Chelsea Thread

Fizman, that's him.

Arsenal went from buying players like Eddie Mcgoldrick and spending 2m net to suddenly buying Dennis Bergkamp and spending 15+m net.

This is what propelled Arsenal from an inconsistent also ran, finishing in mid table/bottom half, to title winners within a couple of years
 
BobbyBox said:
The Beveren thing, I doubt Beveren were forced to sign up with Arsenal? and it was the decision of Beveren to do what they did and didn't plan well and made bad business decisions. Arsenal were a part of it, but I assume it can't all be put on Arsenal that the club collapsed?
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that. The Beveren board are also to blame.
Anyway i don't really blame Arsenal, after football is all about dog eats dog.
But people are sometimes selective in their judgement (and so am i in some cases).
 
Godotelli said:
Fizman, that's him.

Arsenal went from buying players like Eddie Mcgoldrick and spending 2m net to suddenly buying Dennis Bergkamp and spending 15+m net.

This is what propelled Arsenal from an inconsistent also ran, finishing in mid table/bottom half, to title winners within a couple of years
Click to expand...

Was it Fizman that financed those moves though? or was it just coincidence? We also won the league in 1989 before Fizman came along? I think he came late in 1991 (we won the league in that year as well).

So we were winning things before we bought Bergkamp etc

And when we spent the 7.5mil on Dennis clubs like Newcastle were matching it buying other players.

maybe compared to Man City terms it was crazy spending as you got relegated around 1996 season? but I had a quick look this morning and remember one of the seasons before you got relegated you spend around 10mill? (not net spend).

So maybe Arsenal were set up better and used their money more wisely based on our successes and we built up slowly to where we were in the late 90's early 2000's?

The table I linked to earlier just shows the real picture of spending though over the years in the Prem, did Arsenal really go crazy buying players when we are 14th on that table of Average transfer money spent over the course of the Prem and overall net spend?

Anyway if you want to pretend that what Arsenal did in the 90's was like what Chelsea Man City are doing nowadays then go ahead, most other people can see the differences, keep kidding yourself :DD
 
BobbyBox said:
Anyway if you want to pretend that what Arsenal did in the 90's was like what Chelsea Man City are doing nowadays then go ahead, most other people can see the differences, keep kidding yourself :DD
Click to expand...

No no you don't understand, Abramovich and Mansour are making 'investments' in the clubs, and soon they'll be self-sufficient, and payback the > 1bn they've each spent.
 
Not a coincidence according to your captain at the time.

This is how these conversations go.

City are spending to gain success
Arsenal spent to gain success
But we did it by spending what we earned. We're principled
No, you used external money
err, you spent more

The fact is that you only became 'principled' after gaining success. I'm not pretending anything, that would be you superimposing recent financial policy onto the past.

The principle is the same for Arsenal in the 90's as it is for City in recent years. As for amounts spent, obviously you have to take into account monetary inflation, the increased influx of capital as a result of the success of the PL, the transfer window introduction, the G14, the CL and the increasing monopolistic environment (...and not to mention the greed of selling clubs who deal with newly rich clubs). Put it this way, superimpose Arsenal '95 into the modern environment and your net spending would be nothing like it is. You simply cannot compare the PL in the 90's to what it is now, nevermind transfer fees.

The main point tho is that this "we're so principled" is utter bollocks.
 
So your argument is that what Arsenal did in the mid 90's (which is still big news to me) is exactly the same as what Mansour is doing now, except that because of inflation, Mansour has to pay a few more quid.

Do I have that correct?
 
Godotelli said:
The principle is the same.

The environment is completely different

It's not difficult to understand
Click to expand...

Because even if some randomer did invest in Arsenal 15 years ago, presumably he/she did it to make some money.

If City could continually make 50m a year PROFIT (like Arsenal) it would still take Mansour 20 years to make his money back - and the vast majority would have come from his cousin.

Seems a very odd business decision to me.

And no I don't believe him to be particularly business saavy just because he happened to be born into the wealthiest family on Earth.

Abramovich makes sense to me. He's stupidly wealthy, likes shiny things and lives a chunk of his life in Chelsea - and loves football. That makes sense.

Some rich kid who can barely be bothered to fire up one of his private jets to come over once a season to see his 'project'...not so much.

But what do I know, maybe Mansour used to sleep in City PJs when growing up.
 
What point of mine are you arguing against?

As for Mansour, I think he understands business better than you do, to be fair.
 
Godotelli said:
What point of mine are you arguing against?

As for Mansour, I think he understands business better than you do, to be fair.
Click to expand...

No offense, but on what grounds would you make that claim? Because I post on an internet forum?

Is it Mansour's impressive business...oh sorry English degree from Santa Barbara college that demonstrates his acumen? Or does the fact that he sits on boards that his family own make him automatically a business genius?

I don't pretend to have 1 iota of knowledge about the extent of his assets. Maybe Manchester City is the crown jewel in a grander plan of the great UAE tourism project. That would at least make some sense.

But please please please don't pretend:

1. That because a rich man is throwing money at something it is a wise investment
2. Because someone was born rich they're necessarily clever

I've yet to see a single coherent, logical reason for Mansour buying the club other than to promote the UAE. Which is fine, it's part of the greater UAE Marketing budget. But if MCFC itself ever earns back the more than 1bn that he's spent I will stick on my Goater jersey (National team of course) and run circles around Old Trafford.
 
beachryan said:
No offense, but on what grounds would you make that claim? Because I post on an internet forum?

Is it Mansour's impressive business...oh sorry English degree from Santa Barbara college that demonstrates his acumen? Or does the fact that he sits on boards that his family own make him automatically a business genius?

I don't pretend to have 1 iota of knowledge about the extent of his assets. Maybe Manchester City is the crown jewel in a grander plan of the great UAE tourism project. That would at least make some sense.

But please please please don't pretend:

1. That because a rich man is throwing money at something it is a wise investment
2. Because someone was born rich they're necessarily clever

I've yet to see a single coherent, logical reason for Mansour buying the club other than to promote the UAE. Which is fine, it's part of the greater UAE Marketing budget. But if MCFC itself ever earns back the more than 1bn that he's spent I will stick on my Goater jersey (National team of course) and run circles around Old Trafford.
Click to expand...

I'm not going over that again, we've had that conversation before.

On Mansour, he's grown up in an environment that is very business orientated. It's not really a stretch to claim he probably understands it better than most.

You don't have to be clever in general or have the all time top marks in the most prestigious college in the universe to be good in business.
 
Untitled-1_85.jpg
 
Looks like Mourinho might be off to Utd then as that's the job in England he ACTUALLY wants...
 
Godotelli said:
Not a coincidence according to your captain at the time.

This is how these conversations go.

City are spending to gain success
Arsenal spent to gain success
But we did it by spending what we earned. We're principled
No, you used external money
err, you spent more

The fact is that you only became 'principled' after gaining success. I'm not pretending anything, that would be you superimposing recent financial policy onto the past.

The principle is the same for Arsenal in the 90's as it is for City in recent years. As for amounts spent, obviously you have to take into account monetary inflation, the increased influx of capital as a result of the success of the PL, the transfer window introduction, the G14, the CL and the increasing monopolistic environment (...and not to mention the greed of selling clubs who deal with newly rich clubs). Put it this way, superimpose Arsenal '95 into the modern environment and your net spending would be nothing like it is. You simply cannot compare the PL in the 90's to what it is now, nevermind transfer fees.

The main point tho is that this "we're so principled" is utter bollocks.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the fact we won things before...but anyway.

Actually you are right, taking in inflation and everything the amounts Arsenal spent in the 90's is exactly the same as what Chelsea and Man City have paid in the late 2000's, you are right.......:SHOCK:

I think we must have got money for winning the leagues in 1989 and 1990? and we had sponsorships at the time and was filling up Highbury at the time etc so were we spending beyond what we were getting in? did we just get the 15mill from Fizman?

Or did we do quite well and have a strong fan base and use the income to finance the bigger moves for players? or did Fizman come in and say here is 15mill go and buy Platt and Bergkamp?

The latter doesn't really make sense as Fizman came in in 91 and the players were bought in 95/96.

I don't think it is sanctimonious of Arsenal and other fans to say that what Man City and Chelsea did/are doing is just ridiculous and not based on any business sense at all.

Other clubs have to pretty much work on things as a business which limits them, Arsenal did this in the 90's (I know you are denying this) What Chelsea and Man City are doing now is just way beyond and creates a ridiculously unfair advantage that the majority of other clubs just can't and don't have.

The only similarities lie in that Arsenal spent more money than some other clubs in the league around them at that point in time.

Man City and Chelsea are doing the same but at a ridiculous rate. They are spending many many more times than every other club in the league around them. there was a ridiculous stat of Man City in the last 5 years spending more on transfers than the whole of the Premier league teams have since the start of the premierleague (not sure if it is that, but something like that? correct me if i'm wrong?) you can't keep arguing that what Man City Chelsea are doing is the same as Arsenal, with stats like this, it is way and beyond what is normal and acceptable imo.

It's as ridiculous as saying that I earn money and a footballer earns money, we both earn money, so we are both well off. That is how over generalised I think your comparison is.
 
I apologise gerd, I was just teasing you, I share a similar viewpoint with you on the Real/Barca axis although my views aren't as "pronounced" as yours.

I didn't expect you to take it seriously, we're all football fans and no matter how objective we try to be, we'll always have our preconceptions and biases of certain teams or players.
 
Mourinho will not go to Man United, I don't think they want someone who is so self-obsessed.

I think United will go for David Moyes, who given the time can be a good appointment. Probably the only club to maintain a sense of stability among the top teams along with Arsenal.
 
mathewsss said:
Mourinho will not go to Man United, I don't think they want someone who is so self-obsessed.

I think United will go for David Moyes, who given the time can be a good appointment. Probably the only club to maintain a sense of stability among the top teams along with Arsenal.
Click to expand...

I hope so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom