North London Rivalry--Off the Field, in the Boardroom, in the realm of Cold, Hard Cash

[total_football]

So, Spurs just spent 15 million lbs to buy back Defoe; it seems like they just spend, spend, and spend, often recklessly. Question: do they have all these excess funds lying around, or are they still living in yesterday's economic climate of viewing purchases as just one big credit card toy?

How are the two clubs compared, financially board room and ownership, wise?

[eptgooner]

Spurs boardroom:


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z258/gusher311/chimps.jpg

[fdiggidy5]

Spurs boardroom:


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z258/gusher311/chimps.jpg



i like this better

YouTube - CareerBuilder.com: Monkey Business (Up - Down Profitability)

[DaPrince84]

Spurs relegation predictor (http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/index.php/tottenham-relegation-predictor)

[darcgun]

until spurs have the trophy cabinet of a real big club (,i,e. winning lots of leagues, not cups), i'd see spurs as more of a credible rival.

as for finances, well i guess before we built the new ground and the success under arsene, we were more or less equal in turnover terms. i suppose traditionally they were bigger spenders than us, but it's not as if we lacked the means to be so as well. I think until Arsene came (and i guess Rioch too) the Arsenal board were quite complacent and thought because arsenal have tradition, we didn't need to compete for big money transfers.

IMO, Hill-Wood and Dein (when the latter was here of course) have given Arsene far more support than they did Graham, especially when transfers are concerned. Under Arsene we've had genuine world class players play for us. If Graham had been allowed to sign players of Henry's, Pires', Vieira's, etc. quality then I think in the early EPL years we could have rivalled Fergie and United at the top of the league.

but that was then, and now is now. Spurs have spent more than us in the history of the EPL on transfers, yet what is the return? lol!!! years of mid-table finishes, relegation scraps, and false dawns?

[HomeatHighbury]

Ummm, there's a LAMO @ Spurs thread.

[antifan]

until spurs have the trophy cabinet of a real big club (,i,e. winning lots of leagues, not cups), i'd see spurs as more of a credible rival.

as for finances, well i guess before we built the new ground and the success under arsene, we were more or less equal in turnover terms. i suppose traditionally they were bigger spenders than us, but it's not as if we lacked the means to be so as well. I think until Arsene came (and i guess Rioch too) the Arsenal board were quite complacent and thought because arsenal have tradition, we didn't need to compete for big money transfers.

IMO, Hill-Wood and Dein (when the latter was here of course) have given Arsene far more support than they did Graham, especially when transfers are concerned. Under Arsene we've had genuine world class players play for us. If Graham had been allowed to sign players of Henry's, Pires', Vieira's, etc. quality then I think in the early EPL years we could have rivalled Fergie and United at the top of the league.

but that was then, and now is now. Spurs have spent more than us in the history of the EPL on transfers, yet what is the return? lol!!! years of mid-table finishes, relegation scraps, and false dawns?
Graham signed plenty of established players and some of the greatest stars in Arsenal's history: Ian Wright, David Seaman, Lee Dixon, Steve Bould, Nigel Winterburn, Alan Smith, Perry Groves, Anders Limpar. It's hard to claim he wasn't supported in the transfer market.

[pookspur]

Graham signed plenty of established players and some of the greatest stars in Arsenal's history: Ian Wright, David Seaman, Lee Dixon, Steve Bould, Nigel Winterburn, Alan Smith, Perry Groves, Anders Limpar. It's hard to claim he wasn't supported in the transfer market.

he did, though - at least to an extent.

in a book called the great divide (can't remember the author), which looked at both clubs throughout the 99-00 season, graham (at spurs by then), himself, addressed the issue. he did feel that he'd not gotten the support that he needed. that said, though, after seeing how they supported wenger, he realized that the problem, perhaps, was not simply the board, but that he, himself, hadn't lobbied hard enough for the money he wanted.

it's not a bad book, actually. and i'm sure it'd make even better reading for your lot than for me.

[antifan]

he did, though - at least to an extent.

in a book called the great divide (can't remember the author), which looked at both clubs throughout the 99-00 season, graham (at spurs by then), himself, addressed the issue. he did feel that he'd not gotten the support that he needed. that said, though, after seeing how they supported wenger, he realized that the problem, perhaps, was not simply the board, but that he, himself, hadn't lobbied hard enough for the money he wanted.

it's not a bad book, actually. and i'm sure it'd make even better reading for your lot than for me.
I have no doubt that Graham would have loved for the club to spend big in the transfer market, but he did have his own, more selfish reasons, didn't he? ;)

[gooner4eva]

Ummm, there's a LAMO @ Spurs thread.

you can never have too many. ive set up 3 out of the last 4 of them iirc.

[darcgun]

Graham signed plenty of established players and some of the greatest stars in Arsenal's history: Ian Wright, David Seaman, Lee Dixon, Steve Bould, Nigel Winterburn, Alan Smith, Perry Groves, Anders Limpar. It's hard to claim he wasn't supported in the transfer market.

Perhaps. but these players, despite their quality, were all low budget in the grand scheme of things. The 1989 and 1991 league winning teams largely consisted of this type of low budget but good quality players. Graham never went for the world class players since the board wouldn't have supported him. Compared to other big clubs in England, Arsenal had a rigid wage structure, which hindered us from signing the true cream of players.

Fergie at United didn't have that. Keegan made the Toon a decent side at the time without that. we were shit in the mid-90's, and probably were quite lucky not to get relegated back then, because we didn't compete for the top players. As Fergie was signing Roy Keane, we signed John Jensen. As Keegan signed Ginola, we signed Glenn Helder.

But now is now, and Arsene has little problem in signing top players. The real question is why doesn't he choose to, but I guess no one can read minds.

[DaPrince84]

their is a story about Darren Bent going around, I have no idea what the story is (not him wanting to leave Spurs)... does anyone know?

[antifan]

In the late Eighties and early Nineties there were hardly any continental players in the league, so it's no surprise that Graham wasn't signing any. Ian Wright cost double what Ferguson payed for Cantona. Seaman was the most expensive goalkeeper in England when we signed him. Sure, their fees seem like bargains now, but at the time they weren't bargain buys. It was a completely different era. Players like Cantona and Ginola were in England because they weren't considered "World Class". But yeah, ManU spent more on players, they always have.

[darcgun]

In the late Eighties and early Nineties there were hardly any continental players in the league, so it's no surprise that Graham wasn't signing any. Ian Wright cost double what Ferguson payed for Cantona. Seaman was the most expensive goalkeeper in England when we signed him. Sure, their fees seem like bargains now, but at the time they weren't bargain buys. It was a completely different era. Players like Cantona and Ginola were in England because they weren't considered "World Class". But yeah, ManU spent more on players, they always have.

It's not about continental players though. Among the big British signings of that era, Arsenal didn't really compete. Spurs bought Gazza and Lineker. United bought Ince. Liverpool bought John Barnes and Peter Beardsley. Though Graham did well to buy less noted players and still win two leagues, it boggles the mind what could have happened if Arsenal competed for the top players. It's not as if we lacked the finances to do so; we've been one of the wealthiest English clubs for some time. But the attitude of the board stopped us from doing so, not any dithering on Graham's part.

I remember reading once, some years ago, that Arsenal were interested in signing Tony Cottee from West Ham. It may not have been true, but even still, it's said that the rigid wage structure prevented us from signing him. Graham could have been even more successful if the board had supported him in transfers, in the same manner as they have supported Arsene. The past is the past, and we can't change it, but nevertheless I do honesty feel that Graham could have given Fergie a serious run for his money if the board at that time had held more ambition.

[antifan]

It's not about continental players though. Among the big British signings of that era, Arsenal didn't really compete. Spurs bought Gazza and Lineker. United bought Ince. Liverpool bought John Barnes and Peter Beardsley. Though Graham did well to buy less noted players and still win two leagues, it boggles the mind what could have happened if Arsenal competed for the top players. It's not as if we lacked the finances to do so; we've been one of the wealthiest English clubs for some time. But the attitude of the board stopped us from doing so, not any dithering on Graham's part.

I remember reading once, some years ago, that Arsenal were interested in signing Tony Cottee from West Ham. It may not have been true, but even still, it's said that the rigid wage structure prevented us from signing him. Graham could have been even more successful if the board had supported him in transfers, in the same manner as they have supported Arsene. The past is the past, and we can't change it, but nevertheless I do honesty feel that Graham could have given Fergie a serious run for his money if the board at that time had held more ambition.
So we are now and have always been as rich as ManU? And it's merely the boards lack of ambition holding us back? If you say so...

[antifan]

By the way, here is your perfect Arsenal XI. Count how many were signed by Graham, and how many by Wenger.

GK - Seaman

Defence - Dixon, Adams, Bould, Winterburn - One of the best defensive units in the history of English football.

Midfield - Rocastle, Vieira, Alex James, Pires

Attack - Henry and Wrighty
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13691381&postcount=25

[DaPrince84]

http://i36.tinypic.com/25649q1.jpg

[darcgun]

By the way, here is your perfect Arsenal XI. Count how many were signed by Graham, and how many by Wenger.


http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13691381&postcount=25

I'm not being contradictory at all.

It's a fact that Arsenal have bidded for, and signed, higher profile players under Wenger, compared to when George Graham was manager. I do think the board held us back when Graham was manager. With more funds, I think we could have had more success under Graham, but obviously we'd never know for sure.

As for Utd, well both as and them are two of the traditionally bigger clubs in England. IMO, that's not so contentious a point. I used them as an example of a competitor in that sense, even if they are bigger than us as a club. In Germany, to use a comparison, Bayern are bigger than Hamburg, even though both clubs can be seen as two of the largest in the country. It doesn't mean then that Hamburg shouldn't see Bayern as a competitor, of a sorts, since Bayern are one of few clubs that can rival them whether fan base wise, financially or in terms of trophies won.

[antifan]

[QUOTE]I'm not being contradictory at all.

It's a fact that Arsenal have bidded for, and signed, higher profile players under Wenger, compared to when George Graham was manager. I do think the board held us back when Graham was manager. With more funds, I think we could have had more success under Graham, but obviously we'd never know for sure.

As i've pointed out before, that simply isn't true. Henry and Vieira were reserves in Italy, not stars. Ian Wright was a full England international with over 100 career goals. How much would he sell for in todays market? He cost 2.5 then, you could probably add a zero to that.

As for Utd, well both as and them are two of the traditionally bigger clubs in England. IMO, that's not so contentious a point. I used them as an example of a competitor in that sense, even if they are bigger than us as a club. In Germany, to use a comparison, Bayern are bigger than Hamburg, even though both clubs can be seen as two of the largest in the country. It doesn't mean then that Hamburg shouldn't see Bayern as a competitor, of a sorts, since Bayern are one of few clubs that can rival them whether fan base wise, financially or in terms of trophies won.

ManU is a bigger club than Arsenal, so is Liverpool. It should be no surprise that those teams have outspent us regularly, they've always had more money. Sperz have had about the same resources as us, and as you point out, their board has spent more freely. Where has that gotten them? Arsenal's board has done a great job of being competitive with teams like ManU and Liverpool while not having their means.