A fallacy quashed?

[Kano]

selective quoting.

that swiss ramble concludes that we probably have around 40-50 mill available to spend.

(c) as we have seen, money is available to improve the squad, probably around £50 million.

that article works on a number of assumption, as he happily admits, so its hard to base an argument using that, even though it is an interesting read.

[AKBapologist]

And 5)
No, we don't need more squad players, we need 3-4 quality signings that are as good as players in our first 11, or better to give ourselves a firm chance of winning something. CB, LB, Striker and CDM (if none of the youths cut the mustard) - Babel, Sessegnon, Steven Pienaar, Makoun, Sidwell, Curtis Davis? No thanks.

[AKBapologist]

selective quoting.

that swiss ramble concludes that we probably have around 40-50 mill available to spend.



that article works on a number of assumption, as he happily admits, so its hard to base an argument using that, even though it is an interesting read.

I acknowledge that we might have a spend, but we certainly can't spend £50mill every season on transfers (net) can we? Infact, it states that our per season funds are heavily dependant on player sales.

[Kano]

I acknowledge that we might have a spend, but we certainly can't spend £50mill every season on transfers (net) can we?

that's the bottom line figure he seems to come to.

put it this way, we spent between £20-£30 mill all inclusive last summer, with Squilaci, Kos and Chamakh (higher wages probably with no fee).

[Toronto Gooner]

1) who are already the most expensive sport venue in the world

Last time I looked, North America was still part of the world. Check out this list of sports venues/clubs, and tell me how Arsenal measure up.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35780689/Nort...Sports_Tickets

For added interest, the Toronto Maple Leafs' (a team that has not won the Stanley Cup since 1967, and has not qualified for the playoffs for the last 7 years) ticket prices averaged the equivalent of 72 stg in the 2009/10 season.

[budesonide]

1) I don't think we can afford to spend 30mill a season (net) on transfers, the last club to do that year in and year out in the EPL, who weren't mega rich was Liverpool - they would have had to go into administration if they weren't bailed out.

2) If we could, we certainly wouldn't have needed to raise ticket prices - for an under performing club who are already the most expensive sport venue in the world to raise ticket prices to do so whilst not financially needed to and having a surplus of +Xmill pounds a season would be nuts. As proven by fans and media reaction this summer.

3) We can probably dip into a one off fund, as explained by swiss ramble (http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011...er-budget.html), but that fund would include first years worth of wages, fees, legal etc, so we can either add several 0-10mill squad like players, or one or two 30mill *stars* depending on how many we sell.



4) Which means because we've been living within our means, we've been extremely restricted in what we could do in any transfer market and I doubt any manager would have had the latitude to do spend a whole lot more than we had, regardless of whether he valued certain signings more than AW did.

There's this repetitive fallibly going around, probably born out the believe that we're a "big club" and made year over year profits (actually, most of it was from one time development sales) - that we can spend money, maybe not Chelsea or United money, but liverpool or Tottenham money on new signings every year and be ok... I honestly don't think we can, and when average managers can become world beaters by cherry picking stars, when statistically, we've had a smaller (playing) squad than our rivals, when we've the average cost to quality ratio has risen whilst our spending power has stayed the same, I believe this to be our biggest disadvantage over the last few years. The ONLY things we can hope for is for the FFP to be successful and other clubs to be forced to cut spending, or failing that, a sugar daddy to step up to enable our club to continuously operate at a loss.

1). You don't think so.
And, no-one said we should do that year in year out. Which is why I used Man U as an example -- splashing out on the odd occasion for the top player you need instead of spending that on 2 nobodies and 3 obscure teenagers.

2). So raising ticket prices means we cannot afford to spend where necessary to augment or strengthen the squad?

3). There is something known as manageable debt. Any big company or business in the world uses it! Otherwise no company can survive on the market with borrowing wisely to compete or survive.

What we are doing means, eventually we will get left behind completely; And when we decide to eventually go with the flow it might be too late!

No one is saying we should borrow a 100 BILLION to splash out -- that is not the argument here.

Your argument that we are so poor is utter tosh too with all due respect.

4). The so-called self-sustainable model we are adhering to is short-sighted and impractical as we are finding out. Hence why there is indication form the club this season that we might spend a lot more this season thatn we have been doing.

[AKBapologist]

Last time I looked, North America was still part of the world. Check out this list of sports venues/clubs, and tell me how Arsenal measure up.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35780689/Nort...Sports_Tickets

For added interest, the Toronto Maple Leafs' (a team that has not won the Stanley Cup since 1967, and has not qualified for the playoffs for the last 7 years) ticket prices averaged the equivalent of 72 stg in the 2009/10 season.

Whats the average ticket price at the Emirates? Tickets currently range from £34 to £96

NY Yankees ticket average is £45 according to that article?

Anyway, If it's not the most expensive sporting venue in the world, it's the most expensive football venue in the world, which isn't something to be proud of either.

[AKBapologist]

1). You don't think so.
And, no-one said we should do that year in year out. Which is why I used Man U as an example -- splashing out on the odd occasion for the top player you need instead of spending that on 2 nobodies and 3 obscure teenagers.

2). So raising ticket prices means we cannot afford to spend where necessary to augment or strengthen the squad?

3). There is something known as manageable debt. Any big company or business in the world uses it! Otherwise no company can survive on the market with borrowing wisely to compete or survive.

What we are doing means, eventually we will get left behind completely; And when we decide to eventually go with the flow it might be too late!

No one is saying we should borrow a 100 BILLION to splash out -- that is not the argument here.

Your argument that we are so poor is utter tosh too with all due respect.

4). The so-called self-sustainable model we are adhering to is short-sighted and impractical as we are finding out. Hence why there is indication form the club this season that we might spend a lot more this season thatn we have been doing.

You seem to contradict yourself in your own post inadvertently agreeing with me in the same post.

Our stadium means we're already running a considerable managible debt... Yep, that big 60k seater? We're still paying for it, we can't pay it off early and it pretty much underpins a lot of how we behave.

The argument is that any manager would have had to behave in the way we did... That 50mill in the kitty, the one you hear all the papers quoting, the one we're about to spend? That's mostly the result of player sales, no big clubs break even over the last several years, let alone have a net transfer surplus.

And no, we can't/won't generate funds out of thin air, this season, next season, with AW or without him, yes, the "so-called self-sustainable model we are adhering to is short-sighted and impractical as we are finding out." - but we're not changing the model to spend a relatively modest amount in the transfer window - this is all funds we've generated organically, not more debt, not magic pockets from rich owners.

To change this, we need a different ownership model.

[AKBapologist]

that's the bottom line figure he seems to come to.

put it this way, we spent between £20-£30 mill all inclusive last summer, with Squilaci, Kos and Chamakh (higher wages probably with no fee).

14.5mill on transfers in, 7.7mill in transfers out, 6.8mill net - we probably lowered our wage bill with the number of players we released. http://www.transferleague.co.uk/prem...transfers.html

[budesonide]

You seem to contradict yourself in your own post inadvertently agreeing with me in the same post.

Our stadium means we're already running a considerable managible debt... Yep, that big 60k seater? We're still paying for it, we can't pay it off early and it pretty much underpins a lot of how we behave.

The argument is that any manager would have had to behave in the way we did... That 50mill in the kitty, the one you hear all the papers quoting, the one we're about to spend? That's mostly the result of player sales, no big clubs break even over the last several years, let alone have a net transfer surplus.

And no, we can't/won't generate funds out of thin air, this season, next season, with AW or without him, yes, the "so-called self-sustainable model we are adhering to is short-sighted and impractical as we are finding out." - but we're not changing the model to spend a relatively modest amount in the transfer window - this is all funds we've generated organically, not more debt, not magic pockets from rich owners.

To change this, we need a different ownership model.

Selective reading mate. Read points 3 and 4 again ( and pay attention to the 100 BILLION comment).

tah