The Student Room Group

The Arsenal Thread XXVI

Scroll to see replies

Over the past three summers, Arsenal's net spend exceeds £400m, outstripping everyone, including Chelsea, given they are in profit during the current close season and were two years ago, with the dramatic splurge in between.
Original post by Zerforax
Over the past three summers, Arsenal's net spend exceeds £400m, outstripping everyone, including Chelsea, given they are in profit during the current close season and were two years ago, with the dramatic splurge in between.

Ours is generated inherently from us being massive, not just laundered Russian $$$ though
Original post by Zürich
Ours is generated inherently from us being massive, not just laundered Russian $$$ though


Pre-tax losses of £226mil in the last 3 years..

It's obviously being funded by Kroenke or through burning through previous cash resources or mortgaging your future to spend today. It's not sustaintable unless you start winning PL and CLs regularly.
Original post by Zerforax
Pre-tax losses of £226mil in the last 3 years..

It's obviously being funded by Kroenke or through burning through previous cash resources or mortgaging your future to spend today. It's not sustaintable unless you start winning PL and CLs regularly.


Arsenal are massive bro. Literally could fill 100,000 seats most weeks

We've little debt and the youngest squad in the league. In 5 years time you could literally be looking at an XI of

Ramsdale, White, Saliba, Gabriel, Zinchenko, Rice, Harvetz, Odegaard, Saka, Jesus, Martanelli

So its a calculated bet, get a team together that will not need much future investment. It'll be spread over the next decade

Absolutely no pressure to win anything, we'll fund it from our revenue
(edited 1 year ago)
Big or not, it's still excessive spending.

Football is big business, if you're poking fun at Chelsea for spending, then we probably should have some humour at our own expense. Arsenal are not far from Chelsea standard spending wise currently that's for sure, oil money or something different.
Original post by Gob Bluth
Big or not, it's still excessive spending.

Football is big business, if you're poking fun at Chelsea for spending, then we probably should have some humour at our own expense. Arsenal are not far from Chelsea standard spending wise currently that's for sure, oil money or something different.


Over the next 5 seasons, Arsenal wont have to spend much at all though. Youngest XI in the PL, good depth.

Dont have to win a damn thing to cover this
Original post by Zürich
Arsenal are massive bro. Literally could fill 100,000 seats most weeks

We've little debt and the youngest squad in the league. In 5 years time you could literally be looking at an XI of

Ramsdale, White, Saliba, Gabriel, Zinchenko, Rice, Harvetz, Odegaard, Saka, Jesus, Martanelli

So its a calculated bet, get a team together that will not need much future investment. It'll be spread over the next decade

Absolutely no pressure to win anything, we'll fund it from our revenue


Still not as big as Man Utd or Liverpool. Basically in the popularity league with the likes of Chelsea and Spurs.

I think Arsenal debt (owned to Kroenke) was like almost £250mil in the last set of accounts so today's figure will be even higher. Wouldn't be surprised if it was £300-400mil at this point.

Fans always look at stuff optimistically. 5 years ago, everyone would've said Dele Alli would be a star player for the next 10 years but players are human and you can't control how quickly things can change. Some will become better, some will stall, some will lose careers to injury (see Wilshere). You'd be surprised how much that XI will change in 5 years time.

Real Madrid have been doing this policy to great effect - buying the young stars who will become future world class players but they buy at the top end of the market (and often in South America) and even then players like Odegaard and Luka Jovic have flopped for them.

Well it would mean not buying or investing as much into the club in the future. Can you imagine the AFTV reaction when Arsenal don't spend £150-200mil+ in summers 2024 and 2025?
Original post by Zerforax
Still not as big as Man Utd or Liverpool. Basically in the popularity league with the likes of Chelsea and Spurs.

I think Arsenal debt (owned to Kroenke) was like almost £250mil in the last set of accounts so today's figure will be even higher. Wouldn't be surprised if it was £300-400mil at this point.

Fans always look at stuff optimistically. 5 years ago, everyone would've said Dele Alli would be a star player for the next 10 years but players are human and you can't control how quickly things can change. Some will become better, some will stall, some will lose careers to injury (see Wilshere). You'd be surprised how much that XI will change in 5 years time.

Real Madrid have been doing this policy to great effect - buying the young stars who will become future world class players but they buy at the top end of the market (and often in South America) and even then players like Odegaard and Luka Jovic have flopped for them.

Well it would mean not buying or investing as much into the club in the future. Can you imagine the AFTV reaction when Arsenal don't spend £150-200mil+ in summers 2024 and 2025?

Arsenal are very much comparible with Liverpool in terms of global fanbase and revenue streams, dont kid yourself.
Original post by Driving_Mad
How much you want to bet ? Obviously I need to say what happens with Man City, but with Champions League football I am concerned for Arsenal.

Nketiah, Balogun, Nelson and Smith-Rowe are all very average and wouldn’t start for mid-table teams.

Trossard is very good. I think you should buy an out and out striker unless Balogun is that guy (I don’t know much about him).

I hope for you guys that Trossard is rotated on both the left and right wing rather than just the left. Saka will have to be rested. He fell off massively towards the end of last season. Reiss Nelson just isn’t that guy.


Who finishes higher: Tottenham or Chelsea?

Balogun scored 22 times for an average Ligue 1 side last season.
If he signed for £40m for say Aston Villa, Brighton or Everton tomorrow, you wouldnt blink an eye.

So he's not average is he.

Nketiah, Nelson, ESR are all average yes but then, are also quite far removed from the squad at this stage. They are backup to the backup
Reply 49
Original post by Driving_Mad



Who finishes higher: Tottenham or Chelsea?


tottenham, not capping either.

I don't know if you've looked at us but there is a realistic situation that week one we are using a gallagher enzo midfield vs liverpool.
Original post by Zürich
Arsenal are very much comparible with Liverpool in terms of global fanbase and revenue streams, dont kid yourself.


Your revenue streams have been lower than Spurs over the last 5 years.

@bj27 please confirm which club is more supported.

Liverpool's €275mil in commercial revenues compared to Arsenal's €167mil reported in the last Deloitte Money League is a quick reference to show that Arsenal aren't as attractive.
Reply 51
Original post by Gob Bluth
Big or not, it's still excessive spending.

Football is big business, if you're poking fun at Chelsea for spending, then we probably should have some humour at our own expense. Arsenal are not far from Chelsea standard spending wise currently that's for sure, oil money or something different.


The nature of the spending just isn't the same though and Chelsea have been criticised more for their strategy rather than the how much. They were praised if anything for their work arounds on contracts with the whole amortisation thing as well. It's not directly comparable.
Original post by Driving_Mad


Nketiah, Balogun, Nelson and Smith-Rowe are all very average and wouldn’t start for mid-table teams.

They are very average but won't start any games either unless forced to. Jury is still out on Nelson tbh, whenever he came on he showed impact but Arteta really should have rotated him more into the squad.
Original post by Zerforax
Your revenue streams have been lower than Spurs over the last 5 years.

@bj27 please confirm which club is more supported.

Liverpool's €275mil in commercial revenues compared to Arsenal's €167mil reported in the last Deloitte Money League is a quick reference to show that Arsenal aren't as attractive.

You keep mentioning that we are below our rivals in terms of financial power but then why are Liverpool penny pinching over midfielders and UTD just charged with FFP breaches??

Why weren't UTD able to buy Rice instead of trying to bargain with them in a 2 for 1 deal
(edited 1 year ago)
Reply 52
Bit of a doomed if we do and doomed if we don't situation. Everyone pointed at us for not being able to compete because we don't spend like our rivals. All of a sudden we spend like our rivals and it's not sustainable. Outside of City this is probably the club in the best position in terms of sustainability compared to our rivals. Liverpool might bring in more revenue but you want your owners out and UTD aren't in a position of power either. Spurs are being replaced by Newcastle in the big 6.
Reply 53
Either way football is finished when all of these ghost teams buy out players and then loan them back to their clubs to circumvent FFP. Chelsea have started it already with Strasbourg, I heard Newcastle are looking to do a similar thing

Money and football went down the *****er a long time ago, these discussions are meaningless
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by AR_95
The nature of the spending just isn't the same though and Chelsea have been criticised more for their strategy rather than the how much. They were praised if anything for their work arounds on contracts with the whole amortisation thing as well. It's not directly comparable.

They are very average but won't start any games either unless forced to. Jury is still out on Nelson tbh, whenever he came on he showed impact but Arteta really should have rotated him more into the squad.

You keep mentioning that we are below our rivals in terms of financial power but then why are Liverpool penny pinching over midfielders and UTD just charged with FFP breaches??

Why weren't UTD able to buy Rice instead of trying to bargain with them in a 2 for 1 deal


Man Utd's breaches were technical and minor. They're only paying a £300k fine for it.

Liverpool are just well run and sustainable. So it's boring and we won't be "winning any transfer windows" so the twitter fans get angry. Man Utd have always spent a fortunte on transfers.

Original post by AR_95
Bit of a doomed if we do and doomed if we don't situation. Everyone pointed at us for not being able to compete because we don't spend like our rivals. All of a sudden we spend like our rivals and it's not sustainable. Outside of City this is probably the club in the best position in terms of sustainability compared to our rivals. Liverpool might bring in more revenue but you want your owners out and UTD aren't in a position of power either. Spurs are being replaced by Newcastle in the big 6.

I've seen no evidence its sustainable. Just poor explanations around how you're not breaching FFP rules at the moment. Sustainability in what sense? I'd say it's Man Utd with the mountain of cash they generate every year. They just have crap owners (who take dividends) and are poorly run.

Newcastle will be replacing all of us and be joining Man City at the top.. Within 5 years, it will just be those 2 competing for league titles.

Original post by AR_95
Either way football is finished when all of these ghost teams buy out players and then loan them back to their clubs to circumvent FFP. Chelsea have started it already with Strasbourg, I heard Newcastle are looking to do a similar thing

Money and football went down the *****er a long time ago, these discussions are meaningless


The City group is huge. I think they're on like 13+ clubs now.
Reply 55
Original post by Zerforax
Your revenue streams have been lower than Spurs over the last 5 years.

@bj27 please confirm which club is more supported.

Liverpool's €275mil in commercial revenues compared to Arsenal's €167mil reported in the last Deloitte Money League is a quick reference to show that Arsenal aren't as attractive.


Liverpoo are generally more supported unless the continent is in Africa where it's between Chelsea/Arsenal/United for obvious reasons. I remember when pretty much every player after the defence were of African descent when Lampard got injured.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Zerforax
Your revenue streams have been lower than Spurs over the last 5 years.

@bj27 please confirm which club is more supported.

Liverpool's €275mil in commercial revenues compared to Arsenal's €167mil reported in the last Deloitte Money League is a quick reference to show that Arsenal aren't as attractive.

There are hardly two teams more comparible in terms of revenue than Arsenal/Liverpool. You're higher when in the CL and we're not, and vice versa. Similar number of fans, you can dice that through instigram/facebook/twitter. Albeit I will bet Liverpool tickets are somewhat easier to come by, the blue balls amongst Arsenal fans in London is very very high and there are loads of us.

Bearing in mind Liverpool have been very well run, and Arsenal very badly run (until recently I hope!) and the CL revenues and there is little difference. Liverpool fans have this absurd habit of trying to elevate themselves above other clubs. You are about as comparible with Arsenal as any club on earth.

There's no shame in being amongst good old Arsenal of the Marble Halls N5...
(edited 1 year ago)
Reply 57
Original post by Zürich
There are hardly two teams more comparible in terms of revenue than Arsenal/Liverpool. You're higher when in the CL and we're not, and vice versa. Similar number of fans, you can dice that through instigram/facebook/twitter. Albeit I will bet Liverpool tickets are somewhat easier to come by, the blue balls amongst Arsenal fans in London is very very high and there are loads of us.

Bearing in mind Liverpool have been very well run, and Arsenal very badly run (until recently I hope!) and the CL revenues and there is little difference. Liverpool fans have this absurd habit of trying to elevate themselves above other clubs. You are about as comparible with Arsenal as any club on earth.

There's no shame in being amongst good old Arsenal of the Marble Halls N5...


Liverpool tickets easier to come by :lolwut:

The queue for new season ticket applications closed 6 years ago, at which point there were circa 70,000 in the queue.

I have friends who were put in the queue when they were born and are still thousands back, noting that we we are all mid-30’s.

Liverpool are still far and away more marketable worldwide than Arsenal, especially in Asia and Europe. As Bj said, Arsenal and Chelsea have really cornered the African market for English clubs.

Best to just ignore United as they still dwarf all of us.

As a minor test, essentially no matter where you are in the UK you find local people who are United and Liverpool fans but very rarely find non-London Arsenal fans. Same as when you go abroad, locals are rocking United and Liverpool kits but not really much else from the UK.
Reply 58
Original post by Mess.
Liverpool tickets easier to come by :lolwut:

The queue for new season ticket applications closed 6 years ago, at which point there were circa 70,000 in the queue.

I have friends who were put in the queue when they were born and are still thousands back, noting that we we are all mid-30’s.

Liverpool are still far and away more marketable worldwide than Arsenal, especially in Asia and Europe. As Bj said, Arsenal and Chelsea have really cornered the African market for English clubs.

Best to just ignore United as they still dwarf all of us.

As a minor test, essentially no matter where you are in the UK you find local people who are United and Liverpool fans but very rarely find non-London Arsenal fans. Same as when you go abroad, locals are rocking United and Liverpool kits but not really much else from the UK.

Yeah essentially you get arsenal fans in Africa and that's it.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Zürich
There are hardly two teams more comparible in terms of revenue than Arsenal/Liverpool. You're higher when in the CL and we're not, and vice versa. Similar number of fans, you can dice that through instigram/facebook/twitter. Albeit I will bet Liverpool tickets are somewhat easier to come by, the blue balls amongst Arsenal fans in London is very very high and there are loads of us.

Bearing in mind Liverpool have been very well run, and Arsenal very badly run (until recently I hope!) and the CL revenues and there is little difference. Liverpool fans have this absurd habit of trying to elevate themselves above other clubs. You are about as comparible with Arsenal as any club on earth.

There's no shame in being amongst good old Arsenal of the Marble Halls N5...


It's not the 00s or early 2010s anymore. Back then, Liverpool were still going on about "next year being our season" and Moores/Gillett&Hicks couldn't take the club forwards.
Liverpool would still make more in commercial revenue than Arsenal but the latter made more from the newly built Emirates with more capacity, more corporate boxes and higher London ticket prices.

However, fortunes have transformed over recent years. Arsenal (until this season) had been out of the CL for years and in turn that makes it harder to attract commercial revenues whereas Liverpool have been successful with plenty of trophies/3 CL finals etc.

Anfield has been revamped, from the start of this season, the capacity will be 61,000 and lots of corporate boxes were added. We've massively closed the gap in disparity in stadium revenues. Obviously broadcasting revenue is broadly reflective of who is more successful in the league/how far in CL (if participating etc). However the commercial revenues are the big difference. Arsenal have been making 100mil less a year for the last 4 reported financial years.

Arsenal are on par with Spurs these days in terms of financials. That's the new reality.

Quick Reply