The truth about Arsenal’s transfer money

Abou-Diaby-.png
Abou Diaby: Permanently crocked and drawing tens of thousands in weekly wages
The eternal question is does Arsenal have a “war chest” to buy players? And if so, why don’t they? This post which I discovered via Arseblog lays it out very nicely. In summation, we don’t because of huge overheads and a wage bill that continues to grow contributing to a less than salubrious situation. One word. Deadwood.

, , , , , , ,
2 comments on “The truth about Arsenal’s transfer money
  1. Good read, I would go along with the deadwood argument to a certain extent but I also have another theory on the situation:
    In the past if Arsene has wanted to spend then the board have backed him eg. The Reyes deal approx 19 mil, Wiltord deal approx 15 mil but this was before we had potential buyers sniffing around now I think while Peter Hill-Wood of old was releasing money when Wenger wanted it is now getting pressure from Stan Kroenke to not spend as it isn’t good business sense and let’s be honest as a business man he’s only interested in one thing. This is the reason why I think Nasri, Fabregas were ultimately sold because Stan saw huge amounts of profit in just 2 players and wasn’t fussed about the dent it would leave.
    On the face of it Arsene Wenger is the one everyone is blaming as Arsenal keep slipping but I think he’s simply covering for the guys upstairs…. Why you ask? Simply because Arsenal have always been a well oiled and well run club with a certain togetherness a very much us against them feel if you like so it’s important to keep that going. This is not down to Wenger and every true fan knows that this has all started happening since David Dein left and Stan Kroenke became the majority man at the Emirates this simply runs deeper then it seems.

  2. FootballTalk,
    I agree with you to some extent ….. but even Stan Kroenke who has not invested a single penny of his own money to buy players knows that keeping players who add to the wage bill but contribute very little is bad for business. Especially if you are a self sustaining model. Btw, Kroenke has been a very disappointing owner (if you can call him that) because other than platitudes (100% behind Wenger, Arsenal is a winning club, blah, blah) he has offered very little in terms of vision and material support. So yes, Wenger might be covering for them but in the ultimate analysis, you have to see him as complicit in the whole business, since he seems to have no differences with the board, and they with him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4 − = two

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by sweet Captcha

Current month ye@r day *