Is Arsenal the best run club in the Premier League?

I'm not an Arsenal fan in the slightest however, nothing irks me more than seeing clubs spending well beyond their means. I recall Leeds United doing this in the early 00's singing players like Robbie Fowler and Seth Johmson whilst paying well over the odds for their transfer fee and wages. The resulting impact was Leeds having to sell of their star players whilst dropping into the lower echolons of league football.

Recently, Liverpool have shown total neglect to club finances making a number of signings for large sums of money. This has left their finances in ruins given they have consecutively failed to qualify for champions league football. Thankfully, Brendon Rodgers looks to of indorsed this problem and has made use of the clubs youth system to promote talent internally.

This brings me onto the big 4. Man Utd, Chelski & Man Citeh pretty much play in a false economy where money is no object. Nevertheless, their qualification into the lucrative CL draw is never really in doubt given their financial muscle and resources made available from their owners.

Arsenal on the other hand are a profit generating machine who incredibly seem to churn out a number of star players whilst not exactly paying ludicrous sums of money to do so. They've also gone onto make large profit margins on players such as Nasri, RVP, Adebayor, Anelka & Fabregas whilst still finding the ability to replace these players with equally talented youth academy products or cost effective signings.

For me Wenger is the only one playing a fair game and if there was "real" financial fair play introduced into Club football there would only be one team dominating the premier league and that would be Arsenal FC- a magnificently run football club (notable mention to Everton as well).

Anyone care to agree re: the above statement?

If there was "real" financial fair play introduced into club football I'm sure Man Utd would still be a huge force. With their massive fan base they'd still generate millions just like they did before the Prem started.

However, I do agree that Arsenal seem to be well run except for the fact that they cannot seem to hold on to their stars. That's what happens when most of your stars are imports, if you don't pay them enough, they're off.

"This brings me onto the big 4. Man Utd, Chelski & Man Citeh"

I am pretty sure that is 3 not 4.

Well Manchester Utd is different than city. City is owned by one of the richest men in the world who spends hundreds of millions of pounds like the rest of us pick up a round of drinks at the bar. I mean they aren't so much a giant club as a club owned by a man with a giant bank account. Although they have a great deal of support within Manchester they aren't what you would call a big club other for the fact of who their owner is.

Chelsea is the same, they were always pretty much the 3rd club in London till again another multibillionaire bought them and spent money to win trophies for the fulfillment of his ego. I just think it is a bit disconcerting when the sport becomes the extension of one man's ego. I can't really root for either Chelsea and City. When and if the current ownership decides to sell or their heirs do most likely they become mid size clubs again.

Man U like Barca and REal is operating in a different league in terms of worldwide support and revenues. But Arsenal and I am fan are a very good model except for the fact that while they have been close on a number of occassions the last few years and have been good they haven't won trophies. I still believe though that a club stays strong through longterm planning, staying within their means, building revenues but at the same time spending when needed and appropriate.

Fulham is quite well run as is Swansea. Arsenal are only this "well run" because they are forced to be, with paying off stadium debts. Arsenal want to make enough transfers to rival City and Chelsea and squad size and depth, which they will be doing once the stadium is fully paid.

Chelsea is the same, they were always pretty much the 3rd club in London

Not true they were always ranked ahead of Spurs in fanbase and in success that started 15 years before Roman came. It is funny how Arsenal fans think a team with no champions league experience or FA Cup wins (Spurs) could be ahead of Chelsea. ROFL

tired of seeing united used as an example in this argument. net profit should tell you they are nowhere near chelsea or city

united make 1 big signing a season where as city and chelsea bring in a new squad

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-2003-to-date.html

arsenal would be as dominant as united if they spent like united. players wont stay at arsenal because the club wont sign players needed to complete their puzzle. arsenals squad has always been left incomplete where as united have all positions (until this season) filled

Easily.

Without a doubt Arsenal are the best run club in the Premier League. 60,000 stadium, Champions League football for the last 15 years, reliance on bringing through youth players and selling players for heaps of cash (RVP. Song, Fabregas etc.).

Any that make a profit are well run, the wisdom of putting the club £100 million in debt and managing to accumulate the 3rd highest wage bill in the league without paying top rate in the mid 00s (5th now), would have to be questioned.

But for the glazers there would be no doubt on this discussion and to be honest being able to service £300 million debts with huge interest rates, pay top wages with a bill below 50% of turnover and win trophies there's still a big argument for united.

Stoke are also well run, are they not? Ok, they might not be in the same league as the "big boys" but they still do pretty well in finishing midtable every year since they joined the PL, improving year upon year.

lorus59 wrote:"This brings me onto the big 4. Man Utd, Chelski & Man Citeh"

I am pretty sure that is 3 not 4.

There's no full stop after Man Citeh. This was reference to the fact that 3 of the big 4 operate at a loss after gross profits.

I suggest you read the full article before making a contribution.

The Special Juan wrote:Stoke are also well run, are they not? Ok, they might not be in the same league as the "big boys" but they still do pretty well in finishing midtable every year since they joined the PL, improving year upon year.

Credit to Stoke most defiantly (...and Tony Pulis who was brilliant in his time at my local club Gillingham). They operate on a limited budget but consistently avoid getting into a relegation dogfight and have progressed as a club season upon season. One of the few success stories of clubs promoted from the lower leagues and establishing themselves in the Premier League.

JamesLincs wrote:tired of seeing united used as an example in this argument. net profit should tell you they are nowhere near chelsea or city

united make 1 big signing a season where as city and chelsea bring in a new squad

Do not mistake Man Utd's net profit as good financial performance in the prior year. They were only run at a profit due to a tax credit of £28m (a tax credit is achieved by deferred tax credits offsetting against profits/ losses over the past 5 years but I won't bore you with the accounting behind it).

Even though they do a run at large revenue levels their costs which unfortunately is partly due to the interest they have to service on their debt (which no matter what is the case, still does exist) the club is in fact loss making unlike Arsenal. In the season before last, Man Utd were only profit making due to the £80m sale of Chistiano Ronaldo, so under "real financial FairPlay" they would not be close to belonging in Arsenal's league.

This season, Man United have made significant investments in a number of expensive signings- so they are likely to be significantly loss making this season as well. However, they are still a great club and I believe they could exist with financial fair play rules due to their youth system and non- executive board members.

All Time Great wrote:

lorus59 wrote:"This brings me onto the big 4. Man Utd, Chelski & Man Citeh"

I am pretty sure that is 3 not 4.

There's no full stop after Man Citeh. This was reference to the fact that 3 of the big 4 operate at a loss after gross profits.

I suggest you read the full article before making a contribution.

That is true but for city and chelsea it really doesn't matter. I mean guys like the sheik and abramovich are just as likely to spend millions on thoroughbreds and 100 million on a work of art. Those two teams aren't businesses for them. Its like fantasy league football for us but they got the money to do it. So it is really irrelevant if Chelsea or city make money to their longterm success. It is all about how long their two owners are capable and willing of spending the money to be the best. I don't know if it is a good thing or bad thing frankly to have this situation where the sport is basically bought by 1 or 2 richboys and they joust with each like global football villains in a bond movie.

Depends really because the likes of Norwich and Swansea are also run well and I know in Norwich's case we will be debt free at the end of the season

There is different levels really, its hard to compare

Erm......shout for Everton here? Don't know detailed financials but Moyes has done bloody well spending almost nothing for years. Not sure if that strictly counts as well run but he's doing a great job for certain!

Chelsea aren't as bad as people like to think. I don't like us being flung with City in these discussions. The transfers since 2003 link above has us top but £350m of that was spent between 2003 and 2005, since then with the exception of the last transfer window our spending has been quite moderate. We are operating at a very small loss if any and are debt free. I feel the 09/10 double team and last years FA Cup & UCL team were the same team that have been together since 07/08 with a solid spine of Cech, Ivanovic, JT, Ashley Cole, Essien, Mikel, Lampard, Kalou, Malouda and Drogba.

Apart from that one day in which Chelsea spent £71 million...

TopHat24/7 wrote:Erm......shout for Everton here? Don't know detailed financials but Moyes has done bloody well spending almost nothing for years. Not sure if that strictly counts as well run but he's doing a great job for certain!

Yeah I can certainly agree Everton is a very well run club who puts a quality product out there with very limited means. Moyes is a great.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Erm......shout for Everton here? Don't know detailed financials but Moyes has done bloody well spending almost nothing for years. Not sure if that strictly counts as well run but he's doing a great job for certain!

Didnt Kenwright say last year that there simply was no money to spend at Everton? Dont get me wrong Moyes has done an amazing job but as far as well ran from a board level goes?? Would give a mention though to Fullham and Newcastle

Albion are very well run, we will be debt free when the next financial figures are announced I believe. And unlike most other PL clubs we don't have a genuinely rich person behind us. Our owner/chairman was an accountant, made his money selling one of his companies I think but he's the poorest in the PL I read somewhere. Swansea and Norwich are similar to us in that respect.

This is in comparison to say Stoke, who are bank-rolled by the very rich Coates family, they own one of the betting companies I think. That's how they afforded the sort of players they were buying in their first season where as this season Coates came out and said they had to balance the books.

No. It's the best run business in the Premier League

I'm not sure where this notion of beimg debt free= well run football club? Like any well run business you can have a debt for reasonable means if leveraged well, eg to finance a stadium move, training facilities or even short term working capital.

A well run club is a club who utilise their local resources (ie youth academy) and source the best players abroad without paying ridiculous fees (from what I've seen Wenger and his team of scouts are in a different stratosphere to anyone else). They also do not chuck £Xm on transfer fees and salaries for a quick fix, whilst knowing when to cut their losses and sell of players who no longer want to stay.

TheFootieNews wrote:No. It's the best run business in the Premier League

CL every season? Pretty successful club if you ask me, who are also looking very competitive this season too.

arsenal best run club? surely making profit while also keeping a team capable of challenging is best example of this, of which arsenal have failed dramtically in recent years on the latter.

they have become a selling team, never able to keep thier stars and have a very unusual pay scheme where they dont give thier stars top wage but still have one of the highest wage bills due to the kids all being very high wages. hence why all the top star players are leaving. as a buisness they are making a profit but if i was a fan i wouldnt be happy with the way they are run. just making profit isnt all in the prem, you have to spend to earn sometimes and abit more investment and arsenal might well have been winning things in the last few years

arsenal being bottom of that table says alot, a club like that should be able to spend and if they want to be succesful then they certainly shouldnt be bottom.

citys a crazy one considering what a small team they were until new owners yet there still clear leaders

compelling and rich wrote:arsenal being bottom of that table says alot, a club like that should be able to spend and if they want to be succesful then they certainly shouldnt be bottom.

citys a crazy one considering what a small team they were until new owners yet there still clear leaders

When you consider Chelsea have been a rich club for 11 years and City for only 4 years and then see they're only £50m behind it says a lot about City and that Chelsea shouldn't be included with them in these discussions. In 2008 Chelsea beat City 6-0. That's proof of how much money has turned them around. In 2003 Chelsea were already a top 6 club on the verge of and succesfully qualifying for the Champions League on our own credit under Bates and Ranieri.

On the topic I don't think Arsenal are a well run club. I think it's a statement Arsenal fans and sympathisers jump to to defend Arsenal's lack of silverware since 05. The best run clubs are Chelsea and Man United, they are both able to spend money at the drop of a hat if they want to without making a low level employee fear for his/her job because the club is secure, they have been the best two teams in the last 11 seasons getting to 5 Champions League finals between them, including 2008 as 2, and winning 1 each. They've both won the league the most and have been in finals of domestic cups the most out of any English clubs.

People also always mention that one day the owner will leave and you'll be back down to where you were but that isn't true. The clubs that have had rich owners help them to win trophies won't be relegated with huge debts if the owner decides to pack up and bugger off. The owner and board will have to find someone sutible to run the club in it's new status as a big club. But I don't think this is the case for Chelsea, Roman loves the club, the UCL final clip of him is proof of that, and his son loves the club. He's grown up watching Chelsea so is as big a fan as any other kid who's been to almost every game for the last 11 years.

Sorry for going off topic again. Rant over.

All Time Great wrote:I'm not sure where this notion of beimg debt free= well run football club? Like any well run business you can have a debt for reasonable means if leveraged well, eg to finance a stadium move, training facilities or even short term working capital.

A well run club is a club who utilise their local resources (ie youth academy) and source the best players abroad without paying ridiculous fees (from what I've seen Wenger and his team of scouts are in a different stratosphere to anyone else). They also do not chuck £Xm on transfer fees and salaries for a quick fix, whilst knowing when to cut their losses and sell of players who no longer want to stay.

And this has achieved what, exactly? As per other post, well run business maybe, well run football club questionable. Giving the amount of money you make winning the CL, having a 100% aversion to 'speculate to accumulate' has produced the most empty trophy cabinet of the top4 sides who, yes, spend massive on transfer fees but also recoup lots through achievement based revenues. Sourcing cheap foreigh players and selling at a profit is great business but crap football.

There's a few claims on this thread that I need to question - 1. is that With their massive fan base (Man U) still generate millions just like they did before the Prem started.

Man U only became huge with the advent of the Prem and Sky Sports coverage - they became a top flight team on the back of Martin Edwards investment and rose to prominence because of it and a number of transfer record breaking transfers. Following Sky Sports and the Prem (and helped by Englands reintroduction to European football) Man U became a global brand and, with little competition domestically, began to rival Real/Barca.

2. Also with the who is a bigger club in London - Josiah is comparing Spurs before Ambamovich (no CL experience) to Chelsea now (CL experience). But before Abramovich neither had any CL experience and neither reguarly finished in the top 4.

3. the claim that running the club (Arsenal) into £100m debt and having the 3rd highest wage bill is not a wise way to run a business - and Lincs claim that Arsenal never spend enough and therefore are never as complete as Man U.

I'd argue that identifying that Arsenal were hamstrung by having a smaller stadium than most European super clubs and were suffering because of the lack of income-generation that they had, is a good thing, as is building a super-modern 60k stadium in the middle of London in a sustainable way (ie not bankrupting ourselved on ridiculously high interest loans), which can be expanded as needed - is actually a very wise thing and shows good long term planning - Liverpool are currently suffering because they haven't got a bigger stadium, as are a few teams.
I'd also say Arsenal are well run because they are not trying to match Man U's spending (regular £20m+ signings) ala Leeds, Blackburn and Newcastle (all of whom got into a lot of financial trouble from over spending) - we are also competiting at the top even though we spend less than some mid-table sides.

what's the point of competing without achieving though?

well it's much better than not competing and being not even being in the league (Leeds).

I'd certainly much rather have a modern 60k stadium and be competing at the top with lots of class players every season, than bankrupt the club for 1 shot at the title (which may, or may not come off as Man U could still easily out spend us, not to mention Citey/Chelsea) and then have to sell everyone to ward off administration and find ourselves in League 2.

And if it's worthless competiting if your not achieving, then there's 19 other teams in the same boat as us every year - the only exceptions being the Prem winners.

Arsenal's current model is dependant on them qualifying for the Champions League year on year. If Spurs hadn't collapsed towards the end of the last season and Arsenal finished 4th it would have been bit of a disaster for them. Their income is also embellished by the revenue from the properties on the old Highbury site which is being used to pay off the intial capital from the Emirates build. I think most of these have been sold now.

Also, Arsenal's commercial revenue is fairly static at a time when Man United and Liverpool are striking record kit deals. For a compaison, United will be raking in 25m per year from Chevrolet for 7 years from 2014. Arsenal's Emirates deal which includes naming rights for 10 years and shirt sponsership unitl 2014 is only worth 90m.

liverbnz wrote:Arsenal's current model is dependant on them qualifying for the Champions League year on year. If Spurs hadn't collapsed towards the end of the last season and Arsenal finished 4th it would have been bit of a disaster for them. Their income is also embellished by the revenue from the properties on the old Highbury site which is being used to pay off the intial capital from the Emirates build. Although, I think most of these have been sold.

Also, Arsenal's commercial revenue is fairly static at a time when Man United and Liverpool are striking record kit deals. For a compaison, United will be raking in 25m per year from Chevrolet for 7 years from 2014. Arsenal's Emirates deal which includes naming rights for 10 years and shirt sponsership unitl 2014 is only worth 90m.

Arsenal have the funds to survive a season without CL football for a season. Arsenal have some poor commercial deals it is very true, but these come to an end next season (I think) and we will be looking for a new shirt sponsor and stadium as well as others, I wouldn't be surprised to see the new deals dwarf the previous ones. If our commercial revenue grows significantly, and our debts continue to fall dramatically then I can see us sustainably making further investments in the team and infastructure in the next 2 seasons (which is what Wenger and the board said when we built the Emirates in 2004 - that it would take 10 years). Not many other clubs could remain competitive with multi-billion dollar clubs spending record amounts while we were saddled with £100m debts. Now we're coming out the other side we will be much better placed to compete (even though we've been very competitive this last 10 years - coming close to winnng the CL, FA Cup, League Cup and the Prem a few times - without spending over £18m on a player something no other side can say)

Why is not spending over £18m on a player something to celebrate??

Arsenal spent £54m last season (or possibly the season before that), would it not have made more of a difference to the side if that had been on 2-3 players rather than 8-10?

Yea you would expect Arsenal to negotiate some better commercial deals once the current ones run out. FFP is key for them really, as it should put an end to oil rich owners - if implemented to full promise. There's no real indication that it won't be either.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Why is not spending over £18m on a player something to celebrate??

Arsenal spent £54m last season (or possibly the season before that), would it not have made more of a difference to the side if that had been on 2-3 players rather than 8-10?

- 8-10 players would have equated to spending £5m roughly per player - I believe last year we brought in 5 players (Jenkinson, Arteta, Mertasacker, Santos & Benayoun on loan)

But I never said spending £18m on a player is something to celebrate - what I said was competing with clubs whose transfer records are £30m+ and who regularly spend £20m+ on players - something we can't afford to do - is something to celebrate! Particularly as we'll be able to afford higher priced players, and bigger squads increasingly in the next few years - so if we can celebrate competing now, we should stand a decent chance of upsurping those teams in the near future - like we did for a while to Man U without spending anything near what they did, before Chelsea came along.

In 11/12 Arsenal spent £53.15m on 9 players = £5.9m per player.

United spent roughly the same (£52.9m) on 3 players = £17.6m per player.

I don't view that as good business by Arsene/Arsenal.

Seeing as Jones cost £16m and was an unproven youngster and we got German captain and proven international defender for half the price in Mertasacker, I think we did good business.
While you got Young for £20m we got Chamberlain and Gervinho for the same price, and while I agree Young is better, there was no way we could compete with you on his wages, adn Chamberlain promises to be better - and Gervinho is our top scorer.
You paid £19m for De Gea which is staggering for an unproven at the top level keeper - and I think we have a better stable of keeper than you for a fraction of the price.

This has allowed us to buy a lot more players, which we needed - rather than say buy Kagawa instead of Arteta, Young instead of Chamberlain and Jones - we would only have had 3 players and wouldn't have had a RB, a LB, another winger, another midfielder and 2 defenders

I think Arsenal's transfers ins have probably been the best in the league the past couple of years. The problem is the fact that their transfers out have been so huge, selling Fabregas, Nasri, Clichy, Song and Van Persie over the space of two years would hurt any team, no matter who their replacements. I do think Arteta and Cazorla were two excellent signings though.

Ashley Young, De Gea have hardly been huge successes. Van Persie, Jones and Kagawa are looking good though.

I agree our signings have been great over the past 15 years and the money recoupd has enabled us to further invest in the team.
The young, de gea and jones signings for man u have been very good as well. For arsenal however we needed to strenghen in more than 3 positions and also by signing cheaper players we minimised the risk and increased the amount of profit made when selling these players, enabling us to sign another raft of good players.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:Seeing as Jones cost £16m and was an unproven youngster and we got German captain and proven international defender for half the price in Mertasacker, I think we did good business.

That sums up everything that's wrong with Arsene/Arsenal's transfer policy.

Well done, you got a solid but ponderously slow defender just hitting his prime that'll likely be out the door in 3yrs. United bought a hot young prospect who could be with us for a decade or more (a la Rio) and be one of the greatest defenders in the EPL (again, a la Rio).

Smirnoffpriest wrote:2. Also with the who is a bigger club in London - Josiah is comparing Spurs before Ambamovich (no CL experience) to Chelsea now (CL experience). But before Abramovich neither had any CL experience and neither reguarly finished in the top 4.

Chelsea were regularly in European competition in the 70s and have been in Europe every year from 1996, winning two Cup Winners Cup's (which was rated higher than what the Europa League was.) and the Champions League. We made the Champions League in 1999 after finishing in 98/99 and made it to the quarter finals, we even won the 1st leg against Barcelona 3-1. Then we made the UCL again in 2003 on our own without Abramovich.

Some people seem really thick when they try claiming Chelsea were a mid table team pre Roman. Chelsea were the 2nd club in London pre Roman and now comfortably 1st.

Crimey wrote:I think Arsenal's transfers ins have probably been the best in the league the past couple of years. The problem is the fact that their transfers out have been so huge, selling Fabregas, Nasri, Clichy, Song and Van Persie over the space of two years would hurt any team, no matter who their replacements. I do think Arteta and Cazorla were two excellent signings though.

Ashley Young, De Gea have hardly been huge successes. Van Persie, Jones and Kagawa are looking good though.

How can you say in's and out's have been great then say its the outs that have really cost them? Its losing the real big players that has cost them, and the reason is the wage structure and not competing for trophies. Perhaps if there wage structure was different they may have kept a couple and broke the duck, but equally then they wouldnt attract the good youngsters

compelling and rich wrote:

Crimey wrote:I think Arsenal's transfers ins have probably been the best in the league the past couple of years. The problem is the fact that their transfers out have been so huge, selling Fabregas, Nasri, Clichy, Song and Van Persie over the space of two years would hurt any team, no matter who their replacements. I do think Arteta and Cazorla were two excellent signings though.

Ashley Young, De Gea have hardly been huge successes. Van Persie, Jones and Kagawa are looking good though.

How can you say in's and out's have been great then say its the outs that have really cost them? Its losing the real big players that has cost them, and the reason is the wage structure and not competing for trophies. Perhaps if there wage structure was different they may have kept a couple and broke the duck, but equally then they wouldnt attract the good youngsters

I didn't say that, I said the transfers in have been really good, but the problem is they don't really balance the big players they sell.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:There's a few claims on this thread that I need to question - 1. is that With their massive fan base (Man U) still generate millions just like they did before the Prem started.

Man U only became huge with the advent of the Prem and Sky Sports coverage - they became a top flight team on the back of Martin Edwards investment and rose to prominence because of it and a number of transfer record breaking transfers. Following Sky Sports and the Prem (and helped by Englands reintroduction to European football) Man U became a global brand and, with little competition domestically, began to rival Real/Barca.

Years ago I read that Sky were thrilled when United won their first Prem title as it coincided with the first year Sky had the rights to broadcast English league soccer as it helped Sky sell more dishes. You make it it sound as if it was Sky who made United. United were always a big club, with attendances of over 50,000 even before Fergie took over. Before the Prem started and Sky Sports came along I remember them being nicknamed "The Bank of England Club".

MockingJay33 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:2. Also with the who is a bigger club in London - Josiah is comparing Spurs before Ambamovich (no CL experience) to Chelsea now (CL experience). But before Abramovich neither had any CL experience and neither reguarly finished in the top 4.

Chelsea were regularly in European competition in the 70s and have been in Europe every year from 1996, winning two Cup Winners Cup's (which was rated higher than what the Europa League was.) and the Champions League. We made the Champions League in 1999 after finishing in 98/99 and made it to the quarter finals, we even won the 1st leg against Barcelona 3-1. Then we made the UCL again in 2003 on our own without Abramovich.

Some people seem really thick when they try claiming Chelsea were a mid table team pre Roman. Chelsea were the 2nd club in London pre Roman and now comfortably 1st.

Abramovic bought Chelsea after they finished 4th in the league. Prior to that (in reverse chronological order) Chelsea's finishes were 6th 6th 5th 3rd 4th 6th 11th 11th 14th 11th. It is definitely unfair to say Chelsea were a mid-table side (other than the first 4 years of the EPL) but suggest they were anything better than a top6 is fanciful and without Roman's billions it is almost impossible to suggest they'd have had anything like the success they've had.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:Seeing as Jones cost £16m and was an unproven youngster and we got German captain and proven international defender for half the price in Mertasacker, I think we did good business.

That sums up everything that's wrong with Arsene/Arsenal's transfer policy.

Well done, you got a solid but ponderously slow defender just hitting his prime that'll likely be out the door in 3yrs. United bought a hot young prospect who could be with us for a decade or more (a la Rio) and be one of the greatest defenders in the EPL (again, a la Rio).

Hang on - you criticize Arsenal for not bringing in established stars and having not having players in their prime - when I point out that we bought an established international you now say the problem with our tranfer policy is that we only buy players in their prime and don't invest in youth? Which is it to be?

You also miss the point that we wanted Jones but were out bid by United (as we don't have the money to out bid a team like United) and United payed over the odds for Jones, and far over the odds for Rio - nobody else in Britain could afford the amount United payed for Rio back then.

Atila wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:There's a few claims on this thread that I need to question - 1. is that With their massive fan base (Man U) still generate millions just like they did before the Prem started.

Man U only became huge with the advent of the Prem and Sky Sports coverage - they became a top flight team on the back of Martin Edwards investment and rose to prominence because of it and a number of transfer record breaking transfers. Following Sky Sports and the Prem (and helped by Englands reintroduction to European football) Man U became a global brand and, with little competition domestically, began to rival Real/Barca.

Years ago I read that Sky were thrilled when United won their first Prem title as it coincided with the first year Sky had the rights to broadcast English league soccer as it helped Sky sell more dishes. You make it it sound as if it was Sky who made United. United were always a big club, with attendances of over 50,000 even before Fergie took over. Before the Prem started and Sky Sports came along I remember them being nicknamed "The Bank of England Club".

What I was saying is that Sky significantly helped Man U become a global brand - yes they were a big club in the 80s, as I've said previously they made a number of transfer breaking signings in the 80s (probably why as you say they were called 'The Bank of England Club' I don't know, I hadn't heard it before) and had competed for honours in that period. But with the advent of the Prem and until 1997 almost all competitors fell away, with only Blackburn and Newcastle being able to afford significant competition - and both nearly bankrupted themselves doing it.