City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

SilverFox2 said:
Exactly, so I wonder if City never mind Arsenal are prepared to invest on that final costly 10% when keeping a top 4 position is all they really need to maintain commercial success globally ?
Click to expand...

Yep, for MOST owners, there is next to no benefit in spending 400m extra to secure the league title, only to increase revenue by (say 50m). It's simply a crazy gamble / investment to make.
Why should Mike Ashley spend millions upon millions to get into Europe when he can spend very little and just reap the rewards of staying in PL?

For City though, success is necessary, ergo they've had to pay the exorbitant price necessary. Arsenal don't want to pay that price, which is their choice. They are happy to participate and claim some moral superiority in the process, but there's no prizes for that.
It's a deluded view anyway, since they've in part bought their top 4 presence themselves.

They could still win the league once in a while on this strategy. But it won't be a sustained situation.
 
"I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level," he said. "I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp – and that was before Arsène arrived – David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka, and were able to pay them – top players from around the world"
Tony Adams
 
stony said:
"I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level," he said. "I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp – and that was before Arsène arrived – David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka, and were able to pay them – top players from around the world"
Tony Adams
Click to expand...
 
dasblues said:
You forgot to add one other event into the timeline , namely Arsenal playing in the champions league from 98/99 , which would significantly increase their revenues
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I'm sure the £2.5m they received for it was game changing
 
FanchesterCity said:
The chances of City being the epitome of prudent spending are zilch.
But few clubs have been faced with the FFP drawbridge rising before their very eyes, and having to spend massive, and disproportionately in order to scramble into the elite just in time.
City have paid over the odds for many players, partly out of necessity, partly because others have known our wealth and exploited the situation. We're never going to be the perfect model for spending, but that's not the point. The holier than thou attitude of some moronic rival fans is galling.
Click to expand...

You are probably right but our previous spending was the only way to beat the timeline of FFP with the infrastructure and global expansion running concurrently. If it failed so did the other parts of the business plan so needs must at that stage.

I can understand a probable need to overhaul last years faltering squad rather than just a routine squad maintenance but surely spend for spends sake is not the wisest of Business Plans ?
 
So in summary Danny Fiszmans £50m is completely compatible with our spending since 2008 (c£500m on transfer fees & £600m in wages)

And if it isn't , it doesn't matter because Arsenal cheated their way to division one 90 years ago

At least I live in the real world
 
Yes, I'm saying we've hardly been great in the transfer market, but there are mitigating circumstances why we've spent so much, so quickly and often overpaid.

Now we're the right side of FFP, we should settle down a bit and our spending might still remain high, but hopefully it'll be more efficient, and we'll start to sell players on at a decent price instead of bargain basement prices (all being well!)
 
dasblues said:
So in summary Danny Fiszmans £50m is completely compatible with our spending since 2008 (c£500m on transfer fees & £600m in wages)

And if it isn't , it doesn't matter because Arsenal cheated their way to division one 90 years ago

At least I live in the real world
Click to expand...

In summary, Danny Fiszman's investment that gave Arsenal a massive financial advantage on their rivals at the time is no different from us having a massive financial advantage on our rivals, on the fees are somewhat irrelevant because you're arguing morality rather than figures

Essentially what our argument is is that a guy in 1900 with a million quid investment gave a similar advantage to somebody in 2000 with a billion quid investment. Because the point is on financial advantage and not the specific numbers.

For an accountant, and I say this knowing many great accountants, you're thick as shit mate. This isn't difficult to understand.
 
dasblues said:
So in summary Danny Fiszmans £50m is completely compatible with our spending since 2008 (c£500m on transfer fees & £600m in wages)

And if it isn't , it doesn't matter because Arsenal cheated their way to division one 90 years ago

At least I live in the real world
Click to expand...

I don't think about about the amounts per se, it's about the fact that a healthy investment be it today, 10 years ago, or 50 years ago can have a long lasting effect (if spent wisely).

Clubs, including Arsenal have had shots in the arm which allowed them to do things other clubs couldn't, and without that shot in the arm, no amount of wonderful football would have helped. It helps a club breach the barrier to entry regardless of what tier they are in. Once in a while you do get a club that exceeds all expectations, but for the large part, clubs usually need that investment to give them a leg up.

Our shot in the arm is recent, whilst others had theirs some time ago, and ours is significantly larger than most others have ever been. However, the football world's finances in general have also grown massively in recent years, so it's very hard to apply a simple inflation index. You'd also have to apply an index for the growth of football (which has grown faster than inflation).

City have been bloody lucky, make no mistake. But it's folly to claim other clubs have started from tuppence and made all their own wealth based purely on football. They've all had differing levels of external investment at some point, and Arsenal are no different. They've done well with theirs, and we are doing well with ours. There's no moral high ground to be taken by either club or set of fans.
 
Damocles said:
In summary, Danny Fiszman's investment that gave Arsenal a massive financial advantage on their rivals at the time is no different from us having a massive financial advantage on our rivals, on the fees are somewhat irrelevant because you're arguing morality rather than figures

Essentially what our argument is is that a guy in 1900 with a million quid investment gave a similar advantage to somebody in 2000 with a billion quid investment. Because the point is on financial advantage and not the specific numbers.

For an accountant, and I say this knowing many great accountants, you're thick as shit mate. This isn't difficult to understand.
Click to expand...
Oh I understand the concept well enough, it's just that you are talking bollocks , no matter what index you use , £50m is not comparable with £1.1bn

Using examples from 90 years ago is fucking desperate and you know it , you're an intelligent bloke.

The levels of delusion shown in this thread is frankly weird
 
FanchesterCity said:
Yes, I'm saying we've hardly been great in the transfer market, but there are mitigating circumstances why we've spent so much, so quickly and often overpaid.

Now we're the right side of FFP, we should settle down a bit and our spending might still remain high, but hopefully it'll be more efficient, and we'll start to sell players on at a decent price instead of bargain basement prices (all being well!)
Click to expand...

Agree completely, our investment in the Academy shows faith in the future and we must hope that upcoming purchases hit the ground running and those that faltered last year come good.
Still, considering it was a disappointing season not bad at #2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top