Mansour’s millions the difference for Manchester City

Looking at this mornings league table, Arsenal still sit top of the league. 2 points ahead of Chelsea, 3 points ahead of Manchester City. There is still plenty of reasons to be optimistic about our title chances.

Yes, we might have conceded 6 against Manchester City, but it was one of those freak games where every shot on target went in. There were 13 shots on target in the entire game, and 9 goals. City had a converted 6 of their 7 shots on target. It was a freak result.

City deserved to run out winners, despite Arsenal having 2 goals chalked off incorrectly and being denied a blatant penalty. To point to those 3 referring decision as the reason Arsenal lost would be in denial of the overall performance. City seemingly being able to go forward and score highlights why they are averaging over 4 goals a game at home and have now scored in 58 consecutive games at the Etihad Stadium. Their home form in the league this season reads: Played 8, Won 8, Scored 35, Conceded 5. That last one was Conceded 2 before yesterday. With home form like that, City have to be everyone’s favourites for the title.

The difference between the two sides could be seen on the substitutes bench. £129m worth of talent on the bench. Arsenal’s starting line up cost just £97m and cost of their entire match day squad £140. When you take into account that £42.5m of those totals was Mesut Ozil, it shows just how far behind we are in City. Yes, we have money to spend, and should be spending more than it, but City, with their now settled side and spending money like it is going out of fashion, we should not be too downhearted.

When it comes to finance, what Manchester City spend is staggering. They have a wage bill £60m more than Arsenal’s. The majority of their squad is on £100k+ a week. Arsenal meanwhile have just 3 players over this figure. With Arsenal having a reported £100m sitting in the bank, were we to try to compete with Manchester City in terms of wages and transfer fees, this money would not go very far at all. Last year, we made a profit of just £6.7m. A £60m blackhole in wages would see us start to run up massive losses. Manchester City, remember, lost £97m in 2011/12.

Last summer, having finished 2nd to Manchester United in the league, and having made horrendous losses, Manchester City went out and spent £90m. They spent more on defensive midfielder’s than we did on Mesut Ozil. It highlights the financial strength they have that they were able to go out and buy long-term Arsenal target Stevan Jovetic for £22m without really needing him. It was perhaps and example of them signing a player who they do not need just to ensure other Premier League sides signing him.

Now I do not have an issue with Manchester City’s grotesque spending. If a man has billions of plans, who are we to tell him how to spend it. Remember, we did not moan in the late 1990’s when Danny Fiszman was bank rolling us – albeit on a smaller scale – enabling us to build the 1998, and eventually the invincible sides. What the financial difference does show is how much of a challenge winning the Premier League is for Arsenal. With both Manchester City and Chelsea having an endless pot of gold. Arsenal could go and spend the £100m they have sitting their, but Chelsea and Manchester City would then respond by spending £150m. Do we keep chasing them? Do we spend the most we can and still finish 2nd/3rd and say ‘at least we tried’ or do we spend sensibly, on the right players, and hope things, at one point, will become fairer?

The last option is we Alisher Usmanov. He is supposedly willing to put in similar amounts of money into the club as Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich. Do we move to demanding to be bank rolled by an oligarch, with a questionable background, or do we say ‘We are Arsenal, we do things in the right way’. Having a sole owner leaves us in a precarious position. Yes, they could be and Abaramovich or Mansour, but they could also change the name of the club, change the club’s colours, or do anything they want…People have differing opinions, both are valid.

A few final points, Per Mertesacker showing he is the real captain of the side bollocking Mesut Ozil. It is a none story and as Wenger was quoted as saying;

“That is the Germans, they will sort that out between themselves.”

They are probably sitting around Per’s house this morning sharing a bratwurst. The second point is the laughable banner in the Manchester City ground ‘Manchester thanks you Sheikh Mansour’. A sign, perhaps, of a club who’s fans have sold out to modern football.

After 3 games in 6 days, travelling to both Naples and Manchester, Arsenal now have a 9 day break before the Chelsea game. It is time to rest the legs, re group and ensure we come out fighting once more. A defeat to Chelsea could see us truly enter a downward spiral, and if Spurs win their next two games, the gap that looked so large just a few games ago will be down to just 2. Let’s back the time.



14 thoughts on “Mansour’s millions the difference for Manchester City

  1. phil dean manchester

    listen the onlyway to compete with the manopalization of the old top 4 eg man u arsenal Liverpool and Chelsea was to spend, 15 years of being in the top 4 plus champions league money equates to around 1.7 billion in turnover compared to mancitys who were in the 3rd tear of English football not so long ago while you were making millions our turn over was 11 million around 1 million profit a year so there lies the problem to break the top 4 we had to spend 600 million how boring would this be with out new money coming in the monopalization the same boring top 4 you had it to easy as one arsenal player said if we didn’t win the league man u would

  2. SAGunner

    The financial angle is a feeble excuse… we have the money – so why did Wenger not buy?
    simple … The big boys don’t want to play for Wenger – They know that he adds mediocrity – the big boys want to win trophies and not be hailed as heroes if they manage a forth place in the league as the clubs best achievement – and now we are faced with yet some more years of hearing how good the Arsenal side is and that he is satisfied with his squad – i notice they are not that stingy with hand outs when ir comes to his new contract.

      1. Mr X

        Don’t think so. city are an established PL club while Port Vale were in League 2. Would you rather see success on your investment within a couple of years compared to the 5 you’d need to give for a club like Port Vale to rise to the top?

  3. Tony Tango

    So your main point is that City’s win loses some of it’s merit because their squad cost more and their wage bill is higher. Would the same then apply for the teams (bar probably Man Utd) that you played during your ‘invincibles’ season? Or the European teams you’ve been beating for the last 14 years to qualify for the knock-out stage of the Champions League?

  4. Goatfacekillah

    Good to read a fan of the original elite sides acknowledging that they too have had it good. It’s not often you see the grace to be honest about that.

    It’s true that the spending is grotesque – this is the modern football unfortunately. For many years, we (City) along with the rest of none Champion’s League qualifying sides, had our noses pressed against the window and knowing the gulf had become impossible to bridge. It’s no less fair that we were lucky enough to be invited to the party that we had no fair chance of ever getting into it… The fact that we had to spend so much money to challenge should show how large the gulf had become – not through other club’s skill as such but rather owing to a self fulfilling rewards cycle.

    Say what you will about our gratitude towards Sheikh Mansour… The way they’ve gone about taking over the club is amazing. If you were as close to it as we were you’d see that. We all wish football (atmosphere and fairness wise) was more like it was pre-Sky/CL. But if you’re going to be taken over this is the way to do it. That banner’s not just about the money – they’ve done everything right and changed us beyond recognition – whilst amplifying all that was previously good (like how active we’ve always been in the community).

    I’ll tell you what is laughable – the chant “where were you when you were shit”. Without doubt we were there with record third flight attendances home and away. The irony here is that our biggest rivals, United, are the ONLY club whose fans don’t chant this at The Etihad or Old Trafford – because they know.

    1. Jdj

      There is not a single thing noble about the lunacy at city. Your fans sold their soul in exchange for being a walking sandwich board for an unelected gang of dictators who keep ‘their’ people in line by torture, brutalisation and control.

      Man city is everything that is wrong with the game on 2013 and the day they are left to fall back to type, mediocre and provincial, can’t come a day too soon.

      As for the article, usmanov is on record as saying he would not bankroll the club. And besides, we don’t need not want a sugar daddy. We are a proper football club.

      1. Pete B

        Please before you embarrass yourself any more read up about Arsenals history. In the 30’s spent money on transfers that no other club could match. We were called the “Bank of England” club.

      2. Goatfacekillah

        Your history shows that there’s no such thing as a level playing field – who’s has what owner and how big his bank balance/ego are + favourable geography are just two reasons. Maybe you think the continual reward of obscene Sky and the Champion’s League money make your wealth more noble, or your club more proper than mine. Fine – I think you’re deluding yourself though.

        The only modern day consistent success phenomenon really, has been Liverpool – since then the whole thing’s been self propagating and undermined by vast wealth disparity.

        But your use of the word provincial says everything about your divine right attitude. I suspect you’ll have a long wait for our fall to mediocrity – we’re now part of the intense marketing machine that football’s now (unfortunately) become. Looks like we’re doing it better than many of our rivals too.

  5. Pete B

    What was staggering was the number of empty seats in the ground. City always been a 30k fan base, but trying to go to a 60k ground just doesn’t add up.

    1. mm

      Pete B,
      Those empty seats you see have been sold to agencies that then put their cut on to the price. City fans refuse to pay the extra fee. No doubt there will be plenty of takers when the glory hunters from Trafford jump ship.

    2. Goatfacekillah

      Not really – check the average attendances since we’ve had a 47k odd stadium. ‘The always been a 30k fan base’ was enforced owing to the size of Maine Road with a seated Kippax. Admittedly though, we likely wouldn’t have touched 60k that much had we not had success – I should think 50k regularly though, even as also rans.

  6. Bilboblue

    I’d just like to add, was it ‘Doing things the right way’ when you bribed the league to get into the top flight?

    I see you have the same selective memory issues as most other ‘Sky 4 (+ spuds)’ have.

    1. Mr X

      There is no proof of that being the reason or that it ever happened, but we like to encourage the myth to wind up the spuds. The reason was that we had simply been in the league longer and nothing else.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s