or to join or start a new Discussion

52 Comments
Article Rating 3 Stars

Are Arsenal really that rich?

I notice a lot of Arsenal fans throwing around comments about how they now have 'huge' cash reserves and are financially able to compete with anybody.

Do you really think that is true?

Some have said that Arsenal have 100 million in the bank, but in my mind that isn't really that impressive. It's good, but it is really going to help much. what's it going to get you? Man united spent around 70 million on Mata and Fellaini and it barely caused a ripple. PSG just (absurdly) bought Luiz for 50 million. The likes of Cavani and Falcao are shifting for 50M+ and these are just the transfer fees, so you can add massive wage costs to the bill as well. Bale and Ronaldo went for 80M+. Neymar reputedly cost Barca 70M. Even Ozil was 42M, and he has not really done anything.

How long did it take for Arsenal to build up that 100Million? Do you think the board really want to take the balance back to zero on a couple of quite big money gambles?

To push a club to the top, you need sustained, big investment, and Arsenal's little stash is not going to propel them into that tier of clubs, even if they were prepared to spend it, which it doesn't appear that they are. Heck, spurs spent 100M last season and got nowwhere.

To become a force, I think Arsenal need at least three high quality players, and I don't think they will get them.

Every credit, the club is in an excellent position, but I think that the bold claims of some fans about the resources of the club are extremely naive, and in truth, I think they will continue to operate as they have done.

Arsenal either need to gamble, or accept new investment, but I think I think all these little soundbites about the financial power of arsenal are wide of the mark, designed to keep the fans onside while essentially doing very little. It's a case of 'the emirate's new clothes'. (Sorry, that doesn't really work now I see it written down)

posted on 13/6/14

Brain

Club are certainly not a “heavyweight” when compared to the elite but as FFP (and PL spending constraints) begin to kick in AFC certainly are in a stronger position than we have been.

comment by Brain (U18701)

posted on 13/6/14

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
Brain

Club are certainly not a “heavyweight” when compared to the elite but as FFP (and PL spending constraints) begin to kick in AFC certainly are in a stronger position than we have been.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds similar to my view, thanks. I was just wondering why some fans seemed to suggest that Arsenal were sitting on a massive goldmine. They are well off, and financially well run though, definitely.

posted on 13/6/14

Great article. Too sensible for the average gooner to comprehend

posted on 13/6/14

comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 12 minutes ago
Great article. Too sensible for the average gooner to comprehend
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bit patronising?

posted on 13/6/14

It's not really a great article, all it shows is how much people's idea of the money in football is screwed by a handful of super-rich clubs.

Of course Arsenal are a rich club, stupid question, every other club in the country would kill their entire family for half of Arsenal's resources. They may not be THAT rich, but since what THAT rich means is undefined, then there's a fair chance they never will be.

posted on 13/6/14

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Jenius99

To be fair to the club a lot of the deadwood has now been moved on. By hook or by crook.

I remember reading we wasted close to £7m on Park. On the other hand when you look at other clubs we haven’t faired too badly in regard to “wastage” Our North London friends for example.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really.

Podlski is on £100k a week. For someone who is on the bench? This is why I question what Wenger is doing with Giroud. He is a 10-15 prem goal striker. He is not worth £100k a week to sit on the bench.

Arsenal just can't afford £100k+ players sitting on the bench because it limits us on buying the top class quality who demand £200k a week. Were Giroud + Podlski worth £180k a week, compared to NOT offering RVP £180k a week to stay?

So as soon as you buy players you create new 'dead wood'. Arsenal just don't react the way other clubs do. Chelsea sold Mata and Luiz, straight away.

I never felt Wenger knows how to build squads that can seriously challenge for the premiership without David Dein.

posted on 13/6/14

Jenius99

You are forgetting that 100k a week is not particularly substantial in the modern game. Especially for a player with the pedigree of Podolski.

While his form (the end of last season aside) has been patchy when his contract was signed 100k a week was not uncharacteristic.

The wage system now is certainly an improvement to when we had the likes of Santos, Denilson, Squalici, Almunia etc etc on board.

posted on 13/6/14

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
Jenius99

You are forgetting that 100k a week is not particularly substantial in the modern game. Especially for a player with the pedigree of Podolski.

While his form (the end of last season aside) has been patchy when his contract was signed 100k a week was not uncharacteristic.

The wage system now is certainly an improvement to when we had the likes of Santos, Denilson, Squalici, Almunia etc etc on board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am quite sure Giruod is asking for more than £100k with Sagna moving to City for £150k a week for 3 years.

I forgot the + sign.

My point is that if we are going to sign a world class striker, we will be expected to pay £200k+/week wages. At that point we cannot have Giroud sitting on the bench for lets say c£130k a week if it then means we block signing a world class holding player.

This is the sort of mess Wenger often does. He doesn't see the big picture that David Dein used to. In fact Edelman (our previous CEO) made that point 3/4 years ago. And Wenger hasn't done anything different since then.

For example did buying Pod and Giroud make sense and paying them c£180k/week? When RVP moved for £200k a week to Man Utd? And we did not even make any money of the transfer fee! I know all the hoopla abt trophies but in reality it was all abt money.

You create deadwood all the time. It happens because you buy new players. If you buy better in the first place its easy to move on players like Chelsea have done. But Wenger dithers and is far too close to the dressing room to be ruthless. This was the job that Dein it and I believe not having him is the primary reason we have not won a premier league for so long. Building a Championship winning squad requires a detachment and ruthlessness that Wenger just does not have.

posted on 13/6/14

IMO fans romanticise in regard to Dein too much. While I note his qualities he wasn’t the guru that a lot make him out to be.

In regard to wages we are pretty much on par with how much we spend in comparison to our league position. I don’t think our revenues are quite ready to facilitate a 200k a week salary as yet unless we cut the squad – which is not an option. I think we are about 55% wages to turnover however this was prior to new deals for Ramsey, Kos and co.

posted on 13/6/14

Podlski is on £100k a week. For someone who is on the bench? This is why I question what Wenger is doing with Giroud. He is a 10-15 prem goal striker. He is not worth £100k a week to sit on the bench.
----------------------------------------------------
If Rooney is worth £300k a week then Pod is definitely worth £100k. He will give you 15-20 goals from a wide role and the same in assists. Just put a decent striker in the middle and you will see how good he is.

And it was me who said £650m earlier, but I did say Id have to check it. Wiki shows the cost of the stadium so far as £470m of which £390m was the original build cost. I did hear £650m as a figure that was estimated to include everything including the loss of revenue etc of not being able to afford the best players in the short/medium term, but of course pure speculation.

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 3 from 4 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available