Arsenal
Who & what is to blame that Arsenal became selling club?
We want Arsenal back
By Radio Free Arsenal
July 20 2012
Part 4: In previous sections of this article (see links below this article) it has been demonstrated that investment in the team dropped dramatically in the second half of Wenger’s tenure, and that Arsenal slipped down two places in the wages league. Also the wage structure was changed dramatically to a more equal and flat structure. Although more democratic it has proved to be inefficient.So we now have an idea of how we got to the present state of decline caused by an inefficient wage structure, and under investment into new quality players that saw a weakening of the squad’s depth of quality.
This raises the question why? The answer would appear obvious at first glance. That the burden of borrowing to complete the construction of the Emirates Stadium forced the Club to enact financial belt-tightening; most clearly apparent in the reduction in investment in the squad. Certainly many Gooners’ believe this to be the case, and even some Club officials have hinted at it in recent years.
And this seems a reasonable conclusion when you look at the Club’s finances since the effort to build a new stadium became a reality, as this impacted on the Club’s finances.
But one glance is insufficient and if we take a deeper look we find other possible factors. This is because from the initiation of the plans to build a new stadium, the Club insisted that the associated costs of that project would in no way negatively impact any other aspect of the Club’s business; or on the finances available to the manager for the maintenance of the football team.
While there is reason to question those claims at this point, what is more interesting is that while the claims might have in fact been factually accurate they may have been less than candid.
Those insistences began before final approval to commence construction at Ashburton Grove was granted to the Club by the Borough Council and Planning Commission. Indeed it was as early as 2001 that David Dein told supporters that financing the new stadium would have no impact whatsoever on the funding available to the Manager for team–building the following year:
"There is no point in having a great stadium if you haven't got a great team to play in it. All the money Arsène Wenger needs for team-building will still be available." We have always had a budget for what happens on the pitch. It is entirely separate from the one for what happens off it and that won't change. The money for the stadium project is ring-fenced.”
The ring-fencing comment was particularly pleasing and reassuring to supporters who harboured lingering doubts about the move from Highbury beyond simply the deep emotional unease and distress many who even supported this decision still felt.
But Dein was not alone, his close friend and fellow Board member Danny Fiszman was eagerly stating as one reporter said at the time, “…Fiszman never fails to say that the financing of Ashburton Grove does not affect spending on the team”.
But the one man responsible for promoting the Club’s stated position on the new stadium and its impact, or rather lack of impact, on the footballing budget was the Club’s Chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, who reported on a regular basis that money was available to the manager, and plenty of it to boot, with such regularity that it became something of a cliché.
But clearly Hill-Wood believed or wanted supporters to believe this and spoke with great confidence on it stating, “We have money, a substantial amount if necessary, available to Arsene for new players. If he wants a good player we shall do all we can to acquire him”, “Funds will always be made available to Arsene to improve the quality of the squad and we have consistently stated that adequate funds are available to him if needed”- "We have never denied Arsene any transfer requests.”
These statements appeared with regularity between 2005 and 2009 as the Club diligently assured supporters that its promises about the decision to leave Highbury were not having any detrimental impact on the Club’s financial investment in the football team. Fiszman at one point even made this dramatic statement of intent in 2007
“We are in a very strong financial situation and if he [Arsene] wanted to spend £100m, he could. He decides whether a players fee and salary is worth it. It is his decision and his decision only.”
A remarkable statement any way you look at it and one that even if be too good to be true had to have some grounding in actual fact?
But in fact the answer to the question above appears to be no. It became increasingly apparent there were reasons to question these claims most particularly in view of the decline of the overall squad quality from 2005 onward. Also the decline in actual net spending figures raised real question about how accurate the Board’s assurances were.
And indeed in 2010 there was a shift in the stance that should have garnered far more attention than it did, and required further explanation, as it seemed to contradict all the previous claims about substantial funds available for investment in the team made regularly by Hill-Wood and others.
It began innocently enough, as Hill-Wood repeated the same clichés about money being available and” plenty” of cash to spend. However he added “We have got more money than we've had for a long, long time”, which to most actually listening was not only new information but information which seemed substantially inconsistent with the information provided for several years about sufficient and substantial funds being readily available.
And to those who insist that comment was taken out of context this was at the same that the manager stated, “For years we have no money. Now we have money and we cannot find players to buy.”
To be clear the Arsenal manager said we had no money for a long period of time, for years. Not that the club had a little money, not it had less money, but it had no money over several years. No one at the Club contradicted or questioned this. They did not dispute the statement at all.
This can only lead to one conclusion – the Club and the Board had deceived the supporters about the Club’s finances the availability of finances to the manager for investment in the football team, the only real question is when they were doing so – from 2005-2009 or from 2010-onward.
Dawn of a selling club
There is no way around the fact that claims from 2005 to 2009, and claims after 2009, which clearly refer back to those earlier years are utterly contradictory and inconsistent. The public information available only re-inforces these conclusions, as it shows that net spending declined by 300% since 2006, Income from the sale of players increased by 100% and revenue from player sales outstripped the increase in spending on player purchases by two-to-one.
So the question bedevils us still, why did the Board mislead us? Indeed a Dan Fiszman bombast specifically on this issue from 2007 bears reviewing carefully. Questioned about the impact of the new stadium on the finances Fiszman emphatically replied,
"I hear all the time that we have no money, but I just wish someone would take the time to look at our accounts. This is a proper business which produces its own cash and lives or dies by its performances. Our net payments are £20 million and the revenue increase from the new stadium is close to £50 million. Explain to me how that stadium is a drain on the club, when it produces an extra £30 million a year. "He went even further and said, “This constant suggestion that the stadium is bleeding us dry is crap."
Not once did Fiszman state that there is no factor impacting on finances in the manner the new stadium was alleged to – just that whatever may be creating these concerns its clearly not the new stadium. He even goes into detail as to why the stadium is not the issue though again he never divulges anything beyond that. But he states clearly the stadium producing revenue far outstripping its annual debt obligation, and that said debt obligation is easily serviceable.
But it doesn’t take a great deal of nous to see something is in fact creating these specific concerns, and to conclude what it would be at that specific time, as there was another large property management project underway. This created its own financial burden on top of the financing of the construction of the Emirates Stadium, and this was the redevelopment of Highbury stadium into urban luxury and affordable housing.
This project was recommended by Keith Edelman who argued for not selling the property to a developer, because the revenue from selling the new housing would be more profitable than selling the site undeveloped. Just when this decision was taken is a bit of a mystery as there are conflicting timetables suggested in the media; and there was both a belief that the Club were going to re-develop the property themselves, and that they were still selling it to developers as originally planned for some time.
But we do know that originally the plan was to sell Highbury and this went back to stadium moves mooted in 1970s and 1980s; and it was understood the proceeds from that sale would ease any short-term cash-flow concerns that might arise. This new decision and its impact being beneficial was not entirely certain, and just who would benefit, and at what if any cost to the Club will be explored more closely in the next chapter.
End of section 4
Part 5 to follow
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
Stumbleupon20/07/2012 11:17
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012:08:17:14:37:45 by Padre Pio.
Quote:This can only lead to one conclusion – the Club and the Board had deceived the supporters about the Club’s finances the availability of finances to the manager for investment in the football team, the only real question is when they were doing so – from 2005-2009 or from 2010-onward.
It could also lead to Wenger re-inventing his managerial style and philosophy, relying on youth good or bad(Bendtner,Song,Denilson,Traore,Vela, Cesc, Flamini,Walcott , Nasri, Clichy,Gibbs etc) hoping they'll grow together to be similar to Barca, remember in the decline years he actually believed he had his best squad ever.
The board are AKB's, they won't question Wenger's plans but in fairness his achievements are strong and it's better the devil you know.
What we are seeing are 2 changes, on and off the pitch, seems nobody cares that there's was a different formation/style out there from 2005-06, which again changed end of 2008-09.
Personally I think the Flamini situation showed a lot about Wenger's intentions, Flamini was sh*t for most of his time at the club and Wenger kept claiming when we get to the Emirates on a bigger pitch he will be better. Flamini did turnout to be better although Wenger refused to extend his contract until he proved himself as a midfielder. The bigger pitch of the Emirates opened new doors to playing styles Wenger could play with and he has done so. He did get a good team 07/08 but thought it was all down to his team bonding and coaching. Turns out they didn't give a sh*t about each other and f*cked off.
Theodore roosevelt - In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.
Quote:Shane1988
These are becoming like the Saw franchise.
If they were like the Saw franchise you'd have some sort of choices opportunity to escape this fate silly boy. No these are more like the Hostel Films. You have no choice but to endure every bit the brutal gory reality.....
Sorry Padre, couldn't pass those up. Won't do it again.
Quote:RadioFreeArsenalQuote:Shane1988
These are becoming like the Saw franchise.
If they were like the Saw franchise you'd have some sort of choices opportunity to escape this fate silly boy. No these are more like the Hostel Films. You have no choice but to endure every bit the brutal gory reality.....
I meant The Godfather franchise
Quote:Shane1988Quote:RadioFreeArsenalQuote:Shane1988
These are becoming like the Saw franchise.
If they were like the Saw franchise you'd have some sort of choices opportunity to escape this fate silly boy. No these are more like the Hostel Films. You have no choice but to endure every bit the brutal gory reality.....
I meant The Godfather franchise
I am sorry but how the f.uck do you mix those two movie series up? Even if you see the excerable Godfather Part 3 first, just how the hell do you do that?
I mean yes they are both movie series but then Thierry Henry and Franny Jeffers are both strikers. Ever mix those two up? Or Candice Swaenpoel and Angela Merkel. They're both Women with non-English sounding last names. Even confuse them?
Oh jesus I need that laugh
I'll stick to my original assessment likening your work to the Saw films, which too was a joke because I'm not in the business of belittling somebody's work when they've clearly went to a lot of effort to write it up so well done.
But Audition kills both films for how jarringly scary it is Not nearly as gory and hard to watch in that way bur Audition will genuinely freak you out in ways those Saw and Hostel movies couldn't hope to. Its kind of movie that won't simply give you nightmares you'll find yourself thinking about it in the middle of everyday stuff.
And thanks for the kind words. I try my best is all.
StreamFootball - Arsenal
More Arsenal headlines
Arsenal latest threads
- Off Topic: Remember the Clamour re Jhon Duran
- Vinicius Junior
- You can sign one player this window
- Sign valverde and kill 2 birds with one stone
- Can this team with the champions league next season?
- Tzolis signs - official
- 2026/27 Arsenal Squad
- What’s going on?
- For those interested.. Arsenal Women Continue to Strengthen
- Saliba