Are Arsenal ready to dominate the Premier League again?

You're both wrong. You're forgetting that Arsenal built their own stadium. Arsenal would have gone into debt if they bought players. They had to sell players in order to remain profitable as a club. Now that the stadium is paid for, and they're no longer in debt, they can splash the cash...and where's all that money coming from Zurich?

Oh, so when Arsenal and Utd were successful back in the days, they generated their own money, and that's how they bought their players and won titles? Is that right?

They had rich owners. Face the facts. You need to do your research.

I supported Chelsea from 2005.

From revenue? Or in other words from the likes of me when I buy tickets etc.

Not sure what you're trying to say here realy

Ffs every club in the football league has rich owners otherwise how the **** would they buy the club.

United and Arsenal spend what they generate, Chelsea are tin pot.



haha

No Zurich. Match day tickets and TV revenues will financially take care of other things, such as salaries to the players, the staff, the coach, the executives etc. You also have to understand that every football club tries to make a profit every season.

Why are there owners in football? If TV revenues and match day tickets could financially take care of the club, why are there shareholders at Arsenal? They invest in the club by giving money for the transfers.

It's like talking to a wall....

Please, if you're not going to have a serious conversation, don't ever quote me, or even comment on football again.

You've already been told. Man City and Chelsea are successful purely because multi billionaires gave them a bottomless pit of money.

You seem to think having wealthy owners means being bankrolled to the extent your mob is.

And you've been told that Utd and Arsenal, were bankrolled by their owners back in the days...but I guess you're just ignoring that, aren't you?

It's nowhere near the same as what Chelsea have done, you actually tried to make the argument that Arsenal 89-2014 were being funded the same way Chelsea have been post Abramovich.

So the Glazers are personally worse off since they bought Utd through funding transfers?

Not every cub strives to make a profit, far from it.
and 98% of clubs fund themselves from revenue.

Most PL club have wage bills of about 60% of revenue, and the top clubs have revenues in the hundreds of milions. Guess where the transfer kitty comes from? Assuming the tea lady isnt getting the rest

And there are owners in football for any number of reasons. Some like Kronke/Glazer see clubs as undervalued assets that they think are worth owning, others like Roman see clubs as play-things. Football Manager in 3d.

As for Arsenal, I think it is absolutely common knowledge that Mr Kronke has not personally paid for so much as a door knob at AFC since taking over, never mind transfers.

Am I seriously seeing Kroenke & the Glazers being compared to Abramovich?

Dear oh dear.

It's nowhere near the same as what Chelsea have done, you actually tried to make the argument that Arsenal 89-2014 were being funded the same way Chelsea have been post Abramovich.

2005 Chelsea fans m8.

Am I seriously seeing Kroenke & the Glazers being compared to Abramovich?

Dear oh dear.

I'm curious as to how someone born in 1994 knows all about rivals teams finances from before he was even born. Especially since United made a fortune floating the club on the stock market in the early 1990's, not by relying some foreign millionaire.

You've already been told. Man City and Chelsea are successful purely because multi billionaires gave them a bottomless pit of money.

You seem to think having wealthy owners means being bankrolled to the extent your mob is.