A fellow Arsenal fan recently suggested to me - if only Roman Ambramovich had invested in us instead of Chelsea, we would dominate world football. It’s an interesting assumption, but personally I do not agree.
One key strength of Arsenal Football Club is its ORGANIZATION. Along with Manchester United, and Liverpool, we are arguably England’s best organized clubs. They don’t sack managers for sacking’s sake, they don’t spend crazy money for spending’s sake; and most importantly, they run the clubs always with the clubs’ long term interest in mind.
Of course, everyone would love to have a “sugar daddy” injecting cash to their clubs. Yet make no mistake, those “sugar dads” don’t do it for free. When a billionaire invests millions into a football club, chance are this particular club will most likely become his new “toy”.
Imagine the scenrio: had Roman Ambramovich chose to pour his fortune into Arsenal instead of Chelsea, would Arsene Wenger still be able to have his total control over the team matters? Despite the fact we had already possessed a quality squad, I can still see the likes of Crespo, Mutu, Duff and co. being brought over to the team. Players would be unsettled by the excess compeition inside the squad, our unique team chemistry would be killed.
When the first generation of the Hill-Wood family took over Arsenal in the 1920s, Samuel Hill-Wood made it as a family motto which rang true until today “Why interfere when you’ve got experts to do the job?” Under a Rich Dad, that would be impossible.
Chelsea fans maybe excited of the prospect of their current team, and there is a good chance they will go on and win a few trophies down the road. But when a club is relying on a rich chairman rather than a good organization, you can’t help but wondering what if one day Roman Ambroavich’s sudden-found-passion towards football eventually drained out…
At the moment, Chelsea has been buying players like there is no tomorrow, against the basic economic theory. The current football transfer market is in a slump, big clubs such as Fiorentina, Lazio, Leeds are all found themselves in a financial mess. Most of the players Chelsea have bought were over the market price. Take Makelele as an example, he joined Chelsea for 15 million pounds, yet he’s already 30. At the best he will give Chelsea 3 good years’ service. And worse is he still hasn’t been able to settle at Stamford Bridge, yet how much will Chelsea be able to sell him for now?
The way things been going, there is no chance they could balance their book even if they go on to win everything in sight.
And that big “what if” one day Ambroavich has had enough of his fun and decides to move his fortune elsewhere, just imagine the damage the massive wage bills he left behind would have done to Chelsea… Remember Leeds?
So in evey sense, I feel we are lucky (instead of unlucky) that we don’t have a rich dad coming to our club.
15 Responses to “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 31st, 2004 at 7:23 am
If wealth means that you get linked to Sven………………I’d rather we were footballing peasants!
Our club is based on loyalty. Every single player and Mr Wenger himself could have cashed in a got paid far more elsewhere. But where has this got:
Joe Cole, Makelele, Mutu, Veron and now Parker. There are others, but I could be here all day. I’m not disputing any of the above players ability - but it just goes to show that the grass isn’t always greener!
Our club is well run and I can’t ever envisage it being run like Chelsea or Manure. The manager is given the freedom he desires and the overseas players have a loyalty that is unheard of in football.
Lets ask Mr. Petit where he would rather be shall we?!
Rock on the Arse!!!!
March 31st, 2004 at 7:54 am
Totaly agree!
Not one player who has left Arsenal under Wenger has gone on to bigger and better things. Ok, Anelka won the CL with Madrid, but where’s he now…?
We have a harmony within our team and club that no amount of money can buy, and not being able to afford anyone is a blessing in disguise.
Long may the Wenger years continue…
March 31st, 2004 at 8:46 am
Andez, I agree. How can big money players translate into team loyalty and chemistry if the pressure to get trophies now comes from the top rather than the players? Might create a bond between the manager and the players, like Chelsea’s stars and Raneiri, but in Leed’s situation, they HAD to secure a CL spot in order to replenish their overspeculation. They fell short. As a result, players were constantly in and out of the press as possible sell-offs, which alienated the fans and sent Bowyer and Woodgate into an alley to beat someone up.
On the bright side, if and when a team needs to unload to catch up, say, for building a new stadium, they can always count on ManU to overpay. 30mil for Rio? When Leeds had their backs against the wall and would have taken half? And only to have him refuse to take a piss? Ouch.
Goes to show that, as bad as one team is managed, there is bound to be another bunch of out there to sandbag.
March 31st, 2004 at 9:39 am
Not only are “sugar daddys” bad for the Arsenal, they influx of such “new” money is ruining football. How would you like it if the Arsenal had to go around selling itself to the highest bidder? What makes things worse is the fact that these buyers only see these clubs as a toy, as Andez pointed out. The Roman Abramovitchs, the Malcolm Glazers, the Venezuelan consortiums, all of these only view clubs as a cash cow. Andez is spot-on; lets all be quite thankful that the Arsenal are not in such a predicament.
Let’s not lie to ourselves; football is acutely ill right now. In order to cure football before it is too late, a massive revolution will have to occur in the way football, both European domestic and international, is structured. I could outline the ways in which this could be done, but that’s the stuff for another article.
As a side note, I find it interesting that some American Gunners are so insistent that they don’t care what happens, so long as the Arsenal keep winning. Besides being completely glory-hunting, it is also contradictory to what else they say. How can one cite the “history and tradition” when listing their reasons for loving football, and then turn around to say things like the name of the stadium should be sold. So we’ll prostitute ourselves partially, but not completely? What’s the score?
March 31st, 2004 at 9:45 am
ScottyUS, Rio didn’t “refuse” to take a piss, he “forgot.” lol what a dozy twit Rio is. My mate has taken to calling Rio, “Drugs Bunny.”
March 31st, 2004 at 10:04 am
Good one. Now we need a name for Gary Neville, who, according to some blog, allegedly leaked the “punch-up” nonsense to the papers.
How ’bout, Gary Drivel?
March 31st, 2004 at 10:14 am
Good one! Gary Drivel has to be one of my most hated people in England. I suppose either you or I would be somewhat deranged, though, if our father’s name was Neville Neville. That’s Gary and Phil’s Da’s first name, Neville. Boggles the mind.
March 31st, 2004 at 10:25 am
Looking forward to your article on saving football. I recently sent a closely related letter to 4-4-2. Haven’t seen it published, though. Not expecting it, either.
Tough call on the “Stadium formerly known as Ashburton Grove ” naming issue. On the one hand, we’ve got to compete financially in order to compete professionally. It seems to me that heart, tradition and success used to take care of much of that?drawing ticket buyers, limited national and international merchandising and branding, qualifying, etc. But now, lay down for anyone willing to foot the bill, and you have this top end pressure that can ruin a team in a year or two, not to mention steal away careers, commodify tradition, and sully the very meaning of the sport. I always like to ask myself “where’s the money going?” Can it be directly transferred into something for the fans? Debatable. Is it raising the player’s salaries while at the same time raising their experience as players, and the game, as well? Hmmm. Or is it lining the pockets of outside businessmen who are ready to drop the “property” and offer it up for auction to another consortium after reducing a century’s worth of blood, sweat and tears into one more four year investment?
So what do the governing committees, quite often in conflicting interest with the fans and the game, do? Cap player’s salaries? Despite the fact that the wrong people are getting hurt there, I think suggesting it would mean Robbie Savage would personally come to your house and choke you.
You’re right, too much for now.
March 31st, 2004 at 10:48 am
I totally agree. Just think, if we were to of had a cash injection from “the Russian”, I don’t think we would be seeing the likes of Edu, Clichy and the fantastic Toure….
From a supporters view, it is so much more satisfiying to watch players brought in that were almost unheard of, namely the above, and watch them develop within the club to become some of the worlds finest, rather than some over priced , over paid prima donna, who will jump ship at the slightest misfortune, that are currently playing in the Premiership!
March 31st, 2004 at 11:45 am
Money cant buy you love or success. Is all about hard work and team spirit. If you look at history maybe apart from B’burn the league have been won by teams with good team spirit.
I keep reading about Arsenal marketing dept and money issue. Sad to say but so far as there is the Bank of Scotland Arsenal dont care about selling abroad knowing there have fans there.
I mention this sometime ago Arsenal FC is like the secret society. Do business with few people and not interest in the stock market and others. Understand the history of Arsenal or will never understand the club you support.
March 31st, 2004 at 12:46 pm
Roman has already been linked to the possibility of buying a National Hockey League team… the Vancouver Canucks! and injecting his millions in them… (along with buying / bringing Russian players there!) Hasn’t happened yet… but who knows!
As far as Arsenal Marketing goes… its terrible. Thats fact… and that is not, and can not be a positive in the short or long term. You do need LOTS of money to be a big club… and compete on the level with United/Real etc. They will either get with the program in the next few years or we will be left behind.
March 31st, 2004 at 3:26 pm
AW commented a while ago of a few Man Utd’s off the pitch troubles this season, the fact that they are a PLC played a big role in it.
As we known, Arsenal is one of the few leading clubs who did not go into public. Though we lose a possiblility of generating a sustaintal amount of cash through public shares, we remain in full control of the club’s matters, espeically when dealing with transfer. When Sir Alex bought a new player, he has to face the shareholders to address every one of his decisions. While AW has a much bigger freedom in comparision.
**************************************
Claudio Ranierl has urged Roman not to bringing in any new player weeks ago, I bet Ranieri must go down to history as the first manager ever to actually ask his club NOT to buy! Clearly he can see the big picture, only thing is, it’s not up for him.
March 31st, 2004 at 11:33 pm
the contradiction… the hypocrisy … for ME…
is that there are those that complain about possibly selling naming rights to the stadium…
while every team in every league in England and most around the world… has a big LOGO emblazoned on its chest of a sponser…
that to me is ridiculous…
March 31st, 2004 at 11:47 pm
How are supporters arguing against selling the naimg rights to the stadium hypocrites? I doubt that such supporters are too keen on the logos on the kit; I know I for one am not in favour of it.
April 1st, 2004 at 11:43 am
I made this arguement… and they most didn’t have a problem with the name on the shirt… its “always” been that way… was the general concensus. I’d rather have the stadium named…
The FLEET CENTER (as in Boston)… than have the Celtics Uniform have FLEET BANK on the front.
To be OK with the sponser on the front and NOT OK with the stadium name being sold is hypocritical. It simply makes no sense.