- Transfer news: the 55 players Arsenal now trying to buy
- Is it possible for clubs not sponsored by oil money to make a profit in the Premier League?
By Tony Attwood
For all the fake excitement in the media, Arsenal’s transfers seem to be resolutely stuck on three players: Martin Zubimendia from Real Soc, Christian Norgaard from Brentford and Christian Nørgaard from Chelsea.
I guess it is the sheer tedium expressed by running the same three names day after day that leads the media to say it is all going to happen. And happen this week. Which is what they said last week and the week before, but you know, what’s a week, but a religious invention supported by the media who like to do something different every few days, but weren’t too sure how many Sunday’s they wanted in a year.
And religious matters are important since having signed one Christian, it seems we might sign another, this being Cristhian Mosquera from Valencia this week. That is going to cost maybe around £16m, although it depends on where you get your info. It seems he is a centre back, providing cover for William Saliba and Gabriel Magalhães
In fact in any articles you can find which don’t criticise Arsenal for the deals they have done, the deals they haven’t done and the deals they won’t do, there is also likely to be mention of Noni Madueke from Chelsea for anything up to £52m and Viktor Gyökeres from Sporting, for the same amount but with more for add ons.
And there are more still: Eberechi Eze at Crystal Palace has been mentioned – and we all know they are having problems keeping their men on board since they got turned down for a place in Europe. That would be another big one: a £67.5m release clause is reported (or “made up” depending on your point of view).
On the way out, there could be Jakub Kiwior, Fábio Vieira, Reiss Nelson (although that might be another loan) and Oleksandr Zinchenko.
And the fact that what we are getting is lists of names suggests that maybe the long-running bit of fun on this site of mentioning all the players we don’t get and suggesting that the media (with their 97% error rate) just make transfers up, is slowing the scribblers down a bit. Maybe they really have recognised that an annual 97% failure rate in predicting transfers is a bit naff.
But here’s a thought: three paid for transfers is about the going rate these days. For excluding free transfers, the totals by club are .
- Burley: 6
- Chelsea: 6
- Liverpool: 5
- Sundeerland: 5
- Tottenham Ho: 5
- Manchester City: 4*
- Brighton 4
- Arsenal: 3
- Brentford 3
- Everton: 3
- Leeds: 3
- Aston Villa 2
- Bournemouth 2
- Nottingham Forest: 2
- West Ham: 2
- Wolverhampton Wand: 2
- Crystal Palace: 1
- Manchesster Un: 1
- Sheffield United:1
- Fulfham: 0
*Manchester City seem to be somewhat reticent on disclosing details this summer and sources also disagree on whether fees are paid, to be paid, or not being paid.
But not all clubs work in the same way. For example, one way of getting some money to buy a few players each season is to sell the ground’s naming rights. For political reasons, I prefer not to call Arsenal Stadium anything but Arsenal Stadium, but most people and all the newspapers do use the sponsored title.
But why do some clubs not sell their ground’s naming rights? I thought immediately of Aston Villa, Manchester United and Tottenham Ho, but wondered if there were any more so decided to look it up on Goggle. In answer to “Which clubs have not sold their stadium naming rights I was told, “Several Premier League clubs have not sold the naming rights to their stadiums. These include Manchester United (Old Trafford), Arsenal (Em*rat*s Stadium) and Liverpool (Anfield). I’m not sure about that.
Actually Aston Villa did think of selling their naming rights in 2004, according to The Athletic, but it seemed the big sponsors generally expressed the view that Villa needed to win something first.
The naming rights I do like are Spotify Camp Nou, which just strikes me a so amusing I keep trying to find something to write about Barcelona but all I can ever come up with is debt. That is £1.2bn plus the fact that they have already sold the rights to their future TV showings.
Actually, what Villa have been doing is trying to get out of arrangements with people like Adidas and BK8 and when clubs start negotiating the breaking of contracts, it rather puts off other firms from coming in with new sponsorship deals. Although sponsors get money when a sponsorship deal with a club is broken, it also tends to give them a huge amount of bad publicity and clubs find that having broken such a deal once, no one wants to enter another one.
Everton seem to be made of wiser stuff as they found a bunch of lawyers to be the sponsors of their new ground, which presumably means money for the ground, and free legal advice. Everton said it was “one of the largest stadium naming rights deals in Europe”, but I suppose it all depends on whether you trust lawyers.
But of course, some clubs just like to fleece their supporters on the basis that “they will come whatever we charge”. So Aston Villa charged £70 for the cheapest seat for a Premier League game. in order to help them get out of trouble with the Profit and Sustainability Rules. It might have worked in that regard, but it did nothing for supporter relationships.
Director of football operations Damian Vidagany said in a letter after it was rumoured that he was banned from speaking out loud that, “I would like to show how grateful we are to the supporters…”
By putting prices up, obviously.
