The self sustaining model of running Arsenal football club has it’s many proponents, it also has an equal number of opponents who claim that this policy is responsible for the club’s stagnation. I have to confess some sympathy towards the latter lobby as evidenced by the current state of transfer dealings which means that like it or not, we will sell Fabregas to Barcelona despite assurances to the contrary at the end of the season.
Also following the Twittergate row involving an ex Board member, it has highlighted the divisions within our club and we need all need to accept that we cannot have it both ways, which in effect means that we will all have to be honest about our desires. Do you want jam tomorrow as promised by the Club? or success today by spending big? Oh and whilst I’m at it, I have lost interest in the Arsene debate. He is wedded to the self sustaining policy and as my last Blog suggested the policy is M.A.D (Mutually assured destruction)
Could we be facing the prospect of success or dropping out of the top four as our rivals strengthen? Who knows… It will depend upon the outcome of this transfer window. My view is that conviction policies are not necessarily black or white. A healthy shade of grey is quite acceptable, which means that occasionally the policy will need fine tuning or in extraordinary circumstances a complete U-turn. What really annoys me is that when there is any whiff of calling for change, it is seen by the current Arsenal hierarchy and Board alongside the fanatical “AKB’s” as absolute heresy. This is what I believe Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith meant by her twitter exchanges, when the Board was described as out of touch, and Passe.
Constructive criticism is neither welcomed nor sought. This lack of accountability has lead to the unhappy outcries from loyal supporters. But Arsenal football club is not in crisis YET… Lady Nina may have been criticised by Sir Peter Hill-Wood, but let us not forget two things. It was Lady Nina who supported the self sustaining model and protected the Plurality of ownership of Arsenal Football Club by selling to Stanley Kroenke the Board’s pick, rather than Alisher Usmanov. For that we should all be thankful. Sir Peter Hill-Wood on the other hand seems unable to accept that many fans found his defensive verbal attacks on fans who “moan” insulting and disingenuous.
The facts are as plain as the nose upon my face. If we lack high levels of additional revenues from commercial activity and we are not successful upon the field of play, then if we rule out any injection of cash from out two Billionaire owners, then the balance sheet can only remain in the black by selling our best players and increasing ticket prices. There seems no desire to try and reduce costs. If one looks at the “investments” given high priority by the Club last season, then extensions to the upper class dining areas appear high on the list. Scant comfort to those fans who have had to give up their Season Tickets.
We also have a highly paid Commercial executive tasked with increasing revenues. Ivan Gazidis spoke of “green shoots” of revenue return at the recent Q&A with the AST. I wonder if he would confirm whether this increase would more than cover the salaries and pensions of these new executives?
Is there anyone out there that seriously believes that selling our best players will lead to success? Furthermore, if they are acknowledged as being among the best in the world like Fabregas, how the hell can we afford a replacement? The facts are yet again we are gambling our future upon youth. The likes of Aaron Ramsey and Jack Wilshere. But I do believe that it is unfair to deprive these very talented players of the benefits of training alongside world class players.