• Arsenal Message Board

  • Dave SE Dave SE Jul 8, 2009 19:21 Flag

    Arsenal reject Usmanovs money


    A well run club refusing to increase debts or a chronic lack of ambition that will cost us success? You decide.

    On a different note, keep an eye on Blaise Matuidi as a possible signing - looks like we will not pay enough for Melo?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • yeah i see what you say, it is said that Madrid would never be let go bankrupt period.
      I am not entirly sure about the galatico method as I have always been under the impression that Football is a TEAM of 11 if you have a distorted wage structure ie Galacticos and the workers it is too distorted to work surely the workers will in the end just give the ball to the Galactico and say well get on with it m8 you paid twice as much as me

    • Oh I do rate the "galacticos" method of merchandising and increasing revenue. It works. But you need to be able to afford the very, very, very best players for that to work and Madrid are the wealthiest club in the world, able to sell their training ground to the Government for 200million, and have royal patronage. They are an entity to themselves and their history of success gives them a brand more powerful than any club, including Manchester United (England's equivalent of Madrid). Having players like Ronaldo/Kaka in their shirt is a license to print money for Madrid. Supposedly they have already sold out of the first run of "Ronaldo" shirts. Incredible. They will probably break even on those guys just due to merchandising. But they could afford to spend 150million plus huge, huge wages on those two. If one of them gets injured and never plays again it wouldnt bankrupt the club for a generation. If we paid that much money and it didnt work out we'd be digging out of that hole for years. I am under no illusions that compared to the "brands" of Madrid, Barca and Man Utd, we are small-fry. We havent had the European success and cultural impact that those clubs have had.

      That is the fix that Chelsea find themselves in. They lose money every year due to their wage bill. They make losses even before any transfers are added. So every transfer is basically just paid for by Roman, not the club. Chelsea have zero money at the moment of their own. But Chelsea MUST continue to spend huge money on players, and therefore incur even greater losses, because they have made it clear that they are going to be the "biggest club in the world". They have no chance whatsoever of breaking out of the cycle as long as they are trying to compete with those clubs globally. At what point does Roman say "enough" and when he does will Chelsea be able to avoid losing money?

      My point is that trophies are not given out for spending money. Arsenal going forward are not going to be poor. We should be able to compete EVERY SINGLE SEASON without having to spend Madrid-type money. In years to come we will naturally become one of THE richest clubs in the world, that isnt owned by a mega-rich sugar-daddy or called Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Manchester United (obviously when AC Milan have their act together they go into that category as well).

      That couldnt have happened at Highbury.

    • I as it would seem does Paul not rate the "Galactico" merchandising method for bringing extra revenue I am sure we will be ok in the coming years OK sad to say but I think we may be looking over our shoulders for a few more but its better than when Spurs almost bankrupted themselves doing "Improvements" to the lane


      rumour is they and west ham will have to share the new Olympic stadium being built in Stratford but will have to rent it from the british althlectics board

    • Equity is not debt.

      This is about control and preserving the existing shareholders share values not anything to do with long term cash-flows which with the best will in the World are at best speculative.

      • 1 Reply to MATTHEW
      • Completely agree Matthew.

        Paul, I'm trying to equate your logic regarding the new stadium equaling ambition, so your going to have to help me out. As I see it we have a shinny new stadium, a large debt, and a constant excuse for lack of finances to invest in the transfer market. And as you rightly stated, we will be richer as each year goes by; all be it we're have to wait 20 -25 years, to clear the debt. Now cast your mind back 5 years, we had a winning side, full of world class players, no debt and a stadium we owned out right. So how does having to wait 20 years to be back in a position we were in 5 years ago equate ambition? After all none of us knows what the future holds economically; just look at last year!

    • No club with a chronic lack of ambition spends 350million on a new stadium.

      • 1 Reply to A Yahoo! User
      • Yeah - playing Devils Advocate a bit there.
        Personally - I think there is no need to renegotiate finances if they are doing fine as it is.
        Keeping the top players is a priority with a bit of strengthening - which has been and I think will continue to happen.
        The market is extremely inflationary with Real and Citys antics ,there is not always a lot of value out there so we are probably best keeping out of silly bidding wars, which I fear Melo for one could turn into.
        I guess if the club take this stance and fall flat on their faces next year, they will be heavily criticised, even ridiculed but I do not think that will happen - I am expecting big things next year if for once we get a bit of luck and we get a CM.