#kroenkeout: Page 21 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

#kroenkeout

jones

Qwiss! wrote:
Quincy Abeyie wrote:
People don't necessarily want a City-like owner who simply gives us a lot of cash though. Arsenal is a club that can be run sustainably if the right people are in charge.

Exactly. KSE haven't a clue what they are doing, there has been a serious lack of leadership because they don't understand football. Its been one terrible appointment after another with them, they're just bad at running a football club.

I'd go a step further they're terrible at running a football business. Nobody expects a rich piece of shit to have a clue about football, you expect them to know which people to appoint to make the right appointments. Instead they put Gazidis in charge whose experience was organising soccer for yanks, Sir Keswick as chairman a literal fossil and slavetrader and followed it up with Venkatesham. Even scum companies like KKR Cerberus Blackstone etc know better than to put people in charge who have zero connection to the business they're supposed to oversee.

Gazza M

saw a tweet today that we're top of the table for outstanding transfer fees owed, even beating man United who are just behind us. something like 140m outstanding fees owed by the club. installment fc indeed

FEBravo

Gazza M wrote:
saw a tweet today that we're top of the table for outstanding transfer fees owed, even beating man United who are just behind us. something like 140m outstanding fees owed by the club. installment fc indeed

Sweet, another trophy to add to the xPts Table

ohboy

Claudius wrote:
There is no way he dips his hand in his pocket. We are talking as though we are not living in the wildest market in history where excess money is just floating around looking for bad deals.

In any case, re: the Super League, it was a bad idea but the current set up cannot persist. It is just as immoral.

[Twitter]

Exactly

This current way of spending, and the transfer system at the moment simply cannot continue.

When even Real Madrid and Barca look like they have nowhere to go, yet fees and wages keep spiralling, you have to draw a line.

Football needs a real shake up, with players values linked with their wages. Clauses should be mandatory, football didn’t want it years ago, but have shown that they cannot police themselves.

Major reform is needed.

jones

Mandatory clauses would make it even worse, players would still flock to the biggest clubs and smaller clubs wouldn't even make bank off it.

QuincyAbeyie

I'm not seeing what about that picture suggests the current system is "just as immoral".

Burnwinter

It doesn't really, or perhaps only in small part.

What it does say is that football has sustained vastly more unequal resources between its clubs than those seen between the franchises in other sporting leagues, while football leagues remain relatively competitive due to the variability of results football's rules produce.

Calling the ESL moral or otherwise is a bit like calling Brexit moral or otherwise. It would've been a controversial reconfiguration of business as usual which looked like a rupture and which obsessed everyone with its symbolic value, but after the fact it would've just reminded us all season by season how corrupt and hollowly stuffed with profiteers the whole sport already was.

GooneriC

Daily Fail saying Kroenke will sell.

Khanuppet

You can't compare those american leagues with European soccer leagues. The American ones are closed leagues (ala Super League) where it's a lot easier to maintain a salary cap league with a level of guaranteed income. That's impossible to do in a game in which you can be relegated in any given year.

Claudius

There is strategic coherence.
When you have a closed league, every club becomes more valuable because they all have a guaranteed stream of income for the foreseeable future. It makes it easier for teams and the league to negotiate all kinds of big commercial deals. In addition, the closed nature of the league creates scarcity, inflating club value.

Once you look at the player dynamics, you can dump transfer fees, a major source of waste. That value gets split amongst grand and players. and then the closed nature of the league allows you to control employment access, enabling drafts. This then allows you to use drafts as an equalising mechanism. Finally, you can impose a salary cap because of these closed and equalising dynamics.

This is why the hybrid super league model didn’t make sense. They needed to do a complete breakaway to mimic this model

Qwiss

I don't care about player wage caps unless everything else in football gets capped too, like owners profits and the price of a TV subscription to watch it. Why should the players, the ones who actually put in the work and get peoples eyeballs to TVs be the ones limited in their earning potential and not leeching owners who do nothing?

goon

The large majority of owners don't leach though. With the exception of United, most clubs are running up massive debts because of transfer fees and wages occasionally infrastructure. Secondly, it's about what can help level the playing field, and teams are much more likely to retain their better players if their earning potential elsewhere is limited.

I also think your giving players too much credit. The game, the clubs and the competition itself is what attracts the viewers, the players are leaching off that as much as anyone.

Qwiss

If Kroenke sells tomorrow he'll have made a killing, thats without putting a penny of his own money into the club. I'd call that leeching. As for the clubs and the leagues being the draw that only goes so far, at the end of the day people want to see the best players in the world. Chelsea and City prove that, they went from making up the numbers to massive global brands just by buying up the best players.

Claudius

I agree with Qs on fan gouging. The league needs to find ways to monetise through more advertising in games and liberalising social media where they are very restrictive. And they should experiment with different pricing models on content. The current forcing people to buy subscriptions that are out of sync with the cost of Amazon / Netflix and charging more for a game than a flight is cruel and short sighted. They will not replace current fans with teenagers if they are not careful

And then also strike a deal with fans for game times. Pick 4 game times like 2pm and 4pm Saturday and Sunday so everyone has time to get to and from games. These are little things that show you care.

jones

goon wrote:
The large majority of owners don't leach though. With the exception of United, most clubs are running up massive debts because of transfer fees and wages occasionally infrastructure. Secondly, it's about what can help level the playing field, and teams are much more likely to retain their better players if their earning potential elsewhere is limited.

I also think your giving players too much credit. The game, the clubs and the competition itself is what attracts the viewers, the players are leaching off that as much as anyone.

Disagree with all of that. Clubs running up debts doesn't mean the owner is putting in his own money and even if they were they're almost guaranteed to make a profit in the end because of outside capital influx anyway.

The players are who we're watching play on the pitch. Obviously that could be described as "leeching" off of fans but they're literally what fans pay for. Qs has it right if you want to cap salaries you'd have to cap ticket prices and TV subs at a lower level. If you want to go down that rabbit hole (and you should) you'd have to wonder why the fuck any football club should be owned by any single person anyway. Forget about a fit and proper persons test, commercialisation of the game yada yada football clubs are social institutions and sport associations first and foremost. Yet we're sitting here debating what cunt should come after Kroenke sells.

goon

No arguments from me on ownership or ticket pricing for that matter.

But I still disagree with the idea that players are the sole or even main draw. It's not like boxing where the fighters draw in the big crowds, the clubs and the competition do that too. They deserve their fair share but that's about it. Any savings should absolutely be passed back into the game, the fans or the community somehow.

Claudius

We all fly and use hotels, and many of us go to theatre. Those industries have figured out good price segmentation.
So in football, for example, clubs should be forced to segment their pricing. Do something like this

have one third of your tickets available at economically indexed pricing to ensure affordability in the community. Those are your early season tickets. address restricted
another the can be bought at the current pricing
the last third can be bought match week at surge pricing. So when money bags Clrnc comes in on his private jet from Paris, let him buy a £200 ticket.

The benefit of this model is we keep prices low for community, and the club can get scalpers upside on big match days

Qwiss

goon wrote:
No arguments from me on ownership or ticket pricing for that matter.

But I still disagree with the idea that players are the sole or even main draw. It's not like boxing where the fighters draw in the big crowds, the clubs and the competition do that too. They deserve their fair share but that's about it. Any savings should absolutely be passed back into the game, the fans or the community somehow.

Try having a match without players.

Ray

Arsenal fans will continue watching Arsenal regardless of if Henry was playing or Bendtner.

Mirth

Can confirm. I did that. I hated it.

« Previous Page Next Page »