenal's finances? I thought they had paid off the new stadium, had sold almost all the property and had a huge 'war chest' to spend. Now they announce they only made a few million last financial year, and even then it was only because they sold RvP and ..... forgotten who!

Didn't they re-negotiate some deals (kit?), so maybe they have some new income just kicking in, but if they're still cash strapped it would explain a few things. Are they are still trying to mislead their fans about their financial situation's impact on the club?

the war chest that they were referring to was cash at hand which is still huge (around 150 million in the accounts published yesterday). It is different from profit/loss.

OK, thanks. Not sure I get it though - surely they would have had to have made the money (ie profit) to have it in cash? They suposedly had some cash last year but not that much so where did it come from? Can't say I'm going to loose sleep over it, but thought it odd! I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash at some point.

Profit/Loss accounts and Cash transactions are very different. Entries in P&L sheet like Ammortisation, depreciation etc do not effect the cash flow of corresponding period.
Ex: Gervinho was bought for around 12 million in july 2011 and signed a 4 year contract, this 12 million will be ammortised over 4 years (3 million/year). In cash statement, the 2011-12 accounts will show an expense of 12 million but in Profit and Loss account, only 3 million will be shown in 2011-12 accounts.

 

[more lazy than useless]

the war chest that they were referring to was cash at hand which is still huge (around 150 million in the accounts published yesterday). It is different from profit/loss.

OK, thanks. Not sure I get it though - surely they would have had to have made the money (ie profit) to have it in cash? They suposedly had some cash last year but not that much so where did it come from? Can't say I'm going to loose sleep over it, but thought it odd! I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash at some point.

At a football club, cash flow isn't constant. So in May you get season ticket money, the bulk of your PL prize money and your CL prize money in three lump sums effectively. You probably get sponsorship income as well. You get some more PL money in August and January then obviously any match by match ticket sales, merchandise sales etc as they come in.

That money in May, is basically the fat you have to live off for the rest of the year. It pays your wages and other operating costs plus money for transfers. So the fact they've got £150m in May or June means very little in isolation. It's almost certainly not a "war chest".

Ahhhh! The penny drops (pun intended). So they will have had something similar this time last year but ran the club using it and ended up back at roughly square one. Its the 'war chest' quote that's caused the confusion, I couldn't get my head around where all this extra money had come from. Can't remember where I came across the quote now, was probably just lazy journalism but I still have a sneaking suspicion Arsenal could be trying to mislead their fans.

Its still surprising though that they made so little profit considering they are supposed to have paid off all the big bills and sold most of the properties. But like I said before, it'll probably all come out in the wash at some point.

Thanks for enlightening me PB and BleedBlue.

 

[bleed.blue]

Ahhhh! The penny drops (pun intended). So they will have had something similar this time last year but ran the club using it and ended up back at roughly square one. Its the 'war chest' quote that's caused the confusion, I couldn't get my head around where all this extra money had come from. Can't remember where I came across the quote now, was probably just lazy journalism but I still have a sneaking suspicion Arsenal could be trying to mislead their fans.

Its still surprising though that they made so little profit considering they are supposed to have paid off all the big bills and sold most of the properties. But like I said before, it'll probably all come out in the wash at some point.

Thanks for enlightening me PB and BleedBlue.

That cash balance gives them the ability to buy a player. Like they would have paid 40 million for Ozil to Real Madrid. Hence the term war chest.
Their wages have increased drastically. Over the period 2008-2009 to 2012-2013, their footballing revenues have increased by 8% while the wages/salaries have increased by 49%.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

They actually make a loss on football activities. Any profits come from player and property sales.

 

[bleed.blue]

They actually make a loss on football activities. Any profits come from player and property sales.

That is true. Last year their profit from player sales was 47 million and net profit was 6 million, i.e. 41 million loss without player sales.
The year before that, profit from player sales was 65 million and net profit was 30 million, i.e. 35 million loss without player sales
and so on...

 

[more lazy than useless]

They actually make a loss on football activities. Any profits come from player and property sales.

That is true. Last year their profit from player sales was 47 million and net profit was 6 million, i.e. 41 million loss without player sales.
The year before that, profit from player sales was 65 million and net profit was 30 million, i.e. 35 million loss without player sales
and so on...

That would explain why football seems to be down their list of priorities, its getting in the way of making money ;)

More seriously though, I was under the impression that once they had the new stadium and had paid some bills they would be raking it in and back to being a force to reckon with, hence the 'doing it the proper way' remarks. What you're saying implies that they would be 'living beyond their means' (in modern parlance) if they don't sell players. As somebody would have pointed their hypocrisy out before now I must be getting something badly wrong?
Thanks in advance for putting up with what are probably basic questions that you probably thought everybody would understand. By the time I get all this straight there will be an article on Swiss Ramble and he'll explain it all at my level!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

They actually make a loss on football activities. Any profits come from player and property sales.

That is true. Last year their profit from player sales was 47 million and net profit was 6 million, i.e. 41 million loss without player sales.
The year before that, profit from player sales was 65 million and net profit was 30 million, i.e. 35 million loss without player sales
and so on...

That would explain why football seems to be down their list of priorities, its getting in the way of making money ;)

More seriously though, I was under the impression that once they had the new stadium and had paid some bills they would be raking it in and back to being a force to reckon with, hence the 'doing it the proper way' remarks. What you're saying implies that they would be 'living beyond their means' (in modern parlance) if they don't sell players!

Yep. That's about it.

 

[bleed.blue]

They actually make a loss on football activities. Any profits come from player and property sales.

That is true. Last year their profit from player sales was 47 million and net profit was 6 million, i.e. 41 million loss without player sales.
The year before that, profit from player sales was 65 million and net profit was 30 million, i.e. 35 million loss without player sales
and so on...

That would explain why football seems to be down their list of priorities, its getting in the way of making money ;)

More seriously though, I was under the impression that once they had the new stadium and had paid some bills they would be raking it in and back to being a force to reckon with, hence the 'doing it the proper way' remarks. What you're saying implies that they would be 'living beyond their means' (in modern parlance) if they don't sell players. As somebody would have pointed their hypocrisy out before now I must be getting something badly wrong?
Thanks in advance for putting up with what are probably basic questions that you probably thought everybody would understand. By the time I get all this straight there will be an article on Swiss Ramble and he'll explain it all at my level!

Well things are not THAT bad for them.
When they started their new stadium, they needed money upfront. They got into sponsorship deals with Emirates, Nike that gave them money upfront but well below market value (considering the club stature, league position etc)

Arsenal's hope is that now when they renew their sponsorships, contract money will increase. Ex: The Nike deal will increase from around 7 million per year to 30 million from 2014 season.

 

[afc16]

im not an accountant and don't know the ins and outs of all the figures but ill try my best.

also none of the following is a dig at the way city have done anything. its simply not the way i'd like to do it myself however i understand why city had to do it.

we wanted to increase our revenues so we could compete with the big boys (arsenal were and are one of the biggest clubs in the world but even now we are not on the same level as utd barca madrid bayern etc). we didn't want nor had a sugar daddy back in those days (10 years ago).

the key to becoming a bigger club and all the revenues that come with it was a new stadium.

to finance it, we did what any sensible person would do when taking out a mortgage for their house, which is to try and reduce the amount we needed to borrow by putting down as big a deposit as possible.

to do this we had to tie ourselves into long term deals that were far less lucrative, in order to get the money up-front. both nike and emirates paid us less money over the 8 year deal in return for giving us most of the money up front.

on the up-side it meant we had a smaller mortgage.

on the downside it meant we had to watch clubs like utd city liverpool chelsea agree lucrative deals while we had to sit here stuck with poor deals signed 8 years ago. while clubs like utd and city were making £25m a year just from shirt sponsorship, we were making less then £10m.

that is why the accounts for the last few years appear so poor.

those 8 year deals run out over the next year or so.

our new deals that are signed will be amongst the biggest in europe (puma apparently £30m a year, biggest in the league).

this is the point arsenal were waiting for - get through the 8 years where we knew we wouldn't have much money, try to stay in champions league to keep revenues as high as possible. then when those 8 years are done, (whilst it doesn't mean we wont have any debt) it does mean we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate new deals, which allows us to purchase players like ozil for £42m CASH.

what we have seen with ozil is something we'll regularly be able to do now and in the foreseeable future - purchase the top players even if they cost £40-£50m.

you only have to look at clubs like spurs and liverpool, who would give there right arm and leg to have a new stadium. they have tried and completely failed due to not only the complexity of it all but also the cost. and the fact that it would restrict them financially for a long time. we have managed to do that.

there isn't many clubs in england apart from maybe utd who wouldn't love to be able to do what we've done, but for one reason or another they can't.

 

[supercrystal7]

im not an accountant and don't know the ins and outs of all the figures but ill try my best.

also none of the following is a dig at the way city have done anything. its simply not the way i'd like to do it myself however i understand why city had to do it.

we wanted to increase our revenues so we could compete with the big boys (arsenal were and are one of the biggest clubs in the world but even now we are not on the same level as utd barca madrid bayern etc). we didn't want nor had a sugar daddy back in those days (10 years ago).

the key to becoming a bigger club and all the revenues that come with it was a new stadium.

to finance it, we did what any sensible person would do when taking out a mortgage for their house, which is to try and reduce the amount we needed to borrow by putting down as big a deposit as possible.

to do this we had to tie ourselves into long term deals that were far less lucrative, in order to get the money up-front. both nike and emirates paid us less money over the 8 year deal in return for giving us most of the money up front.

on the up-side it meant we had a smaller mortgage.

on the downside it meant we had to watch clubs like utd city liverpool chelsea agree lucrative deals while we had to sit here stuck with poor deals signed 8 years ago. while clubs like utd and city were making £25m a year just from shirt sponsorship, we were making less then £10m.

that is why the accounts for the last few years appear so poor.

those 8 year deals run out over the next year or so.

our new deals that are signed will be amongst the biggest in europe (puma apparently £30m a year, biggest in the league).

this is the point arsenal were waiting for - get through the 8 years where we knew we wouldn't have much money, try to stay in champions league to keep revenues as high as possible. then when those 8 years are done, (whilst it doesn't mean we wont have any debt) it does mean we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate new deals, which allows us to purchase players like ozil for £42m CASH.

what we have seen with ozil is something we'll regularly be able to do now and in the foreseeable future - purchase the top players even if they cost £40-£50m.

you only have to look at clubs like spurs and liverpool, who would give there right arm and leg to have a new stadium. they have tried and completely failed due to not only the complexity of it all but also the cost. and the fact that it would restrict them financially for a long time. we have managed to do that.

there isn't many clubs in england apart from maybe utd who wouldn't love to be able to do what we've done, but for one reason or another they can't.

I don't know the accounts, but it seems to me Arsene Wenger is far too good a manager to have been holding on to the purse strings and seeing the team struggle. I can well believe that spending was severely restricted whilst other things were being financed. The Ozil signal that Arsenal once more want to compete for the major trophies.

 

[more lazy than useless]

im not an accountant and don't know the ins and outs of all the figures but ill try my best.

also none of the following is a dig at the way city have done anything. its simply not the way i'd like to do it myself however i understand why city had to do it.

we wanted to increase our revenues so we could compete with the big boys (arsenal were and are one of the biggest clubs in the world but even now we are not on the same level as utd barca madrid bayern etc). we didn't want nor had a sugar daddy back in those days (10 years ago).

the key to becoming a bigger club and all the revenues that come with it was a new stadium.

to finance it, we did what any sensible person would do when taking out a mortgage for their house, which is to try and reduce the amount we needed to borrow by putting down as big a deposit as possible.

to do this we had to tie ourselves into long term deals that were far less lucrative, in order to get the money up-front. both nike and emirates paid us less money over the 8 year deal in return for giving us most of the money up front.

on the up-side it meant we had a smaller mortgage.

on the downside it meant we had to watch clubs like utd city liverpool chelsea agree lucrative deals while we had to sit here stuck with poor deals signed 8 years ago. while clubs like utd and city were making £25m a year just from shirt sponsorship, we were making less then £10m.

that is why the accounts for the last few years appear so poor.

those 8 year deals run out over the next year or so.

our new deals that are signed will be amongst the biggest in europe (puma apparently £30m a year, biggest in the league).

this is the point arsenal were waiting for - get through the 8 years where we knew we wouldn't have much money, try to stay in champions league to keep revenues as high as possible. then when those 8 years are done, (whilst it doesn't mean we wont have any debt) it does mean we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate new deals, which allows us to purchase players like ozil for £42m CASH.

what we have seen with ozil is something we'll regularly be able to do now and in the foreseeable future - purchase the top players even if they cost £40-£50m.

you only have to look at clubs like spurs and liverpool, who would give there right arm and leg to have a new stadium. they have tried and completely failed due to not only the complexity of it all but also the cost. and the fact that it would restrict them financially for a long time. we have managed to do that.

there isn't many clubs in england apart from maybe utd who wouldn't love to be able to do what we've done, but for one reason or another they can't.

Thanks for that. I understood the idea behind the Arsenal plan - finance the stadium and it will finance the rest - and it was no doubt the right thing for Arsenal to do in the circumstances imo, but I think you might be being a little harsh on your club about the sponsorship deals. They did tie themselves into long up front deals (and almost came unstuck the last couple of seasons by the look of it, having to sell players/players wanting to leave) but I don't think anybody could have foreseen how the value of those deals would go through the roof over the same period. Just unfortunate timing. Definitely other clubs would love to be able to do what Arsenal have done, but not being in the CL is a major reason they cant. Not having the large stadium incomes is part of the reason they can't make CL. Catch 22!

For some reason though I thought Arsenal had paid off all the big debts and now had the big income, so I was surprised at the financial figures. Its probably that I don't keep close tabs on this stuff and as it's spread out over years I loose the time perspective (eg these 'new' figures cover 4 months ago to 16 months ago - new deals kick in soon for next few years).

 

[afc16]

im not an accountant and don't know the ins and outs of all the figures but ill try my best.

also none of the following is a dig at the way city have done anything. its simply not the way i'd like to do it myself however i understand why city had to do it.

we wanted to increase our revenues so we could compete with the big boys (arsenal were and are one of the biggest clubs in the world but even now we are not on the same level as utd barca madrid bayern etc). we didn't want nor had a sugar daddy back in those days (10 years ago).

the key to becoming a bigger club and all the revenues that come with it was a new stadium.

to finance it, we did what any sensible person would do when taking out a mortgage for their house, which is to try and reduce the amount we needed to borrow by putting down as big a deposit as possible.

to do this we had to tie ourselves into long term deals that were far less lucrative, in order to get the money up-front. both nike and emirates paid us less money over the 8 year deal in return for giving us most of the money up front.

on the up-side it meant we had a smaller mortgage.

on the downside it meant we had to watch clubs like utd city liverpool chelsea agree lucrative deals while we had to sit here stuck with poor deals signed 8 years ago. while clubs like utd and city were making £25m a year just from shirt sponsorship, we were making less then £10m.

that is why the accounts for the last few years appear so poor.

those 8 year deals run out over the next year or so.

our new deals that are signed will be amongst the biggest in europe (puma apparently £30m a year, biggest in the league).

this is the point arsenal were waiting for - get through the 8 years where we knew we wouldn't have much money, try to stay in champions league to keep revenues as high as possible. then when those 8 years are done, (whilst it doesn't mean we wont have any debt) it does mean we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate new deals, which allows us to purchase players like ozil for £42m CASH.

what we have seen with ozil is something we'll regularly be able to do now and in the foreseeable future - purchase the top players even if they cost £40-£50m.

you only have to look at clubs like spurs and liverpool, who would give there right arm and leg to have a new stadium. they have tried and completely failed due to not only the complexity of it all but also the cost. and the fact that it would restrict them financially for a long time. we have managed to do that.

there isn't many clubs in england apart from maybe utd who wouldn't love to be able to do what we've done, but for one reason or another they can't.

Thanks for that. I understood the idea behind the Arsenal plan - finance the stadium and it will finance the rest - and it was no doubt the right thing for Arsenal to do in the circumstances imo, but I think you might be being a little harsh on your club about the sponsorship deals. They did tie themselves into long up front deals (and almost came unstuck the last couple of seasons by the look of it, having to sell players/players wanting to leave) but I don't think anybody could have foreseen how the value of those deals would go through the roof over the same period. Just unfortunate timing. Definitely other clubs would love to be able to do what Arsenal have done, but not being in the CL is a major reason they cant. Not having the large stadium incomes is part of the reason they can't make CL. Catch 22!

For some reason though I thought Arsenal had paid off all the big debts and now had the big income, so I was surprised at the financial figures. Its probably that I don't keep close tabs on this stuff and as it's spread out over years I loose the time perspective (eg these 'new' figures cover 4 months ago to 16 months ago - new deals kick in soon for next few years).

reading it back maybe it sounded harsh.

when i said about the poor deals i meant in more recent years.

when we signed the deals 8/9 years ago they weren't especially poor, maybe slightly below market rate.

as you correctly say, there was no way at the time for arsenal to predict the money that would suddenly get pumped into the game.

so because of that, the tail end of those deals were poor compared to the rest of the market - however i didn't mean to sound like i blamed arsenal at all for that.

its also the reason why we lost players, media question it as if we wanted to lose those players. it was a combination of the players wanting to go and us needing to sell.

we are close to paying off the debt. at the moment a small portion of it is still there + our commercial revenues coming into the club are from the old deals.

the combination of our new deals kicking in (next season i think) and the continued reduction of our debt will see our turnover go through the roof, far eclipsing anyone else in the premier league apart from utd.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

im not an accountant and don't know the ins and outs of all the figures but ill try my best.

also none of the following is a dig at the way city have done anything. its simply not the way i'd like to do it myself however i understand why city had to do it.

we wanted to increase our revenues so we could compete with the big boys (arsenal were and are one of the biggest clubs in the world but even now we are not on the same level as utd barca madrid bayern etc). we didn't want nor had a sugar daddy back in those days (10 years ago).

the key to becoming a bigger club and all the revenues that come with it was a new stadium.

to finance it, we did what any sensible person would do when taking out a mortgage for their house, which is to try and reduce the amount we needed to borrow by putting down as big a deposit as possible.

to do this we had to tie ourselves into long term deals that were far less lucrative, in order to get the money up-front. both nike and emirates paid us less money over the 8 year deal in return for giving us most of the money up front.

on the up-side it meant we had a smaller mortgage.

on the downside it meant we had to watch clubs like utd city liverpool chelsea agree lucrative deals while we had to sit here stuck with poor deals signed 8 years ago. while clubs like utd and city were making £25m a year just from shirt sponsorship, we were making less then £10m.

that is why the accounts for the last few years appear so poor.

those 8 year deals run out over the next year or so.

our new deals that are signed will be amongst the biggest in europe (puma apparently £30m a year, biggest in the league).

this is the point arsenal were waiting for - get through the 8 years where we knew we wouldn't have much money, try to stay in champions league to keep revenues as high as possible. then when those 8 years are done, (whilst it doesn't mean we wont have any debt) it does mean we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate new deals, which allows us to purchase players like ozil for £42m CASH.

what we have seen with ozil is something we'll regularly be able to do now and in the foreseeable future - purchase the top players even if they cost £40-£50m.

you only have to look at clubs like spurs and liverpool, who would give there right arm and leg to have a new stadium. they have tried and completely failed due to not only the complexity of it all but also the cost. and the fact that it would restrict them financially for a long time. we have managed to do that.

there isn't many clubs in england apart from maybe utd who wouldn't love to be able to do what we've done, but for one reason or another they can't.

Thanks for that. I understood the idea behind the Arsenal plan - finance the stadium and it will finance the rest - and it was no doubt the right thing for Arsenal to do in the circumstances imo, but I think you might be being a little harsh on your club about the sponsorship deals. They did tie themselves into long up front deals (and almost came unstuck the last couple of seasons by the look of it, having to sell players/players wanting to leave) but I don't think anybody could have foreseen how the value of those deals would go through the roof over the same period. Just unfortunate timing. Definitely other clubs would love to be able to do what Arsenal have done, but not being in the CL is a major reason they cant. Not having the large stadium incomes is part of the reason they can't make CL. Catch 22!

For some reason though I thought Arsenal had paid off all the big debts and now had the big income, so I was surprised at the financial figures. Its probably that I don't keep close tabs on this stuff and as it's spread out over years I loose the time perspective (eg these 'new' figures cover 4 months ago to 16 months ago - new deals kick in soon for next few years).

reading it back maybe it sounded harsh.

when i said about the poor deals i meant in more recent years.

when we signed the deals 8/9 years ago they weren't especially poor, maybe slightly below market rate.

as you correctly say, there was no way at the time for arsenal to predict the money that would suddenly get pumped into the game.

so because of that, the tail end of those deals were poor compared to the rest of the market - however i didn't mean to sound like i blamed arsenal at all for that.

its also the reason why we lost players, media question it as if we wanted to lose those players. it was a combination of the players wanting to go and us needing to sell.

we are close to paying off the debt. at the moment a small portion of it is still there + our commercial revenues coming into the club are from the old deals.

the combination of our new deals kicking in (next season i think) and the continued reduction of our debt will see our turnover go through the roof, far eclipsing anyone else in the premier league apart from utd.

I still believe you could have a) done more to keep your best players and b) bought those 2 or 3 you needed to turn you into a team that would have dominated English football.

I think you've been run by businessmen without an ounce of footballing nous and Wenger hasn't delivered the bargains he used to and they've still been out there, which shows me your scouting hasn't been up to the scratch it was 10 years ago and other clubs have eclipsed you.

That all means that I think we'll be able to stay ahead of you because I think we're better run and I think our turnover will eclipse anyone else's in this league in the not too distant future.

 

[afc16]

Thanks for that. I understood the idea behind the Arsenal plan - finance the stadium and it will finance the rest - and it was no doubt the right thing for Arsenal to do in the circumstances imo, but I think you might be being a little harsh on your club about the sponsorship deals. They did tie themselves into long up front deals (and almost came unstuck the last couple of seasons by the look of it, having to sell players/players wanting to leave) but I don't think anybody could have foreseen how the value of those deals would go through the roof over the same period. Just unfortunate timing. Definitely other clubs would love to be able to do what Arsenal have done, but not being in the CL is a major reason they cant. Not having the large stadium incomes is part of the reason they can't make CL. Catch 22!

For some reason though I thought Arsenal had paid off all the big debts and now had the big income, so I was surprised at the financial figures. Its probably that I don't keep close tabs on this stuff and as it's spread out over years I loose the time perspective (eg these 'new' figures cover 4 months ago to 16 months ago - new deals kick in soon for next few years).

reading it back maybe it sounded harsh.

when i said about the poor deals i meant in more recent years.

when we signed the deals 8/9 years ago they weren't especially poor, maybe slightly below market rate.

as you correctly say, there was no way at the time for arsenal to predict the money that would suddenly get pumped into the game.

so because of that, the tail end of those deals were poor compared to the rest of the market - however i didn't mean to sound like i blamed arsenal at all for that.

its also the reason why we lost players, media question it as if we wanted to lose those players. it was a combination of the players wanting to go and us needing to sell.

we are close to paying off the debt. at the moment a small portion of it is still there + our commercial revenues coming into the club are from the old deals.

the combination of our new deals kicking in (next season i think) and the continued reduction of our debt will see our turnover go through the roof, far eclipsing anyone else in the premier league apart from utd.

I still believe you could have a) done more to keep your best players and b) bought those 2 or 3 you needed to turn you into a team that would have dominated English football.

I think you've been run by businessmen without an ounce of footballing nous and Wenger hasn't delivered the bargains he used to and they've still been out there, which shows me your scouting hasn't been up to the scratch it was 10 years ago and other clubs have eclipsed you.

That all means that I think we'll be able to stay ahead of you because I think we're better run and I think our turnover will eclipse anyone else's in this league in the not too distant future.

i agree with point b.

at one point, around 07/08, we had the makings of a top team, possibly playing some of the best football in europe with fabregas/hleb/flamini/rosicky at their best, eduardo and adebyor up front etc. if we'd added a few top players to that team we maybe could have dominated.

as for our scouting, i think its more a case that other teams have caught up and improved their own networks. we've also changed our focus a bit in the last 5 years where we've gone for slightly more known and experienced players rather then the young unknown gems that we used to go for.

as far as city being bigger then arsenal - think you'll be waiting a while for that. and thats not being biased or talking as an arsenal fan.

it takes a lot more then a successful couple of years.

arsenal have got a massive head-start on city, worldwide city are not on the same level as arsenal in terms of size/fanbase/global appeal.

that might change if we carry on being unsuccessful for the next 20 years and you do the opposite, but both those things together are unlikely.

the friendly game in the helsinki was a perfect example. it was in a foreign country, most of the fans that came to watch were locals, and it looked like a home game for arsenal due to the amount of arsenal shirts.

look at liverpool - a long time since they've been properly successful but their global appeal and fanbase is still slightly bigger then ours, due to their long periods of success in the past.

and don't forget that as we're ahead of you already, it will only take small successes on the field for us to move much further into the distance.

as for being better run, again very arguable. which part do you believe city are better run?

its crazy to think city will eclipse everyones turnover in the not distant future.

over the last 15 years both chelsea and arsenal have been much more successful then you, chelsea have been continually successful for almost 10 years. they are still well over £100m a year short of man utd.

you'd have to be on bayern/madrid/barca level to compete with utd on turnover. and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. you would need a long continued period of domination to reach that level. and the league is too strong and competitive for any 1 team to do that now like arsenal and utd did before.

and before you even get to utd, you've got us and chelsea. your already behind us, and unless both us and chelsea stand still for the next 5-10 years (which isn't likely), you will struggle to even reach us let alone overtake us.

 

[LoveCity]

its crazy to think city will eclipse everyones turnover in the not distant future.

City's legacy has barely begun, yet look at the turnover in the last Deloitte Football Money League list:

1. Real Madrid: 513m euros
2. Barcelona: 483m euros
3. Man Utd: 396m euros
4. Bayern Munich: 368m euros
5. Chelsea: 323m euros
6. Arsenal: 290m euros
7. Manchester City: 286m euros
8. AC Milan: 257m euros
9. Liverpool: 233m euros
10. Juventus: 195m euros

Keep in mind that was after City bombed out of the Champions League group stage the year covered there. And keep in mind that City have a small % of the bandwagon foreign fans the "Sky 4" teams do. City are still a long way away from maximizing revenue potential. Soriano and Glick are bringing in new sources of revenue every month. Only United seem to announce more commercial tie-ups these days.

 

[ROCKET80]

im not an accountant and don't know the ins and outs of all the figures but ill try my best.

also none of the following is a dig at the way city have done anything. its simply not the way i'd like to do it myself however i understand why city had to do it.
we wanted to increase our revenues so we could compete with the big boys (arsenal were and are one of the biggest clubs in the world but even now we are not on the same level as utd barca madrid bayern etc). we didn't want nor had a sugar daddy back in those days (10 years ago).

the key to becoming a bigger club and all the revenues that come with it was a new stadium.

to finance it, we did what any sensible person would do when taking out a mortgage for their house, which is to try and reduce the amount we needed to borrow by putting down as big a deposit as possible.

to do this we had to tie ourselves into long term deals that were far less lucrative, in order to get the money up-front. both nike and emirates paid us less money over the 8 year deal in return for giving us most of the money up front.

on the up-side it meant we had a smaller mortgage.

on the downside it meant we had to watch clubs like utd city liverpool chelsea agree lucrative deals while we had to sit here stuck with poor deals signed 8 years ago. while clubs like utd and city were making £25m a year just from shirt sponsorship, we were making less then £10m.

that is why the accounts for the last few years appear so poor.

those 8 year deals run out over the next year or so.

our new deals that are signed will be amongst the biggest in europe (puma apparently £30m a year, biggest in the league).

this is the point arsenal were waiting for - get through the 8 years where we knew we wouldn't have much money, try to stay in champions league to keep revenues as high as possible. then when those 8 years are done, (whilst it doesn't mean we wont have any debt) it does mean we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate new deals, which allows us to purchase players like ozil for £42m CASH.

what we have seen with ozil is something we'll regularly be able to do now and in the foreseeable future - purchase the top players even if they cost £40-£50m.

you only have to look at clubs like spurs and liverpool, who would give there right arm and leg to have a new stadium. they have tried and completely failed due to not only the complexity of it all but also the cost. and the fact that it would restrict them financially for a long time. we have managed to do that.

there isn't many clubs in england apart from maybe utd who wouldn't love to be able to do what we've done, but for one reason or another they can't.

I understand you're not having a dig at City with this post afc16 howver it's only half the story.

I'm sure you were not of this opinion when Arsenal were spending big on transfer fees and wages in the late 90's early 00's in order to catch up with United and challenge for the title and in Europe. I also refer you to Prestwich_Blue’s post on page 51 as to the conduct of your club to ensure you made more money than the rest.........I for one (see what I did there) much prefer the City way than the snide bullying coupled with ironic protestations over spending Arsenal way.

 

[NoahCity]

Can't believe this but it looks like it will be Arsenal's title this year.

 

[LoveCity]

Can't believe this but it looks like it will be Arsenal's title this year.

Chelsea had won every game except one against us by October in the 2010/2011 season and ended up joint on points with us well behind United. Maybe Arsenal will continue like this but personally I think they will drop off some.

 

[MSP]

8 away wins in a row, Pellegrini should ring Wenger tomorrow..

It's early still but they look very good, best and most balanced by mile so far.