Arsenal Thread 2013/14

[CityFan94]

I think Arsenal missing out on the Champion's League this season is exactly what they need.

They need that kick up the backside, they've just been coasting the last few seasons.

Missing out on the Champion's League will force them into signings.

Arsenal will be as dangerous as Chelsea next season if (big if) they can get a top centre forward in the summer.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

E

You failed to answer my question though. You presumably would prefer no regulation and clubs could spend as much and as recklessly as they like?

Maybe we should impose a salary cap instead?

PS I finally get why there is so much anti Arsenal feeling on here, fuelled largely by this gang of 4 letter which I hadn't previously been aware off

I'll give you my answer. I'd be happy with a level playing field, on the lines of the NFL. Revenues shared and caps on wages, with some management of transfer spending, again perhaps an overall cap of some sort. Then we wouldn't need wealthy owners as the only mechanism for introducing some element of competition.

There was a relatively level playing field up to the 1980/81 season when Villa won the league. But then your club, together with the rags, Liverpool, Everton & Spurs, threatened to form a breakaway league unless the arrangement whereby gate receipts (the major source of income at the time) were shared 75/25 between the home and away club was stopped. They wanted to keep 100%.

And since then, 4 of those 5 teams have won the title 26 times in 32 seasons. (Didn't really work out for Spurs, no doubt to your great delight.) Only Leeds won it, in 1991/92, without huge external investment.

And then, when you were faltering a bit in the early 1990's, pre-Wenger, Danny Fiszman pumped in £50m,which was worth the equivalent of 10 times that in today's transfer values. That enabled you to treble Tony Adams' contract to fend off interest from the rags and funded the buying spree that bought Bergkamp, Platt, Petit, Overmars,, Vieira etc.

And that bought (not brought) you success and you got your extra revenue from the CL which enabled you to stay in the top 4 though without achieving very much recently.

Why we "hate" Arsenal is because you keep telling us we've bought success and you've done it "the right way".

If you want that level playing field then I'll take it. But we'll have some of that match day revenue. And the kit deal.

 

[WickyWain]

I think Arsenal missing out on the Champion's League this season is exactly what they need.

They need that kick up the backside, they've just been coasting the last few seasons.

Missing out on the Champion's League will force them into signings.

Arsenal will be as dangerous as Chelsea next season if (big if) they can get a top centre forward in the summer.

Better for us as well as it gives us less chance of being drawn in the same group as Bayern, Real and Barca.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

E

You failed to answer my question though. You presumably would prefer no regulation and clubs could spend as much and as recklessly as they like?

Maybe we should impose a salary cap instead?

PS I finally get why there is so much anti Arsenal feeling on here, fuelled largely by this gang of 4 letter which I hadn't previously been aware off

I'll give you my answer. I'd be happy with a level playing field, on the lines of the NFL. Revenues shared and caps on wages, with some management of transfer spending, again perhaps an overall cap of some sort. Then we wouldn't need wealthy owners as the only mechanism for introducing some element of competition.

There was a relatively level playing field up to the 1980/81 season when Villa won the league. But then your club, together with the rags, Liverpool, Everton & Spurs, threatened to form a breakaway league unless the arrangement whereby gate receipts (the major source of income at the time) were shared 75/25 between the home and away club was stopped. They wanted to keep 100%.

And since then, 4 of those 5 teams have won the title 26 times in 32 seasons. (Didn't really work out for Spurs, no doubt to your great delight.) Only Leeds won it, in 1991/92, without huge external investment.

And then, when you were faltering a bit in the early 1990's, pre-Wenger, Danny Fiszman pumped in £50m,which was worth the equivalent of 10 times that in today's transfer values. That enabled you to treble Tony Adams' contract to fend off interest from the rags and funded the buying spree that bought Bergkamp, Platt, Petit, Overlays,, Vieira etc.

And that bought (not brought) you success and you got your extra revenue from the CL which enabled you to stay in the top 4 though without achieving very much recently.

Why we "hate" Arsenal is because you keep telling us we've bought success and you've done it "the right way".

If you want that level playing field then I'll take it. But we'll have some of that match day revenue. And the kit deal.

 

[Gillespie]

A new 'Manchester City' wouldn't bother me in the slightest, more competition = a better product, surely even you can understand that?

Why should other clubs be denied a chance at winning something, competing for the title, winning cups, going into the Champions League, just because they are not a 'big club' or part of the 'established elite', the so-called 'top four'?

That's arrogant, conceited and selfish. The ONLY reason those four clubs rallied together, was to stop other clubs usurping them.

Well fuck you Arsenal, yoonited, spuds and whoever else, we got in, just in time.

I agree that more competition is good and I see that for some clubs the only way they can break into the top order is with a billionaire behind them willing to spend hugely. But what happens when that owner tires of his new toy or dies and those who inherit the club lack interest? Without some kind of sustainability, the club is bust living beyond its means. FFP was meant to prevent the high scale failures of recent years too.

Any system has its flaws but balancing the need to prevent future high scale failures against allowing other clubs sufficient spending to allow them to compete at the top level was always going to be a difficult ask.

You failed to answer my question though. You presumably would prefer no regulation and clubs could spend as much and as recklessly as they like?

Maybe we should impose a salary cap instead?

PS I finally get why there is so much anti Arsenal feeling on here, fuelled largely by this gang of 4 letter which I hadn't previously been aware off

Ah! There it is - the old chestnut " what happens when rich owner gets bored" This demonstrates the naivety and ignorance who pronounce on a subject about which they know little .
Sheikh Mansour is one of the shrewdest businessmen on the planet - he employs some of the other shrewdest businessmen on the planet- he has a huge , successful empire worldwide. The stupid implication that he will invest billions in a football club , its future development and its environment, and then " get bored and walk away " is breathtaking in its ignorance and simple naïveté ( not to mention insulting)
Perhaps , by the way , you could give us an example of a " high scale failure" which has resulted from the behaviour you describe?
There's another favourite " spending recklessly" or " throwing money at it" - two of the favourite expressions we hear.
If there is a lot of money spent it's "reckless " never " invested shrewdly" there are no headlines in that.
How can it be " reckless " if it can be shown - and I think we can safely say it can - that an owner can afford it and can pay all the clubs debts ( which he has).
Of course there can be regulations but they have to be aimed at the right targets - these aren't . There are going to be changes made and it could get messy.

You've taken my argument personally as if I'm aiming it at City, per se. I'm not. City have already acceded to the top order no doubt down to the shrewd financial husbandry of that paragon of financial acumen, Sheik Mansour, though owning oil fields pumping out revenue of £500m per day probably helps. Undoubtedly, City have invested well and accumulated the leagues best squad of players. City always had the potential having a big fan base meaning that the investment would likely lead in the long run to greater sustainability. Not all clubs have that because their fan base and appeal are limited. For those clubs, they can go whistle because no billionaire in their right mind would find that an attractive proposition.

My argument was based upon the initial purpose inter alia of FFP to prevent over leveraged clubs going bust. As for examples, how about Leeds United, Pompey, Glasgow Rangers?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I agree that more competition is good and I see that for some clubs the only way they can break into the top order is with a billionaire behind them willing to spend hugely. But what happens when that owner tires of his new toy or dies and those who inherit the club lack interest? Without some kind of sustainability, the club is bust living beyond its means. FFP was meant to prevent the high scale failures of recent years too.

Any system has its flaws but balancing the need to prevent future high scale failures against allowing other clubs sufficient spending to allow them to compete at the top level was always going to be a difficult ask.

You failed to answer my question though. You presumably would prefer no regulation and clubs could spend as much and as recklessly as they like?

Maybe we should impose a salary cap instead?

PS I finally get why there is so much anti Arsenal feeling on here, fuelled largely by this gang of 4 letter which I hadn't previously been aware off

Ah! There it is - the old chestnut " what happens when rich owner gets bored" This demonstrates the naivety and ignorance who pronounce on a subject about which they know little .
Sheikh Mansour is one of the shrewdest businessmen on the planet - he employs some of the other shrewdest businessmen on the planet- he has a huge , successful empire worldwide. The stupid implication that he will invest billions in a football club , its future development and its environment, and then " get bored and walk away " is breathtaking in its ignorance and simple naïveté ( not to mention insulting)
Perhaps , by the way , you could give us an example of a " high scale failure" which has resulted from the behaviour you describe?
There's another favourite " spending recklessly" or " throwing money at it" - two of the favourite expressions we hear.
If there is a lot of money spent it's "reckless " never " invested shrewdly" there are no headlines in that.
How can it be " reckless " if it can be shown - and I think we can safely say it can - that an owner can afford it and can pay all the clubs debts ( which he has).
Of course there can be regulations but they have to be aimed at the right targets - these aren't . There are going to be changes made and it could get messy.

You've taken my argument personally as if I'm aiming it at City, per se. I'm not. City have already acceded to the top order no doubt down to the shrewd financial husbandry of that paragon of financial acumen, Sheik Mansour, though owning oil fields pumping out revenue of £500m per day probably helps. Undoubtedly, City have invested well and accumulated the leagues best squad of players. City always had the potential having a big fan base meaning that the investment would likely lead in the long run to greater sustainability. Not all clubs have that because their fan base and appeal are limited. For those clubs, they can go whistle because no billionaire in their right mind would find that an attractive proposition.

My argument was based upon the initial purpose inter alia of FFP to prevent over leveraged clubs going bust. As for examples, how about Leeds United, Pompey, Glasgow Rangers?

You say we are taking it personally and then post what you just did
Are you some sort of fucking moron
Just to help you out as well FFP wouldn't of saved Leeds or Rangers or even Pompey. In fact its not even fucking designed to save anyone

 

[supercity88]

I agree that more competition is good and I see that for some clubs the only way they can break into the top order is with a billionaire behind them willing to spend hugely. But what happens when that owner tires of his new toy or dies and those who inherit the club lack interest? Without some kind of sustainability, the club is bust living beyond its means. FFP was meant to prevent the high scale failures of recent years too.

Any system has its flaws but balancing the need to prevent future high scale failures against allowing other clubs sufficient spending to allow them to compete at the top level was always going to be a difficult ask.

You failed to answer my question though. You presumably would prefer no regulation and clubs could spend as much and as recklessly as they like?

Maybe we should impose a salary cap instead?

PS I finally get why there is so much anti Arsenal feeling on here, fuelled largely by this gang of 4 letter which I hadn't previously been aware off

Ah! There it is - the old chestnut " what happens when rich owner gets bored" This demonstrates the naivety and ignorance who pronounce on a subject about which they know little .
Sheikh Mansour is one of the shrewdest businessmen on the planet - he employs some of the other shrewdest businessmen on the planet- he has a huge , successful empire worldwide. The stupid implication that he will invest billions in a football club , its future development and its environment, and then " get bored and walk away " is breathtaking in its ignorance and simple naïveté ( not to mention insulting)
Perhaps , by the way , you could give us an example of a " high scale failure" which has resulted from the behaviour you describe?
There's another favourite " spending recklessly" or " throwing money at it" - two of the favourite expressions we hear.
If there is a lot of money spent it's "reckless " never " invested shrewdly" there are no headlines in that.
How can it be " reckless " if it can be shown - and I think we can safely say it can - that an owner can afford it and can pay all the clubs debts ( which he has).
Of course there can be regulations but they have to be aimed at the right targets - these aren't . There are going to be changes made and it could get messy.

You've taken my argument personally as if I'm aiming it at City, per se. I'm not. City have already acceded to the top order no doubt down to the shrewd financial husbandry of that paragon of financial acumen, Sheik Mansour, though owning oil fields pumping out revenue of £500m per day probably helps. Undoubtedly, City have invested well and accumulated the leagues best squad of players. City always had the potential having a big fan base meaning that the investment would likely lead in the long run to greater sustainability. Not all clubs have that because their fan base and appeal are limited. For those clubs, they can go whistle because no billionaire in their right mind would find that an attractive proposition.

My argument was based upon the initial purpose inter alia of FFP to prevent over leveraged clubs going bust. As for examples, how about Leeds United, Pompey, Glasgow Rangers?

Would you give up your gate receipts? Your match day revenue? An even playing field means just that. When things transferred to the home side taking 100% of revenue then certain clubs pushed on. With that and their success came more and more money with increased media interest and marketing opportunities. It has enable Arsenal to build a new stadium and make even more money. For every other club there has been a huge gulf created and it has been impossible to catch up without getting that huge investment to bring things level. Whilst Arsenal have done things more sustainably to pay for the stadium and use matchday revenues etc they still are only where they are because that shift in gate receipts meant so much for them. I don't mind Arsenal until they start to play the whole "we did things properly" bollocks. Foreign manager, lots of foreign players, best academy players bought from rival clubs... not exemplary by any means. Everton are a club that have tried to do things the right way and that has done them fuck all good.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I agree that more competition is good and I see that for some clubs the only way they can break into the top order is with a billionaire behind them willing to spend hugely. But what happens when that owner tires of his new toy or dies and those who inherit the club lack interest? Without some kind of sustainability, the club is bust living beyond its means. FFP was meant to prevent the high scale failures of recent years too.

Any system has its flaws but balancing the need to prevent future high scale failures against allowing other clubs sufficient spending to allow them to compete at the top level was always going to be a difficult ask.

You failed to answer my question though. You presumably would prefer no regulation and clubs could spend as much and as recklessly as they like?

Maybe we should impose a salary cap instead?

PS I finally get why there is so much anti Arsenal feeling on here, fuelled largely by this gang of 4 letter which I hadn't previously been aware off

Ah! There it is - the old chestnut " what happens when rich owner gets bored" This demonstrates the naivety and ignorance who pronounce on a subject about which they know little .
Sheikh Mansour is one of the shrewdest businessmen on the planet - he employs some of the other shrewdest businessmen on the planet- he has a huge , successful empire worldwide. The stupid implication that he will invest billions in a football club , its future development and its environment, and then " get bored and walk away " is breathtaking in its ignorance and simple naïveté ( not to mention insulting)
Perhaps , by the way , you could give us an example of a " high scale failure" which has resulted from the behaviour you describe?
There's another favourite " spending recklessly" or " throwing money at it" - two of the favourite expressions we hear.
If there is a lot of money spent it's "reckless " never " invested shrewdly" there are no headlines in that.
How can it be " reckless " if it can be shown - and I think we can safely say it can - that an owner can afford it and can pay all the clubs debts ( which he has).
Of course there can be regulations but they have to be aimed at the right targets - these aren't . There are going to be changes made and it could get messy.

You've taken my argument personally as if I'm aiming it at City, per se. I'm not. City have already acceded to the top order no doubt down to the shrewd financial husbandry of that paragon of financial acumen, Sheik Mansour, though owning oil fields pumping out revenue of £500m per day probably helps. Undoubtedly, City have invested well and accumulated the leagues best squad of players. City always had the potential having a big fan base meaning that the investment would likely lead in the long run to greater sustainability. Not all clubs have that because their fan base and appeal are limited. For those clubs, they can go whistle because no billionaire in their right mind would find that an attractive proposition.

My argument was based upon the initial purpose inter alia of FFP to prevent over leveraged clubs going bust. As for examples, how about Leeds United, Pompey, Glasgow Rangers?

We'll then we agree.
FFP should indeed be aimed at leveraged buy outs , and the clubs as well as Uefa should concentrate more on verifying the bona fides of prospective buyers and ensure they actually have the wherewithal to actually run the club and that they are not just asset strippers like the above.
Yet the first victims of this misplaced , ill- conceived poorly aimed ( except for those who guided the aiming hand) is one of the finest benefactors ( yes I am biased) that has ever pitched up on these shores, instead of the people who remove huge quantities of money from the game .
Little barb about sheikh Mansour's " financial acumen " - well at least we know where his wealth emanates from - no secrets there - which is more than we know about the wealth accumulation of some owners and shareholders .
By the way , how much is your next season ticket price going up by?

 

[Gillespie]

Ah! There it is - the old chestnut " what happens when rich owner gets bored" This demonstrates the naivety and ignorance who pronounce on a subject about which they know little .
Sheikh Mansour is one of the shrewdest businessmen on the planet - he employs some of the other shrewdest businessmen on the planet- he has a huge , successful empire worldwide. The stupid implication that he will invest billions in a football club , its future development and its environment, and then " get bored and walk away " is breathtaking in its ignorance and simple naïveté ( not to mention insulting)
Perhaps , by the way , you could give us an example of a " high scale failure" which has resulted from the behaviour you describe?
There's another favourite " spending recklessly" or " throwing money at it" - two of the favourite expressions we hear.
If there is a lot of money spent it's "reckless " never " invested shrewdly" there are no headlines in that.
How can it be " reckless " if it can be shown - and I think we can safely say it can - that an owner can afford it and can pay all the clubs debts ( which he has).
Of course there can be regulations but they have to be aimed at the right targets - these aren't . There are going to be changes made and it could get messy.

You've taken my argument personally as if I'm aiming it at City, per se. I'm not. City have already acceded to the top order no doubt down to the shrewd financial husbandry of that paragon of financial acumen, Sheik Mansour, though owning oil fields pumping out revenue of £500m per day probably helps. Undoubtedly, City have invested well and accumulated the leagues best squad of players. City always had the potential having a big fan base meaning that the investment would likely lead in the long run to greater sustainability. Not all clubs have that because their fan base and appeal are limited. For those clubs, they can go whistle because no billionaire in their right mind would find that an attractive proposition.

My argument was based upon the initial purpose inter alia of FFP to prevent over leveraged clubs going bust. As for examples, how about Leeds United, Pompey, Glasgow Rangers?

We'll then we agree.
FFP should indeed be aimed at leveraged buy outs , and the clubs as well as Uefa should concentrate more on verifying the bona fides of prospective buyers and ensure they actually have the wherewithal to actually run the club and that they are not just asset strippers like the above.
Yet the first victims of this misplaced , ill- conceived poorly aimed ( except for those who guided the aiming hand) is one of the finest benefactors ( yes I am biased) that has ever pitched up on these shores, instead of the people who remove huge quantities of money from the game .
Little barb about sheikh Mansour's " financial acumen " - well at least we know where his wealth emanates from - no secrets there - which is more than we know about the wealth accumulation of some owners and shareholders .
By the way , how much is your next season ticket price going up by?

In another thread, an article in the Telegraph was referred to which sensibly drew a distinction between good and bad owners. I think we agree on that, though given recent events at Leeds Utd does not fill me with confidence at least insofar as the FA are concerned.

As for where wealth is derived, I wonder how legitimate Russian oligarch wealth really is?

As for my season ticket which us currently £1,100pa, I expect it to go down if we fail to get top 4 otherwise it will likely cost me £1,200 and as I'm also on the away ticket scheme, I spend over £1,500 already not to mention travel costs, overnights etc. If the only way we can attempt to compete with City and Chelsea is by hiking ticket costs, well we are buggered.

 

[Bilboblue]

Am I to assume that you would prefer no limits on spending at all?

I don't moan about City's wealth because as I said before that would be an exercise in futility.

You may not like FFP, you may not feel it is fair because you see it as a tool to reinforce the dominance of the old order but the fact is, the rules are here and all clubs will need to abide by them. Anyway, you have now established yourself as part if the top order, so ironically what you now rail against might in future be to your benefit.

Complaining about FFP is as futile as my complaining about not being able to compete with you guys in the transfer market.

I take a pragmatic view. I waste no time debating the rights and wrongs of FFP because it's here and it's likely here to stay.

Anyway, please do us a favour and spank Everton when you play them. It would be nice of you to help our top 4 cause ;^)

A new 'Manchester City' wouldn't bother me in the slightest, more competition = a better product, surely even you can understand that?

Why should other clubs be denied a chance at winning something, competing for the title, winning cups, going into the Champions League, just because they are not a 'big club' or part of the 'established elite', the so-called 'top four'?

That's arrogant, conceited and selfish. The ONLY reason those four clubs rallied together, was to stop other clubs usurping them.

Well fuck you Arsenal, yoonited, spuds and whoever else, we got in, just in time.

I agree that more competition is good and I see that for some clubs the only way they can break into the top order is with a billionaire behind them willing to spend hugely. But what happens when that owner tires of his new toy or dies and those who inherit the club lack interest? Without some kind of sustainability, the club is bust living beyond its means. FFP was meant to prevent the high scale failures of recent years too.

Any system has its flaws but balancing the need to prevent future high scale failures against allowing other clubs sufficient spending to allow them to compete at the top level was always going to be a difficult ask.

You failed to answer my question though. You presumably would prefer no regulation and clubs could spend as much and as recklessly as they like?

Maybe we should impose a salary cap instead?

PS I finally get why there is so much anti Arsenal feeling on here, fuelled largely by this gang of 4 letter which I hadn't previously been aware off

Others have answered far more eloquently than I could, but the response I missed, my reply is thus: If the owner is spending his OWN money and NOT putting the club into debt, then why shouldn't he/she/they be able to spend what they want? It's allowable in any other business isn't it?

All that has to be put in place, is that the owner guarantees to cover the costs from said expenditure, even if they leave (i.e. total cost of player contracts/purchases/infrastructure).

That way, the club need not be in debt at all.