I agree that we are the ultimate expression of the marketisation of football. Sure, we're not the only example, but we are the ones who have embraced it most religiously. The reason why we're not in the spotlight is that the gradual change from football club to corporation that has taken place at Arsenal has been relatively subtle, especially since we've not been bought by an extrovert businessman with a lot of money to spend, like City and Chelsea, who face the greatest criticism because the expression of corporate interest is out in the open. While our board and Chief Exec may prattle on about sustainability and how we're not like other clubs like Chelsea and City, the reality is that we're in some ways much worse. With City and Chelsea, at least their owners actually care about winning trophies, although their motivation for that is not altruistic (they don't really care about the fans, but realise winning trophies is good for their ego and gives the businesses more publicity)
I am not defending the business models of City and Chelsea or their owners in any way, but we can't be hypocritical and claim we're a paragon of virtue in comparison. Like another poster has said, we're a business first and a football club second. The main considerations that matter to the board is their return on their investment, property deals, profits, turnovers, etc etc.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Punchinello Beezo
