In the era of “instant results” we currently live in, both Eberechi Eze and Viktor Gyökeres have come in from some criticism from certain quarters for a perceived slow start to their Arsenal careers.
Whether this criticism is just due to them being impatient (imagine the criticism Dennis Bergkamp, Thierry Henry and Robert Pires would have received in the current era), are attention seeking, or are simply negative nancies who want to find something to complain about despite us being top of the league, these people need to wind their necks in.
However, I am not saying either man is immune from criticism, nor should they not be criticised. However, there is a huge jump from constructive criticism and analysis of their game, and those who simply message “not good enough or “waste of money”.
For Eze, I feel that he is trying too hard right now. And it is a common trait for players who go from being a big fish in a small pond to a small fish in a bit pond.
Following the departure of Michael Olise, Eze was Crystal Palace’s only top attacker. Literally everything went through him. He saw a lot of the ball. Would play every minute. And if Eze played well, Palace played well.
At Arsenal, things are very different.
We have an array of attacking talent. From Bukayo Saka and Martin Odegaard, to Leandro Trossard, Gabriel Martinelli, Ethan Nwaneri and the front men Gyokeres and Kai Havertz. Our more defensive players in Declan Rice, Martin Zubimendi, and even Ricardo Califiori and Jurrien Timber are also more comfortable on the ball than anyone Palace had bar Eze.
Not only does that mean Eze is not necessarily the first name on the team sheet, it also means that when he does play, his team mates are not looking up and with first thought being “where is Eze, we need to get him the ball”.
The result is when Eze does get the ball, he tends to feel like he needs to do more with it. And rather than keeping it easy, he continually tries to make something happen, tries to impress. When actually a lot of the time the easy ball is the better option.
Also at Palace, as their sole decent attacker, Eze could try something magical every time he got the ball and escape criticism when it did not come off. Attempt something special 10 times across two games, and if it comes off once, you’re a hero. At Arsenal, the standards are higher.
You can not try and make something happen every time you get the ball at a club like Arsenal. It is about trying to make something happen at the right time, not every time. And Eze needs to adjust to that. He needs to begin playing it easier. Realise that when he receives the ball on the half way line, the key is about retaining position and not trying to beat 2 or 3 players in the hope of creating something.
It will take time for Eze to adjust.
Going from a counterattacking team where everything went through him to playing for a possession-based team where he sees less than the ball. He will need to become better at deciding what to do with the ball when he receives it. But he has the ability to do that.
For me, I still see Eze’s main position on that wide left. I see a lot of Robert Pires in him. The way that he can start on that left but look to continually come inside. And with the way we are setting up right now with Declan Rice a little deeper and Calafiori bombing on, Eze will have the space to dictate play from the left sided attacking quadrant.
Eze has already shown his worth to us. He was brought in as a utility attacker who can cover all 4 positions behind the striker. And it is that reason he will also go to the World Cup for England. The fact that Odegaard has suffered a few injuries this season and Eze has slotted in nicely shows he has the ceiling to become what is needed to play for a team like Arsenal.
Eze just needs to take a breath, relax a little, and play a little easier. Then his talent will shine through.
The internet is awash with talk about AFTV’s demise.
In the last week and a bit, at least 3 contributors have taken to social media to announce they will no longer be appearing on the toxic YouTube channel. This has led to questions around what is happening, and talk of dwindling revenues and sponsors walking away. But what is actually happening?
Follow the money
AFTV’s bread and butter is its post-match interviews. They did not care who appeared on camera after a match or their background. Wife beaters, racists and fellas that have now had to flee the country were not only given a platform, but ended up being paid to appear due to their viewing figures.
For those who run the channel, it was all about the hits. They did not care about the background of those appearing or the damage they were doing to Arsenal. It was all about the money. And that money drives decisions.
The “podcast shuffle”
The channel was built on the back of those toxic rants of the mid-00s, which fueled a lot of anger, animosity and division at Arsenal.
As time went on and AFTV became more of a broadcasting business rather than just a place for fans to have their say post-match, the more popular contributors were offered an opportunity to participate in podcasts, with some even getting their own “shows”.
It was a simple business model.
Take those that are popular post-game at the weekend and give them more airtime with a mid-week show, to fill the gap between games. It was an attempt to take the channel away from being just about post-match rants and to create a network of creators sharing their views and further driving revenue.
But anyone who has worked or been involved in podcast networks will know, they often have a yearly shuffle.
The networks invest in their contributors. Pay them to appear and provide them with the infrastructure needed to put on a professional show – whether it be recording equipment, studio space or access to editors and graphic designers. From here, everyone profits.
But then, if a podcast does not take off as expected, or viewing numbers dwindle, the networks are in a position where they are investing more into the content than it is making.
For years, YouTube’s average advertising payout is estimated to be $1 for every 1,000 views. That means when a video is being watched 100,000 times, it will make $1,000. Or about £750.
Now, if you are putting on a weekly show, paying 4 contributors, providing studio space, studio space and paying editors and graphic designers, £750 does not go very far. And how long will sponsors such as William Hill be willing to pay for such a small reach? And the result will be with poor viewership and no external sponsorship funding, you will be dropped.
Some networks may recycle their contributors into other shows, and others may end ties completely. And as they are not employees but usually self-employed contractors, contracting out their services to the network, then it is much easier to break the contract in comparison to if they were PAYE.
And this is probably where AFTV are at right now, with so many departing – and it is important to note that those leaving are not just those who spew toxicity or have decided to use the channel to make political points.
Those shows that were not very successful are being cancelled, and investment will go into others, either by paying more for popular shows or by pushing new faces.
Contributors own channels
So you can on AFTV because you want a bit of attention and like the idea of becoming a YouTuber. After 6 months of grafting in the wind, rain and snow outside the Emirates, you get invited to contribute occasionally on existing shows. Your popularity continues to rise, and you end up with your own show. But it is only once a week.
In the meantime, you have also been appearing on other podcasts. After all, you are not an employee of AFTV and they are not blocking you from contributing elsewhere. Another 6 months go by and you decide to take the plunge and set up your own YouTube channel and go “full time”.
A couple of days a week you are making yourself look a div outside the Emirates stadium. Another couple of days a week you are sitting in the AFTV studio recording content for them. And on top of that you are doing your own show on your own channel. Maybe a live or two. On top of this you might appear on others shows to further boost your bank balance.
You are probably only getting a couple of hundred quid each time you appear on either AFTV, another show, or through advertising revenue from your own show. But if you are getting that daily, thats a grand a week. £52k a year. Not bad if you delivered Percy Pigs to M&S or sold double glazing on a commission-only content.
But then you become frustrated. you are doing all this work for AFTV but only getting a share of the profits, or a flat fee way below what you might generate. So you decide to reduce your availability to them and spend more time on your own channel. Push out more content where money goes straight into your pocket.
That creates friction between yourself and AFTV, with those who run AFTV then feeling like you are just using the huge platform to promote yourself. They either ask you to stop doing as much on your own channel, or you make the decision to do less. The result of the friction is you no longer appear on AFTV, and as a consequence, they will not longer video your post-match rants after the game.
You make the decision to go alone. Cut the ties with AFTV. We have seen a couple go down this route before with varied success. Some still shout and scream down the camera. Others have gone back to their boring accounting jobs.
Is AFTV on the demise?
It is too early to say if this is the end of AFTV.
With around 90m views in the last 6 months, the network would have brought in around $90k from YouTube advertising revenue. Or around £67k. This is the level the channel has consistently been at for the last few years.
It might be that sponsors and external advertisers have pulled the plug, no longer willing their brand to be associated with something so toxic. Or, likewise, it might be that the owners have decided to consolidate the channel, produce less content without
The Pareto principle is that roughly 80% of outcomes or results come from 20% of causes or inputs. If that is the same with AFTV, the owners could cut 80% of content and only see a 20% drop in revenue.
That 80% in content reduction could lead to huge cost reductions without impacting revenue too much, and in turn increasing profit.
To see how the impact of 3 contributors affects the total channel over the next 6 months will be the test. If they maintain their 90m viewership, the channel would have shown that the brand is bigger than any individual contributor. If the next 6 months show a significant reduction in channel viewership, then the end may be near (although we may just see a complete pull back and the channel return to post-match interviews only).
Inspired by Real Madrid’s Bernabéu upgrade, Arsenal are considering increasing the stadium capacity to over 70,000 whilst not changing the footprint of the stadium. And whilst work is going on, Wembley is being mooted as our temporary home.
Next year will mark 20 years since we moved from Highbury to the Emirates, and I certainly have conflicting thoughts about this.
Do we need a larger capacity
100,000 on the waiting list Average ballot success of 40% for silver applicants Average ballot success of 10% for silver applicants
These statistics will lead many to say “even 70,000 is not enough. We need 100k”. And I get the argument. But then where were all these loyal fans when the skies were grey?
Pre-covid is still not too distant a memory. Less than 50,000 turned up to suffer the home defeat against Frankfurt as the Unai Emery-era crashed and burned. And that 50,000 was overstated as we all know Arsenal advertise “tickets sold” rather than people through the gate.
For some time before lockdown, those that went to games were noticing more and more empty seats at games, even if the club still maintained that attendance was 100%.
When the sun is shining and we are playing on the crest of a wave, there is no argument that we could sell out over 70,000 without an issue. But as soon as we find ourselves in times of trouble, will the demand still be there? Or will the empty seats expose the fair-weather fans?
But we should look to invest from a position of strength
When you are top of the tree in football, sponsors fall over themselves trying to associate their brand with your club. Positivity breeds positivity.
The best time to invest in new infrastructure is when you are at your peak, as you have the surplus cash to make investment.
2023/24 saw our revenue increase by 32%, driven by Champions League football and new deals. The summer just gone, further new commercial deals were signed that will see our revenue increase further. That means we can use the credit and financing available to us to invest in the stadium.
If we were in a downward spiral, with revenues dwindling, we would need to dip into that credit and financing to meet operating costs. There may be no better time to invest.
There was no Big 6. Just a Big 2. Arsenal and Manchester United. Arsene Wenger and Alex Ferguson. Roy Keane and Patrick Vieira.
We were always the underdog. Less revenue, smaller stadium. 3 league titles in 7 years whilst up against the juggernaut Sky, favouring Manchester United was an incredible achievement. But we needed plans to try and close that financial gap. And those plans was to build a 60,000 seater stadium, increasing our revenue by 50%.
The board sold fans a dream. That by moving from Highbury to the Emirates would see us go from hanging onto the coat tails of Manchester United, Bayern Munich and Real Madrid to competing with them, both financially, for the best players and, most importantly, for major honours.
Since we moved from Highbury in 2006, we have won 0 Premier League’s and 0 Champions League’s. That has continually led many to say “was it worth it?”
We all know that we might have to take a step back for a couple of years whilst the financial strain hit. But none of us could have predicted the global financial crisis, the UK credit crunch, and the property market going through the floor.
So much of Arsenal’s plan was to finance the stadium through building and selling flats that sat on the land around the stadium. A great idea were it not for the global recession. It meant stadium loan repayments had to primarily come from the revenue of the playing side of the club, and not hugely subsidised by the sale of property.
And then to compound the issue, the footballing landscape changed with Roman Abramovich coming into Chelsea. No longer was the game about revenue and spending what you receive. Abramovich sat there with his tanks of cash, firing huge fees and wages across Europe. We could not compete financially. No one could.
And whilst we struggled with those stadium repayments, Manchester City materialised on the horizon. Chelsea on steroids with their billions in oil revenue. And whilst we struggled financially, the likes of Manchester United, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich grew. Record revenues. Able to pluck any player they wanted from us. And they all did.
We built from a position of strength, and it took us 15-years to recover.
You can not stand still in football
What us fans went through from 2006 to 2020 will hugely influence our thinking on this matter. But it is also a fact that we can not stand still.
In 2006, the Emirates was the 2nd biggest stadium in England (discounting Wembley). Now it is the 5th behind Old Trafford, Tottenham Stadium, London Stadium and Anfield.
Manchester City are currently expanding their stadium to over 60,000, whilst Chelsea have long had plans to build a stadium in West London north of 60k. Meanwhile Newcastle United are currently working on plans for a 70,000 stadium.
In 10-years time, we could find ourselves with the 8th biggest stadium in the land. That is not a position you want to be in if you want to continue competing at the top.
And it is not just about stadium capacity, but also stadium quality.
There was a time when Old Trafford was undoubtedly the greatest stadium in the English game. The Theatre of Dreams had the largest domestic capacity in England, and was the go-to place outside of Wembley for semi-finals, finals, concerts and more. But from around 2000 their board was more concerned with adding seats than stadium improvements as they took the ground from 55,000 to 74,000.
With no further investment since 2006, Old Trafford is falling down.
We have all seen the leaks in the roof and read stories about the rat infestation. You only need to go to one game to see how behind with the times the stadium is. It is suffering from the lack of investment to the point where remedial options are no longer on the table. The best option now is to knock it down and start again. A project that is projected to cost over £2 billion.
I am not saying Arsenal are in this position yet. But if you do not make continually upgrades to your ground, every few years, then you end up in the position where Manchester United are.
Old Trafford can no longer be upgraded. And they are going to have to fork out £2bn on rebuilding it rather than spending £10m every year for the last 20 years upgrading it.
But we have only just got back to the top
Having seen us go from Invincibles to no-hopers, us Arsenal fans are thirsty for glory.
Mikel Arteta has built arguably the strongest squad of players that I have seen in my lifetime, and it feels like we are on the cusp of glory.
With this manager and this set of players, we could win multiple Premier League titles over the next 5-years and maybe even finally taste Champions League glory.
Why would the board want to throw away that opportunity to (potentially) restrict what we can spend as money is siphoned off to finance a stadium upgrade? And then we also have the inevitable dip in form that playing in Wembley will give us.
Having suffered for so long, could we just not hold back for 4-5 years and let the fans bask in some (potential) glory? Why push the button now and risk all what we have coming to us.
But will the stadium be financed buy AFC?
There is some talk that the stadium could be financed by the Kroenke’s, meaning that the debt to build the stadium could sit with KSE. That would mean Arsenal would be protected from the issues which we faced in 2008 with the credit crunch. And that whilst we would need to pay KSE back for the investment in us, they could turn those payments on and off as they wished to ensure the we remained competitive on the field.
KSE know that the best way to increase revenue, and as a result the value of your asset, is to be competitive on the pitch. It should be no surprise the steps forward we have taken as a club since they took 100% control in 2018.
With the board infighting gone, KSE have only been concerned about making us better on the pitch, which in turn increases the value of the asset they own off it. Whereas when we were under the dual ownership of KSE and Usmanov, any improvement on the pitch would have just led to SKE having to spend more to own 100% of the club.
If KSE are willing to take the stadium loans out in their name, and offer Arsenal favourable terms to repay them without the need to reduce on-pitch spending, then we should be able to rebuild without it damaging our title chances.
But do we want to go to Wembley?
No thanks.
And finally…
In the last 10-years, Liverpool have expanded Anfield from 46,000 to over 61,000 whilst winning 2 league titles, the Champions League, the FA Cup and League Cups (and finished 2nd twice with 90+ points). A fantastic achievement whilst competing against Chelsea and Manchester City’s wealth, whilst rebuilding the club.
They have shown that you can expand the stadium whilst competing for the highest of honours. If we can follow their lead, then we can become successful whilst expanding the stadium.
So what do you think? Let us know in the comments…
She Wore A Yellow Ribbon 