Tag Archives: Arsenal

Could Arsenal follow Swansea and subsidise away fans?

1 Reply

Recently, Swansea City announced that they will be subsidising their away fans throughout the upcoming season, ensuring that they pay no more than £22 a ticket.

For a long time, we at She Wore have been huge supporters of the Twenty’s Plenty Campaign. A movement set up by the Football Supporter’s Federation and backed by most team’s supporter group’s to restrict away tickets to just £20.

Swansea’s move to subsidise their tickets is a brilliant move, and hopefully on that other clubs will follow. What is surprising (or not if you have half a brain) is how little it costs. Reports are that it is only costing the club around £300,000 a season. Taking into account that the Premier League has recently signed a new £5.1bn deal, which gives each club around £81m a year, £300,000 is peanuts.

Arsenal could, no they should, look at introducing a similar deal. Every club in the Premier League should.

Now I know what critics will say. Those people who when another club introduces something good, attacks them by saying “it wouldn’t work at Arsenal” and bring up a load of differences rather than simply say “good on them”.

What these critics will state is that it would not cost Arsenal £300,000 a season. It would cost a lot more. Swansea are never Category A for away games. Therefore, away tickets are cheaper. It has been reported that Swansea away fan’s paid an average of £33 last season. Meanwhile, Arsenal averaged £45.

On top of that, Swansea rarely sell out their allocation, often taking the lesser amount of tickets at away games. Whilst Arsenal take the maximum possible.

The cost for Arsenal to subsidise tickets for away fans would be a lot more than Swansea.

This is bollocks.

Yes, Arsenal would have to pay more in subsidies, and subsidise more tickets, but the amount it would cost the club would still be negligible.

My (albeit poor) maths show that tif the club decided to subsidise the away fans, mirroring Swansea to £22, it would cost around £1.25m.

Now in our mortal world, £1.25m is a lot, but in the football world, it is nothing. This season, Arsenal will make over £125m from Premier League and Champions League TV revenue. So it would be c1% of TV revenue going back to fans. £1.25m is a £25k a year salary to someone. It is Joel Campbell, or half a Flamini. It is nothing to the club, and even less once other revenue such as match day and commercial comes into it.

Arsenal could easily afford to subsidise away fans to the tune of £22 a game without it affecting anything.

Of course, another obstacle faced by the club would be the internal fighting between fans. If Arsenal decided to subsidise away fans, two issues would arise:

  1. Home fans would complain that they do not get a subsidy

The away fans are the heart beat of the club. A small group of fans who continually go above and beyond following their side. They are the ones who get a 5.30am train to Newcastle for a 12.45 kick off. Change their weekend plans at the last minute due a late scheduling change. Stand on the side of the M1 for 3 hours missing the game due to their mini bus breaking down. Return home at 2am on a Monday morning and having to get up for work in a few hours. Spend hundreds of pounds a year on rail tickets.

To home fans complaining, i would like to say this is a start, if clubs like The Arsenal can see that by reducing prices for our away fans has no real loss in revenue, they might think again about the home ticket prices, ok they will never reduce them as long as demand is as high but they might think about a needless increase to ticket and membership prices in the future. do not be selfish and complain about others benefitting because you do not yet benefit.

Many away fan’s also have home season tickets. Last year I spent around £4,000 following the club, home and away. It is an expensive hobby. Yes, it is my choice, but only an idiot would begrudge an away fan saving a little bit of cash.

  1. More fan’s would buy tickets and not go

In recent years, due to FA Cup Final credits, we have seen an increase in fans buying tickets and not going. Either attempting to sell them on via twitter (other social media platforms are available) or worse case scenario, taking the hit and not going.

One thing that stops this happening more regularly is the cost of ticket prices. Why pay £50 to buy a ticket for Norwich away just for an away credit and not go. It is something that many people can not afford.

However, reduce that to £22 and it becomes a bit more affordable. More fans will buy tickets just to get credits and not go. This will keep those with a lot of credits at the top, and reduce the amount of tickets available to those who do not have credits – often those without credits can only get away tickets to the expensive, middle of nowhere, on a Saturday morning games.

Whilst this is a bit more of a valid argument against dropping tickets, it is again something which should be disregarded.

Yes, some more fans will purchase tickets and look to shift them on, but this benefits those that they shift them on to (as long as they are charging face value) as the buyer then gets a cheaper ticket. So everyone benefits all round.

 

I applaud Swansea for taking proactive steps to reduce ticket prices. Anyone who puts up obstacles as to why Arsenal could not do similar need to take a long hard look at themselves. It is those people that allow the club a free ride, those people who will stop the pressure increasing on clubs and continue to accept the poor way that clube treat fans.

Well done Swansea, hopefully Arsenal and all other clubs follow suit.

Keenos

Should Arsenal fans be envious of rival’s transfer dealings?

2 Replies

In recent days, Arsenal fans have cast the green eye of jealousy towards their title rivals transfer dealing. Our opponent’s movements in the market have once again raised a lot of questions of the board and the management. Even on this blog, we have questioned as to whether Arsene Wenger’s dithering could cost us a title challenge.

But thinking with a cleat head, should Arsenal fans be worried yet? After all, it is only the 14th July, there are still 26 days until the season opener against West Ham, and the transfer window does not close for another 50 days. Plenty of time to do our business.

What is seemingly putting the pressure on Arsenal is the actions of others around us. It seems every other club in the top 6 have made big movements this summer, meanwhile, we have sat on our thumb.

Is it true, however, that our rivals have done lots of good business this summer, and that Arsenal fan’s have every right to be jealous and criticise the board? Or is it, to put it bluntly, a figment of our imagination?

Starting with League Champions Chelsea, there transfer dealing’s highlight the ‘figment of our imagination’ statement above. So far their dealings include a young Brazilian called Nathan who they have immediately loaned out of a year, Asmir Begovic, who joins for £8m replacing Cech on the bench, and Falcao, a washed up old man who is replacing another washed up old man in Didier Drogba.

So Chelsea are at nett zero in their transfer dealings. Their starting 11 has not improved, and you can easily question whether the 2 new squad players are any better than those replaced. Begovic is certainly not better than Cech, and Drogba scored 13 goals against Falcao’s four in all competitions last season. Add in the experience and loyalty that Cech and Droba bought to the Chelsea squad and they have certainly gone backwards.

It is the dealings of Manchester United over recent days that seems to have got the back up of most Arsenal fans.

The acquisitions of Bastian Schweinsteiger and Morgan Schneiderlin signal intent, especially as it is being reported that they beat Arsenal to the latter, highlighting that Manchester United are back.

It is no question that Schneiderlin is a good Premier League player. One we have pursued for the last year, and expected to sign. He would have provided good competition to Francis Coquelin. But at £25m and £120,000 a week, would he have provided enough of an improvement to make him our 3rd highest paid player (and I am sure make the agents of Ramsey, Wilshire, etc knock on the managers door). The stats would seemingly say not.

http://twitter.com/KeenosAFC/status/579957276989091840

As for Schweinsteiger, he was one of the best midfielders in the world. 3 seasons ago.

Since the 2012/13 season, Schweinsteiger performances have dropped up massively. Arsene Wenger over history has always been reluctant to offer players over 30 long term contracts. The way Schweinsteiger has fallen off a cliff highlights why.

Since leading Bayern Munich to the Champions League in 2013, Schweinsteiger has been hit by injuries. Missing 50 games in 2 seasons due to them. Infact, over the last 4 seasons, he not playuerd 30 league games, and only played over 25 league games once (the Champions League winning year of 2012/13). His powers are clearly on the wain.

With the Premier League being a much more physically demanding league than the German – where often Schweinsteiger and Bayern Munich could cruise through games, it is when, not if, Schweinsteiger’s body breaks down.

Had they signed Schweinsteiger in 2013, it would have been a WOW moment. The 2015 Schweinsteiger is still a big name signing, but like Falcao last season, he is a player who’s best days are behind him.

Manchester United’s other big signing, Memphis Depay, is a bit of an unknown quantity. A young Dutch international, he clearly has talent. Where he is unknown is that scoring 22 goals in 30 games in Holland is very different to playing in the Premier League. Manchester United might have just signed the new Arjen Robben. But they might have also just got the new Afonso Alves. At £24.6m, he is a lot cheaper than a young British player whom we will come on to later but it is still a lot of money.

He could turn in to a world superstar, but the worry for United would be if he is to replace Angel di Maria. They would be losing a world class player for a player with the potential to be world class. Not quite the same.

There last signing, Matteo Darmian, no one can claim to know anything about other than what they read on Wikipedia. He is a good example of the rise of Social Media and the effect it has on peoples though process. Manchester United fans are holding him up as a great signing, solving all their defensive issues last year, despite having never seen him play, and probably never having heard of him up until a week ago.

The source of their information? Someone else on Twitter saying he is a great signing, solving all their defensive issues last year, despite having never seen him play, and probably never having heard of him up until a week ago.

Manchester City have not yet signed a player. To think, we as Arsenal fans are getting frustrated, envious, even saying we have fallen further behind the top 2 from last year, yet the team who finished 2nd have signed no one, and the team who finished above us are at nett zero. What is there to be envious of?

Of course, Manchester City are on the verge of signing Raheem Sterling. Now he is a player who I have wanted throughout the back end of last season when it became clear that he was set to leave. Talented and young, he could have provided the competition for Theo Walcott, and if he develops, he could become one of the best in the world.

But then we have the issue. And it is a big issue. Whilst I would have loved to have seen him in an Arsenal shirt, for £49m and £200,000 a week, it would be a no from me. He is good, but not that good.

When you think Depay joined Manchester United for half the transfer fee, and just £85,000 a week, and Paulo Dybala joined Juventus for £22m and a salary of around £60,000 a week, it highlights just how much Manchester City are paying for Sterling’s passport. Twice the fee, twice the salary, for a player of similar age and similar talent.

Would I want Raheem Sterling at Arsenal? Yes. Would I want us to spend £49m and £200,000 a week on Raheem Sterling? Hell no.

Going through our other ‘rivals’, Spurs have done next to nothing, bar take their spending on centre backs over the last 5 years past that of the GDP of a small country – every year they seem to spend £10m+ on a new centre back, just to end up playing Younes Kaboul. There other two signings are just nothing to shout home about.

Liverpool have been the most active club in this years transfer window. But they are to be compared to your mate who is the most sexually active, but only bangs mingers. There is no point having 20 notches on your bed post if their combined rating is only 20! And that is the best way to describe Liverpool’s transfer window. Six players signed, £38.8m spent, and their side is no better. Losing Gerrard & Sterling, replacing them with Milner and Ings. OK. The signing of Firmino has got some excited, but like Darmian, no one had heard of him a month ago, but now he is a world beater.

When you give Kolo Toure a new contract, you know you are in trouble. The issue with Liverpool is with the new stadium, money is not freely available. Will the Sterling money allow them to make more big signings (Like Lambert & Balotelli) or have the basically already spent the Sterling money before they have received it? Wait and see. But its nothing to worry about.

Here is where I sit. At this point, no other club has really signed someone who has made me stand up and think “WOW, I wish we had have signed him”. Meanwhile, Arsenal have had Petr Cech, who would be an improvement on anything our rivals have.

Spurs set to become bigger and better than Arsenal? – The Truth

55 Replies

By now you all would have read the hilarious article by the Daily telegraph titled Eight reasons Tottenham’s new stadium will make them bigger and better than Arsenal. I am not going to link to it, as it is so clearly click bait, aimed at just getting the hits to increase revenue, that it does not require further promotion. It is a brilliant piece of trolling of Arsenal fans, planted to wind us up. And it has done the job.

You could argue that I have been caught in it’s net, as I have taken my time to write this respond. However, I would say I am merely using my legal right to respond to the article, my freedom of speech, and creating a blog that, when Spurs fans bring up the awful article, Arsenal fans can respond with a link to this blog, highlighting the truth.

  1. It’s bigger than the Emirates

“The new Spurs ground will be exactly 0.9398993910510988% bigger – those extra seats will make a difference.”

In our 2014 accounts, Arsenal’s gate receipts and match day income was £93m. Now if Spurs fans mirror our pricing structure, mirror out ticket sales, and play the same amount of games, they will generate £93.88m in gate receipts. An additional £880,000. Barely enough to pay a top players wages for a month. Not exactly a difference.

And this extra revenue will be negated by Spurs failing to fill their stadium on a regular basis. Numerous times over the last 4/5 years they have had attendances under 25,000 – mainly for Europa League. These missing fans will result in a drop in the gate receipts and match day revenue. The only way Spurs can stop these low attendances is by reducing ticket prices. Which will again drop gate receipts.

I pretty much guarantee that when (and if) Spurs new stadium opens, the Emirates continues to make more annual in gate receipts and match day revenue than White Hart Lane.

  1. It’s better than the Emirates

I will admit, the Emirates was designed to create the best playing surface, and the maximum amount of cooperate revenue. The normal match day going fans and the atmosphere of the stadium was low on the agenda. Spurs 17,000 single tier stand is something that many will be jealous of.

However, it will only be of benefit if they fill the stadium. In 2012/13, their lowest attendance was 23,101. So we have 17,000 in a single stand, 6,101 dotted around the rest of the stadium, and then lots of blue seats. Not exactly going to create a great atmosphere.

“Arsenal famously fail to regularly fill it…the famous White Hart Lane atmosphere won’t disappear”.

Did the ‘journalist’ who wrote this just learn the word famous? I did not realise we FAMOUSLY fail to fill the stadium. We have one of the highest fill percentages in the league. And Spurs FAMOUS atmosphere? That’s a joke right? The loudest they get is booing their own team off at half time.

Lets not just create fallacies to support our strawman srticle.

  1. The NFL deal is a big deal

“Daniel Levy is a famously shrewd negotiator.”

Roberto Soldado and Erik Lamela anyone? He showed his brilliant negotiating skills there.

“The extra money coming in on this deal, Spurs shouldn’t have to suffer nearly as much financial austerity as Arsenal did.”

Wembley generates £3m a game per NFL game. Spurs is 2/3’s the size. So that is £2m. Over the two games, Spurs will generate around £4m in ‘extra money’. Remember, this is generate, not profit. By the time they pay for the design and upkeep of the artificial pitch, as well as the costs associated with putting on a match day event – stewarding, policing, utilities, etc, the profit for the actual event will be far below this.

And let’s not forget, Arsenal put on many events during the Emirates’ early years. Springsteen two nights, Coldplay three nights, Muse two nights & Greenday 3 nights. That is 10 extra revenue days for Arsenal. Add in the 7 times Brazil used the stadium as it’s English base, Arsenal have put on 17 additional events over 10 years. Spurs NFL deal is worth 20 additional events. Will an extra 3 events really ensure Spurs do not suffer financially?

“The increased exposure Spurs will have in the USA shouldn’t be underestimated.”

So let me get this right, earlier in the article, it was about atmosphere. Now the article talks about an increase in American fans. Which in turn will create more tourists going to games. Which in turn will reduce the atmosphere. Make your mind up. You either want a great atmosphere, or more tourists. Can’t have both.

  1. The best players won’t keep leaving

Do Spurs have any top players left?

“ A huge, impressive ground with a great atmosphere will mean the club makes far more of an impression on potential wantaways.”

Because that worked for Arsenal didn’t it.

  1. It will be a nice stable home for the kids to grow up in

“Academy players like Harry Kane, Ryan Mason, Nabil Bentaleb and (to an extent) Danny Rose, are all loyal to the club.”

I would be loyal too if I was an average player being paid millions a year. I am sure the likes of Henri Lansbury, Jay Emmanuel- Tomas, Emmanuel Frimpong & Jernade Meade would have ben loyal had we offered them 5 year deals worth £1.5-£2m a year. But loyalty does not mean you are good enough.

“And the Hotspur Way academy is still producing lots of young talent, who proved their quality by reaching the FA Youth Cup semis last year”

Well done Spurs on reaching the semi-finals of the FA Youth Cup. Tottenham have not win it since 1990 and not made the final since 1995. Meanwhile, Arsenal won it 3 times during the 00’s. Making a semi-final is no an achievement.

In the past 6 years, Fulham, Norwich City, Blackburn Rovers, Sheffield United & Aston Villa have all made the FA Youth Cup Final. In that time, Spurs have made 1 semi-final.

In that time, Chelsea have won the trophy 4 times, and been runners up once, and developed a grand total of 0 regular first team squad players. Being a good youth player does not translate into being a top senior player.

  1. The club is going to remain at home in Tottenham, proving loyalty (probably)

“While the ‘Woolwich Wanderers’ have moved house more times than an accident-prone hermit crab”

And there we have it. A dig at Arsenal. This point adds nothing to the article, except for making a dig at Arsenal being founded in Woolwich. The author has let himself down here, and shows he is a Spurs fan, attempting to big him his own team, and belittle Arsenal. It really is poor, biased, journalism.

  1. They might just have found a manager to stick with

“Victories over Chelsea and, of course, Arsenal as well as a cup final were good achievements.”

We always say that when Spurs play Arsenal it is there cup final, and by putting a victory against Arsenal alongside a cup final (defeat) proves the point.

As for a ‘manager to stick with’, last season, fans were already booing the manager, demanding #PochOut on twitter and phoning up TalkSport and 606 saying he was out of his depth and should go. This was after less than a season.

I will happily bet with any Spurs fan, when the stadium open in 2018 (or whenever it will open), Mauricio Pochettino will not be the manager. And I will happily double up by betting that his replacement will no longer still be in charge either.

  1. Daniel Levy has always had a masterplan, and the rest of us are only just starting to see it

This one is hilarious. Arsene Wenger and the Arsenal board had a long term plan that is now only starting to come to fruition. Whilst that plan was rolling on, the press hammered Arsenal and the club for a lack of success over a 10 year period, when we were clearly hamstrung financially.

Meanwhile, over at Spurs, Daniel Levy has overseen just 1 trophy (a League Cup) in the 14 seasons as chairman of Arsenal. And this is a master plan?

The fact is, Levy is often given a free ride by many of his friends in the media. Even Spurs fans over recent years have been highly critical and questioned his ability to drive the club forward.

“Since then he’s transformed it into a real business that turns a profit every year.”

This highlights how Levy and Spurs are held to a different level of scrutiny than Arsenal. Whilst a profit with no trophies is seen as an achievement at Spurs, at Arsenal, as mentioned, were continually criticised for focusing on profit over trophies.

“He’ll pop over to the bank of increased matchday revenue to pick up a cheque before settling up on the beautiful, sandy shores of regular Champions League football.”

Spurs have had Champions League football once in the history of the competition. Arsenal have shown that when building a new stadium, you need to take a couple of steps back. Apparently, that is not the case at Spurs, where they are going to be guaranteed Champions League football as a prize for building the new stadium. It also ignores the fact that Arsenal, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester United will still be generating more yearly income than Spurs, even after the new stadium.

 

In summary, the Telegraph article was a load of bollocks. you do not turn round 20 years of dominance just by building a new stadium and having friendly press right nice fluffy positive articles.

The truth of the matter is a new stadium will strain a club financially. It has taken Arsenal 10 years from moving into the new stadium, to having any sort of success again. If Spurs move into their new stadium in 2018, it will be until at least 2028 that some of the financial constraints are lifted. By which point they would only be back to where they are now. Continually battling to finish 5th.

So Spurs fans reading this, do not get too excited. A new stadium does not make you a big club.

Keenos