What's new

Arsenal

Kingellesar

Kingellesar

This is the way
May 2, 2005
8,772
9,276
Not sure many clubs would take Lacazette, certainly not for a big fee. 29, 2 years left on contract, not really hit it off with Arsenal like most expected he would.
 
C0YS

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
Kingellesar said:
Not sure many clubs would take Lacazette, certainly not for a big fee. 29, 2 years left on contract, not really hit it off with Arsenal like most expected he would.
Click to expand...
He's a good player with a decent scoring record. Never really fitted in with Arsenal's passing game though, he is very limited with his back to goal and I think that hindered him. I'd take him in a heartbeat. I'm sure they wont be short of offers.
 
T

Time for Heroes

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2012
780
1,250
spursfan77 said:
When I say fucked I mean they aren't going to get back to those level of profits or high positions in the table without Champions League football. Say they go another 2 or 3 years without it whilst paying champions league level salaries it isn't going to be pretty for them. Their stadium is badly financed compared to us. They are heading towards mid table if they don't qualify for the champions league soon. Plus they have no fans in their stadium which was their cash cow. Sure we don't but we have the £175m loan to cover those losses while we try and continue as normal. Kronke isn't going to put any money in to rescue them (not that our owners would) but without a lucky season they aren't going anywhere. Hopefully they are on a slide to become another west ham.
Click to expand...


Do you think we are on an upwards trajectory in comparison? I see you post a lot of Arsenal hate, whatever helps you sleep at night i guess.

We need to get our house in order and forget about those fuckers.
 
Kingellesar

Kingellesar

This is the way
May 2, 2005
8,772
9,276
Oh yeah no doubt there will be some offers....but I don't think they would get a huge fee for him, in the current state of the market.
 
rossdapep

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2011
22,340
80,488
I wonder if Atletico would take him should João Felix go to City?

I do wonder how long Aubemeyang has left at his current rate of form.

If they offer him a 3-4 year contract on those mega wages it could bugger them if he starts to decline in a year's time. He'd be quite useless if he lost his sharpness and speed as he offers little in terms of build up. Not someone who can adapt their game as they get older.

Although I suppose they are prepared to take that gamble to secure top 4 and worry about it later
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
C0YS said:
What's interesting, is that getting rid of scouting staff and heading to agent led recruitment is most likely to be financially damaging in the long term. Scouting costs little, but a good scouting network generates profits in results and in signing young talent that can be sold for a profit.

With the other staff my problem is definitely towards the business led aspect of football, though it will save them, what 2 mill a year, absolute max. Football clubs are both, rarely profitable and not comparable to other businesses. During hard times for people, clubs should not be laying off vulnerable workers, there's no excuse because they are financially capable of taking that loss. Clubs are run like businesses but are not comparable to most companies, again, few are run for profit and none were created with profit in mind.

I am idealistic, but we need to hold football clubs into account and remind them that they were created by the community and work for the community. The marketisation of football is terrible, but is how it is, but this doesn't mean we should not hold them into account and put pressure on them to do the correct thing.

Arsenal are going through 'hard times' in a very shallow way. They are financially fine, the issues are that their ability to generate income has not increased like other clubs, and they are slipping behind. But, this reflecting their on field performance. Arsenal hire a lot of staff, almost twice as much as we do. Now, this may well need to be cut, but this is not the time to restructure clubs, this is the time to give back and support the community and families. To not do so, from the standpoint of a football club is ethically questionable.
Click to expand...

You say clubs are "rarely profitable" but then go on to say that they're "financially capable of carrying the loss" which you estemate as 2m quid, so which is it? How many businesses just arbitrarily decide to take a voluntary 2m/year loss? Let alone ones that are barely profitable in the first place?

You say football clubs are different from other businesses but ultimately I think that only applies to the fans perspective. As far as the people running the club are concerned, it's absolutely a business like any other. I'm not saying that's a good thing, as you say to the community etc the club means a whole lot more than that, but what you or I or the fans want doesn't mean that's the reality. To think anything else is, as you say yourself, ideolostic.

Again, I feel terrible for those affected, and I'm not saying I like the fact that these people have lost their jobs, but the argument that because the club has made people redundant they shouldn't make an investment in a player/new contract etc that could yield massive returns through the performance, sponsorships etc that go with it is just nonsensical.
 
C0YS

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
'O Zio said:
You say clubs are "rarely profitable" but then go on to say that they're "financially capable of carrying the loss" which you estemate as 2m quid, so which is it? How many businesses just arbitrarily decide to take a voluntary 2m/year loss? Let alone ones that are barely profitable in the first place?

You say football clubs are different from other businesses but ultimately I think that only applies to the fans perspective. As far as the people running the club are concerned, it's absolutely a business like any other. I'm not saying that's a good thing, as you say to the community etc the club means a whole lot more than that, but what you or I or the fans want doesn't mean that's the reality. To think anything else is, as you say yourself, ideolostic.

Again, I feel terrible for those affected, and I'm not saying I like the fact that these people have lost their jobs, but the argument that because the club has made people redundant they shouldn't make an investment in a player/new contract etc that could yield massive returns through the performance, sponsorships etc that go with it is just nonsensical.
Click to expand...
Clubs have the ability to generate a lot of money, but clubs are not run for profit, they are run for on field success. Arsenal are profitable though, but they are an exception to the rule. Clubs, ultimately, serve as a hobby for the wealthy, firstly and foremost. They generate a lot of income though, and that's why they can the loss, because of the ease in which clubs can generate an extra few million or so with limited effort.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make signings. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying they should absorb the costs of staff until covid clears out. Which is what the vast majority of clubs will do. Arsenal are not doing the 'normal' most super clubs will keep staff and accept the loses.
 
J

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
19,153
30,013
I resent the redundancy stuff especially when you have players and management who have far more money than anything these 55 would earn in their lifetimes.

However business isn't about being moral or ethical etc and rich people can't just start bailing out businesses etc or pay staff out of their one money.

Yes it is disgusting and agree with the sentiments in here but also understand that business are entities and people who work in a business are not that business so to speak.
 
C0YS

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
JCRD said:
I resent the redundancy stuff especially when you have players and management who have far more money than anything these 55 would earn in their lifetimes.

However business isn't about being moral or ethical etc and rich people can't just start bailing out businesses etc or pay staff out of their one money.

Yes it is disgusting and agree with the sentiments in here but also understand that business are entities and people who work in a business are not that business so to speak.
Click to expand...
Again, the vast majority of clubs don't run at a profit, and that is not the intent of most clubs. Clubs are, by in large, rich peoples playthings and have been for a long time. Now some clubs are run as an investment to be managed, including us, but clubs can and should be pressured into keeping hold of staff.

But thats not the point, fundamentally clubs are not businesses, they might be run as such but they are not that. It is a fans job to pressure clubs into not doing such things. And as I've said the vast majority of clubs will not do what Arsenal have done.
 
J

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
19,153
30,013
C0YS said:
Again, the vast majority of clubs don't run at a profit, and that is not the intent of most clubs. Clubs are, by in large, rich peoples playthings and have been for a long time. Now some clubs are run as an investment to be managed, including us, but clubs can and should be pressured into keeping hold of staff.

But thats not the point, fundamentally clubs are not businesses, they might be run as such but they are not that. It is a fans job to pressure clubs into not doing such things. And as I've said the vast majority of clubs will not do what Arsenal have done.
Click to expand...


They're institutions essentially. But they need to be run as businesses and just like any business if there is no specific requirement for the staff then well... You get let go.

Don't get me wrong, no redundancies should be made and it isn't difficult for an owner with a couple of billion to pay the salaries of 55 people until there is a requirement. I'm trying to see it from a business viewpoint, and if no requirement then you get let go.

There is a social csr type issue here of course.
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
C0YS said:
Clubs have the ability to generate a lot of money, but clubs are not run for profit, they are run for on field success. Arsenal are profitable though, but they are an exception to the rule. Clubs, ultimately, serve as a hobby for the wealthy, firstly and foremost. They generate a lot of income though, and that's why they can the loss, because of the ease in which clubs can generate an extra few million or so with limited effort.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make signings. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying they should absorb the costs of staff until covid clears out. Which is what the vast majority of clubs will do. Arsenal are not doing the 'normal' most super clubs will keep staff and accept the loses.
Click to expand...

Again I think you're being massively idealistic. Clubs originally are about on field success, but at the moment I'd wager the majority of PL clubs are owned by people who are them as an investment first and foremost.

If the current situation continues then there will be more redundancies at other clubs too I'm sure of it. It's all very well tiding people over for a couple of weeks until it all blows over, but if we don't get full stadiums again soon, which we won't, then there's going to be more clubs who have to cut costs. O think I read a while ago that arsenal make about 3.5m from a match day so if you think they're losing 30-odd times that when you include cups and europa, how much longer can clubs continue to spend millions on staff that they don't need? You're the one who keeps saying that clubs aren't profitable so I don't understand how you can argue that and then say it's easy for them to just lose all this money
 
ClintEastwould

ClintEastwould

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2012
4,748
9,845
'O Zio said:
Obviously I feel awful for the people who've lost their jobs, but I do think it's a bit of a case of apples and oranges comparing the players and the random behind the scenes people at the club.

To play devils advocate a bit, presumably the logic is that by spending money retaining a player like PEA, or signing a player like Willian, the club will end up making more money due to being more successful in the long run or getting more of a transfer fee for PEA. As important as all the random admin staff etc. are to the running of the club, they don't have anything like as much potential to generate money for the business as the players do.

When times are hard as a business, you can try and cut costs e.g. by cutting jobs that you can get by without, but there are some ways of cutting costs that are actually damaging to the business, it can end up being false economy. If Arsenal stopped buying players/renewing contracts then they'd save money on the short term but would ultimately be likely to lose money due to worse league positions, less merchandise sold, players leaving for free at the end of contracts etc. So the argument that if they can afford to sign players then they can afford to keep the staff on doesn't really make much sense.

Obviously there's the wider discussion as to weather the amount of money that's swirling around football in general is a good thing, but that's a separate point.
Click to expand...
This is probably the correct answer some clubs are in a stick or twist. But it’s also important to consider that this is more relevant to clubs down the leagues rather than a club like arsenal who can totally eat up the 2/3m cost that comes with those 55 staff. That is the issue.
 
Marty

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
40,238
64,120
spursfan77 said:
He's actually looking pretty smart for that now, as he knew it would make no difference to the club's approach going forward. They were still going to lay people off cut or no cut.
Click to expand...
Exactly. When the players were informed of this and voiced their complaints and puzzlement, they were just told "it's a different budget". It's completely nonsensical penny-pinching in order to waste pounds somewhere else in the company like big corporations do all the time.

Özil has every right to do what he did and especially when it turned out to not make a blind bit of difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mawspurs
Harry Kane responds to taunts from Arsenal fans after former Tottenham hero breaks Emirates record
Replies
3
Views
855
newbie
N
mawspurs
Ange Postecoglou explains why he's different to Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta in so many ways
Replies
2
Views
605
mawspurs
mawspurs
fishhhandaricecake
Either or / would you rather
Replies
13
Views
1K
-Afri-Coy-
-Afri-Coy-
Top