The noises coming from the club and the apparent lack of transfer activity (I know, we don't really know what's going on behind the scenes) make me fear that we will not significantly strengthen the squad this summer. This can only be for one of two reasons; Either Arsene is deluded or the Board are not being honest with us regarding available funds.
I think after 10 years we know that Arsene is not stupid. We finished 21 points behind Utd last season. They have spent close on £50m in one day and I wouldn't be surprised if they add to that before August. Fifteen points was the gap to Chelsea and you can get bet your life they will strengthen for next season. They won't leave themselves as short in key areas as they proved this season and if Ballack and Schevchenko aren't replaced you can't believe they'll be as bad next season. In short it could be argued that the gap has widened further before a ball has been kicked. Can we expect an improvement from our current squad next season without investment? Yes if everyone stays I think we can. Without the issue of settling into our new home, without (fingers crossed) the long injuries to key players plus the natural development of our talented young players that another year brings, I think we should move forward. But can we make up 20-25 points without strengthening? No chance. I don't believe for a moment that Arsene believes that is possible.
Which eventually (sorry guys I'm getting there!) leads me to my main point. Given the situation that I set out above, I can only assume that the reason Arsene won't strengthen is because he hasn't been given the funds. After our Champions League exit to PSV Edelman came out and said Arsene would be given £20m in the summer. (Well timed to appease disgruntled fans and quite comical seeing as Birmingham, Sunderland and Sheff Utd all confirmed £20m would be available pending Prem status following the new TV deal!!). He explained that this wouldn't be affected by our CL exit as when working budgets the Board always plans worse case scenario as any well run business would. The £20m took into account the repayment plan in place to pay the stadium loan and the £20m was set aside solely for transfers.
Since then the new TV deal was announced and we've all read how much extra income each Premiership club will receive from that. I don't know the exact figures but lets be conservative and say Arsenal pocket an extra £10m. That takes our budget to £30m. Reyes won't come back to Arsenal, Arsene will cut our losses an off load him. If we sell him cut price, lets say £7m to be conservative again, add in money we received for Muamba we should have close on £40m available to Arsene.
So if the bidding for Ribery goes to £18m, why can't we match that? If Eto'o costs £20m (personally I don't think we need him) why can't we be serious bidders? I don't think we need a major overhaul, 2/3 players in key areas. The money we 'should' have will cover that easily and leave change.
Please, tell me if I'm missing something. Are my economics flawed? If the words of the Board are to be believed, if the loan repayment is ringfenced and set aside to take care of itself, all factors considered Arsene should still be rolling in transfer cash.
So where is the money?????
Where's the money gone???
-
Graham Wilkinson
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:42 pm
- Location: North London
The money has gone, and is going, to pay for the new stadium.
I'm not an economist and have no inside information but it has long been my assumption that until 2010, when we reap the rewards of selling off the redeveloped Highbury, the club will be very poor and with minimal funds available for transfers.
The Board understand this but clearly can not say anything publicly because to adnmit the club is facing any kind of financial worries would damage the brand.
AW knows it too. But he is willing to go along with the lie because he was a major supporter of the new stadium and accepts that a price has to be paid. He can also see the longer term benefits.
The question is what should be our attitude? I think we have to take the longer term view. The new stadium is clearly beneficial and was a step that had to be taken. Unpleasant though it may be, I expect that we will have to accept three or more trophyless years. We simply can't compete with the big boys for the time being.
We should perhaps look on the bright side. Despite our evident financial weakness, we have still managed to qualify for the Champions League; we have reached a cup final; we still play, on our day, the most attractive football in the premiership. Not a bad record and think of all the clubs that would love to be in our position (so called big clubs like Newcastle, Villa, Man City, even the scum)
It's largely thanks to AW. But if that is what happens in our lean years, just imagine what the good times, when the money finally starts to flow, are going to be like.
So let's stop kidding ourselves that major signings are just around the corner. Accept that the new stadium was a neccessity and get through the neext few years as best we can. Better times will follow in the next decade.
I'm not an economist and have no inside information but it has long been my assumption that until 2010, when we reap the rewards of selling off the redeveloped Highbury, the club will be very poor and with minimal funds available for transfers.
The Board understand this but clearly can not say anything publicly because to adnmit the club is facing any kind of financial worries would damage the brand.
AW knows it too. But he is willing to go along with the lie because he was a major supporter of the new stadium and accepts that a price has to be paid. He can also see the longer term benefits.
The question is what should be our attitude? I think we have to take the longer term view. The new stadium is clearly beneficial and was a step that had to be taken. Unpleasant though it may be, I expect that we will have to accept three or more trophyless years. We simply can't compete with the big boys for the time being.
We should perhaps look on the bright side. Despite our evident financial weakness, we have still managed to qualify for the Champions League; we have reached a cup final; we still play, on our day, the most attractive football in the premiership. Not a bad record and think of all the clubs that would love to be in our position (so called big clubs like Newcastle, Villa, Man City, even the scum)
It's largely thanks to AW. But if that is what happens in our lean years, just imagine what the good times, when the money finally starts to flow, are going to be like.
So let's stop kidding ourselves that major signings are just around the corner. Accept that the new stadium was a neccessity and get through the neext few years as best we can. Better times will follow in the next decade.
Here, here! £10m extra TV revenue probably means £10m paid off the stadium loan - not extra money in the transfer pot - & quite right too. Those of us who support Arsenal for the long term should be able to live with that - and be thankful we've got a Manager who may even win the odd trophy in our "lean years"!!
I agree with the majority of the comments guys, but MK Gould I can't agree that it's right to use an extra £10m to reduce the loan rather than invest in the team. Last season qualification for the CL's was far from guaranteed until the last few games and we all know how we scraped in by the skin of our teeth the previous year.
This season the difference between making the top 4 and not was put at £40m. Even if we are to remain trophy less, Champions League qualification is a must. Not spending £10m could cost us an awful lot more in the long run and in my opinion is short sighted thinking. Failing to make the knock out stages or get past the first knock out round probably costs £10m +. I know we can't afford to break the bank, but in the greater scheme of things, £10m is small fry against the overall size of the loan. The investment in the team of, what is in todays football, a moderate sum, could recoup you an awful lot more.
I completely agree that it would be commercial suicide for the club to announce that there is no/little money to spend. But there is a balance between that and lying. The fact is the club did a deal with the bank to structure the loan over 20 - 25 years. Repayments are fixed as is the interest. No doubt the extra revenue that a 60,000 capacity brings is factored into the repayments as is, I expect, the money the Highbury redevelopment brings. However any additional revenue on top of this that the club generate through player sales or commercial deals should go back into the team. What is the difference in paying back the money over 23 years rather than 25 years?
Even if we forget the original £20m that Edelman 'assured' us was there, if you count £10m from the TV deal, £7m for Reyes, £2m for Muamba plus looks like we'll offload Aliadiere for £5m or so, that gives us £20m +. Even then the club could pay extra off the loan than originally planned as the TV deal nets us an awful lot more extra than the £10m we have hypathetically put aside for transfers.
I believe we have the nucleus of a fantastic side, so the investment of £20m could transform us. Then we'd see the money role in!!. I would never advocate gambling with the clubs future (we all know what happened to Leeds) but spending unexpected or unplanned income is not gambling. It's sound business sense and it's speculating to accumulate whilst at the same time ensuring the club remains on an even keel.
This season the difference between making the top 4 and not was put at £40m. Even if we are to remain trophy less, Champions League qualification is a must. Not spending £10m could cost us an awful lot more in the long run and in my opinion is short sighted thinking. Failing to make the knock out stages or get past the first knock out round probably costs £10m +. I know we can't afford to break the bank, but in the greater scheme of things, £10m is small fry against the overall size of the loan. The investment in the team of, what is in todays football, a moderate sum, could recoup you an awful lot more.
I completely agree that it would be commercial suicide for the club to announce that there is no/little money to spend. But there is a balance between that and lying. The fact is the club did a deal with the bank to structure the loan over 20 - 25 years. Repayments are fixed as is the interest. No doubt the extra revenue that a 60,000 capacity brings is factored into the repayments as is, I expect, the money the Highbury redevelopment brings. However any additional revenue on top of this that the club generate through player sales or commercial deals should go back into the team. What is the difference in paying back the money over 23 years rather than 25 years?
Even if we forget the original £20m that Edelman 'assured' us was there, if you count £10m from the TV deal, £7m for Reyes, £2m for Muamba plus looks like we'll offload Aliadiere for £5m or so, that gives us £20m +. Even then the club could pay extra off the loan than originally planned as the TV deal nets us an awful lot more extra than the £10m we have hypathetically put aside for transfers.
I believe we have the nucleus of a fantastic side, so the investment of £20m could transform us. Then we'd see the money role in!!. I would never advocate gambling with the clubs future (we all know what happened to Leeds) but spending unexpected or unplanned income is not gambling. It's sound business sense and it's speculating to accumulate whilst at the same time ensuring the club remains on an even keel.
