3. Barcelona - $1,307bn (£1.07bn)

4. Arsenal - $1,292bn (£800m)

Something wrong with those $ → £ conversions. We're nearly neck-and-neck with Barca in dollars, but less than 80% of their pound value?

Looks like a more correct value for Barca is ~ £816m.

Wish that they would stop with this 'richest' nonsense.

Here's the proper list:

http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/

There has to be a difference between most valuable and richest, surely. No?

THE PRIZE! THE PRIZE! We're 4th in the rich league too.

Do we now qualify for some galactic rich list?

Captain wrote:

Wish that they would stop with this 'richest' nonsense.

I'd say you do Capi.

Why wouldn't I?

It's absolute nonsense.

Basically it means we have a lot of debt.

If you consider the wealth of a club the barometer of expectation, we're probably the biggest underachievers in the world.

Uzi is richest in Russia

It's a real shame that he failed in the takeover bid, we could have given Man City a run for their money.

If you don't understand the finances, just say mate. Burnsy will explain it for you.

Biggus would probably fare better trolling me with contrarian assertions.

Captain wrote:

If you don't understand the finances, just say mate. Burnsy will explain it for you.

I understand the bottom line.

The 4th richest club in the world has won nothing in 7 years, so why don't you and Burnsy try to address that fact instead of mocking me.....

Because Arsenal are not the fourth richest club in the world. That's been addressed plenty of times.

@Biggsy I'm not mocking you, or not laughing at you anyway. If anything I'm occasionally close to tearing my hair out, mainly because our minds do not follow the same paths a lot of the time.

Captain wrote:

Because Arsenal are not the fourth richest club in the world. That's been addressed plenty of times.

We're not the 4th highest spenders Capi, but most sources are consistently showing we are very asset rich.
The other fact is that we are remarkably unsuccessful on the trophy front.
Put them together and we seem to have a portrait of this clubs aims and ambitions.

Burnwinter wrote:

@Biggsy I'm not mocking you, or not laughing at you anyway. If anything I'm occasionally close to tearing my hair out, mainly because our minds do not follow the same paths a lot of the time.

You don't really look like Ivan do you? :o

Look, I wasn't trolling when I suggested we might be better off with Usmanov.
I realise he's a controversial character that many despise, of course I nor anybody know for sure until he's been given a go how it'd work for us- which may never happen but these discussions should be had.
Because one things for sure- we're going nowhere with Kroenke, we could be the richest club in the world and all he'd care about is milking it and not about how successful we are.

Most other ultra wealthy individuals who put money into football clubs are looking a non financial return- acclaim kudos respectability worship love- what have you, things their enormous wealth can't give them.

No, I don't look like Gazidis in the slightest.

I don't think it's established we're 'going nowhere' with Kroenke. What the league table shows is that while money's a prerequisite for success, it's not sufficient for it. You need a Mourinho to go with your half a billion.

End of the day I want Wenger gone because now's the best time for him to go. We've been through our transition, we've got a reasonably healthy squad. I think we only need to convince Kroenke to loosen his pursestrings a little to be truly competitive under a new manager with a more bracing approach to man management.

That said, you can't give these guys infinite time to deliver. Either we're winning, or we need to make changes.

Also, when I say 'you need a Mourinho' I'm not referring to him or anyone similar, just to the catalytic figures, who can be owners, players, managers, coaching staff or any combination thereof that supply the semi-tangibles of solidarity, mentality, brand definition, tactics and resourcefulness that need to accompany the fundamentals — like a strong squad — that can more or less be purchased.

I know mate, you said in the sense of "your Mourinho's " or 'your RvP's."

Burnwinter wrote:

That said, you can't give these guys infinite time to deliver. Either we're winning, or we need to make changes.

Well is 7 years long enough to give them?

I thought five years was enough to be fair, you'll have to look to the board on that one.

Biggus wrote:

Captain wrote:

Because Arsenal are not the fourth richest club in the world. That's been addressed plenty of times.

We're not the 4th highest spenders Capi, but most sources are consistently showing we are very asset rich.
The other fact is that we are remarkably unsuccessful on the trophy front.
Put them together and we seem to have a portrait of this clubs aims and ambitions.

We're not rich in any sense of the word. We aren't poor either but the 'value' of a club means squat.

The reality is that some of the 'richest' clubs in the world aren't even on that list. The bloke at that Anzhi club that Eto'o signed for is sanctioning £300m for signings this summer. £300 bloody million before wages. You can literally buy at least 15/20 premiership clubs for that much.