Arsenal and Liverpool are very much the also-rans of English football in 2008. It's too easy to say it's all about money, but Manchester United and Chelsea have spent a lot of it, and wisely, to get to the top of club football.
This could be well-rounded by sharper minds than mine, and the comments to this post makes a fine forum to do so, but right off hand, United's purchases of Ferdinand and Rooney resonate with me. These are two cases where Alex Ferguson said that he wanted the players, and that United should pay whatever it takes (each in the 25 to 30 million pounds range) and it's paid off. Christiano Ronaldo was actually more of an Arsenal-type signing; a young, relatively unestablished player that the manager discovered, but still a big transfer in the 12 million pound range.
For Chelsea, Drogba and Essien are two good examples of purchasing power (around 25 million pounds each). Two top players from the French league, Mourinho said he liked the players, Chelsea didn't let cost get in the way, and the players have come good in England. There've been a bunch of players who came and went, like Veron and Mutu, but even these players were part of title-winning sides.
By comparison, Arsenal and Liverpool are meek. I think Reyes is just about Arsenal's biggest buy, maybe in the 10 to 15 million pounds range. In addition to being bullied in the transfer market, Arsene's not always good at holding onto players that could help the side.
Rafa's rotation policy extends to the team's transfer policy. Lots of mediocre players have been through the team, although the side is getting closer to being competitive, free of the likes of Pellegrino and Nunez.
But for now, it's the titans, Man United and Chelsea; level on points at the top of the league with 2 games to go, and set for a European Cup Final.
2 hours ago
Posts
7 deflections:
I finally saw the Derby-Arsenal match. Man, it was hard to stay away that long - harder than David Blaine holding his breath for a Guiness World Record. And my impression of the match? If Arsenal play like that against Everton, they'd get slaughtered.
Anyhow, back to the current topic. 433, you're right, Arsenal don't behave like the "Very Large" Man. Utd. or Chelsea. Reyes, at 12.5 Pound was the record signing of the club. Though that's because of the club's philosophy of self-sufficiency, I am of two minds if that needs to change in these times of playing with Titans.
Chelsea are certainly the exception because they don't need to care much about the balance sheet. But the rest of the clubs have to take into account the risks involved in spending big. IF you buy famous star players, you pay a lot but you can also pull in more revenue with merchandises. Add to that if you get good results on the pitch, your club can get bigger. On the other hand, if things don't go your way on the pitch, you risk losing everything - Leeds Utd. are the shining example.
Arsenal could get away with spending little and still hang around the top of the League until 2005. But the introduction of Roman's billions into Chelsea really changed the equation. It pushes clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool down a tier. What's is the most effective response to this situation? I don't know but Liverpool is an instructive example - they spent large sums on Babel, Torres, and Mascherano but still ended up with almost nothing, like us. It indicates that money is not the panacea. Money is only one of the ingredients of success. I would say the right people are the other key ingredient. But how do you find these people?
United and Chelsea are clubs able and willing to spend big money, and they had managers who could pick the right players in Mourinho and Ferguson.
Take Spurs as a counterexample, spending 18 million pounds for Darren Bent.
Eventually, the finance charges on the United and Liverpool debts might start taking their toll, and Arsene Wenger will be vindicated, but for the time being, he looks like he's being out-muscled.
Yes, Arsene is definitely being out-muscled right now.
But charging the highest ticket price in the world requires one to provide an equivalent value in entertainment, if not satisfaction. Man Utd. are doing exactly that: playing exhilarating football, having the flashiest players AND winning. Reading all the transfer speculations, I sometimes wonder if all those star players will help us reach the top and stay there.
It's a tribute to Arsene that while he has made profit from player transfers, the club has been consistently in the top echelon of world football. But is it enough to be "in the top echelon" or must one be "at the top" to satisfy the supporters?
What effect do you think the exit of Edelman has? Would the purse string be loosened a bit? (That's what the Times reckon).
It's difficult to know what exactly is behind the Arsenal transfer policy. The one thing I've heard consistently from Arsene and the board is that Arsene makes the decisions, and that he's never requested funds that he hasn't received. Anyway, Arsene, who has a degree in economics, and is cautious about spending money, isn't likely to ask for money that isn't available.
Conventional wisdom is that Arsene could spend more to bring in players if he wanted to. How much more is a question, but likely he could spend 10s of millions of pounds (enough to bring a player with a Ferdinand-type price tag, or even a pair of players in the Torres/C. Ronaldo price range).
Arsene is a bit of an enigma, because while managers like Ferguson and Mourinho tend to aspire to win at all costs, Arsene has winning as only one of several objectives, others including playing with style and being clever with economics.
According to an ANR article, Arsenal's books show that we only have about 25M Pounds to spend on players. That's not a very large amount if that also covers the new players' wages.
If the club do not want to get into debt to acquire new players then I think the trend of signing very young and unknown players will continue for the foreseeable future.
Post a Comment