Maybe the TV deal inflated the value
It's a bit like being a 10 year-old in the playground and saying "My dad's 8th hardest".
...and level on points with a Leeds team that’s basically the same one we were playing two seasons ago in the Championship
We are above City but we all know when it comes to money we can't compete with them. This table means nothing.
It's a table on valuation of the club as a whole. Obviously it doesn't necessarily translate to spending power.
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 18 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in London is Barcelona based?
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing we're in this list BECAUSE if the stadium, without it we would probably be no where near.
I would also say we have no where the spending power the other clubs do, very similar to Arsenal in the way we are both ran
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 18 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in London is Barcelona based?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt say or even imply Barca are based in London.
comment by Dele Boy (U22000)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing we're in this list BECAUSE if the stadium, without it we would probably be no where near.
I would also say we have no where the spending power the other clubs do, very similar to Arsenal in the way we are both ran
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. City and Chelsea have more spending power than Liverpool too but behind Liverpool in club valuation.
Yeah the Arsenal brand is still quite strong around the world, but doesn’t equate to actual spending power for us. With more ambitious owners Arsenal does have potential to be back among the big clubs sometime soon, with a big fan base, big stadium, good reputation, it wouldn’t be a huge task for the right owners to get us back near the top. Longer we stay in mid table though, the harder that job becomes
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Dele Boy (U22000)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing we're in this list BECAUSE if the stadium, without it we would probably be no where near.
I would also say we have no where the spending power the other clubs do, very similar to Arsenal in the way we are both ran
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. City and Chelsea have more spending power than Liverpool too but behind Liverpool in club valuation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we? I don’t think chelsea do at all. We can only spend because we sell nowadays.
Liverpool's spending had also been based on sales.
The value of the squad also counts towards valuation of the club and that's one area where Liverpool have gotten ahead.
Signings like Mane and Salah for 35m, but the two must now be valued at closer to 100m each perhaps. Robertson for 8m but now valued at??? TAA from the academy now valued at??? Gomez from academy etc.
Think most are with ffp, Liverpool have won the pl and cl more recently though so I’m not sure why someone said chelsea have more spending power. We’ve been working in a very slim net differential for many years now
I think everyone's got to remember that our conduct in the transfer market has never been a reflection of actual true spending power since Wenger first arrived. Since the stadium was largely paid for, ke has always choked transfer spending one way or another. When we can spend 100 mil, he only wants to give up 50-60 to deal in the market.
Sure we had to be frugal for years due to the stadium but there's still remained a constant pinch that wasn't always necessary and certainly couldn't be afforded for a teamm with any title/CL aspirations. No matter what happens, as long as ke owns this club we'll never ever spend like we/he can actually afford to, during a transfer window. He wants AFC's money kept in the bank and investments so he can get paid more to inset in his US sports franchises, among other things. Our valuation is kept inflated partially due to all the money he DOESN'T/HASN'T spent on the football team.
I read something the other say saying the estimate is that Stan has put just over it was $3bn or £3bn into Arsenal, so thats a loss for him then and doesnt even take into account inflation. The finances are the only reason I think he might consider selling. Maybe there is hope for Dangote yet.
Yeah Stan could end up at a loss, he should have taken a closer interest to the snowballing on pitch failings and invested some more, or at very least hire better people to oversee the football side of things to make sure we stay competitive. But he’s largely not taken an interest, we’ve stood still and let ourselves be overtaken by other clubs. Many people could see the decline happening before we were out of top 4, couple more minor investments a number of years ago could have lead to us still being a top 4 club, instead now we’re losing money being out of top 4 and have huge rebuild on our hands. The value of the club will only decrease from here if we’re not much more competitive in next few years.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Arsenal- 8th most valuable club
Page 1 of 1
posted on 13/4/21
Maybe the TV deal inflated the value
posted on 13/4/21
It's a bit like being a 10 year-old in the playground and saying "My dad's 8th hardest".
posted on 13/4/21
...and level on points with a Leeds team that’s basically the same one we were playing two seasons ago in the Championship
posted on 13/4/21
We are above City but we all know when it comes to money we can't compete with them. This table means nothing.
posted on 13/4/21
It's a table on valuation of the club as a whole. Obviously it doesn't necessarily translate to spending power.
posted on 13/4/21
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
posted on 13/4/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 18 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in London is Barcelona based?
posted on 13/4/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing we're in this list BECAUSE if the stadium, without it we would probably be no where near.
I would also say we have no where the spending power the other clubs do, very similar to Arsenal in the way we are both ran
posted on 13/4/21
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 18 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in London is Barcelona based?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt say or even imply Barca are based in London.
posted on 13/4/21
comment by Dele Boy (U22000)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing we're in this list BECAUSE if the stadium, without it we would probably be no where near.
I would also say we have no where the spending power the other clubs do, very similar to Arsenal in the way we are both ran
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. City and Chelsea have more spending power than Liverpool too but behind Liverpool in club valuation.
posted on 13/4/21
Yeah the Arsenal brand is still quite strong around the world, but doesn’t equate to actual spending power for us. With more ambitious owners Arsenal does have potential to be back among the big clubs sometime soon, with a big fan base, big stadium, good reputation, it wouldn’t be a huge task for the right owners to get us back near the top. Longer we stay in mid table though, the harder that job becomes
posted on 13/4/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Dele Boy (U22000)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I thought Spurs would move higher because of their new stadium. London clubs have an advantage in that stuff like land in London has much higher value than other places.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing we're in this list BECAUSE if the stadium, without it we would probably be no where near.
I would also say we have no where the spending power the other clubs do, very similar to Arsenal in the way we are both ran
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. City and Chelsea have more spending power than Liverpool too but behind Liverpool in club valuation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we? I don’t think chelsea do at all. We can only spend because we sell nowadays.
posted on 13/4/21
Liverpool's spending had also been based on sales.
The value of the squad also counts towards valuation of the club and that's one area where Liverpool have gotten ahead.
Signings like Mane and Salah for 35m, but the two must now be valued at closer to 100m each perhaps. Robertson for 8m but now valued at??? TAA from the academy now valued at??? Gomez from academy etc.
posted on 13/4/21
Think most are with ffp, Liverpool have won the pl and cl more recently though so I’m not sure why someone said chelsea have more spending power. We’ve been working in a very slim net differential for many years now
posted on 13/4/21
I think everyone's got to remember that our conduct in the transfer market has never been a reflection of actual true spending power since Wenger first arrived. Since the stadium was largely paid for, ke has always choked transfer spending one way or another. When we can spend 100 mil, he only wants to give up 50-60 to deal in the market.
Sure we had to be frugal for years due to the stadium but there's still remained a constant pinch that wasn't always necessary and certainly couldn't be afforded for a teamm with any title/CL aspirations. No matter what happens, as long as ke owns this club we'll never ever spend like we/he can actually afford to, during a transfer window. He wants AFC's money kept in the bank and investments so he can get paid more to inset in his US sports franchises, among other things. Our valuation is kept inflated partially due to all the money he DOESN'T/HASN'T spent on the football team.
posted on 13/4/21
I read something the other say saying the estimate is that Stan has put just over it was $3bn or £3bn into Arsenal, so thats a loss for him then and doesnt even take into account inflation. The finances are the only reason I think he might consider selling. Maybe there is hope for Dangote yet.
posted on 14/4/21
Yeah Stan could end up at a loss, he should have taken a closer interest to the snowballing on pitch failings and invested some more, or at very least hire better people to oversee the football side of things to make sure we stay competitive. But he’s largely not taken an interest, we’ve stood still and let ourselves be overtaken by other clubs. Many people could see the decline happening before we were out of top 4, couple more minor investments a number of years ago could have lead to us still being a top 4 club, instead now we’re losing money being out of top 4 and have huge rebuild on our hands. The value of the club will only decrease from here if we’re not much more competitive in next few years.
Page 1 of 1