Arsenal FC - A complete shambles. What needs to change? *Please read OP before posting*
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 5,460
- Location
- No Mans Land
Usmanov would
Indeed.
And he's worth over double ($15 billion).
Plenty to boost Arsenal!
Except FFP will stop him from doing so. He's not a state and doesn't have 100s of state owned companies to sponsor Arsenal to artificially boost their income to get around FFP either.
Around about 8 years ago Usmanov offered to pay arsenals debt off out of his own money so we could use the income from the club for transfers
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 5,460
- Location
- No Mans Land
I'm sure Usmanov would find a way.
You don't make $15b without being a bit sly and sneaky.
Bring it on!
Im sure FFP is out the window now, too many loopholes. thats what wenger kept feeding us, when FFP comes in we will be in a strong position never worked out. in an ideal world it would be great but football has moved on now, especially with how crazy these player prices are
Also Chelsea and Utd have done questionable deals,(so all our main rivals) Put it this way, we'd be better off with him than kroneke, Usmanov may not be an oil rich state but hes the 2nd richest person in the uk, and 30 something in the world! we don't need billions just millions
I have no idea what questionable deals Utd or Chelsea have done and I have no idea whether you'll be better off with Usmanov but ultimately the best you can hope for is spending all the money the club generates rather than that money sitting in the account.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,951
- Location
- Surrey
What questionable deals have we done 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
are you kidding, it took them years to figure it out? I said several years before it kicked in that they'd just have their own companies offer sponsorship and both City and PSG have already been punished for FFP rule breaking, I believe PSG got punished in 2013 and don't forget that FFP is based on 3 years of records. I honestly can't remember which year it actually kicked in but after that it was only 3 years later(and realistically 4 years because the records for the 3rd year aren't available instantly).
SO it's pretty likely both City and PSG got done literally in the very first year FFP could and, I forget all the specifics of City's deal, I think their sponsorship was heavily in question but for them there was something about selling image rights to a third party for big money then effectively keeping all the cash for image rights anyway. PSG were done specifically because they made huge losses because the 200mil a year sponsorship was deemed way over fair market value. PSG required the full 200mil to not be breaking FFP and when Uefa discounted half of that income they got punished.
Every club in europe knew the day FFP was announced exactly how to break it, the question was always how big Uefa's balls would be in punishment. I seem to recall that I brought up several times that before FFP kicked in there was literally not one list or statement about what punishments would be and how when they would be enacted, ie what happens if you break ffp by 2mil, 20mil or 200mil.
For me the PSG deal should have been set to be say 40mil max considering at the time UTd had around a 45mil a year shirt deal and so even 40mil is over market value for LIgue one. Instead Uefa let them get away with counting 100mil of that 200mil deal and they got very minor punishment, same for City, it barely made any difference.
It's painfully easy to cheat ffp if you have a sugar daddy, you sponsor your club through one or more of your other companies or friends companies, not rocket science. Then over time you bump the value up. If Uefa decide that 100mil is acceptable in 2013, then you can up it to say 125mil in 2015, and PSG supposedly want a new 175mil a year sponsorship this year to help out with Mbappe. So you can dump as much money as you need into the club and pay a relatively small fine, lame punishment for doing it, and in doing so you make your club bigger, increase what would count as fair market value and keep upping sponsorship on a yearly basis.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
They are allowed to spend the money in the account, if the owner wanted it, it wouldn't be in the account.
There are two things to consider, good business is not running a big loss, then there is what you can spend. We have a ~200mil a year wage bill, we make a small overall profit because of the high wage bill, so we may have another 200mil cash on hand to spend on new transfers but if we bought lets say 4 players for 50mil and they each wanted 150k a week that would add 30mil to the wage bill, which takes our yearly business from profit into a fairly large loss and then we have an issue in terms of long term health.
I've been saying it for a decade, Wenger CHOOSES to have a HUGE squad, pays way over the odds for the quality of players and then can't afford to spend more. Wenger this this is the way forward, Wenger doesn't run a club on a shoe string budget or do anything magic, he chooses to spend his money differently from most managers. Almost all other major teams including the likes of barcelona have smaller squads than Arsenal but far far more concentrated quality. Arsenal have 30+ players with 1 star, 4-5 good players, 23-24 mediocre players for the wages we offer. Barcelona have 5 stars, 10 great players, 5 average players and that is it.
WE cut some overhead but not enough, we also gave a huge wage to Kol and we've yet to see if that will pay off and we have offered a huge increase to Ozil. Arsenal needed to dump 15 players from the squad and bring in 4-5 stars, we had the money and the wage budget to do so. But we can't spend that 200mil without selling a huge portion of the squad to allow higher wages for a lower number of players.
I mean when I think back to someone like Bogarde, he was a waste and the club didn't renew his contract. Diaby can't play for years and was monumentally over hyped because he couldn't play, but he got multiple new deals despite being a clear as day waste of money. Rosicky to though a hugely better player he was both constantly injured and at times when fit he was being ignored anyway. Wenger even not using him gave him another new contract.
Wenger is 100% allowed to spend the bulk of that money but Wenger chooses to have the club in a position of a huge wage budget and huge squad which prevents bringing in more stars. New owner would only change that IF a new owner fired Wenger and insisted on a smaller higher quality squad though I'm fairly sure Usmanov likes Wenger too but thinks massive spending will help the club. In reality if he told Wenger to ignore the wage bill we'd start making huge losses after a couple of years of spending.
Wow, you manage to contradict yourself about 100 times in 1 post.
You say it's easy to get around FFP but you acknowledge that PSG & City were sanctioned by UEFA. You say that every club knew on day 1 how to get around FFP but again, you acknowledge that PSG & City were sanctioned by UEFA.
Can club owners use their own or related companies to sponsor themselves? Yes but as we've seen UEFA will bring the value down to a fair market value*. City & PSG tried to get around FFP initially but failed - they were sanctioned and we saw that their spending the following season was directly effected.
We still don't know whether PSG have figured out a way to get around FFP but there are theories that they've managed to sign Neymar by Qatar sponsoring him directly rather than sponsoring PSG and they in turn paying for him. Who knows, if or how they've got around it - what's clear is that any way of getting around it only applies to the state owned clubs like PSG & City, your average billionaire will find it too expensive to do.
*PSG's deal wasn't simply a shirt sponsor so you can't compare it to the value of another clubs shirt agreement.
And you know this how? Why was it being reported that without selling Sanchez, even after banking £35m for Ox, that Arsenal didn't have any money to spend?
I have absolutely no idea if Wenger can or can't spend that money but as I've said, there are people in finance that have speculated that the terms Kroenke's personal borrowings are or will be directly linked to the state of Arsenal's balance sheet. This certainly wouldn't be uncommon, as I've shown the Glazers had (may still do too) a very similar agreement in place with their borrowings and Utd's finances. Again though, I don't know this for certain (I suspect neither do you), it's just a theory as to why Arsenal have kept their cash levels incredible high over the last few years.
Even Wenger himself who was the biggest supporter of FFP has called for it to be scrapped http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41194292
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,951
- Location
- Surrey
Well sort of, he also asked for them to be made stricter
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,951
- Location
- Surrey
So it's not that he specifically wants them scrapped. He just says they're not strong enough right now so they need to make them stronger or get rid of them.
Thing is Kroenke's son Josh wanted to take the deal Usmanov offered earlier this year I believe it was around the 1.6 billion mark and although Stan didn't take it he did think about it. I believe Stan was holding out for 2 billion if I remember rightly, also remember we have the Nigerian billionaire on board his name is Dangote he is an arsenal fan and stated he would not hesitate in sacking Wenger I'm just not sure he is a better option than Usmanov.
- Status