• ! ! ! 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.

Yannick Carrasco

Highgate

Member
Someone tell me under financial fair play how can Everton, Wolves and Watford have more to spend than us.

Because there is no such thing as ffp. If you as a owner want to spend, you do it. If not, you hide behind ffp. Fulham spent 100 million last summer....Fulham..

Kroenke is the only....ONLY owener who havn't spend one penny from his own pocket on his team. ONLY owner..... He is officially the worst owener in the pl....no manager or director can change that
 

Highgate

Member
FFP only applies to team who play in UEFA competitions

That didn't stop psg, man city, Leipzig, salzburg red bull or any of the big Turkish teams or Russian teams that get funded by rich people.

I repeat there is no such a thing called ffp that actually works in the real life.
 

14Henry

Looking for receipts 👀
I just didn't understand. Not that I'm stupid or ignorant but a lot of reports contradict each other.

I can't understand how an Everton can spend 50m just Willy nilly and no problem.

Arsenal are a huge club with huge revenue. Yes they have huge wages but their signings haven't been too heavy.

Yes the other teams have sold well but wolves haven't and are unlikely to sell anyone this summer. If they spend like 100m and Arsenal can only spend 50m something is wrong in football.
 

TheEconomist

Established Member
I just didn't understand. Not that I'm stupid or ignorant but a lot of reports contradict each other.

I can't understand how an Everton can spend 50m just Willy nilly and no problem.

Arsenal are a huge club with huge revenue. Yes they have huge wages but their signings haven't been too heavy.

Yes the other teams have sold well but wolves haven't and are unlikely to sell anyone this summer. If they spend like 100m and Arsenal can only spend 50m something is wrong in football.

I think the short answer is we could outspend them all, and we have the cash to pay much larger transfer fees for better players if we wanted. The reason we aren't spending more isn't because of FFP. we are:
1) choosing to keep our cash and only spend a little bit of it on transfers
2) struggling to reduce our wage bill which is too high given how poor we are. I think it's higher than both Liverpool and Sp**s'
 

DasBootist

Well-Known Member
That didn't stop psg, man city, Leipzig, salzburg red bull or any of the big Turkish teams or Russian teams that get funded by rich people.

I repeat there is no such a thing called ffp that actually works in the real life.
Respect! From Highgate m8
 

African Flair

Well-Known Member
I think he wants to prove himself after a mind exploring year at 25. Personally I wouldn't chose China personally but I get it. Though I'm not getting 170k a week.
 

lucky7

Active Member
I just didn't understand. Not that I'm stupid or ignorant but a lot of reports contradict each other.

I can't understand how an Everton can spend 50m just Willy nilly and no problem.

Arsenal are a huge club with huge revenue. Yes they have huge wages but their signings haven't been too heavy.

Yes the other teams have sold well but wolves haven't and are unlikely to sell anyone this summer. If they spend like 100m and Arsenal can only spend 50m something is wrong in football.
It's estimated (By AST) that the club will post a 70m loss this year (should come out in July). With our wage bill we are not a profitable club without CL.
 

Red London

Anti-Simp Culture
Trusted ⭐
It's estimated (By AST) that the club will post a 70m loss this year (should come out in July). With our wage bill we are not a profitable club without CL.
Wow we don't even make profit anymore, that was the one thing we could do.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
Someone tell me under financial fair play how can Everton, Wolves and Watford have more to spend than us.

It's simple, really. They haven't. Wolves, of course, won the promotion lottery and thus got a lot of free money to spend last summer, but they'll be living by the same rules as everyone else now. Watford's net spend over the past 3 years is about £38 million combined. Arsenal's net spend last summer alone was £60 million. They made about a £3 million profit the season before, but in 2016-17 Arsenal's net spend was £82 million. And while Everton's net spend has been substantial recently, it still lags behind Arsenal. In fact, over the past 3 seasons (or 5, take your pick), only the two Manchester Clubs have a higher net spend than Arsenal. The Gunners have spent about 10% more than Liverpool, about 20% more than Chelsea and about 10 times as much as Sp**s in terms of net spending over the last 3.

The difference is that other clubs (most notably Liverpool and -- I hate to even say it -- Sp**s) have been much smarter. Liverpool had a very large net spend of £126 million last year, but in the previous two years they made a profit on their transfers. And they've already brought in £20 million this summer by selling Danny Ings to Southampton. They've found bargain players. They've made big profits on sales (not just Coutinho, who basically funded the bulk of Van Dijk and Alisson himself). And they've made generally good transfer decisions.
 

Red London

Anti-Simp Culture
Trusted ⭐
And they've already brought in £20 million this summer by selling Danny Ings to Southampton.
Wow. how are they getting £20m for that bum. 7 goals last season.

Meanwhile we get less for Ospina, Elneny and Perez combined who are mostly Ings level players.

I swear something dodgy is going on between Liverpool and Sotton, they get their best players and then sell them back poverty for high prices.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
It's estimated (By AST) that the club will post a 70m loss this year (should come out in July). With our wage bill we are not a profitable club without CL.

Arsenal will have a loss for the first time since 2002 (no other club comes close to having been so consistently in the black). But it will be a bit misleading, just as last year's £70 million profit (the 3rd highest in Premier League history, despite not being in the Champions League) was. Last year's profit was based largely on abnormally high player sales (Ox, Walcott, Alexis, etc.). This year's loss will be fueled by basically no significant player sales this past season. So while it's not good, it's not as dramatic as it sounds. Arsenal will get a £40 million revenue boost on July 1 when the new sponsorship deals with The Emirates and Adidas kick in.
 

Red London

Anti-Simp Culture
Trusted ⭐
Arsenal will have a loss for the first time since 2002 (no other club comes close to having been so consistently in the black). But it will be a bit misleading, just as last year's £70 million profit (the 3rd highest in Premier League history, despite not being in the Champions League) was. Last year's profit was based largely on abnormally high player sales (Ox, Walcott, Alexis, etc.). This year's loss will be fueled by basically no significant player sales this past season. So while it's not good, it's not as dramatic as it sounds. Arsenal will get a £40 million revenue boost on July 1 when the new sponsorship deals with The Emirates and Adidas kick in.
I'm looking forward to the day both Mkhy and Özil have left the club. These guys are costing us £26m a season... for what?
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
Wow. how are they getting £20m for that bum. 7 goals last season.

Meanwhile we get less for Ospina, Elneny and Perez combined who are mostly Ings level players.

I swear something dodgy is going on between Liverpool and Sotton, they get their best players and then sell them back poverty for high prices.

It's amazing. They got £19 million for Solanke, £12.5 million for Danny Ward, £25 million for Sakho, £28 million for Benteke, £16 million for Jordan Ibe, £14 million for Joe Allen and, of course, really big money for Coutinho and Sterling. Plus £4-5 million here and there for a variety of fringe players that Arsenal wouldn't be able to get rid of at all.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
I'm looking forward to the day both Mkhy and Özil have left the club. These guys are costing us £26m a season... for what?

It will be interesting to see if they can move those guys this summer (maybe they could subcontract Liverpool to do it for them? :D). Özil is going to be really tough, though, because nobody wants to take on his wages and he doesn't seem as though he'll go willingly. They may have to eat a lot of that money to move him. Micki's contract is more manageable at £144,000 a week, but that's still a wage that limits the number of clubs who might be able to afford him.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
Because there is no such thing as ffp. If you as a owner want to spend, you do it. If not, you hide behind ffp. Fulham spent 100 million last summer....Fulham..

Kroenke is the only....ONLY owener who havn't spend one penny from his own pocket on his team. ONLY owner..... He is officially the worst owener in the pl....no manager or director can change that

Fulham was able to spend a lot of money because they won the promotion lottery. Newly promoted teams get a £170 million payoff to fund player acquisitions in order to help them try to build competitive teams (their net spend still wasn't much more than Arsenal's last summer).

And how many times do I have to say it? Kroenke is not allowed to cut the club a check to spend on players. Neither is any other owner, except under certain circumstances and only in limited amounts over a short period of time to attain financial stability.
 

Latest posts+

Top Bottom