• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

Raul's Transfer Targets: Summer 2019

  • Thread starter Aevi
  • Start date
  • Replies 13,667
  • Views 1,468,111

Who would you rather have?


  • Total voters
    113
Status
Not open for further replies.

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
Even extending Ramsey's contract was out of our price range........ if you want to blame, blame Özil/Mkhitaryan and those idiots in charge who thought it was a good idea to give those 2 big fat contracts. Blame too those idiots who thought letting Sanchez and Ramsey run down their contract was fine.

That's why what that will define the upcoming summer transfer window wouldn't be who we bring in, it's who we are offloading.

Thanks to Football Leaks, we know that Mkhitaryan is making £144,000 a week, which isn't excessive. It's roughly what he was making at United. One might argue that he hasn't lived up to expectations and should be moved (although certainly he's been better and way more cost effective than the guy who went the other way), but his wages haven't held Arsenal back in any way.

It’ll be like that until Kroenke chooses to put funds it into.

Until then we’ll only be able to afford one marquee signing a window and maybe 2 or 3 youngsters/squad rotation players.

The sad truth.

In truth, this is what fans of every Premier League club except the Manchester clubs (and nearly every club around the world) say. Over the past five years, Arsenal's net spending of £260 million is more than that of Chelsea (£202 million), Liverpool (£194 million) or any other PL club not located in Manchester.

Liverpool has been able to catch up with City not because they were spending obscene amounts of money, but because they've been run so well during this period. John Henry and Tom Werner haven't put any more money into their club than Kroenke has put into Arsenal. They've been exceptionally good at finding players and at selling players for enormous profits that have allowed them to reinvest the funds in top players such as Van Dijk and Alisson. This is something at which Arsenal has been dreadful in recent years. Then you have Sp**s, who have managed to make it to a Champions League final with two straight windows of no spending and a five-year net spend of £28 million.

On the other hand, you have Manchester United, which is a total mess despite a five-year net spend of £484 million (not that far off City's £563 million). So spending alone is not enough. It makes things easier and allows you to miss once in awhile, but it's not a guarantee. You still have to have a well-run club.

We don't yet know if the new front office team will be any better than Gazidis, but if they aren't I don't suppose spending money like a drunken sailor will make all that much difference.
 

HairSprayGooners

My brother posted it ⏩
Thanks to Football Leaks, we know that Mkhitaryan is making £144,000 a week, which isn't excessive. It's roughly what he was making at United. One might argue that he hasn't lived up to expectations and should be moved (although certainly he's been better and way more cost effective than the guy who went the other way), but his wages haven't held Arsenal back in any way.



In truth, this is what fans of every Premier League club except the Manchester clubs (and nearly every club around the world) say. Over the past five years, Arsenal's net spending of £260 million is more than that of Chelsea (£202 million), Liverpool (£194 million) or any other PL club not located in Manchester.

Liverpool has been able to catch up with City not because they were spending obscene amounts of money, but because they've been run so well during this period. John Henry and Tom Werner haven't put any more money into their club than Kroenke has put into Arsenal. They've been exceptionally good at finding players and at selling players for enormous profits that have allowed them to reinvest the funds in top players such as Van Dijk and Alisson. This is something at which Arsenal has been dreadful in recent years. Then you have Sp**s, who have managed to make it to a Champions League final with two straight windows of no spending and a five-year net spend of £28 million.

On the other hand, you have Manchester United, which is a total mess despite a five-year net spend of £484 million (not that far off City's £563 million). So spending alone is not enough. It makes things easier and allows you to miss once in awhile, but it's not a guarantee. You still have to have a well-run club.

We don't yet know if the new front office team will be any better than Gazidis, but if they aren't I don't suppose spending money like a drunken sailor will make all that much difference.

I completely agree, spending the money correctly is the most important thing. I think many of us get caught up in wanting ALL changes in one summer. We all knew this squad would be completely turned upside down but would take 3 summers.

Ideally you want a 3 year plan to build the side you want as a new manager. Signing 3-4 main players per window. Leno, Torreira and Sokratis was a good start for Emery. Now it’s time for left back, box to box mid, winger and CB in this window.

I do think we’ll spend 100-120m this summer but that won’t be net spend of course. By the end of next summer I would not be surprised if we had this as a starting 11 -

Leno
Bellerin
New CB
New CB
Holding/Sokratis
New LB
Torreira
New CM
New winger/playmaker
Auba
Laca

It’s exciting having a manager who doesn’t give a damn or have any sort of affinity with the players who’re here already.
 

Rex Stone

Long live the fighters
Trusted ⭐

Country: Wales
Thanks to Football Leaks, we know that Mkhitaryan is making £144,000 a week, which isn't excessive. It's roughly what he was making at United. One might argue that he hasn't lived up to expectations and should be moved (although certainly he's been better and way more cost effective than the guy who went the other way), but his wages haven't held Arsenal back in any way.



In truth, this is what fans of every Premier League club except the Manchester clubs (and nearly every club around the world) say. Over the past five years, Arsenal's net spending of £260 million is more than that of Chelsea (£202 million), Liverpool (£194 million) or any other PL club not located in Manchester.

Liverpool has been able to catch up with City not because they were spending obscene amounts of money, but because they've been run so well during this period. John Henry and Tom Werner haven't put any more money into their club than Kroenke has put into Arsenal. They've been exceptionally good at finding players and at selling players for enormous profits that have allowed them to reinvest the funds in top players such as Van Dijk and Alisson. This is something at which Arsenal has been dreadful in recent years. Then you have Sp**s, who have managed to make it to a Champions League final with two straight windows of no spending and a five-year net spend of £28 million.

On the other hand, you have Manchester United, which is a total mess despite a five-year net spend of £484 million (not that far off City's £563 million). So spending alone is not enough. It makes things easier and allows you to miss once in awhile, but it's not a guarantee. You still have to have a well-run club.

We don't yet know if the new front office team will be any better than Gazidis, but if they aren't I don't suppose spending money like a drunken sailor will make all that much difference.

That’s actually untrue, Kroenke hasn’t put a penny in to the club.


Whereas Liverpool on the other hand have had much more help from their owners.


Additionally, FSG unlike Kroenke invest all profits back into the club and they’ve also financed a 110M improvement to Anfield.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
That’s actually untrue, Kroenke hasn’t put a penny in to the club.


Whereas Liverpool on the other hand have had much more help from their owners.


Additionally, FSG unlike Kroenke invest all profits back into the club and they’ve also financed a 110M improvement to Anfield.

You're missing my point. Henry and Werner haven't contributed personal money to transfers. They've paid off some debt and improved the stadium, but Arsenal needed neither. I'm talking about these calls for Kroenke to put money from his own pocket into transfers. That's what the post to which I was responding was about.

By the way, you might notice that Swiss Ramble lists the money Fenway provided itself to service debt and stadium improvements as "owner loans." Not gifts. They got their money back.
 
Last edited:

Rex Stone

Long live the fighters
Trusted ⭐

Country: Wales
You're missing my point. Henry and Werner haven't contributed personal money to transfers. They've paid off some debt and improved the stadium, but Arsenal needed neither. I'm talking about these calls for Kroenke to put money from his own pocket into transfers. That's what the post to which I was responding was about.
You're missing my point. Henry and Werner haven't contributed personal money to transfers. They've paid off some debt and improved the stadium, but Arsenal needed neither. I'm talking about these calls for Kroenke to put money from his own pocket into transfers. That's what the post to which I was responding was about.

Liverpool’s source of funds is pretty much 50/50 between owner financing and cash generated operationally. Ours is 100% from operations. It’s too simplistic to say x money isn’t spent on transfers when you’re comparing two completely different ownership models.

Also what about the point where unlike Kroenke they reinvest all profits back into the club including transfers? In fact most of Liverpool’s debt repayments have come from their own generated profits.

Additionally compared to the PL for the financial year 2017/18 since he’s taken over, Kroenke is the only owner not to have invested a single penny into the club in the league. Even the Glazers have.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
Liverpool’s source of funds is pretty much 50/50 between owner financing and cash generated operationally. Ours is 100% from operations. It’s too simplistic to say x money isn’t spent on transfers when you’re comparing two completely different ownership models.

Also what about the point where unlike Kroenke they reinvest all profits back into the club including transfers? In fact most of Liverpool’s debt repayments have come from their own generated profits.

Additionally compared to the PL for the financial year 2017/18 since he’s taken over, Kroenke is the only owner not to have invested a single penny into the club in the league. Even the Glazers have.

Oh, for **** sake. The Glazers put United £600 million in debt by leveraging the club to buy it. They damn well ought to be putting some money back in (they still had £487 million in debt as of last September). Kroenke at least used his own frickin' money to buy the club instead of leveraging it against itself like the Glazers.

Also, few owners are just giving their personal money to the clubs, which is what you're asking of Kroenke. Fenway is charging the club interest (low interest at 1.24%, but still interest) on the money they put into the club. So they're getting it back and more. Chelsea owes Abramovich £1.17 billion on the loans he made to the club (and if you've noticed, he's been reluctant to loan the club more the past few years). Leicester City is another club that's listed as owing money (£12 million) to their owners. Many other Premier League clubs have taken out bank loans (including Sp**s, who had a bit more in the bank than their loan debt, but have now taken on stadium debt).

The idea that these owners are just giving money to the clubs for the fun of it (City notwithstanding) is nonsense. Kroenke hasn't needed to loan money to the club because Arsenal is the only club that has made a profit every season since 2002. But if Arsenal needed a loan, I'm sure he would be willing to provide one with interest, just like the Liverpool owners who took over a club that was in financial difficulty. Don't expect any of them to just give their money away.
 
Last edited:

Rex Stone

Long live the fighters
Trusted ⭐

Country: Wales
Oh, for **** sake. The Glazers put United £600 million in debt by leveraging the club to buy it. They damn well ought to be putting some money back in (they still had £487 million in debt as of last September). Kroenke at least used his own frickin' money to buy the club instead of leveraging it against itself like the Glazers.

Also, few owners are just giving their personal money to the clubs, which is what you're asking of Kroenke. Fenway is charging the club interest (low interest at 1.24%, but still interest) on the money they put into the club. So they're getting it back and more. Chelsea owes Abramovich £1.17 billion on the loans he made to the club (and if you've noticed, he's been reluctant to loan the club more the past few years). Leicester City is another club that's listed as owing money (£12 billion) to their owners. Many other Premier League clubs have taken out bank loans (including Sp**s, who had a bit more in the bank than their loan debt, but have now taken on stadium debt).

The idea that these owners are just giving money to the clubs for the fun of it (City notwithstanding) is nonsense. Kroenke hasn't needed to loan money to the club because Arsenal is the only club that has made a profit every season since 2002. But if Arsenal needed a loan, I'm sure he would be willing to provide one with interest, just like the Liverpool owners who took over a club that was in financial difficulty. Don't expect any of them to just give their money away.

Again not sure why you’re becoming so aggressive, it’s a reasonable enough statement to make?

And another time I’ll ask, what about the profits? Considering he puts no money in, why not reinvest those back into the club like others do?

I’ve not said anywhere that they’re giving away free money but surely you realise the limitations of a self sustaining model like ours without outside investment? Especially when football is so volatile with club incomes potentially changing massively year on year.
 

Yousif Arsenal

On Vinai's payroll & misses 4th place trophy 🏆
Trusted ⭐
Orny confirm our budget without CL is about 40M. this is so depressing.


so we want 6 players but our budget is 40M doesn't make sense to me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts+

Top Bottom