UK time is: 20:49:57
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It's Vital'

Bring Back That Loving Feeling

Arsenal are not the force they once were and I`ve stared to accept that.

I have been guilty of building up the team leading into the new season many times and this season I genuinely believed we would be more competitive despite selling RVP. How wrong I was. It`s been depressing at times, none more so than the embarrassing defeat to League Two side Bradford in the Capital One Cup.

But the shame of that night has been replaced with anger following the dismal first half performance against Chelsea. I genuinely thought we would get a result at the Bridge and I think we would of had Giroud not Gervinhio`d his early chance.

I don`t know who was dressed as Sagna but it was an awful imitation of a right back rated by many as the league`s best. As good as Sagna has been for Arsenal, I think he should have been made to win his place back from Jenkinson when he returned from injury instead of just waltzing back into the team.
Young Jenks was in-form and even earned himself an England call-up so why drop him for a player who is returning from his second leg break in three years?

We are currently on the lowest points total at this stage in the season under Wenger and look pretty certain of missing out on Champions League football.

Am I the only one thinking that could be a good thing?

It will give Wenger and especially the board a swift kick up the bum that everyone knows is needed for the direction of the club to change. They are so concerned with making fourth place but what is the point of playing Champions League football if we`ve got a team that has no chance of winning the trophy?
Some were saying we got a decent draw in Bayern Munich in the last 16, I am absolutely dreading both games and don`t think it will even be a contest.

But that doesn`t say much when I am full of trepidation about a trip to Brighton.

If you were to offer me a sixth place finish but an FA Cup triumph I would take it because I`m sure I wouldn`t be alone in wanting to enjoy the winning feeling once again. We`ve got money and will not be like Liverpool when they dropped out of the 'big four`. Arsenal can rise again but it will be a case of going one step back to go two steps forward.

See: Tickets to see Arsenal live and available tickets

Use your social login to comment on front page articles. Login using you Facebook, Twitter, Google or LinkedIn accounts and have your say!

Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.

The Journalist

Writer: Gary Taylor Mail feedback, articles or suggestions

Date:Thursday January 24 2013

Time: 12:31PM

Your Comments

Gary is looking to do some writing for VA so he'll be doing a few test pieces. Let him know what you think. You don't have to pull your punches, but keep it civil please.
Dare I say we need a 'we are on the brink of catastrophe' commentator to balance the eternal optimism of LD and Amos. Rocky, you straddle the divide nicely. ;)
Wyn Mills
Like I've said before, we're not a site with any specific agenda, we don't only post articles that fit to a certain theme. If someone wants to write an article for VA and it's presented in a good manner, then all opinions are welcome here.
Precisely the reason, I suspect, many of us are here.
Wyn Mills
Yep - that's what Arsenal Land needs - another 'we're doomed' blog! They're notoriously difficult to find aren't they! I get why folk think I'm overly optimistic but I'm not sure how that accusation gets levelled at LD! Any optimistic article is quickly quelled in the comments section anyway. Why wasn't Sagna dropped in place of Jenks? I'm guessing because at present Sagna is clearly the better player. So there's no point entering a competition unless you can be pretty sure of winning it? There's a case right there for reducing the number of teams in the PL to just three then. I think that one step backwards is precisely what you're upset about Gary - but nice to read the opinion of another contributor. More should be encouraged to try their hand.
I don't think it's a "we're doomed" blog per se, infact Gary is suggesting a bit of doom might be good for the club. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I understand his position. You can also understand the club's position. It's a fair enough question for fans to ask why put so much emphasis on a competition we stand little chance of winning .... but the fact is, the cash we get from it is just too large an amount to pass up. As much as we don't like to think about a football club being run that way, that's how it is now and we need CL football.
Well you have to admit the number of AKB blogs have drastically thinned over the past few years... LD,Pardon me for labelling you an optimist, but you would surely have to be one to follow this team on the road come rain or shine. Anyway point is ist good to see a balance on this site, and I'm sure we all enjoy debating the positives as well as the negatives. Oh, and a note of caution about over-optimism, Amos :)
Wyn Mills
I'm happy to read contrary opinion if only because it sometimes allows me to correct some misunderstandings. Our current points total at this stage is the same as it was last year 23 games in which in turn was the same as at this stage in the 2005-2006 season. The difference between last season and this is that we're currently one place higher and one point nearer 4th. If a little doom is good for the club then the last few seasons have been positively euphoric! Thank you for the note of caution about over optimism Wyn. Allow me point out that not only are positive people more attractive listening to negative people does nothing for the other lobes of the brain ;)
Lol. ;)
Wyn Mills
Can someone write an article on Kroenke & his achievements in sports? 1000word minimum......
That would be quite a challenge.
Wyn Mills
Lol, Amos.
His business achievements would be more relevant to his position. Who needs to know what his golf handicap is?
I am sure Shewore meant the achievements of his sports franchises. Not a very good report, from what I have read. Stable, profitable but not winners. That doesn't worry me though, with Arsenal because the board still have persons with a sense of history.
Sorry, but it worries me. I suppose some would argue business stability in itself is an achievement in the current climate and the club needs stability to thrive, but we're sports fans, not traders. Illogical as it may sound its success on the field that matters. Otherwise I might as well start supporting Goldman Sachs.
Wyn Mills
*has*. I was reading the comments section of another blog (not sure which of 7am Kick-off or Caught offside) where an American contributor posted something of a lamentation for the mediocrity that beset the St. Louis Rams since Stan took majority stake of the NFL side. Now. I don't know much about the NFL, but the post went on to mention how Stan's other acquisitions have not fared better in terms of being competitive through player investment and how that fate may just befall Arsenal. My guess is while Stan is club owner, the board and manager will surely have a say in how the club's player investment affairs are run. One hopes we still have board members who are interested in the club winning things, in keeping with its history.
Depends on the point from which those franchises started as to whether you see them as successful or not. He certainly hasn't done them any harm any more than Henry Norris's lack of sporting success was harmful to AFC. Like Norris he can only look at it from the perspective of commercial success. KSE is a successful business which is the best background from which to try to gain sporting success. Unsuccessful businesses tend not to be successful at anything unless bailed out by taxpayers or sugar daddies.
So give me an example of a successful owner you'd be happy with? Abramovich, Mansour, the Glazers? Usmanov? Enic, Bill Kenwright? What was Fiszman's claim to sporting success before he became involved in Arsenal?
Danny Fiszman was an Arsenal fan, and invested his own money into the club he'd supported all his life - and knew about football - how about that for a start? Kroenke is a parasite, here to make money from us, got no interest in investing to win trophies, only here to milk the premier league cash cow, anyone that thinks any different is naive
Its a pipe dream but I'd prefer the sort of co-operative ownership that Barcelona have, where the fans have a say and the club can't be sold to rich 'collectors'. But that's the fan in me speaking.
Wyn Mills
Amos, its debatable whether he's done them any harm. What is certain is he hasn't improved them. None of his US Sports franchises have been anywhere near winning honours since the turn of the century. So over a decade of owning these teams and consistently mediocre rankings over all of them. Not exactly encouraging is it?
Wyn Mills
Fiszman was great for the club but he didn't invest any money in it. He bought shares in the club from Dein so his investment was to help Dein out of his ailing business troubles. He did put a great deal of time and effort in steering the business side in the direction it needed to go. He was also instrumental in ensuring that control of the club passed on his death to someone he had confidence in. So despite there being no evidence that Kroenke has taken any money out of the club (unlike the Glazers or ManU's previous owners who regularly paid dividends, as did and do many other clubs) you can determine simply on instinct alone that he is a parasite. Not so much a naive position as a paranoid one. Of course he is looking to make money out of the business just as Henry Norris did - and Dein, Lady Nina, Fiszmans heirs and others have done. Provided he also makes money for the business which is what he has done every else there's little justification for the hysteria.
The North American professional sports industry it completely different than European football - what FFP is optimistically attempting to do, i.e. create some sort of competitive parity between the rich and the poor, has been a staple over here for ages. Revenue sharing and salary caps have resulted in a minimum of nine different champions in each major league since the Premier League was founded in England. Player trading rather than purchasing keeps it honest too - you can't just say 'here's a big bag of money, give me your best player'. So I think the success of Stan's American franchises (an important word - clubs are franchises of a league, not stand-alone entities) is pretty much irrelevant as they compete under a completely different structure and ethos. That said, I think because of this Stan doesn't really understand the way things are in European football and operates Arsenal like an American sports franchise. This will prove prudent if FFP has any teeth, but I'm sure Stan will sell if it doesn't.
If I understand it correctly St Louis Rams had a good last season but he only took control a couple of years ago. As I also understand it the other teams were less than mediocre when he bought into them. It took Arsenal 20 years after Henry Norris took control before we won anything. He was pretty good for us though. At least I can appreciate how these forums provide a useful masterplan for the clubs resurgence though. All we need are new owners, a new manager and new players.
Elbondo, so you're saying something other than investment in players distinguishes the successful US teams? Coaching perhaps? The ability to attract the best stars?
Wyn Mills
That's a useful perspective elbondo. You can't simply buy your way to success in North American Sports seems to be the message. Football in europe has to wake up to that need somewhere along the line. I've rather seen KSE's interest in Arsenal as more of a joined up factor in their commercial enterprise rather than the individual profitability of AFC. Being able to sell sponsorship to multinational corporations in both North American and Europe sports should be an attractive proposition.
A new tea lady would be good while we're at it.
Wyn Mills
The tea lady was dispensed with once she turned down the offer of a one year contract having reached the age of 62. She has been replaced by a vending machine until they can find someone of the right quality but it's always difficult to do so in January.
That's typical Arsenal. Getting rid of experience and then not knowing how to replace it.
Wyn Mills
Is it not entirely reasonable to expect that the majority owner of Arsenal FC has a good track record in sports? That he's there to win trophies? The Glaziers are obviously parasites of the same ilk but the main difference is they stump up the credit for Fergie to purchase who he wants, and care about on pitch prestige. As Wyn has said the ideal model would be the part fan owned one. There are very limited football people in the higher echelons at Arsenal now.
Aye, I would definitely counter being referred to as an optimist, or a pessimist. Or any other such label really. On the article, I’ve actually written a piece which will go on arseblog tonight explaining exactly why I think the whole “Sagna has lost form / is finished” narrative lacks context and perspective. Be sure to catch it tonight 
Little Dutch
Hello, Gary. Well done for making the effort, not many people can be bothered to set their thoughts out. Having said that, I think you have a few misconceptions. We have several targets, one of which is *at least* fourth place. We're not aiming for fourth place and no better, nor are we aiming for fourth place and no trophies. Do you think the share price would go down if we won the League or indeed any trophy? More money would come to the club if we won the CL or the PL and any trophy would increase our earning power from sponsorship and commercial deals. What possible reason could the board have for NOT wanting the most success possible for the club? I am very familiar with the argument that we could have spent a little more, which I am sure someone will bring up, but spending 10% more does not make your team 10% better. Doesn't work like that. I second what Amos said and also LD remarks about Sagna. Jenks has improved massively from not being good enough to play for Arsenal to being good enough to play for Arsenal. Sagna on the other hand is one of the best right backs in European football and has been virtually since his first season with us. You talk about his leg breaks as if they are his fault! @shewore - those are attributes which it is reasonable to look for in a manager or head coach, not in an owner. SK is not our owner anyway, he is the majority shareholder. Not the same as the Mansour or Abramovich situation.
Fun I said majority owner, not owner. You ask the question about what reason would an owner have NOT to want success on the pitch - well i'd put it to you that for Kroenke's best ROI, it's to spend as little (nay, nothing) as possible on the team. And wait for the money to roll in from TV deals and sponsorships. Why take that risk to really go for the thing when you're guaranteed a big pay day each year without taking any risk?
His best return on investment is to increase the revenues into the club. Contrary to your perverse reasoning that is dependent on achieving success i.e competing for and ultimately winning the trophies that matter (forget the domestic cups they're almost valueless in revenue terms). Sponsorship and broadcasting revenues are dependent on people wanting to sponsor and broadcast your teams games. I can understand anyone being cynical about another's motives but in the absence of any evidence whatsoever (we do currently have the 4th highest player budgets in the PL after all and spend a higher proportion of our revenues on player budgets than the Glazers) your hatred of Kroenke is bordering on the psychotic.
Spending a higher proportion? So what?! We don't spend more than them, that's what matters. Yeah, my hatred is psychotic, him and his type are absolutely terrible for football and are there to ruin the game for people that have been there for a while. Why can't you understand my concerns that top4 finishes will continue to mean he can rake it in yet it means we won't win anything? And at little to no investment? The value will continue to go up so he can sell to highest bidder because of external factors as much as internal factors.
I can't understand it because there's no evidence that is what he is doing or intends to do. All you are doing is shouting out your nightmares and accusing anyone else not sharing them of naivety. Did you really mean to say that AFC spending a higher proportion of their revenues is of no importance? Really? In the context of your nightmare do you really not see how contradictory that is?
He sees us as a profitable business, right? Someone he can make money from? Right now, we're making money in the transfer market, we're paying off our debt year on year thus increasing the value of the club, we're going to get more cash streams going forward from things like this TV deal, and we're going to rake it in if we continue to stay in the Champions League operating on a 0 budget. All whilst not winning trophies - make sense to continue this approach if you're only in it for the cash, doesn't it?
I'm not sure i agree with the theme of the article. There is a reason why dropping out of the top 4 didn't work so well for Liverpool and we might find ourselves in a similar position, since Wenger's contract is up in 2014. So new manager, no CL football - not a good combination.
Why would we want to be seen as an unprofitable business? Why on earth wouldn't you want the value of the club to increase!!! What purpose would it serve anyone if the value of the club decreased???? We're not 'making money' in the transfer market because it simply goes into the total player budget. At the same time we have one of the biggest gross spends on transfers in the PL. No it doesn't make any sense at all. The club would make more money and it's value and cash increased far more if we won the CL than if we merely qualified for it. No we do not operate on a 0 budget. We have the 4th highest player budget in the PL and currently spend a higher proportion of our revenues on our player budget than ManU do.
@ shewore - yes, and being the majority shareholder is different from being the owner in the sense that Chelsea or Man City are owned, you seem to think it's all the same. SK is not raking in anything *from Arsenal*. Can you show me where money is going out of the club into his pockets? Yes, we are a profitable business, but SK is not making any money from that business. The money Arsenal makes stays in Arsenal. The paper profit he has made on his shares doesn't exist unless and until somebody buys his shares - and no money will go out of the club when that happens. And once again, wouldn't the share price go up even more if we were more successful? You think that trashing the club's finances would be showing "ambition" but it's not - it's just trashing the club's finances and making it harder for us to pay wages and transfer fees of top players. If over-stretching was the key, why do all the other, less well run clubs ALWAYS finish below us in the league? The only clubs we finish behind are the only clubs to whom we lose players against our will - clubs which are much richer. They can blow everybody else out of the water when it comes to competing to attract players with high wages. We don't spend as much as sugar daddy clubs because we don't have as much money to spend. Spending more money in relation to our income means we are trying harder and putting more into player retention than ManUre. Fourth or third place is not the summit of our ambition, fourth or third is all we have been able to get. Trying and failing does not = not trying.
And very good point, prits - I meant to add that but I forgot. :)
FunGunner, I agree with almost all of your points. However, I think your point here '"We don't spend as much as sugar daddy clubs because we don't have as much money to spend. Spending more money in relation to our income means we are trying harder and putting more into player retention than ManUre", is slightly off. At the moment we don't use debt to finance the operations of the club per se. All our long term debt is from the building of Emirates. Given our revenue and profitability, there is an argument to be made now (as opposed to a few years back) that we can extend our player related expenditure on both wages and transfers. I believe the club could have offered RVP 200k pw without jeopardising our financial position. Also, you cannot have a discussion about how much we spend on players without also discussing the how we spend it and whether the egalitarian approach to wages can actually work in the current market (looking past its ethical strengths))
On the piece: I think fewer points examined in more depth would have been better. Everyone here would understand what sits behind the observations but it would be better having them out in the open (eg trepidation about Brighton - assume Reading and Bradford are the inspiration for this point and a general inability in the league to dispose of "lesser" opponents. On Kroenke, go read So Paddy Got Up and the chapter by AST member. Kroenke wants to make money through Capital value increase not dividend income. From a football perspective I think he is benign and will do what the Board and CEO advise him is required. He will only rarely intervene. Targeting Kroenke as a source of our lesser success is a waste of energy and a red herring. St Louis Rams used to be LA Rams and they were truly *****. Aren't doing that well at the moment. Kroenke's MLS won the equivalent of the FA Cup in 2010
Yes, I believe we have the 5th highest gross transfer spend in the league after Chelsea, Utd, City, and Spurs over the past 10 years. That's great until you realise that our net spending (ie: the actual money spent or invested in the team when you factor in player sales) puts us right at the bottom of the table. We've been rather good at selling our talent but the price you pay for this is a team that have been in a state of almost constant transition since we moved to the Emirates. It’s a wonderful business model if you’re Kroenke and the board because no-one actually has to speculate or take any risks. It may bring stability to the club, but when is it going to bring stability to the team?
Wyn Mills
What's the significance of net spending other than to tell us whether we've bought well or not? Net spending doesn't tell you what we've invested in the team. Only the total player budget (wages plus transfers) tells you what has been invested. Spend more on transfers and you have to spend less on wages. We have consistently the 4th highest player budget spend in the PL. Net spending doesn't even show you what profit is available on player sales as these are amortised as intangible assets. In that way you can pay £20m for a player on a 4 year contract sell him in at the end of year 3 for £10m and as the original fee would have been written down by £15m over the 3 years to a book value of £5m this would show in the accounts as a £5m profit on player trading despite being less than was paid, and that is what is ultimately available to invest in player budgets not net spend. Of course it's also possible that you can pay £15m for a player who serves his contract and leaves on a free in which case those amortisation costs offset gains in player trading. In the meantime gross spend increases intangibles resulting in higher levels of amortisation impacting on the potential for investing over a number of years. That's a risk you always have to take and account for the liability that might arise. Net spend is overly simplistic and largely irrelevant other than to tell you how wisely you're investing.
Regarding the original article, I strongly disagree with the notion that finishing out of the CL spots is a good thing (or that it is 'pretty certain'). Is Wenger more likely to think 'oh, better spend big to get back there' or 'without CL revenue, we have to cut costs'? Still, I appreciate your efforts Gary, I'm against the message, not the messenger : ) I'm glad that more front page pieces are being solicited by Paul, new perspectives are most welcome by me and others too I suspect. But I also don't want to turn into Vital Spuds, where the only criteria for a front page piece seems to be a word count - over 300 words, front page it is. I have had one piece on the front page but I didn't ask for it to be here - I wrote a (somewhat) lengthy post in the Debate and Analysis forum and it ended up here. I was surprised and happy, especially because it got a lot of responses. Anyway, Kudos to Rocky7 for trying everything he can to liven up Vital Arsenal. There are a lot of great people here including Rocky7, best match reporter in the biz Little Dutch, our own version of the Swiss Ramble- Amos, and a lot of passionate Arsenal supporters.
Shewore, Kroenke doesn't need to invest personally in the club. The revenues of the club and its cash reserves are sufficient to finance the expenses as well as a healthy transfer budget. It is the decision of the manager and the club management to invest the money that they have at their disposal and there is nothing to suggest that Kroenke interferes with their decision making. There is also the fact that Kroenke as not paid himself and the other shareholders a dividend since he became majority owner - though Usmanov would greatly appreciate a dividend given his past views on the matter. Not saying Kroenke is an ideal majority owner or a saint but the sheer hatred for his ownership displayed here seems irrational.
I think diversity of views and opinions is most important point for the health of these forums. Anyone can submit an article by following the link 'suggest an article' in the drop down menu in the Vital Arsenal Menu tab in the header above, or via the 'Want to write a front page article' thread at the head of the Debate and Analysis section of the forums. Lengthy posts which make suitable front page reading can also be published as front page articles. Anyone who wants to expand on the views they have expressed are actively encouraged to do so.
DeadwoodGooner, the club could have afforded 200K for RvP's contract, but he wanted to be surrounded by other 200K players (like Rooney) which would increase his chances of winning a trophy. I don't think RvP's transfer was only about money although he is being paid a lot more at ManU. I don't think he was convinced that Arsenal could challenge for the title.
completely agree with shewore & wyn mills. the argument on the club's budget revolves in a vicious cycle. if the club drop to 10th in wage budget one day and without cl, fans would still argue that the position of the club is justifiably because our budget reflects the position of the club. that means all the club have to do is to sell all the good players and replace them with cr***y players. pay them peanuts and tell the fans, "see, our spending is merely equivalent to that of an average championship club. be grateful that we are still in the epl"
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there joe. Of course if revenues were to drop then the revenues available to invest in real terms would also drop. Similarly if our revenues were to increase then the proportion of those spent on player budgets needn't necessarily increase but it's reasonable to expect that they might depending on the competitive environment at the time. Apart from one seasonwhen the club had to rein back spending on wages (between the last double and the invincible season) wages paid has risen significantly every season. But explain to me why the club, as a policy, would want to sell all its best players and replace them with crappy players paid peanuts? Where does this anticipation of us spending less on wages come from?
Amos - what your rather hysterical response fails to do, is take on board anything i've said. Where did i say i wanted our value to decrease? Please highlight this to me. And how can you say we're not making money in the transfer market? Net spend, less than zero = making money, no? Budget in the transfer market is effectively 0 cos we need to sell to buy - as has been demonstrated the last few seasons when we've made a profit - why can you not accept that?
Fun, if you wanna get caught up in semantics, then good luck to you - i know he's the MAJORITY shareholder, as i've said a few times, i just wrote "majority owner" instead of "majority shareholder", sincere apologies, hopefully you can move on. SK is raking it in from Arsenal cos the value of his investment is going up, and it'll only be a matter of time before he cashes out - geddit?
High spending on player wages does not necessarily mean you’re spending that money well and on quality (look at Aston Villa). As you know there's a well trodden argument about our wage structure rewarding mediocrity which doesn't need repeating. Gross spend doesn't tell you whether money has been spent wisely or not. Nothing can really tell you that except results on the pitch. I’m not sure I completely follow your explanation of Net spend giving no indication of profit available from player sales. If you end up with a transfer surplus each year (as we often have done ) surely that is profit in pure terms? There is a feeling among many that the club are not using the surplus available to strengthen the squad. That doesn’t mean splashing the cash on a Messi. It means acquiring better players in depth than Chamakh and not having quite as much sitting in the bank waiting for a rainy day. Is the club really pushing on, or is it resting on Wenger’s laurels waiting for FFP? If Chelsea and City were sitting in splendid isolation above the chasing pack leading by 20 clear points a legitimate case could be made for curbing net investment on the basis that we have no chance of overhauling these cash-doped teams. But they're not and we do, which is why our relative lack of depth in top quality players is so frustrating. It’s because despite the billions spent elsewhere, and thanks to a skilled manager, we’re really not that far away on the field and two or three key players in key positions could actually make the difference. At this rarefied altitude the difference between 1st and 5th can literally be measured in Robin Van Persies.
Wyn Mills
Transfer spend is one component of the player budget but as in the amortisation examples I gave above the spend and profit or loss from player trading is determined as intangible assets which are only realised in the P&L account over time based on write down of contract values. The headline figures or net spend aren't the profits that are available to spend so money is not made from net spend headlines. Your distress is founded on the notion that the value of the club increases. You're apparently unhappy about that because the shareholders, if they choose to sell will benefit from it. That Kroenke will benefit in such a situation you find gives enough cause to hate him but you don't apparently hold similar contempt for Dein, or others who have actually already benefited in exactly the same way you fear Kroenke alone of all the shareholders might at some point in the future. Whether Kroenke eventually cashes out is no more important than anyone who has already done so. I think hysterical more accurately reflects your position than mine. Particularly as the price existing shares are bought or sold for has absolutely no impact at all on club finances. The only time it would is when shares are first issued. Therefore the high value could be of benefit if the club ever decided to raise capital by issuing more shares. Why can you not even begin to see that even if your prejudice doesn't allow you to accept it?
If David Dein somehow became a billionaire and bought out Kroenke, i'd be in a much happier place than I am right now, that's for sure. Forget his ego for a second, he's an Arsenal fan, and knows his footballing onions. I'm not gonna do this again but, i'll just summarise my concerns thusly: 1) Arsenal are a money making machine, mainly driven by the situation we've found ourselves in by the new stadium and Wenger's miracle working on the pitch with a net 0 transfer budget 2) we hardly take risks (in footballing terms - pedants) 3) the value of the club is increasing due to the gravy train of English Football 4) we are nearly debt free - all of the above are the reason Stan Kroenke is here, he's not here for prestige, or to win things, or cos he gives a flying one about a football club that's been in people's lives for generations - we can quite comfortably continue to make money without winning any trophies, and it's same to assume that he intends to exploit that, and make money out of us.
Yeah Dein was such an Arsenal fan that he couldn't wait to safeguard the clubs future by cashing in and knows his footballing onions about as well as his buddy ManU fan Usmanov. Lets take a proper look at your concerns 1) Arsenal make money is a concern? 2) Building a football stadium and incurring significant football debt wasn't a huge risk in footballing terms for a risk averse football club? 3) The costs for the club are increasing due to the gravy train (upon which most travelling lose money) 4) We are nowhere near debt free - long term debt alone is over £250m (don't look at short term debt). You can think what you like about Kroenke, I've no special regard for him, but so far he's been no worse than any of our previous shareholders and is a good bit better than one or two previous and existing ones, but as someone else pointed out your hatred isn't rational.
Not quite sure you understood, or maybe I didn't articulate. They're not concerns in isolation, they're all good traits - my concerns is that Kroenke is going to milk them purely for his own benefit, and not of the football club. Dein's definitely an Arsenal fan, that's not even up for debate, I didn't say I loved the bloke, and Usmanov's probably isn't as much a Utd fan as Gazidis is City. They don't know English football and what it means to people.
Perhaps I didn't understand what "i'll just summarise my concerns" means then but it seems neither did you. Remembering that Dein was the one to put the whole ownership issue into play ask those members of Arsenal supporters groups to whom Dein snootily informed that Arsenal 'wasn't a charitable institution' whether his attitude towards Arsenal fans was even as benign as Kroenke. Cynicism about any ones motives would be perfectly healthy but hatred is best reserved for when someone does something to warrant it.
Time will tell won't it - but I'd put my house on him being happy with the status quo and us not winning anything as long as our value doesn't go down. I think that the school of thought that we need to be succesful (trophy succesful) to be valuable is a naive one.
Why would he be content with our value staying where it is? Where's the sense in that? The school of thought that says to be more valuable (which he needs) and thereby increase in value requires the club to be more successful than it is currently is far a from naive one. Any short term increased revenue from broadcasting will only suffer Lord Sugars 'prune juice' effect and go straight into higher costs to meet the competitive demands. It's perhaps a bit naive to think that the 92nd richest man in the US would be content with just making a few million on a quick turn even if that were possible. His intention would be to stick with it for the longer run if he intends to make a return on his investment. Without real and enduring success neither short term or long term returns are attainable.
I don't think it will stay where it is, i think it'll go up - for the millionth time - but not through on the pitch success, through TV deals, and all of the other perks of being in football in the Premier League give you at the moment. And through spending net 0 each summer. Can you honestly not see any rhyme or reason in that logic? Are we supposed to just shut up and be grateful we have the 92nd richest man (WOW) in America at the helm?
I can't see any logic let alone rhyme or reason to it. I also think the club will increase in value to but in order to do so our revenues whether from TV or anything else will have to increase at a faster rate than our competitors. If an overall TV deal increase then increases the rational spending power of Chelsea and City and others (which logically it will do) then we'll still have to increase our spending in proportion to theirs in order to stay as competitive rather than shove those increased revenues in the bank. There's no logic to your persistent claim that we spend 0 each summer. We have the 4th highest player budget in the PL. The minimum he can do is to still have the 4th highest player budget further down the line just for his investment to stay where it is. You don't have to shut up at all but it would make more sense to apply more evidence than your blind prejudice when promoting your nightmare scenario. The rest of your last sentence is a little too childish an attempt to misrepresent my point so I'll pass on that one.
re: amos, so that means a club at 10th spot should only spend like a club at 10th spot even if spending another few quids may increase the chance of finishing higher in position because there is risk that if the club spent like a 9th positioned club but still finished 10th eventually, the money would be deemed wasted. as to the policy of selling best players and and getting mediocre replacements with cheap wages, the question should be directed to the board. haven't the club been adopting such policy? epl is just one or two shiekhs away for us from giving up challenging even for our "title" fourth spot. one day, some another billionaires may buy up a couple of clubs and the board would have the excuse of not even bothering for the cl spot because our wage budget would only be the 5th or 6th highest and thus the club should operate like one. being 5th or 6th would be just like winning title
If football develops the way you fear joe then you're right. We'd either have to abandon the self sustaining model and sell out to some one wanting to play billionaire poker with the likes of Abramovich and Mansour or accept that our ability to compete will be compromised until they get bored. However, as football seems not to want to follow that path and even to rein back the excesses of the last few years with even the PL clubs in principle set to support some form of FFP that doesn't look as though that's the way game is going. In which case our revenues should ensure that even if we are still no more than 4th highest player budget the distance between the first two and us should be much narrower and therefore relatively more competitive. Depends what your taste in nightmares is I guess.
Spend 25m on players, receive 25m for a player - that's a zero net spend, we have cash in the bank, that we haven't spent on new players - is that even up for debate?
Spent rather too long trying to explain to you precisely why that is up for debate and what that debate is so it's time to concede that you're not going to see it. Most probably because you just don't want to.

Have Your Say

Log in...
with your social network     OR     with your Vital account

Recent Arsenal Articles

Arsenal Games Switched For TV (Friday December 19 2014)

Bellerin To Play With More Freedom Now (Friday December 19 2014)

Wenger - Monaco Completes The Circle (Friday December 19 2014)

Liverpool v Arsenal Match Preview (Friday December 19 2014)

The Ox: Don't Blame Wenger, Blame Us (Thursday December 18 2014)

Ozil Slightly Ahead Of Schedule (Thursday December 18 2014)

Archived Arsenal Articles

List All Vital Arsenal Articles
Have your say
Click here to suggest an article
Click here to suggest a poll

Vital Members League (view all)

1. Amos. 64
2. Naijagunner 47
3. paul_ownz 25
4. Galway Gooner 22
5. Little Dutch 12
6. shewore 12
7. luckys_10 11
8. Nwankwo25 11
9. alwaysgunner 10
10. Wyn Mills 10

League Results (view all)

Latest Results
Arsenal 4 - 1 Newcastle
Stoke 3 - 2 Arsenal
Arsenal 1 - 0 Southampton
WBA 0 - 1 Arsenal
Arsenal 1 - 2 Man Utd
Swansea 2 - 1 Arsenal

League Table (view table)

Team P W D L GD Pts
4. West Ham 17 9 4 4 10 31
5. Southampton 17 9 2 6 15 29
6. Spurs 17 8 3 6 -1 27
7. Arsenal 16 7 5 4 9 26
8. Swansea 17 7 4 6 3 25
9. Newcastle 16 6 5 5 -4 23
10. Everton 17 5 6 6 0 21

Breaking League News

Irvine - Penalty Call Changed The Game
» WBA : 20/12/2014 20:44:00
Pelle - Praise To The Whole Team
» Southampton : 20/12/2014 20:35:00
Unbelievable Spirit Delights Koeman
» Southampton : 20/12/2014 20:28:00
Pearson Continues To Believe Despite West Ham Loss
» Leicester City : 20/12/2014 19:58:00
Warnock - We Just Needed The Goal
» Crystal Palace : 20/12/2014 19:47:00

Current Site Poll (view all polls)

Liverpool v Arsenal
Suggested By:  Site Staff
Arsenal win 0%
Draw 0%
Liverpool win 0%