- The reason why Arsenal do not need a 20+ goals a season player
- Breakaway football leagues: the women have done it. What next?
By Nitram
In a previous article, I found two points that were made very interesting.
Point One was: “Maybe it’s the old romantic in me but I just prefer titles to be decided on the pitch not in the courtroom.”
Point Two was: “Rules (FFP) have been drawn up to protect the big history clubs and stop anyone gate-crashing the top table.”
I also found them to be completely and utterly wrong.
Point One: “Maybe it’s the old romantic in me but I just prefer titles to be decided on the pitch not in the courtroom”
Of course, we all prefer to win on the field and not in the courtroom. But if someone is found to have cheated after the event, either via financial ‘doping’ or medicinal ‘doping,’ they have to be stripped of their titles or there is no point in rules.
In return you may as well say, “dope away as much as you want. Break the rules whenever it suits you,” but that simply cannot be allowed to happen. Which is why transgressors have to be stripped of their titles.
Point Two: “Rules (FFP) that have been drawn up to protect the big history clubs, and stop anyone gate-crashing the top table.”
That is not why they’ve been set up. That is a popular myth spread about by clubs such as Manchester City, who were a big and successful club back in the late 60’s early 70’s, one of the ‘Big History Clubs’ in fact, but were then run so badly that at their nadir they fell to the 3rd tier of English football. That was entirely their own fault.
Arsenal have had no favours. Arsenal have had no protection from the possibility of collapsing like Manchester City did. Neither have Manchester Utd, who themselves got relegated in the 70’s. Or Liverpool who went over 30 years without a title. Or Tottenham who also got relegated.
Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool have achieved what they have through running their clubs well off the pitch and winning things on it. Tottenham, who despite winning very little, have nevertheless achieved a lot, including building their own magnificent stadium. Despite enjoying giving them stick, they are where they are through their own hard earned money. (Okay a loan, but it’s a loan, not a gift, and ultimately they will have to service that debt with what they earn).
With Tottenham as far as we know there is no cartel, no financial doping, no bailout. Just good management, if a little up and down at times, as is the way for all of us.
I went to see Arsenal when just 22,000 fans tuned up. We won nothing for years. Then Neil and Graham brought us some success. But here’s the thing. Not with Oligarchs’ or Sheiks’ money, but with money the club earned. Then we dipped again and nobody bailed us out. But our club found a genius in Arsene Wenger. He spent some money, but nothing like as much as some others, and even so, what he did spend, again we earned. We were not bankrolled. We had no special treatment. There is no ‘Cartel’ behaviour going on here, as many Manchester City fans may have you believe.
Even then things got tough again. We committed to building the Emirates Stadium and as a result Wenger spent Nett ZERO on transfers for 10 years. We won nothing. Nobody helped. Nobody had any sympathy. In fact people laughed at us. But Wenger’s genius kept us in the CL and kept us EARNING money.
As a result of Wenger’s brilliant management of the football team, and the club’s astute management of the financials, we have reaped the rewards and recently been able to spend money again. But yet again it is money we earned. It is this money, this earned money, that has enabled us to attempt to challenge the ‘doped’ teams.
But while doing so, it is not just Manchester City that has had to comply with FFP rules. If Arsenal had not, maybe we could have purchased Haarland. Or any of the other players Man City have purchased. And you can bet your bottom dollar, if we had not complied with FFP, or in future if we do not comply, people will be down on us like a ton of bricks.
And yes, there are reasons for these rules, but as I said above, they are not there to protect ‘the big history clubs’ as was suggested. They are there to protect ‘the game’, because without them, ‘the game’ will cease to exist as we know it.
Financial doping is inherently destabilising to the economics of football. Football, like any business, has a natural sustainable financial model. The business, or ‘the game’ in this case, needs to earn enough money to balance the books. To match the outrageous spending. Once certain clubs start spending money that they haven’t naturally generated, it raises the levels of expenditure needed by everyone else to compete, beyond a naturally sustainable level.
Now when just one club, Blackburn was used once as an example, does this, it doesn’t cause too much of a problem, especially as they didn’t even do it by that much in relative terms. But when many clubs start to do it, and they do it by enormous amounts, it means ‘the game’ becomes unsustainable. Clubs that are not financially doped, simply cannot compete at any level, and if they do attempt to, they run a massive risk of bankruptcy, because they will be operating way ‘beyond their means’.
Indeed if financial doping was allowed to continue unchecked one of two things could happen:
a) The ‘game’ would become unsustainable. All you would have, would be five or six bankrolled teams with unlimited funds, operating with no financial risks, and the rest would just go out of business as they simply could not compete, or at the very least they would eventually go out of business trying.
Alternatively
b) Every club would have to be financially ‘doped’. But here’s the thing, even if they were, still only one team can win the PL. Only four teams can qualify for the CL. Only six or sevenfor Europe in other tournaments. Only one team can win the FA cup. The rest achieve nothing.
How many investors, be it Oligarchs, Sheiks or American tycoons, are going to continue to invest in teams that win nothing? How many will continue to invest when they realise they are throwing money down an ever-deepening black hole, when their team gets relegated?
So, if we allow financial doping to continue unchecked we have two possible outcomes.
a) The un-doped clubs watch the doped clubs sail off into the distance and accept their fate. This we pretty much know this won’t happen as we already see teams spending beyond their means. And the ones that aren’t, are sailing damn close to the wind. And they do it because fans demand it.
b) The un-doped teams find a donor, so everyone is doped, but still end up going out of business because the donor pulls the plug when they fail to win anything, as will be the case for 80% of the clubs.
Either way, be it with just some clubs receiving unlimited finance, or all clubs receiving unlimited finance, the end result will be the same. Club after club going to the wall.
Considering all of the above, we may say that the US system of the draft and salary caps does make sense after all. After each season, cards are re-distributed and the salary cap ensures some equality.
Then it is up to each club’s management to build a winning strategy and, if you look at football and basketball there are often changes, even if because of a good combination of managers and players some clubs make it to the top over a longer period.
Or because of poor management some clubs just can’t make it.
@nitram
First and foremost I am not a Man City supporter.
Secondly i couldn’t disagree with you more?
If you go back tp pre premiership look how many different teams won the title? If you actually compare the previous 32 to the 32 Premiership years theres a massive difference. No doubt money has ruined that for most.
So if we say City are guilty, and Chelsea and Blackburn were not allowed to spend like they did under current FFP rules then every title bar one in the last 32 years would have been won by UTD , Liverpool or Arsenal .
You go on to say we would currently as things stand run the risk of a big six cartel that would be untouchable but a big three would be ok?
Money ruined the game years ago, unfortunately you can now only compete if you have it.
As for finacial doping, thats just a fancy title for spending more money than us. Which incidentally City haven’t ( certainly not on transfers) the last five years but obviously did before then.
City are not going into administration because they have borrowed money so again FFP is hardly in place to protect them or Newcastle as another good example.
For the record I am far from saying state ownership and the like are a good thing but thats done now.
Rob 25, you forgot Leicester. 😉 the exception that confirms the overall rule. It is not to say that without the City and Chelsea spending there would have been other Leicesters around. We will never know untill we start from scratch….
@walter.
I referred to Leicester as the bar one.
I have done it off my head so there maybe a team that finished second behind those three but i couldnt recall one?
And whilst your right of course that other teams might have won it, you could also argue that the trad big three would have hoovered up all the best players that went to those clubs?
@ Rob25
I tend to agree with your views about when money ruined football and how the Premier League titles would have been monopoloised by the Manchester United, Liverpool and to a lesser extent Arsenal if Chelsea and Manchester City had been prevented from spending big.
You might be surprised to learn that Arsenal’s net spend not only exceeds Manchester City’s net spend over the last five years, but it also exceeds it over the last ten years, according to GIVEMESPORT, https://www.givemesport.com/world-football-transfers-net-spend/.
Nitram,
An interesting read as always. I’ll be shocked if MC are penalised or titles rescinded. It’s too complicated, the money based on the final table, promotion and relegation, etc. Perhaps a money fine which would matter little to Sheik Monsour.
Re AFC, our recent success can be traced to the Kroenke’s gaining majority ownership and infusing quite a bit of money into the Club, especially the transfer budget. Of course the money can’t buy success without sound management and Arsenal have that. The Club can now compete financially, and does. The recent improvement in the squad and the table seems sustainable. Good to be a Gooner!
Rob25
I’m really struggling to see the logic of your argument. You seem to be arguing against yourself.
Moaning that money has ruined the game then advocating that clubs should be allowed to spend an infinite amount of the stuff. In fact many times beyond what they are capable of generating through their business, which as all good business people know, is a recipe for financial disaster. Very odd.
Anyway.
“If you go back to pre premiership look how many different teams won the title? If you actually compare the previous 32 to the 32 Premiership years there’s a massive difference”
And who’s fault is that? It’s not the ‘Big History Clubs’ fault that’s for sure?
In the last 32 years:
Arsenal have only won the title 3 times, and even then not for over 20 years.
Liverpool once. Yep, just the once in 32 years.
Spurs zero
Everton zero
Aston Villa zero
The only ‘Big History Club, outside the ‘doped’ clubs, to win a lot of titles is Man Utd, and even they haven’t won one for 11 seasons, and what’s more they don’t look like doing so any time soon.
Great ‘protection’ that. Some ‘Cartel’ that.
And if you narrow it down even more, to the last 16 years, those two ‘bank rolled’ clubs, Man City and Chelsea, have won 11 of them. That’s 66%
It is they, the bank rolled clubs that are monopolising the game. Not the Big History Clubs.
You say “Money ruined the game years ago, unfortunately you can now only compete if you have it”
But that has been the case for years. In case you hadn’t noticed, like it or not, money rules the World. But the point I am making, is it was money that was earned. It was money ‘The Club’ generated. And it was money generated by how successful they were,. That and how well they ran their club.
So of course bigger clubs had more money and won more, but as you point out, back in the day, they still didn’t totally monopolise things as the ‘doped’ clubs are doing today. If you got a great manager, a Brian Clough or Bobby Robson for example, you could compete with the big clubs. You could become a big Club. The Forests, Derby’s and Ipswich’s of this World bought massive players. Paid record breaking prices.
But equally, back in the day, the Big History Clubs could still fail, if they didn’t run their club well. As I pointed out, Man City were a Big History Club but they messed up and got relegated. So did Man Utd and Spurs. Liverpool didn’t win the title for over 30 years. Arsenal have had many baron spells. Were was this so called ‘protection’ then?
And that risk of collapse is still there. Arsenal were on the brink for a few seasons. It could of gone either way. But NOT FOR THE BANK ROLLED CLUBS. Yes, they can slip but they cannot collapse. A bottomless pit of money ensures that. That is the problem. They are the reason the PL is stagnating. It’s not the fault of Arsenal, Man Utd or Liverpool. 1 title between them in the last 11 years.
I understand people may of got bored with Man Utd and Arsenal dominating for a few years back at the beggining of the cetury, but that was hardly their fault was it? It was up to others to run their clubs better. It was up to the Liverpool’s, Spurs, Villas, Everton’s, Chelsea’s, Man city’s to get their act together.
During that period Arsenal were no richer than any of the other top clubs, they just had a period when they were run better. Man Utd ran their club even better, creating a World wide fan base. So what are you saying? Should United just give that up because people got sick of them winning? Should all Arsenals hard work to get back near the top be trashed by an oligrch who just fancy’s a new toy? Or an Arab a propaganda vehicle?
When we were chasing United we decided to bite the bullet and build a bigger stadium so we could compete. It cost us a lot of money and 10 years of struggle and ridicule. Spurs are now trying to do the same. It may cost them similar travails. It may not. But at least they are trying to do it the right way. Within the finances of their club.
Doing it the ‘right way’ doesn’t mean NO investment. It doesn’t mean no borrowing. And it certainly doesn’t mean no risk.
You tell me why Chelsea couldn’t of done that? Or Man City? What made those 2 once massive clubs in capable of doing the ‘right way’?
They just either couldn’t do it or didn’t want to.
You go on to make another totally baseless claim: ”
So if we say City are guilty, and Chelsea and Blackburn were not allowed to spend like they did under current FFP rules then every title bar one in the last 32 years would have been won by UTD , Liverpool or Arsenal”
Simply not true. These are the finishing positions of those 3 clubs over the last 11 years:
ARSENAL: 4 – 3 – 2 – 5 – 6 – 5 – 8 – 8 – 5 – 2 – 2 Arsenal have been out of the TOP 4 more than they’ve been in it.
MAN UTD: 7 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 2 – 6 – 3 – 2 – 6 – 3 – 8 Man Utd have been out of the TOP 4 more than they’ve been in it.
LIVERPOOL: 2 – 6 – 8 – 4 – 4 – 2 – 1 – 3 – 2 – 5 – 3 Even though Liverpool improved under Klopp they still spent 5 seasons outside the TOP 3
So come on. You tell me what the Big History Clubs did that stopped other clubs from winning titles here and there, as did Derby, Forest, Ipswich etc. back in the day?
I say again. It’s not Arsenals fault £1 club Chelsea messed up, or that Man City went through nearly 30 managers in 30 years.
Lets not bother to run our club properly. Get a good manager. Buy good players. Work our way up.
That was possible. back in the day. You say it yourself. At least it was until the oil money arrived. Without it, Arsenals, Man Utd’s and Liverpool’s poor seasons would easily of allowed for others to take advantage, as was the case before. Now as you say, it is almost impossible, and that’s because of the very thing you advocate more of. Bank rolled clubs.
Well, you have your point of view but as much as I try I just cant see it. Sorry.
@nitram
Im not sure how I am arguing with myself?
If you look at who came second in the title winning years of City etc then it is either Utd, liverpool or Arsenal. So without them the trad three bar one year, would have won every title. Your own figures show this?
As for the money, im not saying its good , far from it. Just that you need it to compete.
Pre premiership not nearly as much as it was a more even playing field?
You say FFP is not for the big clubs but all the evidence is to the contrary? I reckon every other club other than the big three in England would say its their to protect the status quo. Nevermind in Spain, Germany etc?
Man City are now a very big club worldwide, ditto Chelsea. City in particular seem to be financially self sustainable now as well?
Why shouldn’t West Ham, Everton and the like have the same dreams and aspirations.
Finally the ironic thing is most of the supporters of the trad three ( not the rest of the leagues) , would like nothing better than to see City relegated to non league, with a massive fine. Something that FFP was supposedly implement to prevent?
Rob25
“Why shouldn’t West Ham, Everton and the like have the same dreams and aspirations.”
Nobody says they shouldn’t. Where did I ever say that? That’s all we all had as the Premier League era began.
As for Man Utd. I never had a single issue with how much they spent. I could see that through a great manager and a brilliant World Wide marketing strategy they had got the jump on everyone else, and it was up to us to catch them up. As it was Liverpool, Villa, Spurs, Man City, Everton, Chelsea and yes West Ham
So we got a great manager. He built a brilliant team. We won things. But we were never going to bridge the gap whilst at Highbury. So, we built a bigger stadium. We tried to improve our business model. A self sustaining model.
It cost us dearly. Not just financially but with success. We were financially hamstrung for 10 years.
But I always thought it was the right thing to do. Work hard. Work smart. Move forward. It’s what we did. It’s why we are where we are now. But it was tough. It was not gifted to us. The other Big History Clubs didn’t get together and help us out. In fact, as I have said on numerous occasions, we were mocked and laughed at.
There is absolutely no excuse why Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Newcastle, Aston Villa and yes West Ham couldn’t of done exactly the same as Arsenal to reach those dreams of theirs.
Or maybe there is? Maybe I missed something. Maybe they all have an excuse? Lets have a look.
Lets go back to the start of the Premier League era and look at where we all were in the table back then along with the average attendances we were all pulling in:
1st: Man Utd – 35,000
2nd: Aston Villa – 29,000
6th: Liverpool – 37,000
8th: Spurs – 27,000
9th: Man City – 24,000
10th: Arsenal – 24,000
11th: Everton – 20,000
13th: Chelsea – 19,000
As you can see Arsenal were nowhere near the best positioned to challenge Man Utd.
So, I’ve got 3 questions for you:
1 – What advantage did Arsenal have?
2 – What excuse do all those other clubs have for not doing what Arsenal did?
3 – What stopped them, especially Man City and Chelsea, chasing their dreams in the same way Arsenal did?
Most were better placed and with bigger average gates.
3 simple questions. 3 simple answers please.
So, back to the point.
I have no problem with teams chasing their dreams. I do have a problem with how some of them do it, and how it will eventually destroy the Premier League. You obviously do not, and that’s entirely your prerogative.
I’m afraid you and I are cut from very different cloths Rob.
@nitram
Just to clarify, the low attendances was due to the changes at Highbury during the early 90s.
Previously only Liverpool and Utd had bigger overall attendances over a whole season during that period. There maybe the odd anomaly but that and our trophies are why we were in the big three.
Now its all about sponsorship, tv rights, overseas revenue, european football etc.
The gap is so vast so unless you get a rich owner giving you a leg up the ladder its virtually impossible to win the league nevermind compete regularly with the original big three? So thats my main dislike of FFP.
So yes we certainly do differ