I said back in the late 00's Wenger and Rafa should have swapped clubs. Rafa wanted funds but wasn't getting any while Wenger had funds but didn't use them.
Arsene Wenger - “The huge financial power of some clubs is basically destroying the competition."
- Thread starter Fluctuation0161
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
City and PSG have been spending hundreds of millions for the last few years, but what have they really won during the last 5 years. OK, PSG are winning the league in their own country because of the standard of the league, but have not come close in Europe, City have not done much either. They won the league once and a couple of cups in the last 5 years, but not even close in Europe. I think coaching has a lot to do with them running away with the league this year rather than just spending. It's hard to believe, but Leicester and to and extent Chelsea have shown that you can win with quality coaching without having to spend like City and PSG. Surely Wenger can compete with Leicester City if not Chelsea.
If Wenger actually was arsed to find out what the Arsenal fanbase thinks about the Sanchez sale to United, he would find that they are not as charitable as he is about the fact he is moving to United instead of City. In fact (1) a lot of them actually prefered him to go to City over United.
To be fair even Spur's cannot be arsed to compete with Arsenal over transfer.
With the revenues they make and the shareholders they have, I am pretty sure they could have afforded all 3 players you list if they where arsed to do so. However what I would say on the point about youth players is that even when he was good at developing players (2) like Henry, Vieira and RvP, the Academy under his watch has been pretty poor at developing first team Arsenal players thoughout his time at the club. In fact I would even go as far as say that the only players have suceeded out that academy are Ashley Cole (who ended up at Chelsea soon enough), Harry Kane (who of course ended up at Spurs) and Jack Wilshere.
That would only be possible with a European Super League, which for all its faults would be hugely competitive so long as the TV deal (for such a league) was more in the tradition of the Premier League than lets say La Liga.
Which goes to show how hypocritical about how certain clubs are about the emergence of City and PSG as major clubs as I stated in an earlier post on the subject:
Well City can certainly afford to have 22 (or even 33) of the best players in the world on paper, the reality is that so long as we continue to obey rather than challenge (or get around) FFP, City will find it very diffcult if not impossible to succeed in doing so.
Unless City is going to £400-600 million in the next 2 transfer windows to get the strength in depth we need (to enable us to have 2 World Class XI's in our squad at least), I highly doubt that we are going to be dominating the league (certainly not Europe) over the next few seasons. I mean at the very least one could easily see United spend equally as much next season as well.
Agreed! For better or worse it is much harder for any ambitious club to rise to the top then it was the case even in the 1990s, I mean one has to look at the possible future of Tottenham's squad (or what has happened to the Monaco squad of 2016-2017) to see what I mean. Likewise I would also point out that the more competition (state/billionaire backed or not) there is to the established clubs, the more they have to up their game and raise their standards. Which to me is no bad thing...
For me I would be happy enough if neither Real Madrid nor Barcelona win the Champions League this season, they have been far too dominant for far too long in this competition.
Technically it is largely owned by the Russian Billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev (or rather his daughter) with the Government (or rather Royal Family) of Monaco, both of wholm can be described as pretty wealthy in their own right, so they can easily afford to spend as much as the likes of United, City, Real, Barcelona and PSG. The reason they don't is largely due to their lack of interest in bypassing FFP (I would say that they club that was screwed the most by this boneheaded policy more than anyone else) and the fact Rybolovlev got himself involved in a messy divorce case soon after buying the club.
(1) And this is something which has actually surprised me considering the number of players City has raided from that club (and quite frankly we should have got RvP himself). Guess it shows how strong the legacy of the Arsenal-United rivalry is despite the fact it is a shadow of what it used to be.
(2) Which is no longer the case as both Iwobi and Bellerin have shown.
Spurs have done everything right: if they cannot succeed, who can?
If football is not merely to be the propaganda wing of petro-inflated billionaires, Tottenham must be the model – yet they face Liverpool on Sunday with their position precarious:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...mauricio-pochettino-model-club-cannot-succeed
If football is not merely to be the propaganda wing of petro-inflated billionaires, Tottenham must be the model – yet they face Liverpool on Sunday with their position precarious:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...mauricio-pochettino-model-club-cannot-succeed
And? What point are you trying to make?
Wrong, evolution of football in the last 2 decades show exactly the opposite.
They spend because they have to win, and in modern football you don't have time to ask for more time or you are out. Beside that you can't compare the 2, Guardiola already improved at least 2 players from last season, Otamendi or Sterling, but he has to spend, because it is part of the business.
I have a lot of respect for SAF, but even in these current days he wouldn't believe that, the game simply changed, probably you will never more see managers like Wenger or Ferguson more than 20 years at a club, the amount of money involved doesn't allow that to happen.
He was basically implying (for whatever reasons he had) that he perfered to see Sanchez join United rather than City. What I am trying to say is from what I have seen, many Arsenal fans take a very different view to him on this matter.
To be fair, I would not have called the City Squad of 2015-2016 as "strong", not when it could not even beat Leicester City to the title (and let not forget, barely make Top 4). Rather I would call it a squad which needed a lot of rebuilding just to maintain the position we where in, let along progress to the next level. When you combine it with the way transfer fees (1) have risen of late it is no surprise City spent £578 million on 19 players both in that season and under Pep's 2 seasons at the club.
From the perpective of a City fan, I saw it (and still see) as a way of keeping clubs City down below the established clubs more than anything else. If anything it is clubs like Chelsea and City (and the spending they have both done) that have leveled the playing field for those competiting for the League Title more than anything else.
For me (and this is something all clubs, agents, sponsors and agents need to take collective responsibility for, including my own club), what is more ridiculous is how the transfer fees of all players (as paid by many clubs including the major ones such as my own) have become in recent seasons. That to me is the real issue above all else.
To be fair, what has really pushed them out of a regular Top 4 slot was the revival of Spurs as a major force in the League after both Chelsea and City pushed them down the league table. Although if any team has to complain about being kicked out of a regular Top 4 slot more than anyone else, it Liverpool more than the Arsenal.
Reguardless no matter what Wenger (or for that matter those in charge of Liverpool FC), no one club (not even my own) has any god given right to a Top 4 slot in the Premier League, so despite what all 3 clubs (Chelsea, City and Spurs) have done in the League of late, him and the management only have themlselves to blame for the sorry state their club is in.
(1) To put it this way Chelsea spent £274 million on 28 players (this onto a squad that was good enough to reach Top 4) between the 2003-2004 season and 2005-2006 season, which enabled them to have 2 outstanding Premier League Title wins, a League Cup and 2 Champions League Semi-Final Appearances. When you compare to what City have spent in the last 3 seasons (and what you get in return) you can see how much fees have risen in the last 12 years or so.
A self-defeating one: if City had been long-time rivals of Arsenal, AFC fans would doubtless feel very differently about their players signing for City. As it is, it must be easier to be blasé about the above, given that City's near-irrelevance (until recently) hasn't negatively affected Arsenal.
Jonathan Wilson likes to bash everything related with capitalism, truth of the matter before the oil clubs you had the old order, in the 90's before the Bosman ruling you had Serie A clubs dominating owned by billionaire presidents, Olympique Marseille by Bernard Tapie, AC Milan by Berlusconi, the difference is freedom of movement between players, also money coming from Russian billionaires, then Arabs and later China, there is a lot of hipocrisy around the subject.
@1Manchester
Yeah there’s definitely been benefits of the oil clubs, though I’m not a big fan - I wouldn’t be, because I support United I guess
But it is much better than a 1 or 2 team league I suppose. It’s just a bit of a bigger issue for teams like Spurs and co. United can at least compete - to a point due to its own revenue, but it’s infinitely more difficult for the others to challenge/make top 4.
Yeah there’s definitely been benefits of the oil clubs, though I’m not a big fan - I wouldn’t be, because I support United I guess
But it is much better than a 1 or 2 team league I suppose. It’s just a bit of a bigger issue for teams like Spurs and co. United can at least compete - to a point due to its own revenue, but it’s infinitely more difficult for the others to challenge/make top 4.
Oil money no definitely ruining football.
If city never got taken over, United would have at least 1 more title, Liverpool probably one (OK no consolation for us, but for neutrals), Tottenham maybe.
All bigger and more passionate clubs who create more headlines and interest than city
If city never got taken over, United would have at least 1 more title, Liverpool probably one (OK no consolation for us, but for neutrals), Tottenham maybe.
All bigger and more passionate clubs who create more headlines and interest than city
Which one? City have only won twice since the takeover ahead of United and Liverpool in 2nd place.
Well yes but that is spread amongst 20 teams not two. Some of the money should be filtered down but that is never going to happen.
What? The TV rights of the PL aren't shared with other leagues, the same way the TV rights for Barcelona and Madrid weren't shared with other clubs, it's the same logic. The PL like every other leagues negotiate individually the broadcasting rights and the broadcasters pay more for the product that will garner more advertisement interest. Barcelona and Madrid used to sell their own rights and logically Real Madrid would sell them at a significantly higher price than Valencia.
@1Manchester
Great start on RedCafe! As an opposition fan, I welcome other opposition fans to enrich the discussions
Great start on RedCafe! As an opposition fan, I welcome other opposition fans to enrich the discussions
NEW CASE STUDY: QATAR, NEYMAR, SOUTHAMPTON AND KIEV...
STEP 1: Qatar acquired Neymar for more than 220 millions of euros
---- > Barcelona received around 220 millions
---- > The Brazilian club Santos received 9 millions because he was trained by them (UEFA rule: 4%)
STEP 2: Barcelona spent the money
---- > Barcelona decided to acquire Dembélé (Dortmund: 105 + bonus of 40=160) and Coutinho (Liverpool: 120+40)
STEP 3: Dortmund and Liverpool spend the money
---- > Liverpool decided to rebalance the team and acquired Van Dijk (Southampton) for 85 m.
---- > Dortmund acquired Yarmolenko (Kiev) for 30 millions to replace Dembele: the idea is to create value as usual. Dortmund will continue to make smart acquisition over a long period of time.
AS OF TODAY, WHAT HAS BECOME THE MONEY?
---- > Diverse clubs were financed by the investor Qatar at the end of the process as follows:
1. Southampton: 85 millions of euros
2. Dortmund: 75 millions of euros
3. Liverpool: 35 millions of euros
4. Kiev: 30 millions of euros
5. Santos: 9 millions
Some of these clubs would acquire new promising players, finance equipment facilities, pay dividends for the shareholders, have a stronger Balance Sheet... Everything isn't black... Inflation doesn't make everybody unhappy after all....
All the parties involved will also have to pay taxes, which finance States...
You know why Qatar is the welcome in France because they inject money in the economy...
STEP 1: Qatar acquired Neymar for more than 220 millions of euros
---- > Barcelona received around 220 millions
---- > The Brazilian club Santos received 9 millions because he was trained by them (UEFA rule: 4%)
STEP 2: Barcelona spent the money
---- > Barcelona decided to acquire Dembélé (Dortmund: 105 + bonus of 40=160) and Coutinho (Liverpool: 120+40)
STEP 3: Dortmund and Liverpool spend the money
---- > Liverpool decided to rebalance the team and acquired Van Dijk (Southampton) for 85 m.
---- > Dortmund acquired Yarmolenko (Kiev) for 30 millions to replace Dembele: the idea is to create value as usual. Dortmund will continue to make smart acquisition over a long period of time.
AS OF TODAY, WHAT HAS BECOME THE MONEY?
---- > Diverse clubs were financed by the investor Qatar at the end of the process as follows:
1. Southampton: 85 millions of euros
2. Dortmund: 75 millions of euros
3. Liverpool: 35 millions of euros
4. Kiev: 30 millions of euros
5. Santos: 9 millions
Some of these clubs would acquire new promising players, finance equipment facilities, pay dividends for the shareholders, have a stronger Balance Sheet... Everything isn't black... Inflation doesn't make everybody unhappy after all....
All the parties involved will also have to pay taxes, which finance States...
You know why Qatar is the welcome in France because they inject money in the economy...
Surely the Premier League is a fairer system? Could you imagine how much money Manchester United would earn from selling their TV rights on their own compared to say Bournemouth? The gap between the top 4 to the rest would be significantly greater than it already is.
That's not my question. I asked about the difference between leagues revenues.
It’s a very valid point. It’s like when people moan about players wages but the reality is nearly half of their salary is tax. The amount of money the government generates from a thriving Premier League must be substainal.NEW CASE STUDY: QATAR, NEYMAR, SOUTHAMPTON AND KIEV...
STEP 1: Qatar acquired Neymar for more than 220 millions of euros
---- > Barcelona received around 220 millions
---- > The Brazilian club Santos received 9 millions because he was trained by them (UEFA rule: 4%)
STEP 2: Barcelona spent the money
---- > Barcelona decided to acquire Dembélé (Dortmund: 105 + bonus of 40=160) and Coutinho (Liverpool: 120+40)
STEP 3: Dortmund and Liverpool spend the money
---- > Liverpool decided to rebalance the team and acquired Van Dijk (Southampton) for 85 m.
---- > Dortmund acquired Yarmolenko (Kiev) for 30 millions to replace Dembele: the idea is to create value as usual. Dortmund will continue to make smart acquisition over a long period of time.
AS OF TODAY, WHAT HAS BECOME THE MONEY?
---- > Diverse clubs were financed by the investor Qatar at the end of the process as follows:
1. Southampton: 85 millions of euros
2. Dortmund: 75 millions of euros
3. Liverpool: 35 millions of euros
4. Kiev: 30 millions of euros
5. Santos: 9 millions
Some of these clubs would acquire new promising players, finance equipment facilities, pay dividends for the shareholders, have a stronger Balance Sheet... Everything isn't black... Inflation doesn't make everybody unhappy after all....
All the parties involved will also have to pay taxes, which finance States...
You know why Qatar is the welcome in France because they inject money in the economy...
And anyway would any United fans really care if the club was bought out by the Qatar or UAE royal family? I honestly don’t think so. We are all just unhappy because of all the clubs it had to be a rival in the city and are now having more success than us. I hate how City have become successful with their owners but can we really deny for the vast majority of fans it’s just jealousy at what their doing?
"When you look at the five big leagues in Europe, in December we already knew four champions.
"That means something is not right in our game. The huge financial power of some clubs is basically destroying the competition."
Can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in England, United/Chelsea can compete with City on a financial level. Clubs like Arsenal (just paid £60m for a player) and Liverpool (just paid £75 million for a player) aren't exactly minnows either and neither are Spurs, even Everton paid £50 million for a player in the summer.
18 months ago Leicester City won the Premier League.
"That means something is not right in our game. The huge financial power of some clubs is basically destroying the competition."
Can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in England, United/Chelsea can compete with City on a financial level. Clubs like Arsenal (just paid £60m for a player) and Liverpool (just paid £75 million for a player) aren't exactly minnows either and neither are Spurs, even Everton paid £50 million for a player in the summer.
18 months ago Leicester City won the Premier League.
Totally agree with him. Look at City, they've got 2 quality players for each position. Over the course of the season you'd expect a team to overcome different challenges, some posed by opponents, some posed by the schedule and some due to injuries. City have eliminated all these hiccups by building two separate teams - right now they have Silva, Sane and Mendy missing. If Arsenal had that number of first team players missing we'd be in a relegation fight. And moreover, whats the point of football if a team can just play real life fantasy football to win the title. Arsenal have Wilshere, Iwobi, Ramsey and Bellerin in their team who've been with the club since very early in their youth. These players embody the Arsenal way and when you root for them you feel like you're rooting for the team and not the players. What's the feeling when you get a bunch of expensive players managed by an equally expensive manager and then win things. Even Utd, which can match City financially try to bring through youth like Rashford, what is the point of City.
And for those that are pointing out that Tottenham are ahead of us, they're missing the point. Wenger isn't really talking about Arsenal and their position as a top club, he's pointing to the widening chasm between the top most team and the chasing pack caused due to financial doping. I mean I'm having a hard time see anyone challenge them over the next 2 years if they continue playing at the level they're playing now. Its okay if you use external agencies to give you a leg up so that you can compete with the big boys, provided you then let the club operate under their own steam. But to continuously invest in an entity till the competition just gives up in frustration is almost tremendously frustrating to those others who're expected to compete with you with much smaller resources at your disposal.
And for those that are pointing out that Tottenham are ahead of us, they're missing the point. Wenger isn't really talking about Arsenal and their position as a top club, he's pointing to the widening chasm between the top most team and the chasing pack caused due to financial doping. I mean I'm having a hard time see anyone challenge them over the next 2 years if they continue playing at the level they're playing now. Its okay if you use external agencies to give you a leg up so that you can compete with the big boys, provided you then let the club operate under their own steam. But to continuously invest in an entity till the competition just gives up in frustration is almost tremendously frustrating to those others who're expected to compete with you with much smaller resources at your disposal.
Other clubs have also got 2 quality players for each position (or try to) maybe City way out in front is more to do with they've got the best manager and acquired the right players for what they need?
Stupid money is spent on players nowadays but it's no different to what as happened previous years:-
. Breaking the £1 million barrier for the first time for a footballer,
. Jack 'money bags' Walker
. Madrid paying £50m for 29 year old Zidane
. Roman Abramovich
. Madrid paying £80m for Ronaldo
All seemed crazy at the time.
If only transfers did filter down like you're suggesting.NEW CASE STUDY: QATAR, NEYMAR, SOUTHAMPTON AND KIEV...
STEP 1: Qatar acquired Neymar for more than 220 millions of euros
---- > Barcelona received around 220 millions
---- > The Brazilian club Santos received 9 millions because he was trained by them (UEFA rule: 4%)
STEP 2: Barcelona spent the money
---- > Barcelona decided to acquire Dembélé (Dortmund: 105 + bonus of 40=160) and Coutinho (Liverpool: 120+40)
STEP 3: Dortmund and Liverpool spend the money
---- > Liverpool decided to rebalance the team and acquired Van Dijk (Southampton) for 85 m.
---- > Dortmund acquired Yarmolenko (Kiev) for 30 millions to replace Dembele: the idea is to create value as usual. Dortmund will continue to make smart acquisition over a long period of time.
AS OF TODAY, WHAT HAS BECOME THE MONEY?
---- > Diverse clubs were financed by the investor Qatar at the end of the process as follows:
1. Southampton: 85 millions of euros
2. Dortmund: 75 millions of euros
3. Liverpool: 35 millions of euros
4. Kiev: 30 millions of euros
5. Santos: 9 millions
Some of these clubs would acquire new promising players, finance equipment facilities, pay dividends for the shareholders, have a stronger Balance Sheet... Everything isn't black... Inflation doesn't make everybody unhappy after all....
All the parties involved will also have to pay taxes, which finance States...
You know why Qatar is the welcome in France because they inject money in the economy...
You're missing the massive chunk that has been filtered off into the agent and the players' pockets from all those totals.
This money is the problem for the Bundesliga. Bayern is the only club in Germany which can (kind of) compete in the market. In a normal market, other Bundesliga teams would still be able to buy some decent players. But now, with the market beeing crazy as feck, they can't buy any good players, even decent german talents are leaving the league for more money now, which makes its even easier for Bayern to dominate the league as much as they do right now because no one is able to compete. Bayern never dominated the league as much as they do right now. There were always some competitors before.
If you look at Bundesliga squads right now, there is literally only 1 star player left who is not playing for Bayern. And this guy is 24/7 injured (Marco Reus). Its basically the weakest Bundesliga of all time. It's all about the money.
Pep destroyed the competitiveness of top level European football. When his Barca side came along and was able to waltz through some of the best clubs in Europe, those clubs had to react to that otherwise they'd have kept winning at an uncontrollable rate. Madrid launched Galactico project pt 2, Bayern launched Operation Super Bayern. They eventually caught up to Barca but now there was a chasm between those 3 and the other top sides in the world. Seems the only way to reach that level is to spend money and great coaching.
It is enough to form a rebel completition to ursurp the Champions League though (1), especially since I doubt the domestic league's would be stupid enough to do such a move because...
The thing is though (assuming the Domestic League's don't kick them out in solidarity with UEFA), if City and United left the Premier League (2), that would result in a reduction in broadcasting revenue for the remaining clubs in the Premier League (especially if United leave, thanks to their large fanbase/viewership) at a time when revenue growth will likely slow or even fall in future rounds of sales. Not only would it affect the finances of the remain clubs (and reduce their profits), but it would also main that many of their most talented players would end up wanting to leave though a combination of imposed salary cuts and a desire to football at the highest level for whatever reasons they have in mind.
Thus for the other members of the Big 6 (maybe beyond that) in the Premier League and other major clubs in Europe, reguardless of if they support such a breakway tournement or not. They will have little choice but to also end up joining such a "European Super League" unless they want to suffer financially and/or see their team picked apart by clubs in the ESL. Certainly I cannot see Arsenal refusing to take part in an ESL considering the financial importance they place in playing in the Champions League.
Who says they have to? In fact considering how all the teams in such a ESL would be on a more level playing field with each other than even in the case of the Premier League (let alone in the likes of La Liga). I would say that their chances of actually winning the League would have improved somewhat (at the very least) due to being on a much stronger financial footing (3) than what is currently the case.
Largely because the Domestic Leagues and (especially) UEFA have given concession after concession towards the big clubs. Hence why the Premier League came about and why the European Cup first became the Champions League and then expanded the number of places given to clubs in the main domestic leagues of Europe.
We are already at that stage at the this moment in time (in fact worse) with Real Madrid and Barcelona winning 6 out of the last 9 Champions League titles (4).
There is a far more effective way of achieving that, scrap FFP.
Likewise in the case of the Arsenal, the only way your team is going to be more competitive is by completely boycotting the club (no buying of season tickets, away tickets and merchandising) and its sponsors as well as help organise large scale protests at every Home Match (to stop the "Wenger In" fans from getting into the ground) and every time the LA Rams play one of their NFL Games in London. Because for me it is the only way you can force Kroenke out of the club and in turn force the club to better compete with the likes of United and City.
Perhaps they cannot challenge the wage cap directly, but they can however withdraw from the Champions League and Europa League (competitions which UEFA financially rely on) and involve the competition autorities if UEFA retaliates against such a breakway competition.
(1) With a Round-Robin format you can have a 6 team competition where each team can play 10 games guaranteed compared to the 6-13 games which one can play in the Champions League.
(2) And they would fare better than both La Liga and the Bundesliga under such circumstances, whose league are pretty much dominated by the other 3 teams in question. Thus losing them would cause a massive impact on the remaing clubs broadcasting revenue (and further increase the gap between them and those 2 clubs) and their ability to retain players (and not have them sign up to those 3 clubs in question).
(3) Let's face it, being part of a League that is home to 20-32 of the best teams in Europe would certainly increase both your sponsorship income and your broadcast income (which would also be distributed on a relatively equal basis as well), especially if such a league offered their own streaming service themsevles.
(4) With 2 of the other 3 requiring the eventual winners (Inter Milan in 2009-2010, Chelsea in 2011-2012) to get pass Barcelona with the skin of their teeth.
Meanwhile
Of course they would, however what no fan would ever welcome is increased competition though the weakening of their own team. Likewise there are few if any fans that want European Club Football to go down the road of the "American" league model either, which is essential for such a cap to be suceessful.
You seem to think that City and PSG have shared the Champions League title between them over the last 10 years or so. The fact it is Real and Barcelona (to a lesser extent Bayern) which have shared it between them during that time while in contrast PSG have yet to get past the QF's under the Qataris while City have only got past the R16 once under the ownership of the Al Nahyans.
Now this might change this season but unless both clubs start ripping apart the squads of Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, Bayern Munich, Juventus, Napoli, Real Madrid, Atlético Madrid and Barcelona of all their best players between them (1) then you can forget any prospect of both City and PSG dominating the Champions League (over the next 10 years) whatsoever.
Rather what is likely to happen is that City and PSG will likely to compete for the Champions League alongside Real and Barcelona (hopefully anyway) and actually provide those 2 clubs with some decent competition for once to win it. So the fans of the established clubs have nothing to far as along as they are run by people who actually want to win trophies than lets say....fund NFL teams for example.
One does not have to support the concept of a European Super League to see that if such a league is formed, they will have to end up joining it or face the risk of being left behind.
It does and oh boy does UEFA know this, that is why they have made concession after concession over the Champions League.
You don't if you are mearly replacing the Champions League, if on the other hand you are also replacing the Domestic Leagues as well then yes you are going to need more teams, which should not be too hard because...
Well tough (assuming you are correct of course, which I doubt), because the only other option is being financially ruined by said clubs and having your squad raided by said clubs.
Wenger, Fiszman, the Bracewell-Smith's and and the Hill-Wood's should have perhaps have listened to (rather than sack) David Dein and thus backed his attempts to get addtional investment into the club (to keep the playing side strong while paying for the new stadium) in response to the rise of teams such as Chelsea. Had they done so they would not be in the sorry position they are now despite the wealth the club itself generates (as well as the wealth of its owners).
Thus they only have themsevles to blame for the siutation the club is now in.
If FFP was not in place then perhaps you be correct, however so long as it is in place and so long as PSG and City continue to not properly challenge it then the siutation you describe is pretty much untrue when one looks at the facts on the ground, or for that matter the all-time list of the highest trasnfers in football:
For the record it does not include the Laporte and Aubameyang Transfers, but by and large the point still stands. As does an earlier point I made about how Arsenal can compete with these state owned clubs, FFP or no FFP:
(1) And for the record, I would love City to do exactly that but since they are continuing to follow FFP like a boy scout, that is not going to happen any time soon.
Net Spend in last 4 Seasons:
Manchester City...................-602.98m €
Manchester United...............-490.74m €
Arsenal..............................-208.52m €
Everton..............................-178.86m €
Watford..............................-148.98m €
Crystal Palace......................-147.66m €
Leicester.............................-129.81m €
Newcastle...........................-112.84m €
West Brom..........................-112.63m €
Bournemouth......................-105.08m €
West Ham...........................-100.78m €
Stoke.................................-85.73m €
Liverpool.............................-83.81m €
Chelsea...............................-77.46m €
Brighton..............................-77.38m €
Burnley................................-47.77m €
Huddersfield.........................-40.75m €
Tottenham............................-38.44m €
Swansea..............................+13.27m €
Southampton........................+67.64m €
This puts into content Wengers and Contes recent quotes.
Manchester City...................-602.98m €
Manchester United...............-490.74m €
Arsenal..............................-208.52m €
Everton..............................-178.86m €
Watford..............................-148.98m €
Crystal Palace......................-147.66m €
Leicester.............................-129.81m €
Newcastle...........................-112.84m €
West Brom..........................-112.63m €
Bournemouth......................-105.08m €
West Ham...........................-100.78m €
Stoke.................................-85.73m €
Liverpool.............................-83.81m €
Chelsea...............................-77.46m €
Brighton..............................-77.38m €
Burnley................................-47.77m €
Huddersfield.........................-40.75m €
Tottenham............................-38.44m €
Swansea..............................+13.27m €
Southampton........................+67.64m €
This puts into content Wengers and Contes recent quotes.
Thrown in some of the high tier European Clubs. Real Madrid... wow.
Net Spend in last 4 Seasons:
Manchester City...................-602.98m €
Manchester United...............-490.74m €
Paris Saint-Germain.............-363.80m €
Barcelona...........................-278.37m €
AC Milan............................-241.87m €
Arsenal..............................-208.52m €
Everton..............................-178.86m €
Bayern Munich.....................-162.35m €
RB Leipzig...........................-152.11m €
Watford..............................-148.98m €
Crystal Palace......................-147.66m €
Inter Milan..........................-138.10m €
Leicester.............................-129.81m €
Juventus.............................-117.80m €
Newcastle...........................-112.84m €
West Brom..........................-112.63m €
Bournemouth......................-105.08m €
West Ham...........................-100.78m €
Stoke.................................-85.73m €
Liverpool.............................-83.81m €
Chelsea...............................-77.46m €
Brighton..............................-77.38m €
Atletico Madrid......................-72.76m €
Napoli..................................-68.47m €
Burnley................................-47.77m €
Huddersfield.........................-40.75m €
Tottenham............................-38.44m €
Bayer Leverkusen..................-12.26m €
Olympique Marseille...............+5.45m €
AS Roma..............................+7.01m €
Swansea..............................+13.27m €
Real Madrid..........................+13.35m €
Olympique Lyon.....................+40.00m €
Sevilla..................................+65.75m €
Southampton........................+67.64m €
Borussia Dortmund................+82.96m €
AS Monaco............................+171.66m €
Net Spend in last 4 Seasons:
Manchester City...................-602.98m €
Manchester United...............-490.74m €
Paris Saint-Germain.............-363.80m €
Barcelona...........................-278.37m €
AC Milan............................-241.87m €
Arsenal..............................-208.52m €
Everton..............................-178.86m €
Bayern Munich.....................-162.35m €
RB Leipzig...........................-152.11m €
Watford..............................-148.98m €
Crystal Palace......................-147.66m €
Inter Milan..........................-138.10m €
Leicester.............................-129.81m €
Juventus.............................-117.80m €
Newcastle...........................-112.84m €
West Brom..........................-112.63m €
Bournemouth......................-105.08m €
West Ham...........................-100.78m €
Stoke.................................-85.73m €
Liverpool.............................-83.81m €
Chelsea...............................-77.46m €
Brighton..............................-77.38m €
Atletico Madrid......................-72.76m €
Napoli..................................-68.47m €
Burnley................................-47.77m €
Huddersfield.........................-40.75m €
Tottenham............................-38.44m €
Bayer Leverkusen..................-12.26m €
Olympique Marseille...............+5.45m €
AS Roma..............................+7.01m €
Swansea..............................+13.27m €
Real Madrid..........................+13.35m €
Olympique Lyon.....................+40.00m €
Sevilla..................................+65.75m €
Southampton........................+67.64m €
Borussia Dortmund................+82.96m €
AS Monaco............................+171.66m €
@1Manchester
It's really not that complicated. Its easy to understand why the "Super League" idea has never caught on even though people have been talking about it 30 years. The Champions League evolved instead of the richest clubs breaking away in the 1990s because the domestic + CL model is simply more profitable than a super league idea. Period.
1) A breakaway league of the 6-8 richest teams is not enough to obtain a broadcast contract that is worth more than both the current domestic and CL money. The reason is simple: games. more games = more money on contracts. A super league with 6-8 teams cannot generate enough matches to even come close to matching the current domestic + CL money. You could try having the teams play each other 4-5 times in league to make up for it but that would get very boring very quickly.
2) So that leads to (2) because a Super League is not going to be attractive to any more than 6-8 teams. Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham, Atletico, Dortmund, etc have zero incentive to join a super league. That super league would have to somehow absolutely guarantee those teams more profits than the current domestic + UEFA set-up and as (1) shows that is almost impossible for a super league to guarantee. And even then those sides are all trading top of the table status to become bottom of the table cannon fodder. Arsenal whines about competing with three richer clubs. No way they would abandon ship on the current model just to enter a competition with 8 richer clubs. None of the Arsenal, Liverpool or Tottenham owners would ever do that.
Its a nice novelty idea to ponder in the pub every once in a while when drunk, but there is a reason the game has evolved the way it has. In the end, its much more profitable to stick with the current domestic + UEFA rules than if the richest 6-8 tried to break off and form their own thing outisde UEFA, FIFA, FA, etc.
Re: the Rea/Barca factor
Also most of your posts seem to be based on the flawed argument that only going PSG/City levels of sugar daddy could have ever provided competion for Real/Barca. That simply isn't true. The Real/Barca dominance of the late era results from two basic temporary factors: they had the two generation greats in Messi and Cristiano but more importantly - this was the tail end of their completely unfair dominance of La Liga broadcast money which gave the two sides an unfair competitor advantage over PL, BL, Serie A sides for the last 15 years. Even before that but the effect really manifested in the 2000s.
Removing Real/Barca's unfair competitor advantage of broadcast contracts would have naturally balanced the playing field without the need for insane country backed clubs. But now instead we are locked into that era. So you are incorrect that sugar daddy's were somehow necessary to provide competition. Removing the braodcast advantage of Real/Barca and letting the cycles naturally evolve would have been preferable to state owned sugar daddy clubs which now locks in a far smaller amount of competitors than would have naturally existed.
Also,
I am doubting that even clubs like Bayern would want to entertain your idea. Bayern is quite content to sit where they are. Why would they willing leave just to constantly content with clubs much richer than them when they can dominate Germany?
It's really not that complicated. Its easy to understand why the "Super League" idea has never caught on even though people have been talking about it 30 years. The Champions League evolved instead of the richest clubs breaking away in the 1990s because the domestic + CL model is simply more profitable than a super league idea. Period.
1) A breakaway league of the 6-8 richest teams is not enough to obtain a broadcast contract that is worth more than both the current domestic and CL money. The reason is simple: games. more games = more money on contracts. A super league with 6-8 teams cannot generate enough matches to even come close to matching the current domestic + CL money. You could try having the teams play each other 4-5 times in league to make up for it but that would get very boring very quickly.
2) So that leads to (2) because a Super League is not going to be attractive to any more than 6-8 teams. Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham, Atletico, Dortmund, etc have zero incentive to join a super league. That super league would have to somehow absolutely guarantee those teams more profits than the current domestic + UEFA set-up and as (1) shows that is almost impossible for a super league to guarantee. And even then those sides are all trading top of the table status to become bottom of the table cannon fodder. Arsenal whines about competing with three richer clubs. No way they would abandon ship on the current model just to enter a competition with 8 richer clubs. None of the Arsenal, Liverpool or Tottenham owners would ever do that.
Its a nice novelty idea to ponder in the pub every once in a while when drunk, but there is a reason the game has evolved the way it has. In the end, its much more profitable to stick with the current domestic + UEFA rules than if the richest 6-8 tried to break off and form their own thing outisde UEFA, FIFA, FA, etc.
Re: the Rea/Barca factor
Also most of your posts seem to be based on the flawed argument that only going PSG/City levels of sugar daddy could have ever provided competion for Real/Barca. That simply isn't true. The Real/Barca dominance of the late era results from two basic temporary factors: they had the two generation greats in Messi and Cristiano but more importantly - this was the tail end of their completely unfair dominance of La Liga broadcast money which gave the two sides an unfair competitor advantage over PL, BL, Serie A sides for the last 15 years. Even before that but the effect really manifested in the 2000s.
Removing Real/Barca's unfair competitor advantage of broadcast contracts would have naturally balanced the playing field without the need for insane country backed clubs. But now instead we are locked into that era. So you are incorrect that sugar daddy's were somehow necessary to provide competition. Removing the braodcast advantage of Real/Barca and letting the cycles naturally evolve would have been preferable to state owned sugar daddy clubs which now locks in a far smaller amount of competitors than would have naturally existed.
Also,
I am doubting that even clubs like Bayern would want to entertain your idea. Bayern is quite content to sit where they are. Why would they willing leave just to constantly content with clubs much richer than them when they can dominate Germany?
Last edited:
Everton are higher up than I'd have thought, Arsenal as well. Maybe Wenger doesn't like money since he doesn't really know what to do with it.
Either way, he's absolutely right and it does in my view make football less interesting in many leagues when there are so extreme differences. Another issue is that the PL is running away from the other leagues, and I have to say I would prefer to see the money more evenly spread across more leagues and clubs. One thing the PL has done right is to divide the money more evenly, something I hope other leagues will move towards.
If you remove Neymar deal 222 millions, PSG and Crystal Palace are in the same bracket.
Conclusion: If Crystal Palace or Watford had signed Neymar, they would have "destroyed the competition" LOL
Last edited:
Which puts into perspective the people complaining about PSG in the summer doesn't it?
Wenger rather see all that money goes to his skeleton buddies on board, ofc he will get his % of pie via contract extensions regardless of Arsenal achievements each season.
I usually agree with Wenger on his ideas of football and the state of it.
United have been rich for a long time but even back then other clubs could compete. Shearer basically cost the same as all of United's purchases from 95/96 season til 97/98.
Bayern have spent heavily, breaking their own spending record on top on an already dominant team. They're not any less financially or title dominant than PSG, perhaps even more so given that Monaco spent a lot of money for a brief period.
Juventus has always been a rich team whilst Milan and Inter had no money after bankruptcies. They're also first now getting some serious competition. They've won the league 6 times in a row.
Just open your eyes and look at how much the big teams are spending. Doesn't matter if a team gets to spend a lot of money once now when the big teams have been doing it for years. Because the PL is a financial behemoth there are more teams that realistically can win the title come a new season but in the other leagues you'd we throwing money away by betting outside the 1 or 2 teams that always win it.
United have been rich for a long time but even back then other clubs could compete. Shearer basically cost the same as all of United's purchases from 95/96 season til 97/98.
Barcelona have outspent Real for years now. In any case there haven't been many challengers for the La Liga for a while. Atlético got one, Valencia won it twice at the beginning of the century but that's the only 3 titles this century that haven't gone to Real or Barca.
Bayern have spent heavily, breaking their own spending record on top on an already dominant team. They're not any less financially or title dominant than PSG, perhaps even more so given that Monaco spent a lot of money for a brief period.
Juventus has always been a rich team whilst Milan and Inter had no money after bankruptcies. They're also first now getting some serious competition. They've won the league 6 times in a row.
Just open your eyes and look at how much the big teams are spending. Doesn't matter if a team gets to spend a lot of money once now when the big teams have been doing it for years. Because the PL is a financial behemoth there are more teams that realistically can win the title come a new season but in the other leagues you'd we throwing money away by betting outside the 1 or 2 teams that always win it.
City aren't going to have a season like this every year.
Wenger has always been a miserable git.
Wenger has always been a miserable git.
Unless it follows the footstep of the NBA system otherwise it will be like this. The club with the deepest pocket can attract the best player by offering the highest transfer fee and wages. Same for manager too.
Not sure why you posting in euros for English clubs but in any case you are way off the mark with those figures for NET spend over the last 4 years for both City and United. 7 years maybe. Checking on the transferleague site, City's NET spend for the last 7 years is c£566m and United c£525mil.
I take Wenger's point but with the only caveat he's chronically mismanaged his squad. Yes, the flood of money into the game has crowded out the top and even squeezed big clubs like his own. However, he's failed to address fundamental shortcomings and balance issues within his squad that could have been dealt with well within the means of Arsenal--even through the lean years after leaving Highbury.
While I take his point, I can't help but think how poorly he's done with what he's very much had the time, means and authority to address.
To an extent, I pity him and Arsenal. To put themselves on better financial footing, they tightened their belts and sacrificed some short term options to make the move from Highbury to Emirates. They probably couldn't have seen the affect of the new TV deal coming. The amount of money that flooded into the league diluted what they would have gained to the point it when from sacrifice for long term gain to hastening their decline. That sucks. They tried to do it the right way in the Era of Oil & Oligarchs, but got burned. Still, they've had the means to do much, much better than they have. Again, much of their struggles have come from failures from long running problems they've accepted.
In the end, I pity the man but have no patience for his whining.
- There hasn't been much of an effort outside of Xhaka to find a top class defensive midfielder. Gilberto Silva was the last one they had of the quality to really do the job a the level they'd like to be as a club.
- Wenger constantly recruits skillful attacking midfielders with little physicality. They are brilliant technically and good footballers, but he has a terrible habit of playing them out of their natural position. They might have the passing ability to play in the central midfield, but they sorely lack the positional instincts or that inherent cynicism Lee Dixon talks about (guarding against what could go wrong rather than running off to make what could go right). They pay dearly for that and have for years.
While I take his point, I can't help but think how poorly he's done with what he's very much had the time, means and authority to address.
To an extent, I pity him and Arsenal. To put themselves on better financial footing, they tightened their belts and sacrificed some short term options to make the move from Highbury to Emirates. They probably couldn't have seen the affect of the new TV deal coming. The amount of money that flooded into the league diluted what they would have gained to the point it when from sacrifice for long term gain to hastening their decline. That sucks. They tried to do it the right way in the Era of Oil & Oligarchs, but got burned. Still, they've had the means to do much, much better than they have. Again, much of their struggles have come from failures from long running problems they've accepted.
In the end, I pity the man but have no patience for his whining.