Are Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool just an entitled red cartel?

 

• It is time to stop this international nonsense now!
• Manchester City offer the other 19 clubs just two ways out of the current mess

By Nitram

That is an accusation I have seen thrown around many many times, and I think it is absolute nonsense. In fact, I think is completely the other way around.

The way I see it, the reason Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool have the status and the financial profile they have, is down to how well they have been run, and on the back of that, the success they have achieved. They haven’t done this on the back of some cartel. Proof of this is the fact that all three of the ‘Red Giants’ have at various times in their history suffered very poor runs of form.  (I’ll come to these a bit later).

Of course, as per ALL the clubs in major conurbations, they have the advantage of large catchment areas from which to draw fans, which helps with their wealth.  But this applies to every other ‘big’ club, including Manchester City.  Clubs evolve through history, and choose where they want to put their ground (assuming planning permission is forthcoming). Man U played in Bank Street, Anfield was actually the home of Everton FC before Liverpool, Arsenal played in Plumstead Common, the Sportsman Ground, and the Manor Ground before Highbury and the current stadium.  (The Arsenal History site even did an article on what Arsenal’s previous stadia look like now!)

Being in a major conurbation is not Arsenal’s, Man Utd’s or Liverpool’s fault, or indicative of being in a cartel. It may well give all of them, including Manchester City an advantage, but I don’t see any sense of entitlement at all.

As an Arsenal fan, I have no sense of ‘entitlement’ at all. I don’t even understand what these Man City fans are on about. It would be helpful if they could explain more fully, perhaps with examples rather than just assertions and allegations.  And in any case, if we do feel entitled, we certainly haven’t been in actuality.

For to quote the stats we don’t normally mention, we haven’t won the league for 20 years, we’ve never won the European Cup or Champions League and the club had to build and pay for our new stadium.

Where was our Cartel when we needed it?  When we were building the new stadium I can’t remember the rest of this supposed cartel helping us out financially can you?  I can’t remember any sympathy from any other club, or their fans, or the media when we were struggling to buy players because of the cost of the stadium.  Rather the opposite: we were mocked on a daily basis.

Our fans were agitated to the level of haranguing the club’s owners, manager and players with planes above and protests inside and outside the stadium. But such behaviour was not through a sense of entitlement, but rather a wish and a desire to be successful. No different from anybody else.

This is the reality of why Arsenal, Man Utd, and Liverpool are the status of being three red giants and it has absolutely nothing to do with any type of cartel and everything to do with running their clubs well, as opposed to the laughable way in which Man City and Chelsea have been run. And I use the word ‘run’ in its loosest possible context.  And maybe we can take a look at this…

Before the oil money, the last trophy Chelsea won was a League Cup in 1971, while the last trophy Manchester City won was also a League Cup in 1976 (and nothing wrong with that; Tottenham have won it four times).

Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal have all had poor runs. Man Utd even got relegated. Liverpool went 30 years without a Title. (Some people even say Arsenal are still on a bad run now as it is over 20 years since we last won the league title, but that’s another story – and give FA Cup wins since then (two more than Manchester City) have eased the pain a little).

It happens. There was no cartel protecting any club from the fate that awaited them if they got it wrong. No cartel helped us when we were struggling to pay for our new stadium. The opposite: we were laughed at. 

But this is the difference:

• Man Utd achieved enormous success through Sir Alex Ferguson.
• Arsenal achieved enormous success through Arsene Wenger.
• Liverpool rediscovered a measure of success under Jürgen Klopp.

How did any of that have anything to do with a ‘Red Cartel’? Whereas both Man City and Chelsea by found success through an Oil State sponsor.

History will thus remember the Fergy years, the Wenger years and the Klopp years, because their respective successes which were built on the genius of their managers.   Chelsea and Man City’s successes however have been built on a mountain of unearned oil money.

And that is what can stick in the throat. Not that Manchester City have had success, but rather the whitewashing of history so that the reason for the success is rewritten.

Just compare Arsenal and Manchester City for a moment.  When Henry Norris rescued Arsenal they were one day from insolvency and the winding up of the club.  He helped arrange the finance of the new stadium, but the club spent ten years paying off those debts before they even got a sniff of silverware.  

But okay, if you think being sponsored with unlimited amounts of Oil State money is all fair and above board, that’s up to you. As it happens, I don’t, and for a number of reasons, none of which is entitlement.

Firstly, by allowing unlimited sponsorship/backing/doping to become the primary source of income for a club, it takes away any incentive for a club to be ”well ran’ financially.  (Arsenal remember have financed everything themselves.  Henry Norris bailed the club out before the First World War, but got his money back from the club as it made profits after Highbury was built).

Secondly, once you allow unlimited unearned investment into a club it becomes the only way to become competitive and removes the level playing field.

Thirdly, once the first ‘sponsors’ have established themselves at the apex of the game, as Man City have done, it becomes pointless for anybody else to even attempt to try and compete. Okay, other states-supported clubs may try, in the style of Newcastle, but they will soon lose interest when it finally sinks in that Man City’s owners are prepared to spend anything, and I mean anything they need, to in order to ensure their monopoly is maintained.

This notion that ‘this was the only way to break up the Red Cartel’ and ‘it will allow the ‘minnows’ to challenge the big boys’, is nothing more than just smoke and mirrors. It’s a fallacy.    There was no cartel. There is no cartel and the minnows are still the minnows.

At the end of the day you could of get a decent manager – as Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool have done – and then stick with that manager while investing in infrastructure and doing some worldwide marketing.  In other words, Man C could have BUILT a massive club on the back of good stewardship, shrewd investment and patience. That was an option. Man City either chose not to pursue that route or were simply not run well enough to do so. And that is not Arsenal’s, Liverpool’s or Man Utd’s fault.

To their credit Spurs are at least trying to do it without financial doping, and it’s tough. But the problem with investment from people of unlimited inherited wealth is that they are used to having everything now, rather than working for it.   And if that seems ok to you as a business model, that’s fine, because that’s what you’ve got.  But don’t be upset (or even more weirdly blame everyone else) if others don’t like that model.

There is no anti-City cartel.  Rather there are clubs that haven’t used that model and don’t like that model.

But here’s a final thought.  According to statements by Manchester City, they won the recent legal case against the League.  If that is so, what’s the problem?