Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Arsenal' started by total_football, May 3, 2016.
It won't change until Kroenkw decides to sell the club.
It could change quickly if English fans decided to stop paying those ridiculous ticket prices and stop attending the games. Hit Kroenke the only place he apparently has feelings for, his pocketbook.
Banners won't work. Empty seats will.
Thanks for the link, that is an outstanding read. Recommended to the rest of the family.
I don't think that approach has ever gotten a club to change its behavior. Especially now in this era of TV revenue.
So you think most carriers would enjoy showing a match on tv in an empty stadium? I can assure you, they wouldn't. The pinch to the pocketbook will be the only thing that brings about change to Wenger and Kroenke.
Au contraire, the result may not be entirely what the fanbase is after, but making a big stink in the stands, around the stadium and in the media usually garners a response. Clubs hate bad publicity, and it seems like Arsenal in particular hates to be embarrassed. It can't just be a one-off demonstration, or a few signs at one game. Really, a sign at the game is just a paying customer at the game in their minds.
Now, I would expect Arsene and the Board to be intransigent as much as possible. They would likely spin the uprising as only being about "a few fair-weather fans", but if it had legs it would make a difference, IMO.
Most money is made from TV payments.
I know this. Most know this. But to think that empty gates and empty stands projected around the world wouldn't affect things is pretty shortsighted in my opinion.
Kot said it much better than I did.
An other very interesting read. A bit of a reality check as well.
Fair point, but Arsenal do play in London, and the Emirates, especially in the warmer months, is something of a tourist destination. Not enough people boycott games for it to make a difference. Fans have tried this repeatedly in the US (and to a lesser extent in England), and it's an approach that simply doesn't affect the bottom line enough. It's never worked in the past.
Thank you for posting this, as it corroborates what I've been saying here for a while. There's a lot less cash to spend than we think. Some key quotes:
Given the numbers thrown around on bids, I think this number has to assume that the Xhaka deal was done (because if not, that means Arsenal have roughly 20m in cash for transfers).
In Monday's Arsecast they listed a bunch of players, Özil, Sanchez, Ramsay, Kos, etc that have two years left on their contracts. We're screwed if we dune make some signings.
And this is where the effort breaks down, I agree. You can never seem to get everyone on board or even close to enough of a percentage. There are always more fans to take the place of the ones who leave, which also has the effect of keeping the unsatisfied fans from making good on their threats. I guess it's one of those things that works in theory, but not so much in practice. I have to think, though, that there is a breaking point for the fanbase. The frustration can't just keep building and building indefinitely. Either it explodes, or the fans devolve into apathy.
Apathy is the biggest fear for me and the crisis the club will face sooner than later in my opinion. I'm already there when my friends try to talk to me about Arsenal's games or try to joke with me. I'm just completely apathetic to them and the club in general lately.
Another season like last year, where we only add one player, we suffer injuries, we flirt with 1st but also renew our love affair with 4th, and you'll see even more of the fanbase turn to apathy. Like you said Kot, it either explodes or apathy plagues and rots the club.
I'm going to wait for SwissRamble. The man's work is beyond reproach and he said, that as of February of this year-
"Despite all of these factors, there is still substantial money available to spend. It’s clearly not as much as the figure in the books, but we can say with some conviction that Arsenal should have around £100 million to spend in the summer on improving the squad."
We've purchased one player since then (who Sky says cost 34m). Not to mention the truckfull of wages money freed up by the departure of Rosicky, Arteta and Flamini.
By either set of numbers, Arsenal have between 54 and 66m that they could comfortably spend. They should.
I think this is simply a plug for an investment site which you have to register for toured the actual report. The Swiss-Ramble analysis took into account these items iirc. Don't think anyone here is saying 200m is spendable, but 50m seems way low to me.
As for the other article, the player amortization is mostly for accounting purposes. Example: you sign player A on 5 year deal for 50m. You add this to your account as an capitalizable asset and therefore not an expense. Each year, you can write down the reduced value. Clubs will do 10m per year over the 5 years. So that 10m will come off the bottom line even though no money was spent or moved at all. The 10m will hide profits...this is one reason why the cash pile has grown but net profits haven't shown that...we are still writing down old contracts
Also, it's misleading since we all know ozil is likely worth as much or more now than in year one of his contract.
Swiss Ramble has said its not 200 million also
But he said the club can spend about 100 million a window. You know this and most of us know this, yet a lot of us want to rehash the same argument that we dont have money.
We have money and the premier league is loaded.
What makes it worse is that these guys are in their primes right now. This is the time to make that push and Wenger, Kroenke, and co just don't have the ability too. It's pathetic and fans should be tired of it.
Ya, was talking about this a while back. If we don't either spend, win or both we might be seeing another RVP and nasri situation next summer.
I don't think it is a might. I think it is already on the table with Alexis and Ozil at least.
Again, not picking, but this is a good excuse to riff on the topic of income streams for clubs. The below chart is from Deloitte this past January. I've only included the top 15.
A couple of things from the chart:
1. Arsenal have the highest game-day revenue of any football club in the world.
I assume this is due to having a decent sized capacity ground (60k) that is regularly sold-out (if not fully attended) combined with the highest game-day experience prices in the world which allows the club to fleece its supporters "maximize per capita game-day revenue".
2. This season the top EPL clubs will enjoy a bump in the tv income of around 46-54m euros each.
3. The game-day and tv revenue streams are fairly easy to understand, however the commercial revenue category is a fun house of smoke and mirrors.
On the face of it, it would seem that the Arsenal is lagging badly in this category but things aren't as simple as that. Some of these teams are run as relatively normal businesses, some have wealthy patrons who find creative ways to fund their playthings (mainly to circumvent the charade that is FFP).
For example, PSG ostensibly has the highest commercial revenue of anyone at 297m euros. This is only achieved by their Qatari owners having the Qatari tourism authority sponsor PSG to the tune of up to 200m euros a year. Similarly, Man City do the same with various above-market sponsorship deals from UAE entities. Chelsea do things a bit differently, booking Abramovich's capital infusions as a loan, which gets characterized as indebtedness, not as income/revenue, so doesn't show up on this table. His loan is currently up to over 1 billion GBP and has never had repayments made.
Of the commercial numbers that we can regard as vaguely legitimate then, you'd probably have to give the gold stars to Bayern and Man U (bleh). Bayern is a little different in that they are the dominant club in the largest economy in Europe and as such they have unique leverage when negotiating deals. It is also believed that their kit deal with Adidas is somewhat above market given that Adidas are part owners of the club.
I think it's fair to say that the most relevant measuring stick for us is Man U and we lag behind them in one key category.
Here's a breakdown of the one of the biggest components of commercial revenue, uniform sponsorships:
4. Juve and Atletico get the gold stars for performance vs. revenue and I think that's probably the biggest criticism of Arsenal, that we've been unable to match their performances in the CL with a far bigger budget.
It's a business for Stan and he didn't become a billionaire because he set out to win sports titles. Sadly. People are still paying those high prices and revenue is through the roof. Why would he change? Because we, as die hard fans, want him too?
We are stuck with this model until either Wenger retires or Stan starts losing money.
I suspect that all hell will break if we lose to Liverpool after no signings
Have we signed anyone meaningful yet!?
God damn this window
It's not just about buying 50 million pound players
Where we're our scouts when reus went to dortmund? Kante and mahrez at Leicester? Lewa to dortmund d etc (Blackburn nearly bought him)
Let's face facts. Arsenal is behind in recruitment, deals for revenue and in paying for players
The true fans who go to games are being fleeced for their loyalty to watch sub par football (for the cost) and no ambition
Just sell the club to a dodgy cunner and try to win shit