Earlier this week we discussed how Arsenal players “did themselves proud” in the lead up to the World Cup.
Players continued to give 100% right up to the break, with none crying off with injury. The result is Arsenal are top of the league.
The same can not be said about Spurs, however.
Three of their key players have shown country is more important than club.
Firstly we have last nights double scorer against Brazil, Richarlison.
The forward went down with a “calf” injury agains Everton in the middle of October. He then missed 7 games in a row before returning for less than an hour against Nottingham Forest inthe League Cup. He also played in their final league game against Leeds United.
During those games, he was clearly not giving 100%, and it was almost as if he was giving himself a small “pre-season” prior to the World Cup.
Tottenham won just 1 of the 4 league games he missed “injured”.
Cristian Romero is another Spurs player who gave himself a nice rest before the World Cup.
The Argentine centre back missed the last 5 games prior to the break with a “hamstring injury” that no-one really knows when he picked up.
Considered a bit of a hardman, he seemed to go soft for Spurs as he decided to focus on being 100% for country rather than performing for club.
His absence saw Spurs knocked out of the League Cup – their best chance to to win a trophy this season – and concede 9 goals in 5 games.
Romero was fit to start for Argentina.
Finally we have Heung-Min Son.
He who can do no wrong, despite a career blighted with diving and leg breaking tackles, Son seems to escape any sort of criticism for his behaviour.
Granted, the South Korean suffered a fracture around his left eye during the Champions League clash against Marseille.
That ruled him out of Tottenham’s last 3 games of the season – 2 of which they lost.
He returned yesterday for South Korea wearing a mask – so questions need to be asked as to why he could not don the mask for Spurs?
Maybe he decided to hide behind the injury to give himself a nice rest ahead of the World Cup?
Whilst Arsenal players continued to give it 100%, Spurs players hide behind injuries to ensure they were ready for their countries. And that probably shows the difference between Arsenal and Tottenham right now.
Arsenal are together as one, fighting as a team. Performing well and in the title race.
Meanwhile Tottenham are clearly a group of individuals. Players their have other priorities, such as the World Cup.
The likes of Romero and Richarlison clearly see the club as a stepping stone to something else – a move to one of Europe’s elite.
It is the same for the likes of Dejan Kulusevski and Rodrigo Bentancur. The pair, signed from Juventus, trying to rebuild their careers and reputation at a lower level before a move back to a top team.
The likes of Gabriel Martinelli, Ben White, Aaron Ramsdale and William Saliba forced their way into their international squads due to their performances for Arsenal this season.
We clearly have a group of young, hungry professionals that want to do their best for club AND country.
I am not sure the same can be said about the Spurs lot.
We led for much of the season, only to capitulate in the closing stages of the season – winning just 5 of the last 12.
The season derailed following that game against Birmingham City. Eduardo’s injury and then a heads gone moment in the 95th minute that saw Birmingham equalise from the penalty spot.
Club captain William Gallas threw a strop on the pitch and the team never recovered.
We ended up 3rd, 4 points behind league winners Manchester United.
The lessons to be learned are not what happened during that season, but what happened after.
Arsene Wenger had built a team of the most exciting young talent in Europe.
2007/08 should have been the beginning of something special, not the best it would get for nearly a decade.
That young team contained the likes of Cesc Fabregas (21 years old), Robin van Persie (24), Theo Walcott (18), Gael Clichy (22), Alex Song (20), Abou Diaby (22), Denilson (20), Mathieu Flamini (24), Emmanuel Adebayor (24) and Nicklas Bendtner (20).
We were set up nicely to dominate English football – and potentially European – for some time.
Having nearly one the title, we needed a few tweaks. A bit of investment in some senior pro’s to guide the young squad.
Summer 2008 we bought French starlet Samir Nasri, Welsh teenage sensation Aaron Ramsey and Manchester United veteran Mikel Silvestre.
It built on the young squad with more undoubtedly young talent, but it was not enough and we ended up 4th, 18 points behind Manchester United.
Reportedly hamstrung by stadium debt as the UK entered recession, we were either unable or unwilling to spend. And the next summer everything began to unravel.
In 2009 we spent just £10m on you g Ajax defender Thomas Vermaelen. And then the exodus begun.
Emmanuel Adebayor and Kolo Toure were pochard by nouveau riche Manchester City. Both signed big contracts with their new club and it showed to the Arsenal players what they could earn elsewhere.
As the lack of investment continued, more and more players became frustrated about our transfer policy. We were simply unable to match our talented young players ambitions.
This was not just about what they could earn, but also what they could win.
We were falling well behind Manchester City, Man U and Chelsea, and we could no longer be considered one of Europe’s elite.
Every summer we failed to invest, more players departed – peaking in 2011 when Clichy, Fabregas and Nasri all departed.
Almost every one of those young players we that nearly took us to the Premier League title in 2008 won the league at their new clubs.
Cesc and Song at Barcelona, Toure, Clichy and Nasri at City. van Persie at Manchester United.
Had we matched their ambition when at Arsenal, they might have taken us to the title.
And that is where the lessons need to be learned.
Regardless of where we finish this season, we need to build on this young team. We can not rest on our laurels.
Manchester City will spend again. Newcastle are now financed by a country. Manchester United will come again.
If we do not build on this season, it will be deja vu.
How long will the likes of Bukayo Saka, Gabriel Martinelli and William Saliba hang about if we do not match their ambition?
The likes of Manchester City, Liverpool, Real Madrid and Barcelona are already reportedly sniffing around our young talent.
We need to match their ambition on the pitch and in their back pocket.
Over the next two windows, I would expect us to spend £120m+.
A new defensive midfielder and more attacking talent – both centrally and wide – is what we need.
We also need to tie the younger lads down to long term deals, securing their future with us.
I am more confident now that we will do that.
The stadium debt is now more manageable, and in Edu and Arteta, we have an equally ambitious management team that won’t try and treat us like some sort of socialist footballing experiment.
Hopefully KSE have learned that to move forward, you need investment. You can not just rely on young players improving.
2008 will live long in my memory as a missing opportunity. What happened in the half-decade after that was simply disgraceful.
UTA.
Keenos
🔴⚪🔴 NEW IN🔴⚪🔴
Arsenal fans – need a new Christmas jumper?
Over the summer, Mikel Arteta's All or Nothing design became a best seller
Two big, American owned, English clubs are up for sale. Why is this? And will the Kroenke’s follow a similar route with Arsenal.
Value at their peak?
The feeling is, football may well be “at its peak”.
Many of the American owners of top clubs have made their money through the financial markets. They (and the people around them) are experts at reading the markets. Finding companies that are undervalued, and selling them when they think they have reached peak value.
Have these financial experts looked at football clubs and thought “they have reached their peak, time to sell”. But why have they reached their peak?
European Super League
You can only wring a cloth so many times.
Two thirds of a top clubs revenue comes from TV money and gate receipts.
Since the Premier League came into existence, TV money has jumped dramatically every deal.
Sky numbers have stagnated for many years, and due to the cost of living crisis in the UK, their subscribers are declining – a 255,000 decrease in the second quarter of 2022.
In the last decade, the increasing in TV money has mainly been driven by overseas deals.
With “the world now conquered” and Sky’s decline viewership, clubs had to look elsewhere for to increase revenue. That was the European Super League.
Fans swiftly shut the door on that idea, leaving clubs very few alternative routes to increase revenue.
Stagnating gate receipts
You feel gate receipts in England have potentially reached their peak.
Since the Emirates has opened, Arsenal have only had 3 (from memory) “real” price rises (excluding rises due to VAT or reversals from European football discounts).
The aforementioned cost of living crisis means many people do not have the money for luxury entertainment – football, concert and other sporting tickets, holidays, etc.
Arsenal are currently suffering from a huge supply & demand issue, but dramatically increase ticket prices will be a huge PR own goal just as fans are on side.
And even an increase in tickets will not do much – if Arsenal increased tickets by 10% it would only add another 3% in revenue. Not enough to increase club value.
The only way clubs are dramatically increasing gate receipts these days is to expand their current stadium or build a bigger one. But that in itself comes at a huge cost and adding up to £1BU in debt to your club will only reduce its value in the short term (Spurs owners are struggling to sell due to the levels of debt).
So with no huge increases in gate receipts or TV revenue, and the Super League off the table, you can understand why investors might think footballing revenue has peaked.
Chelsea
The recent sale of Chelsea would have made owners of other clubs sit up and take note.
The club sold for £4.25bn, with revenue of £428m.
Manchester United’s revenue is £583m, Liverpool £487m. So how much would they be worth?
It would be too easy to say “£5.8pm & £4.8bn” based on the x10 multiplier Chelsea were sold for. There are other factors to take into account.
Chelsea were sold as debt free, whilst Man U have over £500m in debt.
The buyer of Chelsea would know they are in desperate need of a new stadium (Stamford Bridge capacity: 40,000), whilst Liverpool are in the process of expanding to 61,000.
Manchester United have the biggest ground in the country, but it is outdated and in desperate need of investment. Some experts believe they might be best off pulling it down and starting again.
FSG paid £300m for Liverpool back in 2010. The Glaziers spent close to £800m on Manchester United.
Both would be looking at at least a £4bn profit on their investment if they sold. Huge.
Incoming global recession
As the world continues to financially recover from Covid, and with the war in Ukraine, we are facing a global recession (it is not just the UK suffering right now).
Prior to a global recession is a good time to sell as the value of the assets will likely drop. Likewise, the cash a sale generates will be king.
State investment
The final impacting factor is the rise in state investment.
With the likes of Newcastle, Manchester City and PSG now owned by oil states, it is becoming increasingly harder for “self sustained” clubs to compete.
Success and fan bases go hand in hand.
We already see more Manchester City fans across the UK than ever before (you never used to see a City shirt in London). And the same is happening abroad.
Foreign fans are often quick to jump onto the next “successful club”. With the swing of success from Man U to Man City, the red shirts are being replaced by Sky Blue.
It will take time, but if City’s dominance (alongside potentially Newcastle’s), we will begin to see the fan base of “traditional” clubs decline as new, younger fans begin supporting the latest successful clubs.
As the fanbase declines, so will potential revenue from sponsors.
The likes of Manchester United and Liverpool might currently be at their peak in terms of marketability. And they simple can not keep up with state owned clubs.
So what does this mean for Arsenal?
Reports are that Manchester United are looking to sell having spoken to FSG and found out the offers on the table for Liverpool. You would be surprised if the Kroenke’s have not had the same conversations.
But will that be enough for the Kroenke’s to sell? Possibly not.
Whilst Liverpool and Manchester United are at their peak, value wise, Arsenal still have room to grow.
We are on an upwards curve on the pitch (Liverpool and Man U are on a downward curve).
Our most recent revenue was £327m.
That is £100m less than Chelsea, £160m less than Liverpool and £260m less than Manchester United.
You want to sell an asset at its peak, not whilst it is on the up. And we are on the up.
If we continue on our current trajectory, and keep hold of our talented young players, success will follow. And with success will come an increase in revenue.
Champions League football, more from kit manufacturers, more from kit sponsors, new global partners.
If we go on the x10 multiplier of Chelsea, then we will sell for around £1bn less than them, and potentially £2bn less than Man U.
The Kroenke’s would be walking away just as we are on the right path back to the top, and would potentially be sacrificing bigger profits down the line.
The Kroenke’s will look at what others are getting, and Arsenal’s current revenue. They will know that if we get back to where we should be, our value will dramatically rise. They won’t want to “sell early” and miss out on further profits.
Manchester United and Liverpool might be sold over the next few months. I do not see the Kroenke’s walking away for at least another 5 years.
She Wore A Yellow Ribbon 