26. Barcelona Roman Abramovich's Chelsea could only muster 46th in the table while other soccer teams making up the top 50 included Bayern Munich (19th), AC Milan (34th) and Juventus (49th). http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/1802...n-forbes-magazine-dallas-cowboys-new-york.htm
yet we spend less than sunderland. pathetic. i swear the board is just happy getting rich and being in contention for a top 4 every year. no ambition to take the next step.
Is this in terms of market capitalisation/equity value? This has little to do with how much money we have to spend. If anything, it simply means our equity is of a high value, and can attract new shareholders. Our inability to spend is down to Wenger, nothing else. He simply doesn't, and frankly never has, believed in making mega buys.
Here is the link from Forbes: http://blogs.forbes.com/kurtbadenhausen/2011/07/12/the-worlds-50-most-valuable-sports-teams/
You can't spend your house without taking on debt. Arsenal the object is worth money, they can take debt against that value to spend if they so desire. Much like a second and third mortgage. It doesn't mean that they have vast sums of money that AW sweeps in to piles for the board members to dive into.
Here's a very interesting analysis on Wenger's transfer dealing for the last few years: http://transferpriceindex.com/2011/...an-analysis-of-wengers-transfers-and-results/
According to AST today, £50m still available to spend. Maybe we'll spend some of it in the January transfer window.
It's interesting. I read those guys book. IIRC though, the TPI doesn't account for salary. Only transfer costs. So, getting a guy on the last year of his contract at a bargain but having to pay an over the odds wage isn't fully reflected. Maybe they changed that or I misunderstood.
Wage bill rose to £124 million 1% increase in football revenues Profit of £12.8 million A gap of £54 million in commercial revenue between Arsenal and Manure Yikes we need new commercial deals badly http://twitter.com/#!/timpayton
love to see how that wage bill number is broken down. 25 man squad? employee, coaching staff, etc? awfully vague.
if previous discussions are anything to go by, then it is everyone directly employed by arsenal fc. 350 odd if memory serves me right.
I believe AW is the highest paid manager in the league. I'm not sure if Im 100% correct, but I can recall reading an article about it. We have a high wage bill because we over pay our mediocre players like Bendter, Diaby etc.. wages that are way too high for their ability. As Man city has problems with flogging off their over paid stars, we have a similar situation with our mediocre players. That is why Bendter and Denilson were hard to sell to other teams this summer, as their wages are way too high considering their ability.
1. I find this hard to believe. We pay our manager more than MUFC or Chelsea do? 2. Are manager salaries public info?
Our manager makes the club 10's of Millions each year in xfer money. A monkey could win with Fergie's squad and xfer budget.
http://www.arsenal.com/usa/news/news-archive/arsenal-draws-big-crowd-in-the-united-states OK. So create a pre season tour in America and start tapping in then. C'mon. I want to see the Arsenal in person.
Wow, I can't believe there's no link or discussion about the Swiss Ramble's latest blog entry: Arsenal's Finances - 21 Questions Top notch analysis.
Nice article. It's kind of clear that the current guard is a little hamstrung. I don't see how one can blame Gazidis for our lack of commercial growth. All our major income sources are tied up in long term deals. Sure, they can be renegotiated early, but that puts us at a poorer bargaining position and would simply repeat our previous follies. There also is pretty significant xfer money available, but it's clear AW refuses to use it so I don't see how he or the board can be blamed for that. I also don't necessarily buy into the wage structure limiting AW's options. A signing bonus plus performance bonuses are ways of compensating top players such that a rigid wage structure is not upset--i.e. instead of giving an extra 20k/wk you give an extra 2-3m signing bonus--essentially a xfer fee payed to the player. Failing to have top players hurts our commercial side too. Sponsors care about exposure brand recognition. Top players get a lot more exposure and clubs with a history of keeping them on their roster can command higher prices from sponsors. IMO, our four failings of recent have been 1) Lack of depth at key positions--rests on AW's shoulders as he's put faith in youth/peripheral players that have largely failed to deliver when called upon. 2) Failure to keep stars or replace them with established equivalents--again, rests with AW. Despite maybe 1-2 years where spending would have been difficult, it's clear that even when funds are clearly available AW refuses to use them. 3) Set piece defense--from season to season we simply get worse at defending set pieces. Clearly a coaching failure. 4) Failure to conclude transfer dealing before start of season--probably shared between AW and the board. AW clearly has the final word so he is at least partly responsible. I'm guessing also that the board tries to get the best possible deal by waiting 'til the last or simply dragging feet. This season will be the true test of AW's policies. No excuses. Injuries happen, players want away, shots hit the post and refs make poor decisions. You have be prepared to deal with those things by having depth, good incentive structure and ambition to keep players, good scouting/selection of players that are mentally strong and can handle life in the premiership.
Not really. You live in DC (I presume) so you've witnessed Danny Boy's recent attempts to buy victories. Money can usually buy a base level of competitiveness, but winning it all, well that's usually harder.
people really need to stop comparing American sports dynamics to what goes on in Europe. Its completely different. And that isnt to take away any credit from Fergie, but they had a lot of advantages from the start of the premiership to now.