Category Archives: Highbury

Let’s remember the long-range vision for Arsenal

Four of the five events below led to a surge in spending on players that either dramatically transformed a club’s successes. Can you guess which four?

2000: Arsenal purchases land in Ashburton Grove to build the Emirates Stadium.
2003: Roman Abramovich becomes the owner of Chelsea FC.
2005: Malcolm Glazer purchases controlling interest in Manchester United
2007: Thaksin Shinawatra becomes the owner of Manchester City.
2008: Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan takes over ownership of Manchester City.

Of course, the fifth one hamstrung the club that committed to it, all but forcing the club to sell players, at times to direct competitors and rivals, while others were buying those and other players from right under the club’s nose. Just as important to notice is the sequence of events. While we’re ruing our recent tumble from the top of the table, it’s worth reminding ourselves that this is the beginning of something, not the end.

I’m not the first to go on about this, so I’ll keep it short and to the point. Financing the Emirates Stadium, which cost nearly £400m, forced the club to mind its finances very carefully—our first obligation going forward would always be paying down the debt we took on in the first place (an annual payment of around £25m. We couldn’t ever just say, “oh, instead of paying down that loan, let’s buy a player or two instead and make up for it next time ’round.” Ask Coventry City, for one, how it feels to have a faceless financial institution start calling the shots. If you start asking yourself why we went ahead and built the new stadium, remind yourself of Highbury’s capacity when it closed: 38,419. There are only four or five clubs that stay up in the Prem with stadiums that small. Tottenham. Chelsea. Aston Villa. Everton. Credit Everton and Tottenham for their competitiveness each year with such stadiums. Would we trade stadiums—and table-positions—with Aston Villa? The Emirates very nearly doubled capacity to 60,362, which not only expands the revenue coming but also the fan-base and its depth of support.

Chelsea, of course, are another story altogether, as their stadium “only” holds 41,800 or so. However, Abramovich. We’re all aware of his influence and that of Sheikh Mansour on Man City and, perhaps to a lesser extent, of the Glazers on Man U. It’s worth reminding ourselves, however, or how we got ourselves into our own little jam—and how we’ll get out of it. That it may not happen to the extent we hoped for this season shouldn’t provoke the dismay, outrage, and outright apoplexy that I’ve seen. If anything, things are happening a bit earlier than they should. Calm yourselves.

I’m a bit of a liberal when it comes to politics; as such, I might be a bit soft-headed when it comes to finances and all, but I’m a firm believer in self-reliance and a certain D.I.Y. ethic. With the latter in mind, I am an unabashed admirer of the self-sustaining model that Arsène Wenger has produced. Yes, it’s come about through the unfortunate and at times untimely sale of various players, some of whom we wish would have stayed. I won’t go into the reasoning behind each particular sale; suffice it to say that, between our debt obligations and the more-mercenary wishes of certain players, we were often over a barrel. Can we really say that we chose to sell Cole, Fabregas, or van Persie, among others? It’s perhaps more accurate in these and in other cases that we had little choice, if any, as refusing to sell a player would force us to lose him for nothing. Without claiming that the choice is this black-and-white, should we (a) sell van Persie now and pay down the stadium debt, or (b) keep him, miss a payment and risk foreclosure, and lose him for free anyway? Again, it’s hardly that cut-and-dry, but the point remains.

We’ve lost other players for other reasons, of course. “Lack of ambition” is the most-frequently cited, and it’s hard to argue against that, not when our “goal” year in and year out has been merely to finish no lower than fourth. Meanwhile, Cole and Nasri and Fabregas and van Persie have collected silverware hand over fist, and I’m sure they’re as satisfied as we are glum or morose. However, remember the foundation, literal and figurative, that we’ve laid for ourselves. Whereas Chelsea’s fortunes depend on the vicissitudes of Abramovich’s portfolio and the twists and turns of Russian politics, we stand proudly on our own two feet, knowing that we depend on no one. For what it’s worth, Abramovich’s portfolio has taken a massive hit, falling by two-thirds according to Forbes magazine. Could that have played a role in Chelsea’s “prudent” dealings in the transfer-windows this season (their deficit is a paltry £49m after the sale of Juan Mata, compared to previous seasons of £97m, £63m £79m). Far be it from me to wish ill on another, but what happens to Chelsea should his personal fortune continue to fall or that he become the next Khodorkovsky, arrested, charged with fraud, imprisoned, and his assets seized? There is no parallel in the case of Man City, sadly, as Sheikh Mansour’s personal wealth and that of the Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment is probably best-represented by the number eight on its side; that is, infinite.

However, we’re after a longer-range vision, here, one that looks frustrating and inept when viewed in the moment, but look ahead to next year and to seasons to come, when this vision comes to fruition. That it’s taken a longer than we hoped or that Arsène anticipated is not entirely his fault. If he or others had known that Abramovich and Mansour would come along and act soruhtlessly, the original plan might have been tailored differently—maybe a lower interest rate on the stadium loan, lower payments, a longer repayment period, what have you—in order to permit the club greater flexibility in negotiating with players and other clubs. Hindsight is, as they say, 20-02, but knowing now that the radical distortion of the transfer-market came along after the club had committed itself to that vision is a bit churlish, forgetting as it does the revolution it was built on and meant to produce.

This is not meant as some of blind hagiography, although it’s starting to sound like one. Can any other manager claim to have both led his club to glory and revolutionized it going forward? Can Ferguson say so? Not with the squad he left to Moyes. Can Mourinho? Not with his three-years-and-out modus operandi. What about Benitez or DiMatteo, Pellegrini or Mancini, or the two dozen other managers to run those clubs? Somehow, I doubt it. Arsène alone has brought this club to where it stands now, on the verge of future greatness. That the present period suffers by comparison with what came before is inevitable, as no squad or club can compete with those achievements or how they’ve been burnished by time. The return to glory we’ve hungered for may have to wait another season, but it will come. When it does, the celebrations will be exuberant and intoxicating (figuratively, if not literally). ‘

We’re just now scratching the surface, and some of the frustration we currently feel comes as much from the anticipation of what’s to come as it does from the angst over what we’ve endured. Rather than give in to our lesser impulses, though, let’s remember Arsène himself, saying, “people will look at this period and think that we have put the club on the right track, that we have defended the right values and they will think that we were not too stupid. Let’s stand behind this team.”

Follow @woolwich_1886!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);

Of ticket-prices and decibels at Arsenal Stadium..

Leave a reply

At recent matches at the Emirates, we’ve been treated to the distinct notion that our away-fans, such as Coventry’s, support their club more enthusiastically than our own fans do at home. Toss in the recent row over ticket-prices and allocations for the FA Cup matches with Tottenham and Liverpool, and then the fact that a BBC report shows that Gooners have to pay the highest “cheapest” season-ticket price in the Prem, have the option of buying the most expensive season-ticket and can also request the honor of paying out for the most-expensive match-day ticket in the Prem—oh, and face a pending 3% rise on prices for 2014-15—and there’s bound be to some gritting of teeth and rending of garments.

Rail-seating. Brilliant idea.

It stands to reason that, the higher the prices go, the harder it is for regular folk to get to a match. Once there, having forked over a pretty penny for a seat, one can feel a bit harder done-by to leave that seat in order to grab a pint down in the concourse, away from the action, where a gent can express the passions that the pint has provoked. What we’re left with, then, is a fair number of the chardonnay-and-canapé crowd who might just as soon sing, chant, and shout as they would wax their own limousine, but let’s not tweak any noses. Suffice it to say that those who can afford to fork out the kind of cash to attend matches are, by and large, a bit more sedate in their support. As such, large swathes of the stadium are then filled with polite if diffident cheering, half-hearted chanting, and long stretches of quiet. Even when roused from this cryonic torpor by a goal or near-miss, the flurry is short-lived, and the soporificity settles once again (I know that “soporificity” isn’t officially a word).

Growing up in America, I was used to sports whose fans behaved in largely that way. Watching baseball and American football meant that we are more or less accustomed to sitting still until something dramatic happens, cheering for a minute or two, and sitting back down. There were two exceptions to this, at least in Chicago. The Blackhawks (hockey) and the Bulls (basketball) shared the old Chicago Stadium, a claustrophobic edifice from 1929 with terrible sightlines and amazing acoustics. It may not have been what Francis Scott Key had in mind when he penned “The Star-Spangled Banner,” but, no matter who came to sing it before a Blackhawks game, you couldn’t hear a single note of it through the din and delirium of the crowd. It would stay like that for most of the game. God forbid we scored or a fight broke out—absolute pandemonium would ensue, deafening noise.

I was only lucky enough to attend a Bulls game during their first championship run of 1991, sixth row seats, in fact. The Bulls reeled off 10 points in a row to reclaim the lead, and the crowd noise when the 76ers called time-out crashed down on my shoulders like a waterfall. Almost literally. I could feel the sound-waves pouring down on my shoulders. I shouted but couldn’t hear my own voice. Some 18,000 fans were screaming their fool-heads off. Most of them had paid through the nose to be there, but it was the playoffs, after all. The point here is that, between the Hawks and the Bulls, there was once a time when a quaint, archaic stadium combined with affordable prices created a passionate, energizing atmosphere. It’s not quite the same in the new stadium. Different acoustics, higher prices, a wealthier, less-besotted fan-base…sound familiar?

Which brings us back to Arsenal. Like the Bulls and Hawks, the Gunners may be victims to their own success, as the cachet of attending a match may draw in those who don’t blink at a ticket-price but who are less enthusiastic or vocal in their support of the club. I won’t attest to depths of loyalty. What’s to be done? On one hand, Arsenal Stadium is the second-largest in the Prem, behind only Old Trafford. That capacity should allow the club to continue to generate healthy revenue from gate-receipts even if ticket-prices could be brought down. On the other, healthy gate-receipts mean more money to spend on player transfers and salaries, and the better the squad is, the more money it can earn through endorsements, advancement in the Champions League, broadcasting, and others sources.

However, in the wake of the new Puma deal, which will bring in an estimated £30m a year, Gooners are still being asked to pay the highest prices in the land, prices that will go up next season. If we bring home silverware during the current campaign, perhaps all will be forgiven. If we don’t? Well…

It seems like something has to give. Either clubs like Arsenal become the playthings of those wealthy enough to pay for the pleasure, whether it’s of owning the club or or attending the match, or clubs like Arsenal find a way to make attending a match both more affordable and more enjoyable. If I had to pay£26 for a cheap seat, I would like to waste my money by not sitting in it for a damned second. When I first discovered British football, I was stunned that fans were singing and chanting the whole time, even when their side was losing. This was pre-Hillsborough and other tragedies, of course, and the safety regulations instituted since then seemed to make sense. As we’ve learned more about those tragedies were mishandled and apparently covered up by the police, it’s perhaps time to revisit some of those regulations.

Chief among the options would be rail-seating, already in use in many German stadiums including Dortmund’s Westfalenstadion. One-third of seats there are rail-seats. 27,000 people can then stand, markedly boosting their ability to chant, sing, and shout themselves silly. You can squeeze in a few more seats per row, which (theoretically) would allow the club to bring down prices a bit. And hey, if one-third of fans at Arsenal Stadium are making noise, how might that boost the lads’ spirits down on the pitch? Maybe a section of rail seats in the North Bank to create a resounding volley of “We’re the North Bank”. Maybe another bank of them in Clock End for the reply “We’re the Clock End.” I get goosebumps just thinking about it…

Özil, Reus, Gundogan, and the house that Wenger built

3 Replies

At long last, it seems, the wait is over. When we were told that we would be moving from Highbury to Ashburton Grove (the Emirates), a large part of the sales pitch for the new pitch lay in its ability to help us attract and pay world-class players. For the better part of

the last decade, however, we’ve had to bear the pain of seeing our best players sold to finance the new stadium, whether it was Anelka in 1999 or van Persie in 2012. Now, here it is, 2013, and the river’s flow has reversed. This is the first season that begins without us losing key players in what feels like forever (does losing Gallas or Eduardo count? Enquiring minds want to know…). Instead, we’re agog at the prospect of seeing one of the world’s best midfielders come to the Grove. Özil has resurrected our hopes and inspired us to believe that silverware is in the offing without even having set foot on the pitch in an Arsenal kit.

Just as delicious as his arrival is on its face, this could be the beginning of something altogether new. While I would not want to see us become just another club that throws its money around like the nouveau riche that have recently bought their trophies, it’s tantalizing indeed to think that signing Özil marks a new era, one in which we not only keep our best and brightest but actually add to the squad. Having signed Özil, Podolski, and Mertesacker, we now have a German contingent that makes the pursuit of players such as Marco Reus or Ilkay Gundogan all the more probably. When we consider Reus and his respect, nay, idolization of Tomáš Rosický, adding him to the squad in January even starts to sound like a certainty.

However, before we get ahead of ourselves and this becomes a drooling piece on who we’ll sign come January, let’s step back to take in the bigger picture—we are no longer a selling club. Cluck your tongue at paying £42.4m if you will, but that is the market. Bale sold for £96m. Southampton, a Championship squad in 2011-12 , bought not one but two players for £13m each. As for us, we’ve now registered the third-highest transfer fee in Prem League history and eleventh-highest ever, and we still sit on £30m or so, a sum that we’ll only add to as we see tickets and kits sold and Champions League matches won. By the time we get to January, we may see ourselves looking to sign another game- and season-changing player, this time on the possibility that we’re competing for advancement in the Champions League (though the player may be cup-tied) and are contending for the Prem League title, not to mention the FA and league cups. Lament if you will our failure to secure a signing earlier in the window. I’ll stop just shy of endorsing Arsène’s apparent policy of waiting until deadline-day to sign anyone, but it’s hard to argue against the result this time around.

We’re still wafer-thin, of course, and one injury could just see us unravel. However, on paper if not on the pitch, we look likely to rattle a few cages and unlock more than a few defenses. I don’t think I inflate Özil’s importance when I remind us that his impact will be two-fold: one, we’re going to win much more often between now and January; and two, we may just see another player or two donning the Arsenal kit in a few months’ time.

Caviar, in other words, is back on the menu.