Arsenal unlikely to sign anyone in January

4 Replies

This has probably been the quietest January transfer window in recent memory.

Just 7 teams have signed new players so far this window, with just 5 of those teams making a permanent signing.

Less than £30m has been spent by Premier League clubs this window, with 84% spent by Tottenham on just a single player that no-one had heard of.

No top club has yet to dip their foot into the market, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will.

So why is spending so low this winter?

Teams overspent in the summer

Last summer, more money was spent across the globe on football players than any in history. More than £6.5bn was spent on new recruits, with the Premier League and Saudi Pro League leading the way.

The Premier League alone account for £2.36bn of this spending, and it was not just driven by the big boys – 10 clubs spent more than £100m, including the likes of Nottingham Forest, Bournemouth and West Ham.

Clubs maximised their spending last summer. Very few (if any) kept their powder dry to make a transfer or 2 in January. Most do not have a pot to piss in until TV and sponsorship money comes in at the end of this season.

Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR)

In recent days, PSR has become the most used word in football following Nottingham Forest and Everton’s charges for breaching the rules.

These rules are in place to protect clubs from overspending to get out of trouble (or gain success), and then hitting financial issues if they can not spend their way out of trouble.

Whilst fans of some clubs are claiming that PSR is stopping their club spending, it is actually the way their club has been run for the last 3 or 4 years that is restricting them.

I have read West Ham United fans saying PSR is the reason they have not spent this winter – the same fans who blame their owners every window. Which is it? Likewise, Everton have lost nearly half a billion pounds in recent years, but apparently it is PSR stopping them buy.

Whilst I do understand that PSR is having an impact, the main reason clubs are not signing anyone (yet) is because they spent all their money in the summer. What PSR is doing is stopping them spend money they do not have.

Foreign clubs are broke

Nearly half of the total global spend in 2023 was spent by the Premier League and Saudi Pro League. Whilst the global total was up, spending in the top 5 leagues excluding the Premier League was down from the previous record year (2019).

The above graphic highlights why teams in Spain and Italy are pushing for a European Super League. Due to their own leagues being run in such a poor (and corrupt) manner, they no longer generate anywhere near close to what they did back 5 or 6 years ago. As a result, their clubs recieve less income and they have less to spend on transfer.

Bottle neck of transfers

Transfers are often like a line of dominoes; when one piece topples, a myriad follow in a ripple effect. The issue is right now, with money so tight, no pieces are falling.

Lets say Arsenal spend £80m on Ivan Toney. That then gives £80 to Brentford to spend on maybe 4 or 5 players, which in turn gives those clubs £15-20m to spend on players.

A couple of those clubs then spend that £20m on some Manchester United fringe players, which gives them a funds boost and they can then make a single big purchase, which triggers the next load of dominoes to fall.

The problem is the big clubs do not have the big funds to make the dominoes fall.

Lower clubs can also start the chain by purchasing players from bigger clubs.

So lets use Emile Smith Rowe and Eddie Nketiah as an example. You might get Everton spend £40m on Smith Rowe and West Ham spend £30m on Nketiah. That then gives Arsenal £70m in incoming funds, which we can then use on Toney, and it triggers the scenario above.

But clubs like West Ham, Everton, Wolves, Brentford and more do not have the funds (this window) to buy the fringe players which could trigger the domino effect.

And there is also little income coming in from abroad that could kick start deals – Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus and more are broke. They are not looking to buy players from the Premier League, they are only looking to sell.

There is a standstill in the market right now, and whilst it might only take one transfer to pump life into it, I just can not see where that transfer is coming from.

Lack of available quality players

From Arsenal’s point of view, I feel there is a lack of available players that we would actually want to buy.

Before Christmas, there was speculation that we would be in the market for a new left back. But that player would need to be better than Olexsandr Zinchenko, Takehiro Tomiyasu and Jurrien Timber. That sort of of player is often not available in January.

That would leave Arsenal buying someone who is not as good as those mentioned. We would be recruiting someone for the sake of getting an additional body in.

As for a striker, Ivan Toney has spoken recently on potentially leaving Brentford, but I imagine most clubs will want to see how he returns to top flight football following 8 months off.

The likes of Dusan Vlahovic and Victor Osimhen are also on our radar, but these are probably summer targets – Osimhen specifically would not be available to play until mid-February, and players notoriously return from the African Cup of Nations unfit.

The reality is, January transfers very rarely win you the league, so we would be better off not taking money out of our summer budget unless a primary target does come onto the market.

I see a lot of chatter amongst Arsenal fans stating that by not making moves we are throwing away the league title. I am not sure that is true.

The truth is no team is making moves in January, and this is due to a combination of a lack of funds, being unable to sell players to generate funds, and a lack of available quality players.

Personally, I would rather wait for the summer and sign a top striker, rather than overpay now for someone who is mid.

Stay warm.

Keenos

Yet another own goal for Juliet Slot with Porto tickets costing up to nearly £132

1 Reply

Hope you are nice and warm reading this! I certainly am not missing my old 5am commute from Loughton into London. That Central Line would be freezing until it hit Leytonstone and went underground.

Realisation is hitting for season tickets holders as to the cost of the Porto game which has been given A category by the club.

Season ticket holders have been somewhat “protected” from the different categories the club charges over the years.

Whilst the cost of our season ticket was made up of the individual Cat A, B & C ticket costs many, like me, would have just divided their ticket cost by 26 (the amount of games we used to get).

For me, that resulted in my season ticket being around £37 a game. I did not care if we were playing Burnley or Tottenham, I was paying £37 a game (even though the club were charging about £24 for Burnley and then £64 for Tottenham to fans on general sale). When I sold to a mate, they would pay my “season ticket average” regardless of the category.

At the beginning of this, the club cut the games in the season ticket to 22 – just the 3 guaranteed cup games. They then reduced the cost of the season ticket pro-rata as we were now paying for 22 games rather than 26. Individual ticket prices then went up, so the cost of the pro-rata’d reduced season ticket also saw the saw percentage increase.

At the time, this was seen as a positive.

For a long time, the Black Scarf Movement had been campaigning for a “season ticket lite”, where fans could chose to just pay for the 19 league games and then purchase cup games on a game-by-game basis.

Fans were being asked to pay upfront for 26 games, despite their being no guarantee of 26 games. If we got knocked out of the FA Cup or Europe early, or had a run of away ties, we would not reach the 26 and would geta refund at the end of the season.

The change to 22 ensured that fans were only paying upfront for the guaranteed games, and seemed to be a happy medium between the previous policy and the BSM “no cup games included” proposal.

Alongside the change, the club also introduced a “Cup Scheme” similar to the old Away Scheme.

If you opted into the cup scheme, the club would automatically buy you your seat on your behalf prior to the sale of cup games, thus ensuring that you did not miss out on the purchasing period. I failed to sign up for the cup scheme and then forgot to Liverpool tickets went on sale, resulting in me missing the game.

They reopened the cup scheme prior to the Liverpool game and I opted in to ensure that I would not miss another game.

The Cup Scheme again is brilliant. It ensures you still get your season ticket seat without having to worry or stress about remembering to purchase it. It also meant you only paid for the games we played, and you were not paying in advance for games we might not play.

If you did not sign up for the Cup Scheme, you still had priority over Silver’s to buy your seat in the same way season ticket holders have had priority for the League Cup for decades.

But then we come to Porto.

In the old system, the club were limited as to how many Cat A games they could include due to the season ticket. It would usually be split 7 Cat A, 12 Cat B and 7 Cat C. The first knockout stage of the Champions League was almost always a Cat B game.

But with the club now only having 22 games at a fixed price, they have more flexibility as to what to categorise those 4 other cup games, and for Port have they have picked Cat A. The result is ticket prices ranging from £67.78 to an eye watering £131.74.

It is just greed.

Now season ticket holders previously had to pay for cup tickets once the 26 games are used up. This would often be at the Champions League quarter final stage if we got 2 out of 4 home ties in the FA Cup (the schedule goes: FA Cup (3), FA Cup (4), CL (KO), FA Cup (5)).

Those 4 games alongside the 3 for the group stages would take us to our 26 tickets.

By the time we hit the QF of the Champions League, we were usually facing a Barcelona, Juventus, Manchester United, etc, so fans had no issue paying the premium Cat A cost.

Liverpool in the FA Cup was given Cat B. I was surprised by this as in the league it is a Cat A. And if we we were drawn against them later i nthe competition, it would certainly have been Cat A.

The decision to make Porto Cat A only came after the Liverpool defeat. Had we qualified for the next round of the FA Cup, I am sure Porto would have been Cat B.

What the club are now doing is trying to claw back some of the lost revenue from early cup exits by making Porto Cat A. It is just greed.

On top of this, season ticket holders also need to pay a transaction cost further increasing the ticket price, this despite our tickets being bought automatically, and uploaded to our digital pass. There is no additional cost to the club or its ticketing partners (Away Scheme members used to be exempt from the transaction fee).

Those who have opted in are unable to cancel their ticket. They are forced to buy it, but can then sell on the Ticket Exchange – where the club takes their percentage ass well as charges yet another transaction fee.

I feel for Mikel Arteta and others who have worked hard bridging the gap between the club, players and fans. Last season was brilliant (helped by our good form), but tensions are rising this season.

The good work is being undone by Chief Execs and Directors who only can about “maximising income”. They are disconnected from the fanbase and are going out of their way to create a hostile relationship with regular match going fans.

I am a fan of just having only the guaranteed tickets included in the season ticket price, and think the Cup Scheme is perfect for fans who want to go every game and are concerned they might miss out on their narrow purchase window.

But having a knockout Champions League game against Porto as a Cat A feels like an own goal.

Keenos

PSR needed to protect the future of football clubs

1 Reply

The artist formally known as FFP reared its head against yesterday as Everton and Nottingham Forest were charged with breaching Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).

As expected, fans of both clubs have come out to slam the rules and the potential punishments. But they should be turning their anger on their owners for the poor management of the clubs.

PSR exists to protect clubs from sending beyond their means. It controls the expenditure of clubs against their income and punishes those that break its rules. Without it, clubs would be free to spend what they wish, putting their future at risk.

Whilst fans protest the Premier League for the introduction of rules, they would be protesting their owners in 2 or 3 years time if spending went unchecked and the clubs they love went bankrupt.

FFP was first introduced by UEFA in 2009 to protect clubs from owners who might look to take on lots of debt for short term success (promotion, european places, to avoid relegation), but are unable to sustain that increase expenditure in the medium-term, pushes the club into further debt and eventually administration.

The Premier League followed suit by introducing their own rules in 2013, and FFP rules in the Championship and below came into operation in in 2016/17.

The 00s were filled with clubs spending beying their means, and going into adminstration. A mixture of the ITV digital, and teams spending more than what they bought in to try and reach the promised land put our league structure in existential threat. And it was the same across Europe.

In 2010, Portsmouth were the first team to go into administration. The biggest name to “go under” was Leeds United in 2007. The pair became the poster boys for spending beyong their knees and ruining clubs.

Since 2013, just 6 teams have entered administration: Bolton Wanderers, Bury, Rhyl, Wigan Athletic, Bury (for a second time) and most recently Derby County.

From 44 clubs in 13 years, at a rate of 3.3 a year, to 6 clubs in 10 years (0.6 a year). No one can say that the introduction of financial rules limiting what clubs has spent has not worked.

Yet still fans of Nottingham Forest and Everton are moaning this morning.

Let me put something out there first – without PSR, Everton and Nottingham Forest would have spent more than they have in recent years and would both have entered administration. They would be in a worse position now if PSR did not exist.

Everton and Nottingham Forest fans should be directing their anger at their owners who both overspent to try and buy glory without caring for the risks.

I remember when Farhad Moshiri sold his Arsenal shares and bought Everton. The blue-nose Scousers celebrated like they had won the league. They expected to be bankrolled to success, at the expense of Arsenal.

Moshiri bought the club in February 2016. Over the next 5 years, they spent in excess of £500m on the likes of Yannick Bolasie, Morgan Schneiderlin, Gylfi Sigurdsson, Davy Klaassen, Theo Walcott, Cenk Tosun, Yerry Mina, Alex Iwobi, Moise Kean, Andre Gomes, Jean-Philippe Gbamin and Ben Godfrey.

This list of flops cost them close to £300m in transfer fees, and not far from that in combined salaries.

Then there were the appointment of Carlo Ancelotti, reportedly to be on between £11.5m and £15m a year. This made him the best paid manager in the world at that time. And lets not forget the recruitment of James Rodriguez on £250k a week.

Everton’s 2020/21 accounts showed a loss for the 5th successive year, taking their cumulative losses to more than £430million over the period. A year later they posted a £100m loss for their 3rd consecutive year. They simply have not been a well run club since Moshri came in (be careful what you wish for?)

Fans of Everton keep point at what Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal and others have spent on transfers in the last 3 years in comparison to themselves. This obsession leads them to come to an incorrect conclusion.

PSR is not just about what your transfer net spend is during the period. It takes into account all expeniture (including amortised transfer fees, salaries, agents fees and general running costs), and pitches them against the clubs income.

In 2021/22, Manchester City had an income of £619m. Liverpool £594m, Manchester United £583m and Chelsea £481m. Tottenham’s revenue for the period was £443m and Arsenal’s £368m. Everton generated just £181m.

It should be no surprise that these clubs have outspent Everton when they generate so much more. Just like it is no surprise that Manchester City outspend Arsenal.

Nottingham Forest have also been charged for going above permitted losses for 2023/24. This should have come at no surprise when they spent nearly £270m in their first season back in the Premier League, signing 30 players.

Forest are the perfect example of an owner outspending the clubs means, which can potentially put them into future trouble – what happened to Leeds and Portsmouth. and all to stay in the Premier League.

And if they went into administration, you would see similar scenes to Derby County – the last side to go into adminstration back in 2021.

One argument is that PSR punishments are “unfair on fans” who are “punished” for their owners decisions. But what these fans ignore is that their owners rule breaking is unfair on those fans who support clubs that stick by the rules and get relegated.

Last season, Forest finished 16th and Everton 17th – 4 and 2 points ahead of 18th placed Leicester City respectively. Is it fair that the likes of Leicester, Leeds and Southampton saw their clubs relegated whilst spending within the rules, whilst Everton and Nottingham Forest broke the rules spending to stay up?

So yes, it might be “unfair” on fans of Everton that their club could be facing a 2nd points deduction of the season. But it is even more unfair on Leicester City fans who saw their club relegated whilst not breaking any rules…

Fans of Newcastle have also jumped on the bandwagon by stating that PSR rules are restricting their spending, and create a “closed shop” at the top of the league.

Now whilst I do get this argument, Newcastle’s issues this season has not been because they have not spent enough.

They have had 4 transfer windows since the Saudi Public Investment Fund bought the club in October 2021. In that time they have spent nearly £400m on new players. Chelsea are the only Premier LEague club to have a higher net spend during this period. Newcastle currently sit 10th in the table.

Last season, the broke into the top 4. This would have seen their income increase in excess of £50m/ The extra income allowing them to spend more within the rules.

They spent £130m in the summer on Sandro Tonali (suspended), Harvey Barnes (average), Tino Livramento (prospect) and Yankuba Minteh (who). The issue is not that they did not spend enough, it is that they bought a bunch of players that have not improved them.

Newcastle fans are complaining that they are unable to spend more this winter. They see the solution for bad recruitment as just “spending more”, probably one further average players.

Spending money poorly to make up for previous poorly spent money. They should be calling on their club to spend better, not spend more.

Ultimately, whilst PSR might not be perfect, it does protect clubs. Without it, we would still be seeing 3-4 clubs a year going to the wall.

Chasing promotion or remaining in the league in the short-term is not worth the risk of administration and the long term ramifications.

Portsmouth spent 7-years in the Premier League before their administration in 2010. They have since been relegated 3 times, spent 4 seasons playing in the 4th tier of English football, and have now been out of the Premier League for 14 years.

Leeds United returned to the Premier League in 2020 for the first time since their relegation in 2004. Like Portsmouth, they were relegated on numerous occassions. The club is still clearly fragile and after 3 years back in the Premier League, they were relegated again.

Both Everton and Nottingham Forest have been sactioned for spending well beyond their means. It is not the Premier League’s fault that everton lost over £430m up to 2021 since Moshri took over. Nor is it the Premier League’s fault that Nottingham Forest’s owner sactioned 30 signings, spending £270m.

These owners are putting the future of their clubs at long term financial risk.

Fans need to stop blaming the Premier League and PSR when punished (or if they are unable to spend to remain within the rules). The anger needs to be turned towards their owners and those running the club.

Keenos