Forums / Arsenal
Order: Newest / Oldest
Us Hypocrites & The Board
[account-removed] 2 years ago
I think some good points have been raised. Some off the pitch issues Arsenal have imo are:

1.) their wage structure is good in what its original purpose is, which was to keep the majority of players happy and with most players earning money that isn't too far of the rest of their teammates. But, the problem is when the big players want to leave for money, then Arsenal don't, or can't, give them higher wages because it will harm their wage structure. I think they should change their wage structure and adapt a bit. They don't have to use the Chelsea/City wage structure, but they could use the one that Manchester United is using, which is effective but also cost-effective as well. Arsenal have the financial means to do this, without a doubt. Arsenal's current wage structure is also a problem for them in the transfer market when they want to sell their fringe/backup/unwanted players. Having players earning very similar paychecks keeps most, if not all, players happy, but the problem is some players earn over the market rate in this system. So when Arsenal want to get rid of backup players, its hard for them because other clubs can't pay the higher than market value wages that Arsenal are paying for their fringe players.

2.) for a club of Arsenal's stature, they don't earn enough in the commercial revenues sector. This is a clear case of lack of business nous by those responsible for this sector. This hinders them in many ways, like transfer activity and wage packets they can offer to current employees and transfer targets. Every major club acknowledges that commercial sector is highly likely to become the biggest share of the overall revenue pie in the future. For example, in the Manchester United IPO, the prospectus also acknowledges that in the future, United's commercial sector earnings will account for over 50% of the total revenue due to lack of saturation in this sector, and bigger efforts on an annual basis being taken by clubs to monitise their brand appeal. Current United earn about 1/3 of their overall revenue through the commercial revenue stream. Arsenal, in my humble opinion need to take a leaf out of Manchester United and Bayern Munich's ways of maximising commercial revenue.

3.) for football's long term viability's sake, I hope the FFP rules prove to be a success. If that's the case, then Arsenal will clearly benefit. But, whether the FFP works or not, its important that they work on increasing revenue streams and trying to make money spent (expenses) more effective than it presently is, namely, change the wage structure to the one Manchester United are following. United have not been using this structure forever, but over the past few years this is the one they have adapted to, and many other self-reliant clubs have done the same. I don't understand why Arsenal havent done so. Arsenal need their CEO and their board to work on long standing issues, such as increasing revenues from the one thing that they can increase and have complete control over, which is commercial revenue. Arsenal is one of the top 10 football brands in the world, and blame for not monitising it has to lie with some, if not all, of those sitting on the board of directors in the past few years. Tottenham for example came up with a clever way of increasing their sponsorship revenue, by using two different shirt sponsors for different competitions. Arsenal can't use this trick unfortunately due to their commitment to Emirates, but if less well established football brands like Tottenham can be innovative in the commercial revenue sector, then why can't a more establised club like Arsenal?

Gunning4Glory (Arsenal) 2 years ago
Well commercial revenue is very low but as you touched on this largely due to large term deals made to fund the building of the Emirates. In 2014 (I think) they are up for renewal and I expect our commercial income to increase sharply
Deffyduck (Arsenal) 2 years ago
Nice posts guys, heres my view.

The sustainable model is admirable, if FFP is introduced and properly enforced over the next couple of seasons then Arsenal will undoubtedly be one of the strongest teams in Europe. (Big emphasis on the "if")

In the meantime, we are doing what we can to stay competitive knowing that we do not have the resources to match clubs like Utd/Chelsea/City that either have massive revenue streams and/or financial backing of a wealthy investor.

We are faced with a bit of a double edged sword. Everybody wants to see some good investment into the squad but at the same time we are proud that at Arsenal "we don't buy superstars, we make them". Realistically we could spend more on fees to sign the big names but that would undermine the whole vision of the self-sustaining club. If we were to spend £100-200m on players, we would be no different to Man City.

Ideally (in my view) the club (and more specifically the board) need to have a serious review of the wage structure. I know we cannot compete with £220k per/week at City/Chelsea/PSG but given the stature of the club we should not have players earning literally 1/4 of that.

There has to be a balance of paying competitive wages to keep our star players here without charging head first into the financial black hole that clubs like City/Chelsea are in danger of.

It would also help, if the players shared this philosophy. Players are too easily swayed by the promise of more money/trophies but none of them would understand why that elusive trophy would be so much sweeter if they won it at Arsenal.

We will ultimately get there, it may not be this season, it may not be next season, but we are gradually building towards true success. Not the success that a £450m squad can scrape on the final day against QPR, but the kind of success that goes down in history as undeniable, unassailable and ultimately unsurpassable
Dougie27 (Arsenal) 2 years ago
I see signs the we are starting to invest slightly more. Also, the FFP will probably just slow down inflamation in the wages and transfer fees but City and Chelsea will still be able to out muscle others
Dougie27 (Arsenal) 2 years ago
We are all hypocrites when it comes to commenting on the clubs model and here's why:

I would comment on Hopes post (was a post on the main forum) but I would like to create my own post in order to fully state what I think of Kroenke and the board. I have to say, Kroenke is obviously not the one who started the "sustainable spending" model at the club. As we all know, he's only been here for a year. Neither is Gazidis, he's only been here a few years himself. These two men are slaughtered in the media and by our fans (and other sets of fans) daily. This is strange however. Yes, they have their problems and flaws, but I find that they are heavily used as scapegoats.

Remember the speech that was given at the AST meeting by Gazidis earlier this year? He talked of how back in 2004, Arsenal wanted to find a way to compete financially with the much richer clubs (particularly Manchester United at that time). They were (and still are) taking in much more revenue than Arsenal or anyone else. So Arsene, Danny Fizman whom we all miss and the board decided for us to create a unique model that would take time but would eventually build us into not only a competitive top club, but a sustained one at that.

Here's where the issue is in my opinion. All of us or most of us at least would love for this to work. Whether it will remains to be seen. However, at the same time, a lot of people are calling for David Dein to be brought back to the club. He represents basically the same thing that Usmanov does. He wanted a big sugar daddy to come into the club and to pump money out for us to spend with. Why are we wanting Usmanov to stay away yet we want Dein back? Why do we commend ourselves for trying to act sustainable but then criticize our board? I'm not slagging of Hope for his comment because it's quite likely that Kroenke does in fact like making profits. My point is that there is a lot of things going on that we don't like to make our minds up about. It's interesting to see peoples views
Jayramfootball (Arsenal) 2 years ago
I don't agree at all with the sentiment of your post - sorry!
The league has moved on significantly from 2004 and prior to that we WERE competing very nicely thank you with Utd, who had far more money than us.

We built a new stadium and since day 1 extra revenues have been flooding into that club, but year after year we make even more money on a policy of profiteering from player sales whilst we regress.

This, I am sure, was not the vision on how we would compete with richer clubs.

Our model - and I hate the word - is flawed. The over reliance on FFP is a bad joke.

We don't even need to invest huge sums to compete - if all we had done over the last 5 years is invested 50% of our clear profit NET then we would have spent an extra £100m on player transfers (not wages which are already covered).

That investment would see our squad significantly stronger and right up there with the top teams.

I am not buying this sustainable model rubbish for one second, and the argument is not one of the current board's model vs Usmanov the sugar daddy. That extreme just lets the board off the hook for the clear policy of profit over performance
Jayramfootball (Arsenal) 2 years ago
Sorry double post - deleted
Dougie27 (Arsenal) 2 years ago
Believe me, I agree with you as well. This is the point of my post, to show that everyones opinion is flawed. We do need to be investing more, no doubt. I think we have started to though, especially this summer
Gunning4Glory (Arsenal) 2 years ago
@Jayramfootball I don't understand how you think an extra 100m on signings, presumable big signings not more youngsters etc, would not come with large wages. You point out that the stadium has been generating revenue for a long time, but I think you over look that it was not paid for upfront. Much of this extra revenue since day 1 has been spent paying off loans. On top of that lets not forgot that with the Chelsea and Man City billionaires even our wage bill has rocketed which had to be covered from our improved revenues.

You may not see this as only two options for running a club but I can't say I think your reasoning correct. It's one thing competing with one rich club, Man Utd, but three? And In the last few years I think we are seeing the benefits of the sustainable model as we now have the money available to buy more experienced players (Arteta, Mertesacker, Podolski, Cazorla etc).



   
Kick4Life - changing lives through football